A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001) User Reviews

If you don't like this movie, here's a suggestion...

[tightspotkilo · 8/10 · 15 August 2009]

I won't say people will either love this movie or they will hate it. I'm sure it breaks down that way to some extent, and the range of opinions expressed about the movie support that notion, but I'm nevertheless also sure there are those out there who are ambivalent or indifferent about it, neither loving or hating it. That's because I'm one who was ambivalent about it after I first saw it in 2001. There was much to like about the movie. Film makers par excellence, Stanley Kubrick and Steven Spielberg. Does it get any better than that? The cast was good too, all of it. Especially Haley Joel Osment. Production values galore. The film is beautifully rendered. But even with all that there was something about it that bothered me, even annoyed me, and whatever it was it got in the way of my enjoyment of it. So I dismissed this movie and didn't even think about again it for years. Recently it popped up on HBO. I took the opportunity to watch it again. I found myself not being as bothered by the movie as I was before. HBO being HBO, I watched it again. And then again. Now there is nothing about the movie I dislike or that bothers me. I now like this movie without reservation. I also figured out why I reacted the way I did in the initial viewing.

My suggestion to those who don't like the movie is watch it again, and give it your thorough attention. Your opinion may change. For a couple of reasons.

First, this is a very complex movie. There's a lot to take in, visually, cognitively, philosophically. I've now seen it four times and I don't believe I've yet absorbed all there is. We're talking Kubrick AND Spielberg here. That alone tells you this movie contains much to behold. I'm not of the school who believes that Spielberg mucked this up after Kubrick died. Yes, Kubrick nursed this project along for over 20 years, from initial writing and treatment through rewrite after rewrite. But it was Kubrick who hand-picked Spielberg to direct it, years before it finally was made, Kubrick leaving his indelible imprimatur, but Spielberg likewise leaving his too was always anticipated, including by Kubrick. Kubrick wanted Spielberg's touch on this movie. Nor do I believe the movie is "20 minutes too long". Those last 20 minutes are not just Spielberg schmaltz, they are important to the resolution of the story. Throughout the first 126 minutes of the movie we are asked in myriad ways to care about David. The last 20 minutes gives meaning to that caring. Without that conclusion there is no meaning, just a cold void.

Which leads directly to the second reason why I recommend repeated viewings, and the explanation for my initial reaction. The story is about a robot designed and programmed to be just like a little boy, who wants to be a real little boy, and who literally spends thousands of years seeking the return of love from his human "mother" who he was programmed to bond with and love. That's the basis from which all manner of questions are asked and explored, about the meaning of love, humanity, and of existence itself. I submit that this storyline told that way --about a child-- ultimately overwhelms the emotional senses. It more than tugs at the heartstrings. It yanks at them. While we might care about the android Data on Star Trek, or about the robot Robin Williams plays in Bicentennial Man, both of which also want to be human, our caring for those "adult" robots is nothing compared to the caring we feel for the child David here. With an innocent child seeking his mother's love it all goes way over the top. Add to the mix that Haley Joel Osment played the role masterfully. With this recipe the movie bluntly manipulates our emotions, something it does too well. It becomes distracting and difficult to watch, let alone to process analytically. Think Bambi, but on steroids. Many of us just shut it down, saying to ourselves, "I don't need this maudlin stuff in my life." Thus affected, the viewer never appreciates the movie's rich themes because the shutdown blocks all that. What I found, however, is that subsequent viewings lessens the distracting effect, and the movie becomes much easier to watch and fully appreciate. Oddly, it appears that Kubrick and Spielberg knew exactly what they were toying with in this respect, and they did it intentionally. It is embedded in the story itself. The flesh fair's barker, as he was getting ready to destroy David, has to keep reminding the audience that David is only a machine, not a real boy, and he implores the audience to not allow their emotions to be manipulated by the machine's child-like appearance. As David tearfully pleads for his life the audience is swayed, giving David an opening to escape. The inner audience, the audience within the story, is is being manipulated the same way we in the outer audience, were being manipulated. This must be a conceit by intent and design.

As a child actor Haley Joel Osment was nonpareil. The Sixth Sense told us that. This was his last role as a child, and after this he became a different actor (see e.g., Secondhand Lions). Puberty did that. His career as an adult actor is just now beginning, and what that holds in store remains to be seen. But as a child he was very very good. Maybe the best ever. And this is him at his best

If you haven't seen it, be prepared to see it more than once. If you have seen it, see it again. This is a movie that gets better each time you see it.

Mecha World

[Prismark10 · 7/10 · 6 July 2016]

AI is inspired by British science fiction writer, Brian Aldiss short story 'Supertoys Last All Summer Long.' It was a project initiated by Stanley Kubrick and then taken over by Steven Spielberg who directs as well as write the screenplay. It is a mixture of Spielberg's wide eyed childlike wonder from his ET era with Kubrick's cold gaze of adulthood. It is a modern version of Pinocchio.

The film is set in a future where the ice caps have melted and eradicated the coastline. Robots of increasing sophistication have become part of the fabric of society. Professor Hobby (William Hurt) has created an android with programme to love and be more human like.

Monica and Henry Swinton (Frances O'Connor and Sam Robards) have a terminally ill son and take in David (Haley Joel Osment) almost as a substitute son to love. David as he is programmed is fixated on his mother and projects his love.

When their son Martin (Jake Thomas) miraculously recovers and returns home, the new family of four becomes fractious. Martin is mean to David who cannot interact with other kids. It is not in his programming. An incident means that like a dangerous pet, he could be dangerous in the house. However Monica is not willing to send him back to the corporation where he would be presumably terminated.

Monica cares enough for David to abandon him in the woods with a Teddy Bear who is also an AI robot for companionship and wisdom (his Jiminy Cricket.) From there David befriends other robots such as Gigolo Joe (Jude Law), a sex-bot on the run after being framed for murder. They evade resentful humans and journey to find the Blue Fairy whom David believes can turn him into a real boy so his mother can love him.

David is a boy who becomes accepted quickly by becoming part of a family only to find that he is not afforded their protection when he is gauded and provoked by Martin. Once in he wilds with Gigolo Joe he is living in fear in a society where robots have no rights.

Spielberg creates two sound stages for the middle of his film. Flesh Fair a gaudy, sleazy place where robots are destroyed in front of cheering humans but David pleads for his life and swings the crowd his way. Then there is Rouge City, A Vegas type place where the holographic Dr Know points them to the top of Rockefeller Center in the flood hit of Manhattan where he meets his creator, Professor Hobby.

The final act set in the submerged Coney Island which is then frozen over in an oncoming ice age until David is rescued by advanced beings.

I have to confess. I liked the ending. It bought an emotional crescendo to a flawed film. It moved me as it allows David to find he is the recipient of love and can finally grow and become human even if it is all a projection from the beings that rescued him. Without this ending, I would had found this to be a dull, uninvolving and grim experience. Humans treating robots like pets who are soon discarded once they are no longer fulfil a useful function.

I understand that this ending was part of the Kubrick draft and not added by Spielberg. Kubrick finally showed his sentimental side.

A great movie trying to get out

[epsilon3 · 7/10 · 24 March 2002]

A.I. is a difficult film. Some of it is brilliant, while some is dire.

The acting - Haley Joel Osment as David the mecha (robot) boy is superb. He plays the role with such intelligence and maturity - it's a real achievement and bodes well for his future (if he can avoid hitting the self destruct button like so many other child stars.) Jude Law puts in another solid performance as 'Gigolo Joe' the mecha prostitute. In a similar vein to his previous roles in Gattaca and eXistenZ, he's quirky and somehow detached from reality - it works brilliantly. He's rapidly turning into one of my favourite actors. "Hey Joe - Waddya know?"

The rest of the cast is very good but doesn't shine, perhaps because their characters were treated lightly and not fully explored. Overall though - good performances by all.

The sets , costumes and special effects are of a very high standard. Until the last 30 minutes or so, the use of computer graphics is tastefully done and never feel like an excuse to wow the audience with some clever CGI. The scenes at the Flesh Fair (a kind of rock concert where mecha are destroyed for the entertainment of spectators) are powerful, visceral and in your face. The flying and underwater scenes were also very well handled, although not mind blowing.

Now the downside, and it's a big downside.

The plot is incredibly disjointed. I didn't expect it to be so obvious that this movie had been directed by two different people and thought Spielberg to be more subtle. There was apparently little attempt by Spielberg to blend his parts of the movie with Kubrick's to create a coherent whole. Instead what we get is a wonderfully dark first 60-90 minutes and then something reminiscent of 'Close Encounters of the E.T. kind' tacked on to make us feel good. As a result, the feel of the film quickly evaporated into a mush. There were a couple of chances to end the movie earlier (notably at the end of the underwater section) and it was a mistake to take the movie beyond these points. The poignancy is lost with repeated attempts to extend and explain the story in unnecessary ways, the scene with David's mother towards the end being especially contrived and saccharin.

The sum up, this felt like two movies in one - an intelligent, dark and fascinating film mixed one that's formulaic, sentimental and cheesy. Because of this it fails to reach the promised heights and at times feels messy. It's ultimately unsatisfying and left me very disappointed, but not because it's bad, but rather because I expected so much more. As many others have said, I can't help wondering what heights it would have reached if Kubrick hadn't passed away.

An interesting film, but rent it first as it's not for everyone.

A hard film to judge

[kylopod · 6/10 · 9 November 2005]

Stanley Kubrick made a career out of directing brilliant but unpleasant movies. The ultimate example is "A Clockwork Orange," which I saw for the first time just a few months ago. I found it astonishing, thought-provoking, and visually brilliant. But my experience watching the film was not in any way a pleasant one. The film chronicles the hideous crimes of a charmless psychopath, and ultimately how he is captured and subjected to an almost unimaginable series of tortures. I suppose some moviegoers might find those kinds of scenes entertaining, but I do not. Nevertheless, I consider it a great film, and a tremendously important one.

"A.I." is harder for me to justify. While not technically a Kubrick film, it is a Kubrick project that was finally directed by Steven Spielberg, following Kubrick's death. The result is a film that manages to combine the worst qualities of these two great filmmakers: it has Kubrick's obtuseness as well as Spielberg's sentimentality. The ending is deliberately designed to frustrate, to remove itself from any possible human reference point that we can easily relate to. At the same time, it's the sort of film that wants to be loved. There is even a teddy bear character that evokes mystery and awe more than cuteness. This awkward fusion of purposes left me feeling distinctly uncomfortable.

I feel unjustified for giving the film as low a rating as 6/10. I just so intensely disliked the film that I have great difficulty rating it any higher, despite its clever and thoughtful handling of the concept of artificial intelligence. No doubt Kubrick has covered this territory before, in "2001" with the character of Hal. But he seems to expand on it in this film, which features two android characters, a child robot played by Haley Joel Osment, and a robot gigolo (don't ask) played by Jude Law. The behavior of these characters is so subtle and complex that I was often left wondering what they were thinking and feeling, what the experience of being a robot was like, if such an experience is possible. I personally believe that there is something special about human subjective experience that cannot be duplicated by computer technology. But this movie presents the opposite view very compellingly, and without taking the standard route of making the androids seem human.

In this regard, Osment is spectacular: his performance in my opinion surpasses his Oscar-nominated one in "The Sixth Sense." There were moments when I looked at his eyes, his facial expressions, and I sensed an adult level of understanding and depth. Perhaps no child actor is better than Osment at acting creepy without being cute, as in one early scene when he startles his family with oddly forced laughter that doesn't seem to come with the appropriate emotions. He is playing a character who's supposed to pass for a child while not really being a child, and we slowly realize that he is in fact an alien intelligence with his own perspective and goals. Unlike a real child, he is not in the process of forming an identity. He already has one, and his only task is to fulfill his set desires and instincts, including his unbreakable attachment to his "mother" (Frances O'Connor) whom he is preprogrammed to love.

This setup is not very conducive to melodrama, yet that's much of what we get throughout the film, which tries to cast itself as a modern reinterpretation of "Pinocchio." Since Osment's character is not a real boy, we can never relate to him as one. His emotions are as artificial as his intelligence, and no enchantment or anything else will turn him into a real boy, because he simply isn't one. Yet the movie tries to manipulate our emotions so that we do see him as more human than he actually is. This approach leads the film to lose its focus in the second half and put forth one of the more perplexing and unsatisfying endings I've seen in a long time. I don't mind whether a film ends happily or sadly, but it should not try to force a weak solution to a hopeless situation, just to gain a few moments of cheap sentiment.

Can't re-watch it again

[rotaruhajime · 10/10 · 6 June 2020]

I was 13-14 when I watched this movie. It's a long movie if I recall it correctly. I was so moved by it's theme, so I watched it all. I had strong feelings of sadness and sympathy towards little robot David that wanted to be a real child and to have a mom to love him. And that little bear ... I cried during some scenes. I don't think I cried that much at any movie like at this one. Even though it's a Sci-Fi movie it has a lot of emotions. I have never watched it again since then. It'll be too hard for me P.S I don't get how some people can rate this incredible movie with an 1 ? like why ? Of course it's not a perfect movie, but sometimes it doesn't have to be. It matters your feelings about it, because this movie is that deep. 10/10

Frustrating

[mjl1966 · 18 September 2002]

Being a fan of both Kubrick and Spielburg, this movie was a surprising miss. It tries real hard, but gets confused and lost.

I've read that Kubrick originally worked on this project before Spielburg picked it up. I don't know to what extent each actually worked on filming, but it sure does feel like two different directors worked on this movie - which is problem # 1.

Both have a unique style that do not mix well. Kubrick is a master at disciplined contemplation of a moral issue while Spielburg is a master at spinning a wonderfully entertaining yarn. This film tries to do both and it just doesn't work.

The first act of the film, which to me feels entirely Kubrickian, is great. We are immediately immersed in a moral conundrum. The pit is deep, dark, poignantly adorned with characters against a somber stage that compels us to engage the material. It also is very much in the style of Kubrick: sets, lots of master shots, slow moving and ponderous "photography in motion." The ambience is there to serve the story in every detail. If this was Spielburg's homage to Kubrick, well done. If this was Kubrick's work, wel l, it was right on target. (I really miss his work.)

The characters are drawn clearly if not archetypically and draw us unabashedly into the ring of moral discourse which we achingly yet eagerly embrace.

Then, the story that is being constructed is completely abandoned in the second act as the main character (boy robot) is taken completely out of the setting that's been developed to this point and we embark on an odyssey of sorts. I spent most of the second act wondering what was going to happen in the plot that was being developed in the first act. We never find out.

From this point on, the movie is all Spielburg. Fanciful staging, lots of effects, the obligatory allusion to the holocaust and gut-wrenching turmoil for our little hero and his friend. This is a huge contrast to the beginning of the story and is so different that it really feels like a whole different movie. Following the sublime Chardonnay of Kubrick with the super-charged Frappucino of Spielburg is unsettling and frustrating. For example, the staging in the first act is dominated by polished wood floors, furniture that is both kitsch and futuristic and smoky corporate offices. The second act is pretty much Back to the Future meets Thunderdome. The two have their place - but not in the same movie!

Where the first act compels us to consider the matter, the second act throws us against the wall, puts a gun to our head and screams, "listen to me!"

By the third act, I had really lost interest. I never quite got over the abandonment of the original story and didn't really feel like getting involved in the second one - both because it wasn't as interesting and because I didn't want to be cheated twice in two hours.

The end of the third act is really where the movie should have stopped. It was sad, pitiful and left us with the core moral issue of how we tend to implement an idea without thinking of the consequences.

But, no, here comes the fourth act - and the other major problem with this movie. Epilog, coda, call it what you want, the ending was tacked on and was just horrible. More face time for the FX folks and some really trite, contrived and irrelevant dialog from robots about the space-time continuum. Really, who cares? It's just an awkward plot device and you roll your eyes and ask "Wha--?" all at the same time. The second ending, as I like to call it, attempts to fulfill the demand for emotional conclusion that the odyssey portion of the film has built up yet fails to do so. "Whatever" comes to mind. I bet this was done in response to test screening.

Still, I'm glad I saw this movie. It has some great moments, compelling subject matter and Osment puts in a truly great performance. Just don't look for coherent plot and a sensible story line.

Something is missing...

[vithiet · 6/10 · 13 August 2023]

I watched it in the theater as a much younger guy when it fist came out and I remember feeling unsatisfied but didn't know why exactly. Finally rewatching it now I had the same impression by the end but I think I understand why this time, especially knowing it is the bastard child of Kubrick and Spielberg. It really feels like it doesn't know what king of movie it wants to be, or who its audience is. At times it feels so simplistic as if it's a kids movie, and some other times it seems like it tries to provoke deep reflection from us. In the end, while it's still an interesting watch, I found it messy, with a few boring parts, and very uneven acting performances. Would not necessarily recommend it.

When Kubrick is Not Kubrick

[LongTimeMovieLover · 6/10 · 7 April 2019]

Kubrick was a genius. Spielberg is a genius. But, they are different types of geniuses and they don't mix or match. No genius can do it the same way, which is why the person is a genius. They best you can do is get another genius that has a similar thematic view.

Kubrick's clever dark philosophical view simply does not match with Spielberg's common mass entertainment view. Spielberg was simply the wrong genius to complete the work. All of Kubrick's later works (even the one-off Spartacus) have a dark philosophical vision and satirical point to make. It's like trying to mix Socrates with Nietzsche or even Aristotle. They're all great, but very different. The decision to use Spielberg was too superficial ("who's recognized as the best film director right now, generally speaking?...").

It didn't work, not because of Spielberg's genius movie-making technical skills, it didn't work because of Spielberg's lack of the dark philosophical satirical vision. Spielberg is a genius at making a movie that wows an audience; Kubrick is a genius at making a movie, perhaps a satire, with a dark view of or exposition of ironic hypocrisy, in human beings and society.

Just look at the expressions of George C. Scott in "Dr. Strangelove" in the war room. A manly sophisticated general, with oodles of power, making childlike pouts and expressions. It's not meant to be funny, per se, it's meant to make a point. But you have to see it. And, that's all the difference in the world.

Deep, dark, haunting, emotional, thought provoking, complex and relevant to today

[collinskyria · 10/10 · 1 October 2019]

I remember going to see this movie with my mom the year of release, 2001 (I was 7). At the time Mom needed to turn my head away from some parts that were too scary or intense (this movie is PG-13 and again, I was 7) and at the time I initially didn't get the movie though even then, I enjoyed A.I.

This was years ago. Now fast forward to 2019--now as a 25-year-old, I'm looking for some movies to watch on Hulu while relaxing at home, and while searching I stumble upon A.I. and think, interesting! I haven't watched this movie in a very long time, maybe I'll watch this again.

And...did this really stay with me afterwards cause now, I not only fully understand the real world topics woven into the film, I also see just how deep and just so sad, melancholic and haunting the story is overall. Because at the heart of this movie is ultimately the story of David, a young mecha boy who just wants love and goes through a ton of struggles and a roller coaster journey to find acceptance. The emotional of this movie is further accentuated by both the weaving of real world social issues (i.e, prejudice, discrimination, acceptance, parent-child relationship, brief, loss, abandonment, etc.) next to the sci fi/futuristic atmosphere, style and setting but also the acting particularly by Haley Joel Osment who both made me smile and broke my heart as David. And now in retrospect this movie becomes even more heartbreaking for me when, after growing close to and rooting for David throughout his extremely long, intense journey to finally see mom again, I find out that David dies at the end of this movie. Agh my heart!

Overall this movie is definitely an underrated masterpiece. A must see. 10/10.

It isn't that bad, it's just that you know that it could have been so much better.

[philip_vanderveken · 6/10 · 11 January 2005]

I was sure that this would be a great movie. I'm convinced that Spielberg is one of the best of today's directors so a project like this should certainly turn into gold in his hands. But apparently I was wrong. It's not the way everything is shown. From the beginning until the end it all looks very good, even breath taking from time to time. The surroundings (especially at the end of the movie), the gadgets, the robots,... it all has been done in a way that can't be disapproved. But I need more in a movie than just some good special effects and cool gadgets. I want a breath taking story, I want to see real emotions and feelings,... and that's where this movie went wrong. It all looked fine, but when you try to dig a bit deeper, you'll notice that this is actually a 'sterile' movie. It never felt real to me.

If you ask me to describe the movie than I would say that this is a mixture of fairy tales like Pinokkio (it literally refers to it several times during the movie), The Terminator (it's futuristic, has robots in it and shows how people react to those robots) and Tron (because of some costumes). The story is about a robot-boy that has been created to act and feel like a human. First his 'parents' love him, but than their real son awakes from a coma and they no longer want him. The robot-boy is convinced that he has to become a real human and that then his mommy will love him again. Because he has heard the story of Pinnochio, he goes after 'The Blue Fairy' who will transform him and make a human boy out of him, just like in the fairy tale.

Overall this isn't such a bad movie, it's a bit slow from time to time and it never really seems real, but the special effects make sure this is still a movie that will be remembered. The only problem with it is that you know that it could have been so much better. That's why I give it a 6/10.

Future classic...?

[secombe82 · 10/10 · 26 September 2001]

First of all, once again I think the critics have got it wrong. Like Blade Runner and 2001, this is a film that will be properly judged in 10/20 years or maybe more. Its way ahead of its time, the combination of Kubrick and Spielberg is unique, its unlikely we will ever see anything like this again.

Did I like it? The answer would have to be yes, the mix of styles will put many people off, but I found it to be unlike anything I have ever seen, and all the better for it. The story is by no means original but everything else about the film is so different that this can be forgiven. To get one thing straight, Kubrick decided Spielberg would be the better man for directing it, and I think this was a very wise decision, many of the ideas are pure Kubrick, but Spielberg has the neccassary attributes to direct such a film, and great credit has to go to Kubrick for handing it to him.

Haley Joel Osment is amazing, the robot/human emotion must be amazingly difficult to pull off effectively, but Osment does it with such relative ease to the point where you do believe he is a robot, not that he is just acting as a robot. Jude Law is excellent, and so to is Frances O'Conner.

As for the ending, as brave as an idea it may of been to end on a downbeat note at "the first ending" I think the slightly upbeat ending is much more appropriate.

All in all I would say A.I is a wonderfully unique film that should be judged for what it is, a film. Forget everything about the Spielberg/Kubrick "issue" and just sit back and take in a truely amazing film. You may hate it, you may love it, but no matter what, it will effect your emotions in some way and you will discuss the film afterwards.

This film will be truely judged in 20 years or so, when it can be assessed purely as a film, as with 'Blade Runner', '2001', and even 'The Thing', it will get better with age.

I'm not saying it isn't kind of stupid but ultimately it punched me right in the feels.

[GiraffeDoor · 7/10 · 26 March 2019]

A fiercely compelling movie, at first, owing to how sickly it is. It raised a few hard questions on the ethics of sentient machines but isn't heavy handed with them.

Doubtlessly a bit creaky and heavy handed, especially with the whole Pinocchio subtext. But it's weird enough, and filled with so many vivid images of a grotesque future, no less brutal for the technological advances.

I'm not saying it's not campy and kind of stupid but that's better than boring.

As shamelessly ridiculous as this movie is, I can't make too much fun of it since by the end I was balling like an infant. It's hard hitting. I am one of those unpleasant cretins that would laugh at someone getting run over if they'd hurt my feelings the previous year. But this movie broke me down, man.

Another "Robot-wants-humanity Movie"...that's all.

[Techtite · 4/10 · 9 July 2001]

Every time a film like this comes out, there's the fans that claim all who hate the film "just don't get it." Well, how hard is it to "get" a robot movie? From silent films like Metropolis, to The Matrix, robots in film have been done over and over. Personally, I prefer movies about robots who are happy simply to be robots, like Short Circuit. If you prefer the emotional-robot stories, the list is not pretty: the perverted robot in Demon Seed, the comical robot "couple" in Heartbeeps, and most recently, the sex-starved robot in Bicentennial Man. Sure, A. I.. has a far superior "epic" feel to it, that divides it from the above films. However, the "emotional robot" plot concept still has its flaws, and neither Kubrick nor Spielberg can correct them.

(Mild Spoilers follow, though all from the first third (or so) of the film, so it shouldn't be a worry...)

People have alluded to Pinocchio when discussing A. I..'s story. This is incorrect. Pinocchio was a puppet who became human when he sacrificed himself for the life of Gepetto. In this picture, there is no such epiphany in David; he merely wants to hear "I love you" from Mommy, because his programming lists it as a requirement. No biggie; "humans" in this story have reactions even more questionable. We see his human "brother" treat him badly, because allegedly a boy would not want a robot as a brother (since when? I mean, how cool would it be to have C3PO as a brother?). In a similar emotional contradiction, David's "mother" does not have the heart to see him destroyed, though sees no harm in leaving him deserted in the forest. HUH??? Sure, neither Spielberg nor Kubrick were ever mothers, and I wasn't, either, though even I know this is a cockeyed view of the human spirit, and maternal instincts in particular. With this in mind: WHY would David not be infuriated at her for deserting him in the woods? The answer to this question seems to allude to the truth; since his emotions after this desertion are not real, David himself is not real. So why should we even care?

Don't get me wrong. I think this film has some great production values, regardless of its negative attitude about humanity and human compassion. However, what dropped my rating of the film, all the way down from 9 out of 10, to ***5*** out of 10? Simple; the finale is horrid. I can forgive an unsatisfying ending; that is commonplace these days. What I *cannot* forgive is an ending so contrived, every single plot inconsistency seems dragged in, just for one more audience tear. I don't want to give anything away; suffice to say every minute of the third "act" of the film is pure cornball, and left me saying, "Why would this happen...? ...just to make the audience keep crying? Give me a break!" It just goes on, and on, and on. In truth, the only tear I felt was in realizing this laughable finale ruined a possible classic in sci-fi epic cinema. Instead, Mr. Spielberg, all your "artificial emotions" warrant slicing your film's rating in HALF. Boo hoo.

Kubrick's two bedrooms and two Daves

[tieman64 · 5 February 2008]

In "2001: A Space Odyssey" man conquers himself and his machines, transcending the physical and becoming God. God is dead, Nietzsche says, and we shall take his place.

"2001" ended in a bedroom. In that film, God-like beings created a simulated cage for us to shed our old bodies and become something greater than ourselves. Kubrick's second scifi epic likewise ends in a bedroom. In this film, God-like begins create a simulated cage for us to cling to our comfortable delusions.

"AI" is a fairy tale told by Mechas to Mechas. It is an allegory in which the humans are the divine beings and the robots are the humans. While "2001" dealt with the death of God, "AI" deals with the destruction of heaven, that place of happiness and illusion (ie a programmed simulation). To paraphrase Professor Hobby, "man's fundamental flaw is his insistence on hoping for things that don't exist."

With "AI", we have two stories, a science fiction story, and a fairytale story. While "Full Metal Jacket" dealt in twos, and "Eyes Wide Shut" with reflections, "AI's" narrative is staggered. That is, the scifi story begins and ends one act before the fairytale story.

"2001" incorporated much mythic symbolism, using Homer's Odyssey and Nietzsche's Zarathustra as a backbone. With "AI", Kubrick draws from the Adam and Eve myth, and Dante's Inferno.

The film begins with God creating man. When David meets Professor Hobby (God), Hobby says: "My son was one of a kind. You are the first of a kind." The line is a nod to Biblical lore, where God's "only begotten son" was "one of a kind" and his first creation, was "the first of a kind". Thus David is symbolic of both Jesus and Adam. First God and first man.

The first act of the film takes place in the Garden of Eden, with Monica becoming symbolic of Paradise and eternal happiness. David is ejected from heaven because he disobeys God's programming and eats the forbidden fruit (spinach). When David is cast out of Eden, he finds himself first in the Dark Wood and then in Rouge City (earthly sin). After sinning, he is cast into the Flesh Fair, which represents hell and eternal punishment. After his punishment he is cast into the Atlantic Ocean, where, after 2000 years of being "washed" and cleansed of sin (Dante's Purgatory), he is set free and permitted to enter heaven (eternal life with Monica). Unfortunately, this promise of paradise is an illusion. He learns from the SuperMecha that he can only have Monica for one day. His first lines to her ("Would you like some coffee?") highlights his fears that she will die and go to sleep forever. He wants her to stay awake. He wants her to be real.

The death of God is symbolised when humanity dies and the earth becomes frozen over. The reign of man has ended. With it, goes his beliefs, morals and customs. SuperMecha, themselves nothing more than evolved humans, are now the rulers of the land. After the singularity, they are the next stage in intelligent evolution. In a sense, they are the Star Children of "2001".

Significantly, while the Mecha reject God (see how Joe humours David's irrational beliefs during the Dr Know scenes), David continues in his "programmed irrationality". In the scifi story, this leads to David's wish (the blue fairy) dissolving before his eyes. In the fairytale story, David's wish (Mommy) also perishes, but he chooses to remain deluded. He chooses to become human and enter that place where (false) dreams are made.

Thus, to be human, David - whom Kubrick likens to the "artificial intelligence" of Spielberg/modern cinema - has to regress to an infantile state. He has to shut his eyes to believe in his simulational (ie cinema projection) paradise and the storybook fables his Mommy once read to him. David is a machine in a SuperMecha (ie Kubrickean) simulation, cradling his simulated mother in his metal arms. It's an entire bedroom full of unreality, yet it makes David happy. This, sadly, is humanity, Kubrick says.

Thematically and aesthetically, there are lots of problems with the film. Firstly, Spielberg puts the silly Flesh Fair before Rogue City. You cannot have Hell precede sin. Secondly, the dialogue is constantly spoon-feeding the audience. Thirdly, the film is poorly cast and acted (Chris Rock, Robin Williams etc). Fourthly, all the designs not made by Kubrick (the flesh fair, the motorcycles) are stupid. Fifthly, the Blue Fairy/Monica mirroring is not made apparent. Kubrick's drafts had the fairy dissolve into dust and Monica, a hologram, dissolve into pixels when touched. Both David's fairy tale (religion) and SuperMecha's fairytale (cinematic fable) were implicitly linked. In Spielberg's film, both women and narrative layers are not. The sixth and biggest problem is that the AI are portrayed as being inferior to humans. Spielberg treats them as battered ethnic minorities, instead of exponentially advancing beings who quickly take God's place.

The ending of "AI", though hated by critics, is the most interesting thing about the film. Kubrick is affirming "2001's" bedroom sequence, saying effectively that to become human is to die. It's no surprise that David and Dave Bowman both share the same first name. To remain Dave Bowman is to never become the StarChild.

David wants to become a human. In Kubrick's eyes, this means he is fundamentally flawed. To the SuperMecha and the StarChildren, David is a quaint object. They shall continue progressing, continue evolving, while he sits there, pretending to sleep, remaining blissfully deluded.

Thus, while "2001" had man fight machine and become God, "AI" presents the flip-side. HAL wins. In the war between machine logic and human superstition, machine becomes God and humanity fades away, nothing but a memory.

5/10- Shot like a big budget TV movie, Spielberg ruined what could have been the greatest scifi film since "2001: A Space Odyssey".

poor... very poor.

[enmussak · 7/10 · 20 December 2002]

I hate good ideas gone terribly awry. When movies try to tackle moral dilemmas of the future I am usually intrigued, but this movie fell flat on its face in trying to do so. This could have been another Gattaca, which dealt with the potential discrimination issues involved with genetic profiling. Considering that this next century will likely be the century of gene, Gattaca's importance will be seen in a clear light within the next 20 years. In AI, however, Spielberg decided to throw some pathetic Pinocchio fairy tale in the mix. This could have been a fascinating moral study with amazing characters, but... oh forget it.

I would be very interested to know what parts were Kubrick's and what parts were Spielberg's. I bet it was Spielberg that threw the fairy tale in the middle OR Kubrick realized the inherent failure in the story and never finished it. Considering Kubrick's prowess, there is likely a reason he tinkered with it for so long. I am very glad he didn't live to see this and I wish his name wouldn't be associated with this catastrophic flop. Someone needs to do another movie like this, someone serious and not as commercially driven as Spielberg. Kubrick and Spielberg prove to be oil and water. Worst Spielberg movie I've ever seen.

This film has melted my brain

[austinchimp · 6/10 · 4 April 2002]

This has to be one of the most amazingly confusing films i've ever seen. You can watch A.I on two levels; you can let spielberg take you on an epic emotional ride, or you can really look at the film and what it all means. This film is a manipulative masterpiece. It bends you and pulls you in all different directions so that by the end you don't know what's going on. When i saw this film first, i felt dazed, confused, and abused. I think spielberg crosses the line in trying to make the story touching (although he didn't really need to try), and ended up making it sadistic. When you try to make sense of ai emotionally, it;s all over the place, characters motivations don't really seem to be thought out. The story is bizarre in places and unbelievable, yet you almost don't see it because spielberg is so adept at manipulating the audience. While carried away on the emotion and the stirring music, it's difficult to look at what's going on objectively. Ai makes you feel incredibly emotionally involved, yet there is always a niggling doubt about how much sense the film actually makes. Underneath all the dripping emotion Spielberg has laid on, AI's story takes unbelievable twists and turns, it has THE worst voice over ever written, and the treatment of the boy by everyone in the film and fate itself is so cruel and sadistic when you actually think about it that it is incredible that this is supposed to be a kids film?! AI has to be seen to be believed, despite how cruel it is to its central character in order to make us cry. It's half the best film ive ever seen, half the worst, most bizzare film ive ever seen.

Spielberg's Most Underrated and Under Appreciated

[LeonLouisRicci · 10/10 · 1 June 2015]

This Movie is as Underrated as E.T. (1982) is Overrated.

Steven Spielberg and Stanley Kubrick, Two of the most Admired Directors, combined Visions and worked Together until Kubrick's Death. Spielberg Took Over the Project but did Not Cheat on Kubrick's more Cynical and Pessimistic Approach.

The Result is this Great Film that is an Emotionally Exhausting, Visually Exciting Fairy-Tale. It is Disturbing and Delightful. Basically it is "Pinocchio", Restyled and Revisioned in a Sci-Fi-Horror-Cautionary-Allegory for Modern Times.

Not for Everyone, it may be too Unsettling at times for very Young Viewers. It is Heartwarming and Heart-Wrenching and Deeply Depressing. The Futuristic Visual Template is Amazing.

Only the most Hardened of Hearts could be Unmoved by its Sentimentality seen through the Eyes of a Robot Child. The Parallels and Direct Links to Real Children are Painful to Watch as the Artificial Boy must go through Parental Rejection and some of Real-Life's Horrifying Realities.

A Good Cast all Deliver Searing Performances in Difficult Roles. Overall the Movie is Not a very Pleasing Entertainment for those Wishing for the Usual Spielberg Scrubbed Suburbanism.

Although the Movie does have an Abundance of Heart. The Viewer will find His/Her Heart Warmed and then Frozen, Filled with Love then Broken and Drained, only to have it Filled Again.

For some it may be just Too Much of an Emotional Roller-Coaster Ride, but for others Willing to be Shaken and Stirred, Caressed and Cuddled, Shocked and Stunned, all at the Same Time, this is Just the Thing.

An Under Appreciated Masterpiece of Manipulation, with No Pull Back along the Road Trip Search for Enlightenment.

The A.I. Child, Prays and Searches for, the "Blue Fairy" His Whole "Life". Organic Types Frequently do the Same Thing. Orga = Mecha = Orga

A.I.--A Film With Heart And Brains

[virek213 · 10/10 · 6 July 2001]

Steven Spielberg's latest movie A.I.: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, which he took up at the encouragement of the late, great Stanley Kubrick, has caused widely divergent comments. And I can't help wondering if the most scathingly negative reviews of this movie aren't just an open desire to see Spielberg crash, as he had with "1941" and HOOK.

For my money, Spielberg has done it again with this futuristic science fiction drama, regardless of what the negative reviews say. Its story of a robot boy (Haley Joel Osment) who desires to be a real boy in a far future in which humans (Orgas) and machines (Mechas) exist side-by-side but not always in harmony is very much modeled on the Pinocchio story, though it is actually based on a 1969 short story by Brian Aldiss. It raises some interesting and sometimes unsettling moral dilemmas that few films of late have done. Can a parent love a child, even if that child is not real? What might happen if that child desired to be real? How will Man and Machine be able to co-exist?

Like all intelligent science fiction, such as Kubrick's own 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and Spielberg's own CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, A.I. forces us to ponder where we've been and where we might be going. It's an incredible combination of Kubrick's icy intellectual and clinical mind and Spielberg's emotional heart; and I think it works exceedingly well. But it forces the viewer to not leave their heart and brains at the door, which I think is why it is being so negatively received in this season of mindless summer movie fare. It may be too intelligent for its own good, and many don't have the 145 minutes of patience needed for the movie. I did, however; and I would call this an absolute masterpiece. Out of ten stars, give this one a 10.

Stunning Visuals, Involving Story But Typical Spielberg/Kubrick Bias

[ccthemovieman-1 · 6/10 · 20 November 2006]

This has to be Steven Spielberg's strangest film. Maybe that's because he collaborated with Stanley Kubrick on it, and Kubrick's movies are almost all bizarre. It was another of those films I found fascinating on the first look but increasingly unlikeable on subsequent looks. It went from a "9" on the first viewing, to a "7" to a "5." In fact, I didn't even finish it on the third look.

Nonetheless, it's the typical Spielberg or Kubrick film in a number of areas, meaning great visuals, just stunning at times; a definite anti-Christian bias (that you see more and more in the carnival segment as you watch this multiple times); a very secular humanist outlook on life but a nice sentimental ending with the message that everyone needs to feel loved.

Haley Joel Osment gives one more example of why he is one of the best child actors of any era. His role is memorable and just the looks on his face would soften the hardest heart. The first of the three segments in this film was hard for me to watch in spots as the innocent Osment ("David") was framed for things by his "real brother" and then abandoned by his mother. Those are difficult scenes because the film is involving right off the bat. You really care about this young boy

The rest of the film offers fantastic visuals and an interesting, but a too Liberal- slanted story, for me to watch again. Sorry, but Spielberg and Kubrick - two men who have made some extremely entertaining films - are too bigoted for my tastes, at least in this movie.

Not perfect, but still intelligent, haunting and moving

[bellino-angelo2014 · 7/10 · 29 October 2019]

Steven Spielberg's ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: AI is still, after 18 years from its release, considered by some a mixed bag and by some one of Steven Spielberg's lesser movies. I have to admit that after I saw it I could see the reasons why most people complained about this movie, but I also liked it for what it was. Now I can go to the review.

The movie is set in 2125, after the ocean tides destroyed many of the world's most beautiful cities. Humans created Mechas, robots that are very similar to humans. Professor Hoby (William Hurt) created a Mecha child named David (Haley Joel Osment) with the purpose of being the first Mecha to experience emotions like a human being. David is adopted by Henry and Monica Swinton, a couple that has another child named Martin that is not at home at the moment because of a illness of which he suffers. Unfortunately though, Martin is cured and returns home, and since he never heard of Mechas before he treats David like a tool, with consequental poor figures. During a pool party David drags Martin in the pool. Soon the parents decide to abandon Martin in the woods with his talking teddy bear.

From here the movie unfolds and it's mostly David's journey for trying to returning home; passing first to a carnival in which he escapes death because he looks like a real human, he becomes friends with Gigolo Joe (Jude Law), a male prostitute that is a fugitive after a murder and helps him finding the blue Fairy since David hopes to become a real boy after he thinks that his mother abandoned him because he is a robot. After Joe and David arrive to Manhattan David finally finds his creator and he discovers a shocking truth: the creator (Michael Mantell) created David as a fotocopy of his dead son and he made hundreds of copies of him. After a hopeless research for Monica and Gigolo Joe is captured by the police, David and Teddy end underwater and freezed.

The movie then moves to 4125. Now human race is extinct and David and Teddy are then found and brought back to life by a group of Mechas that also want to know more about humans since they never met them. David finally meets the Blue Mecha. So David asks her to become a human boy, but it's impossible even for her standards. But he has a chance: since Mechas can replicate DNA, they replicate Monica's body with her DNA. After eons of pain David finally reunites for only one day with his mother spending a great day together before turning off forever.

So, is this movie great or bad? I wouldn't say neither but it's good in its own, unique way. In some ways the plot is a bit reminiscent of PINOCCHIO but in a futuristic setting. The performances by the cast are good and heartfelt and especially Osment gives a moving performance, but so moving that after he is abandoned you'll only root for him for the rest of the movie. Steven Spielberg's direction is good as always though the cinematography at times looks a bit dated for 2001 standards.

However, I didn't loved nor hated the movie. Just didn't surprised me well enough but I still found it good and very moving.

Two and a half hours of sentimental drivel

[Luuk-2 · 5/10 · 1 August 2003]

The wisdom of minimum age ratings for films is debatable, but some films would be well advised to attach a maximum age rating. You guessed it, this is one of them. Kids might like it, but I would find it difficult to believe that anyone with an eye for good movies could find anything to praise in this over-long, sentimental story of a little robot-boy (ever so cute) with the obligatory bit for a dog (here in the shape of a mechanised teddy bear that walks and talks and never runs out of power, even after 2000 years ... those were some Duracells!) who was dumped in the woods by his loving mummy and spent the next two millennia searching for Pinocchio's Blue Faery and his adopted mother. The story sucks, and this is aggravated by the dreadful music; the camera work also fails to add lustre to this duller-than-dishwater "adventure". It goes without saying that advertised exploration of the thin boundaries between the human and the other is no more than that: advertising. The special effects are good.

When Steven met Stanley (or E.T. meets HAL9000?!)

[rooprect · 1 June 2021]

The short review: if you're in the mood for E. T. then you will LOVE this flick. If you're in the mood for 2001: A Space Odyssey then you'll HATE it.

Steven Spielberg, the director who brought us family-friendly scifi/fantasy hits like "E. T.", Amazing Stories, and Raiders of the Lost Ark, inherited a project that was originally headed by chillingly cold scifi master Stanley Kubrick (2001 A Space Odyssey, Clockwork Orange). Spielberg delivered, 2 years after Kubrick's death, "A. I." The familiar two-letter acronym title ought to spell out for us the direction Spielberg chose to take with Kubrick's material. The result, as you might guess, is a very mixed bag of creepy disturbing brilliance and groan worthy Disney type stuff all jumbled together. Much like putting m&ms on a pizza, some elements should never be mixed.

Plot: An artificially created robot child navigates the gauntlet of human cruelty while slipping into a Disney-esque subplot (literally Disney) of trying to find the Blue Fairy from the fable Pinocchio so she'll turn him into a real boy. You can practically skip the first half hour of this 2 1/2 hour movie because it amounts to a very predictable and irritating parade of scenes where the robot child is bullied for being a robot, despised by his apathetic 'father' and erratically loved/hated by his weak willed 'mother'. You can literally skip the whole string of clichés and you won't be missing anything. The movie starts to pick up after the 30 min mark when the child finds himself on the run.

It picks up due to the excellent performance of Jude Law as "Gigolo Joe" a suave, charming, not-too-bright but very loveable cyborg prostitute. Jude plays the character with a very interesting spin: not a soulless hunk of lumbering metal like we've seen in all of our Hollywood robots but as an animated, cat-like, Gene-Kelley-Singin-In-The-Rain street dancer with a ton of personality and some great dance moves. I don't know if Jude won any awards for this performance but he really should have.

Accompanying Jude's entry into the film, the story becomes considerably darker but not in a predictably melodramatic way like the first part of the film. Rather, we are immersed into a wonderfully nightmarish, satirical portrayal of human cruelty as we witness the renegade robots being subjected to a sickening carnival show in which they are mutilated in horrific ways to the rapturous applause of human crowds. Yes, it's disturbing but it's done with an air of dark comedy like in Terry Gilliam's masterpiece "Brazil" or in Veerhoven's "Robocop" or even Kubrick's own "Clockwork Orange".

Unfortunately for the final 2 acts of the film we return to Disney territory as the robot child becomes obsessively (and quite stupidly, for an advanced computerized intelligence) rapt in chasing down the imaginary character from a Disney fable, that Blue Fairy. Complicating our enjoyment, there are at least 3 false endings where you feel like the story could've wrapped up on a poetic note, but it keeps going. By the time the real ending happens we're too emotionally exhausted to feel it.

While being a failure on these levels, "A. I." is an absolute triumph in terms of special effects. The visuals were way ahead of their time in 2001, and they still hold up better than most big budget scifi films today, 20 years later. Unfortunately the delivery screams 1980s Spielberg (E. T.) and might leave you feeling very skeptical about the whole experience. Unless, like I said up front, you're in the mood for E. T. - in that case you'll have a wonderful time. But in either case we can only imagine how Stanley Kubrick had intended to approach his story as originally planned: an evolution of the deeply philosophical & abstract theme presented in "2001" about the newborn lifeform finding its footing in a dark and hostile human world.

Why Spielberg, why?

[baz_trinity · 7/10 · 11 November 2006]

I'll say this with a sigh and I don't want to say this, but I was really disappointed with this movie. But let me explain how this film got a high and an above average 7 out of ten.

This is what I felt for the first say, 1hour 45 minutes. I felt this movie was one of the most thrilling, exciting, sad, brilliant movies of the decade. And I don't throw compliments like that around often. Hayley Joel Osmont played a stunning, captivating role that is Oscar worthy and Jude Law did a mighty fine job also. In fact, the acting all round was quite impressive. Visually, well, it was flawless. The directing, the lighting, the special effects, the robots, all perfect, the music was moving and atmospheric and intertwined with the movies disturbing and oddball theme and it never failed to offer heart-wrenching moments and tense, unnerving scenes. The movie went along at a fast enough pace, jumping quickly from one section to another perfectly and hit all the right emotions that made you actually feel for the robots. Very symbolic in places, especially the FLESH FAIR which was a direct hint towards the holocaust. The future was predicted well, quite possible in fact and it wasn't too ridiculous to be imaginable. The settings, scenery and ambiance was just advanced enough to have a futuristic tone, but restricted enough to be possible. In a nutshell, this film is pretty hard to criticize. Well, this is what I thought, until after the scene that changed everything.

*spoiler warning* I remember the start of the movie had an introductory narrative, explaining the worlds conditions and such and how the story would begin. Much, much later in the movie the voice returned, whilst David is submerged under water and pleading with blue fairy statue to make him a real boy. The voice returned in a fashion that the movie would end. The voice explains how David kept pleading and how did so for over 2000 years. At this point I thought this movie was amazing and one of my favorites, the perfect ending to the movie and a really moving and exceptionally thought provoking ending to AI. But no, Spielberg had to give us more. And a really awful ending entails.

In short, it shows David breaking out of the ice 2000 years later and meeting up with a group of badly designed, unimaginative aliens that would let him see his mother for one more day. At this point, all the humans have become extinct and therefore, of course, his mother has died. But somehow these aliens manage to use bits of people to recreate the humans perfectly for one more day. An over-sentimental, over-emotional and a particularly "Disney" scene follows, that is dragged out, embarrassing, out of context with the rest of the movie, sickeningly happy and downright awful. This movie was always disturbing and off-the-wall and this ending is just a complete contrast that just does not fit. It literally ruined a movie that had the full potential to be a classic, yet the last 15 minutes, Spielberg did a "fairy-tale ending on it" and ruined it. I can't explain how utterly crap it is and I actually felt angry and depressed that something as simple as a conclusion can ruin a spectacular experience. A dark ending to a dark movie was the way to go, was the way to create a masterpiece, but Stephen Spielberg obviously had his way and destroyed.

I strongly urge people to watch this movie, but I also strongly suggest you stop it after the second narrative kicks in. Until then, I would've given it a perfect 10 out of ten, but nothing denies that Spielberg made a fatal mistake.

What a pity.

Extraordinary.

[RHa409 · 9/10 · 3 July 2001]

I loved this film. It isn't one of the greatest films ever made, but it's a personal favorite of mine. I cried at the two sad points, I laughed at the mannerisms of Gigalo Joe and Teddy, the super-toy, my heart pumped faster at the action, suspense, and horror, but overall, I really enjoyed the film on a whole. I didn't find an ounce of it boring at all. It's practically the same as observing an extraordinary life and extraordinary tale of a boy who just wants his mommy. But the boy is not a boy, and rather a robot. But the way he acts can pass for a human any day.

The look of the film was dazzling and amazing. From the facilities in the underwater Manhatten, to the curvy, sensual architecture of Rouge City. I really felt as if I were really going along for a great ride and once I stepped out of the theater, I wanted more.

The film is from Steven Spielberg based on Brian Aldiss' short story, "Super-toys Last All Summer Long" which was doctored up by Stanley Kubrick. The film is a tribute to the legendary filmaker, but it is not his film, but rather Spielberg's. Sure it sometimes tries to mimic his styles, but that's practically the same as a filmmaker paying homage to a great. It's more or less the same as somebody making his adaptation of a novel or maybe graphic novel, since Kubrick supplied some of his artwork through designs. The story is Kubrick's, but the film is Spielberg's.

Although it may seem ridiculous to some at some points, it's a future, not THE future, but a rendition of it and somethings may happen in THIS future that may seem unrealistic. The film has a great score, but it just doesn't stand out like some of John Williams's other scores. The end could be considered a homage to Spielberg's "Close Encounters Of the Third Kind" or it could be something different, something more along the lines of the film's title, Artificial Intelligence, but only a far more advanced form of it.

The acting in this film is great along with the emotions, visions, humor, and fright. I found this film to be extraordinarily superb, but whether you think it's as good, is up to you.

A bad day at the office for Spielberg

[FlickJunkie-2 · 6/10 · 6 April 2002]

One would think that a science fiction film produced and directed by Steven Spielberg (who also contributed to the screenplay) inspired by the vision of the late Stanley Kubrick would have to be a brilliant work of monumental significance. Think again.

This story was a passion for Kubrick, who always wanted to film it. Spielberg picked it up as homage to Kubrick and attempted to imbue it with Kubrickian nuances. While the film is clearly infused with the sci-fi spirit of 2001: A Space Odyssey, it has neither the dramatic power nor the philosophical depth of that classic. Instead, we have an insignificant and disjointed human interest story, full of sentimental pap about a boy who isn't even human.

To be sure, the visual effects are outstanding. With Spielberg at the helm, this was bound to be a given. Using the latest technology and a $90 Million budget, Spielberg cranks out another effects show that rivals his latest Jurassic Park episode (another dud of a screenplay with great visuals). However, the story never gets any traction and we are left hoping the characters would just shut up and get to the next computer generated image.

The first hour of the movie is boring and tedious as we see robot boy David (Haley Joel Osment) attempt to adapt to his new human family and vice versa. Then suddenly Spielberg tries to shake thing up by throwing David into the standard futuristic anarchical society, a backdrop long ago rendered hackneyed in this genre. Shifting into third gear, we are then taken on a sci-fi junket to old New York, now semi-submerged from the effects of global warming, which have caused the oceans to rise at least 200 feet to cover all but the highest skyscrapers (we cannot possibly have a sci-fi film lately without some political hyperbole lurking in the subtext). Then fourth gear and we go on a journey far into future where David comes face to face with advanced beings in his quest to become a real boy, just like Pinocchio.

Spielberg attempts to meld ET, Close Encounters of the Third Kind and 2001 A Space Odyssey, to create a mosaic of themes that does justice to none of them. The last segment is punctuated by the advanced beings driveling about how the human race is the one true link to the meaning of life. This is extremely ironic given the events of David's journey including vile children mocking him, parents who abandon him, a flesh fair and a futuristic red light district full of violence and debauchery.

The film is also full of annoyingly unbelievable depictions, such as a love robot (Jude Law) who is a sophisticated piece of technology able to reason and operate at a very high level, who has to crick his neck to turn on his mood music.

The acting is terrific, despite the vapid dialogue. Haley Joel Osment just keeps getting better and better. He presents just the right balance of robotic disconnection with his human counterparts and the sincere efforts of an emotional being attempting to emerge. Jude Law also gives another outstanding performance as Joe Gigolo, stealing just about every scene in which he appears.

This was supposed to be one of the all time blockbusters, but despite putting up decent numbers, it failed to even match its budget at the box office. For once, I have to agree with the masses that this film just failed to distinguish itself beyond the special effects. I rated it a 6/10. Mark it up as a bad day at the office for Steven Spielberg.