A.I. (2001)

2.5 out of 4

Starring: Haley Joel Osment, Jude Law, Frances O'Connor, Brendan Gleeson, Sam Robards, Jake Thomas, William Hurt

Director: Steven Spielberg

Time: 145 mins

A new Steven Spielberg film is a major event these days. It's not that his earlier films were greeted with a yawn, it's just that the more mature Spielberg who won two Best Directing Oscars in the 90s (for Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan) is more selective with his directing duties than ever before. As a case in point, following his banner year in 1993, when he helmed the mega-blockbuster Jurassic Park and the critically acclaimed Holocaust drama Schindler's List, he took four years off to help set up Dreamworks SKG. He returned in 1997-98 with the triple dose of The Lost World: Jurassic Park, Amistad, and Saving Private Ryan, and then took another three years off. Now, in 2001, he has taken on the task of directing a project that close friend, the late Stanley Kubrick, was developing. That project is A.I. (or Artificial Intelligence).

Set in a future where global warming has melted the icecaps and drowned cities like Amsterdam and New York, A.I. tells the story of David (Haley Joel Osment), a child robot, or "mecha" (short for mechanical), that has been been programmed to have feelings. He is intended as a "toy" to comfort the grieving Monica Swinton (Frances O'Connor), whose own son Martin (Jake Thomas) is in a coma. Though Monica grows to love David, a near-fatal accident forces her to abandon him. Lost, and alone, except for the company of Teddy, a toy bear that represents an earlier version of artificial intelligence, and Gigolo Joe (Jude Law), a suave love machine, David must find his place in the world, a world where humans are all too ready to destroy him.

A.I. is that rare science fiction work - one that involves ideas, and images, rather than space disasters or fighting aliens. One can clearly see the influence of Kubrick during many points in the film, including the slow, deliberate (but never boring) pace, the impressive visuals (the depiction of a flooded Manhattan is a feast for the eyes), and the presentation of thoughts and questions that provoke and stimulate without quite providing the answers. Where the film doesn't quite work for me is that it doesn't seem to know where it's going. Is it a humanistic drama, or an adventure, or a social commentary on humans and their reaction to technology? Many humans against artificiality are shown stripped down to their most primeval emotions during a Flesh Fair (a segment that reminded me of the dark middle act of Back To The Future 2), but we don't get a wider sense of the reaction to robots and their impact on society. Are most humans against robots, or just a ragtag few?

The other main fault is that it's too long. The first hour is fairly engrossing, showing David's adoption by the Swintons and how he fits into their world. But the rest of the film takes almost an eternity to get where it's going, including a twenty minute, post-climactic wrap-up that seems tacked on to generate a happy ending. There are several scenes that will make you wonder, "Huh?", such as the comparative ease with which David commandeers a police helicopter, and how the lovable Teddy always seems to end up next to David even though they're separated several times. Teddy also seems fairly knowledgeable for such an early version of a robot, though it, itself, is probably the best thing about the movie.

The film does have a fair share of harrowing scenes. What makes these scenes work is the brilliant performance of child star Osment, who was also excellent in The Sixth Sense. If he's not the best child actor working today, I don't know who is. It's him that the audience has invested their emotions in, and he carries the weight wonderfully. In fine support is Jude Law (very good in the underrated Gattaca). His love machine is humorous and a perfect ally for David, though I wish there could have been more development in their relationship. (I find it hard to believe that I'm talking about relationships between robots; these are machines, after all). Frances O'Connor is heart-wrenching in her few scenes, but others like William Hurt are used only fleetingly.

Spielberg's last stab at an intelligent sci-fi film, 1977's Close Encounters Of The Third Kind (the Jurassic Park films don't count - they're more in the vein of Jaws than sci-fi), is considered a classic by many. A.I. is even more evolutionary in its images and ideas, but the film's less coherent structure and lack of a goal, in as far as the filmmakers are concerned, prevents it from being fully satisfying. This is a pity, for the trailers promised much potential. It's a film that will mean different things to different people, however, so it's worth at least an initial viewing. If you're not completely captivated by the story, at least the visuals will tantalise.

(c) Joe Wong (1 July 2001)