|
The Movie: Several years ago, director Stanley Kubrick had several projects in development that he was considering. One, "A.I.", certainly had his interest, but he had decided that special effects were not quite to the point that could work for the kind of undertaking that would be required. While he waited, he filmed "Eyes Wide Shut", but unfortunately, passed away shortly after. It turned out though, that during that time, Kubrick was communicating with director Steven Spielberg about having him direct "A.I." instead. The movie is sort of "Pinocchio" crossed with "E.T.", with touches of "Tron", "Blade Runner" and several other pictures. Taking place in the future, global warming has caused the ice caps to melt and oceans have swallowed up any seaside cities (New York, etc). The effects used to create the sunken Manhattan make those of "Deep Impact" look primitive by comparison. During this time, population growth is limited and robots are brought in to fill in the gaps. Professor Hobby (William Hurt), who leads Cybertronics, is able to come up with a prototype robot named David (Haley Joel Osment), a robot child who can actually feel and understand love. The company believes that employee Henry Swinton (Sam Robards) and his wife Monica (Frances O'Connor) are candidates to take care of David, since their only son Martin (Jake Thomas) is critically ill and frozen until a cure for his illness can be found. The company believes that David can be a "substitute" of sorts. Originally, it's Monica who is completely against any such idea and Henry who is positive about the introduction of the boy-bot. As time goes by and Martin gradually makes a suprise recovery though, things slowly change. Monica has gotten used to David and even begun to love him while Henry has grown to distrust the boy. After a particular incident, Monica is forced to take David back - but rather than have him be destroyed by the company he came from, she sets him free in the woods, with only a super-toy stuffed bear called Teddy, who is a real scene-stealer. Anyways, this sequence bridges the gap from what would be considered the first part of the movie into act two. David falls in with a group of robots in the woods who are quickly caught by a group (lead by Brendan Gleeson) who run a "flesh fair" where real humans are entertained by watching robots be destroyed in horrifying ways. David latches onto one of the closest bots, Gigolo Joe (Jude Law, in one of his many terrific performances) and asks for protection. After the audience rises up, David and Joe are allowed to go. David is searching for a mystical creature that can "turn him into a real boy"; I won't give away the exact nature of it. "A.I." does jump somewhat awkwardly between a light and dark tone, but the story keeps gaining increasing strength as the picture goes along, showing off impressive effects like Rouge City and the sunken Manhattan, as well as more energy simply behind the story itself - Law's fun, engaging performance also lends the movie a kick when he enters. Besides Law's superb performance, praise really must go to Haley Joel-Osment, who did a truly terrific job with "The Sixth Sense", but here, he really has to carry a much bigger (literally, not bigger at the box office, juding by the first week's gross) picture almost completely on his shoulders. The only piece of the film that stuck me as more than minimally flawed was the ending. There's a point late in "A.I" where many will likely get out of their seats and start packing up their belongings that feels and seems like it's the end of the story - but it's not. That part alone would have been a decent, if not completely satisfying ending. Yet, the movie abruptly goes on for another very unexpected 25 minute-or-so segment that doesn't work particularly well either - it feels a bit sappy and clipped on. Still, with the nearly 145 minute running time, I never felt bored. I certainly wouldn't called "A.I." a classic or a masterpiece, but I think that it's definitely worth a look - except that it's not for kids. Although the lamely done advertisements make it look like a picture that's ok for kids, it's certainly not. |