“A.I.” was a project that the late director Stanley Kubrick had developed for many years. He couldn’t solve the problems of the script (inspired by a short story by Brian Aldiss) and set it aside to make “Eyes Wide Shut.” He was to come back to “A.I.” afterwards, but died in March of 1999.
Reportedly he was eager to have Steven Spielberg take over the project, thinking that the “Pinnochio”-like story might better suit him. That Kubrick, a filmmaker whose achievements tower above Spielberg and other contemporary directors, couldn’t make “A.I.” might have stopped most people from pressing on. Not Spielberg. Writing the script himself, the director has achieved an overlong film unlikely to satisfy anyone, and which stands with “1941” and “Hook” as one of his most conspicuous failures.
The story is set some time in the future, where humanoid robots are commonplace. Professor Hobby (William Hurt) proposes that they create a robot that can experience emotions. The result is David (Haley Joel Osment), a child-robot who bonds with Monica Swinton (Frances O’Connor), a bereaved woman whose real son is in a coma.
The early portion of the film is Spielberg attempting, and failing, to imitate Kubrick. For all the cold interiors and fantastic designs, one can’t imagine Kubrick doing the long opening scene in which Hobby tells his colleagues things they already know so that we in the audience can be brought up to speed.
Then the film goes off into a bizarre new direction. Monica abandons David who is forced to survive on his own, and discovers there are people who enjoy torturing and “murdering” robots. (These scenes, which seem out of a “Mad Max” movie, are not for young children.) He is befriended by a robot gigolo (Jude Law) and they begin a search for a way to turn David into a real boy. Only then, he believes, can he return home and have his “mother” love him again.
The final portion of the film, not to be revealed here, represents Spielberg at his maudlin worse. In movies like “2001” and “A Clockwork Orange,” Kubrick explored how mankind’s best plans have unexpected consequences. Spielberg, on the other hand, is filled with sunny optimism and Disneyfied happy endings. Even when a subtle note is required, as in “Schindler’s List” or “Saving Private Ryan,” Spielberg treats the audience like children who need to be told how to feel and react. Spielberg’s fans will end up being baffled by the bizarre, downbeat ending no matter how much the film tells us we ought to be happy about it.
As for the performances, the less said the better. O’Connor probably comes off best because she’s given a range to play. Jude Law is embarrassing as the sex doll for hire, while Hurt’s avuncular professor is spared much screentime. As for Osment, the star of “Sixth Sense” has many fans who will no doubt enjoy his robotic portrayal here, but this is an actor who has long run out of things to do. If he wants to pursue an acting career he should retire from the screen for a few years and grow up a bit.
In spite of some interesting special effects and scenic design, “A.I.” is a movie unlikely to satisfy most moviegoers. It turns out that Kubrick was right. The problems this story presented couldn’t be solved after all.