"AI" was supposed to be a Stanley Kubrick project at one time. Kubrick believed that the film would take 10 years to make and would require NASA to build a real robotic child because no actor could ever realistically play a robot the way he wanted. Unfortunately, Kubrick died. Kubrick's friend Steven Spielberg said that he would take over the project. Too bad the the film is only good, it could have been a great film to honor Kubrick's legacy.

Okay, now that's out of the way: "AI" is not a bad film, it just does not live up to my expectations. It's a unique premise: a retelling of Pinocchio with a robotic kid. The film just feels heartless and flat.

The only thing that keeps it from having a lower grade is the acting. There is no need for a real robotic child when you have Hailey Joel Osment. He's wonderful as the kid. Note that you never see him blink throughout the course of the movie. Even better is Jude Law, one of the greatest actors of the new generation. These two make the film worth watching.

Also worthy of note is the set design and visual effects. Both are very Kubrickian in design and while the tone is pure Spielberg, it certainly looks like a Kubrick film.

© Written by Jacob Hall

How We Rated This Film TC Candler - A- Richard Propes - B Jacob Hall - B

TC Candler's Comment

A bleak futuristic tale that is so complexly Kubrickian that it is very hard to describe. The basic story tells the tale of an artificial boy (Osment) who is adopted by a young couple that recently lost their own 'real' child. We watch as they try to adjust to the boy and as he tries to adjust to them. The boy finds a desire to want to be more human, mimicking and learning everything he can. Eventually his parents abandon him and he dedicates everything he has to finding his mother.

Is it real love? Does he really feel? Is he just programmed to do what he does? Lots of questions are posed in this epic story, but whether they are answered is debatable.

I cannot decide which of the two endings I like. What do I mean? Well, there is a point, about thirty minutes before the film ends, where I thought the film was actually over... I was preparing to stand up and leave the theatre. It is actually a dummy ending. I think Spielberg put it in as a tribute to Stanley Kubrick, the man who pioneered the plight to get this film made. Spielberg took over after Kubrick's death and I feel that he put this dummy ending in because he felt that is where Stanley Kubrick would have left it. The final thirty minutes are truly Spielberg's... you will see what I mean. I am not sure which is better, but it sure makes for good debates and interesting arguments.

Richard Propes' Comment

Am I just not intelligent to truly get this film? Entirely possible. I depend on TC or Jacob to handle the really smart stuff...hey, I'm the touchy/feely critic. I enjoyed this film the second time I watched it, but I still feel like I'm missing something. Still, I can't deny it's a darn fine film.