MOVIE REVIEWS A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)

• Directed by Steven Spielberg
• complete credits: see IMDb entry

• Review

Buy Related - amazon.com  DVD · VHS · Score

Nice Try? No, Not Nice At All.

Rating: 2 of 10        

It's been over two months since my last movie review, yet that doesn't mean I wouldn't have watched any movies in the meantime. On the contrary. Why I chose 'A.I.' to resume writing reviews, I don't quite know. Maybe it bugs me. It's always best to write about something that bugs you, that makes it personal, makes it real, makes it less abstract, less forced. And do believe it, this film does bug me. Big time.

I sort of like Kubrick's style. I was entirely blown away by 'Eyes Wide Shut', 'The Shining' was breathtaking, and '2001: A Space Odyssey' had a great sense of vision and atmosphere. Still, from an artistic perspective, I prefer David Lynch. Anyway. 'A.I.' was supposed to be Kubrick's legacy, handed over to Steven Spielberg. Spielberg is a solid director, he's entertaining, he's able to bring in the crowd, he's inventive, somehow, and one of the big players in L.A., and Dreamworks SKG, the studio owned by him, Katzenberg and Geffen, has produced lots of great films, and has been very lucky on almost all counts. Yet Spielberg, sadly, is no Kubrick.

When I think about what this movie is, the word "hybrid" comes to mind. This is a crossing between a Kubrick movie and a Spielberg movie. In genetics, or transplant surgery, some things don't mix. If you do mix them, it could be fatal. Well, no one dies from hybridization in movies. Except, of course, artistry. Spielberg proves he's watched Kubrick's films, he also proves that he's able to imitate certain portions of Kubrick's style, mostly sets and the way scenes unfold. Yet that ain't everything. There's more to Kubrick than a specific way to direct a camera lense. If this is supposed to be an execution of a Kubrick project, it's just that, only in the negative sense: Kubrick's vision is ridiculed by this shallow attempt.

Let's start this from the Kubrick angle first. Of course, Spielberg's first choice for the music is always John Williams. That's a mistake Kubrick probably wouldn't have made. It's not that I don't like Williams' music, it's just that he starts to become repetitive and derivative of himself. He's not original any more. Kubrick, like Oliver Stone also, would probably have preferred a more twisted musical collage, like in other films of his. The Williams soundtrack makes the movie soft, friendly, kind. Since when do these attributes fit a Kubrick film? The story is told in an extremely straight way, the cuts are brutal, the transitions utmost primitive. This is a benign fairy tale - a watered-down version of Pinocchio, a story told over and over again. Kubrick has never been benign. He has been brutal, obnoxious, disturbing, shocking, sarcastic. But benign? This is no hommage to Kubrick, it's a bad film interspersed with obvious rip-offs from Kubrick's visual style, always providing a feeling of "almost-if", yet never a true sense of its own. Kubrick's vision is only executed to a certain point, to an invisible line, a line Spielberg doesn't seem willing to cross. That's not only annoying, it's sad - because somehow I believe Spielberg would be able to do more, he always seems to be holding back. (But maybe that's just my always trying to approach everything from a more benevolent angle?)

The story is not only old, it has been told over and over again. I don't just have to refer to last year's 'Bicentennial Man', a movie I consider to be much better than 'A.I.', not because it would be especially artistic, but because it's honest and not that preposterous. Beside that recent film, science fiction, most prominently Star Trek, especially The Next Generation and Voyager, have always been dealing with the topic of artificial life, treating the issue much more exhaustively and much gentler than this movie. There's also 'Blade Runner', and even Shatner's so-so TekWar series of course. In such a company, a new android movie would have to seriously counter redundancy by being original, fresh and new (and post-modern, whatever that means). Spielberg seems to try to draw his film's momentum from Kubrick's and his own name; yet that's not enough.

He tries to deliver a "message", to discuss a certain "issue". He already did that in 'Schindler's List', as well as in 'Saving Private Ryan', pure issue-oriented movies, the first counting among his better films, the latter among his worst. An issue doesn't make a film. Just because the issue is important, the film about the issue needn't be important. Criticizing a bad movie with an important issue doesn't mean to devalue the issue. If you can't present the issue in an adequate artistic way, write a paper or an essay about it. Everything else would feel preachy and didactic. Do a documentary. But don't sell this as an important and good film, it isn't, it's derivative, boring, tedious and superfluous.

There are some good things in this film too, like Haley Joel Osment and Jude Law. And Teddy. Teddy's great. But it's a toy Spielberg seems to like playing with. That makes Teddy obnoxious again. Forget Teddy then. Let's leave it with Osment and Law. That's it.

One quasi-final thought about the kitsch factor. I'm pretty resistant when it comes to kitsch, and I can tolerate a lot. I like stupid romantic comedies. I like Star Trek though it is kitschy in every single aspect of its persistant benevolence, kitschy in such a way that it does indeed work, that it does make you believe in a better world. Lynch and Kubrick also seem to adore kitsch, Lynch especially. Lynch can be brutal, bloody and nasty, but when it comes to love, he's the master of kitsch. But with all those examples, Trek, Kubrick, Lynch, the kitsch factor has a point, has a meaning. It's mostly set up as a contrast to a greater darkness, under which conditions kitsch would be the only thing to let you get going, it's like believing that Buffy and Angel will be together in the end. That's what guides you through all the pain and suffering. Yet in 'A.I.', the kitsch is just self-serving B.S., watering down an already watery story till it freezes and stops moving. Literally. Frozen kitsch, like a kitsch-popsicle.

Well, I guess I've got to stop right here, otherwise I'd be getting mean. Wouldn't want that, not with a movie that bugs me as extremely as this one. Well, at least it's not 'Episode One'. But close. Just forget this artificial movie. Contrary to its protagonist, it has absolutely no life, neither intelligence. Yet who am I to bash this film, maybe the Academy will provide it with some ill-deserved Awards next year... Poor Kubrick, you definitely didn't deserve this.

September 29th, 2001