Review of A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001) by Harpreet S — 20 Feb 2013

You can always count on Steven Spielberg to mishandle an immensely rich agenda. He did it with "E.T.," who Satyajit Ray quotes: "would not have been possible without my script of The Alien being available throughout America in mimeographed copies," and he does it with "A.

I. Artificial Intelligence," which was first Stanley Kubrick's project. Both films if had succeeded by their original directors would unquestionably been superior to Spielberg's. Moving on: I have said before that Spielberg is a very talented director in terms of framing a shot, "A.

I." is about a childlike android with the ability to love, and Spielberg and his cinematographer organize some miraculous images involving the robot David (Haley Joel Osment); when he is shown through a glass door, through a round ceiling tube light, through the side rear-view mirror, under water, or when his "Mommy" is preparing coffee.

Technically he is good as a storyteller, but I am displeased with how he tells it, if that makes any sense. It's not a question of what he is doing with a character, but how he does it. There aren't any glaring flaws from shot to shot, from dialogue to dialogue.

He simply almost never offers the viewer anything new regarding plot or character development. The first fifty-two minutes only have minor flaws; since the couple's biological child is unwell, Henry Swinton (the father, one of the employees of Cybertronics) brings in David for his wife Monica to fill in as a substitute son.

I won't go in to much detail, but I think there is a contradiction; even though the father brings in David enthusiastically he actually is mistrustful of him, considers him a toy, while the mother comes to admire him, as expected.

I did not like the performances of the actors who play the couple nor did I like the performance of their biological son, to me they are phonies. Osment as David is mostly wonderful, at times over-sentimental but that's Spielberg's fault.

I was entirely convinced of his love for his mother once she activates him. The reason this film is an average or above picture is because once we are introduced to Jude Law the whole film departs from the first fifty minutes or so.

The pacing, atmosphere, mood or whatever you want to call it conflicts with the early scenes. Spielberg uses his usual tactics of showboating; the adventure that David goes on is a lesser combination of Power Rangers and Big Bad Beatleborgs.

Jude Law, David, and Teddy all become annoying and frustrating during this tenure. Only in the final fifteen minutes does the film return to its original mood, which means an hour could have easily been removed, it wasn't needed.

It's as if you are watching a different movie. Yes, it's spectacular to look at; I was incredibly impressed with the special effects used to showcase specific locations and other androids. Having said that, there was no need, the film's only concern should have been David and his relationship with Monica, it would have been better off if it was restrained and not of flamboyance.

I also did not buy in to the philosophy of the scientists in the beginning, it seemed a lot of mumbo-jumbo to me. I will give the film and the director credit for taking a gamble in the last half hour involving the Blue Fairy; it certainly has singular traits, something I haven't seen before.

Maybe it's supposed to be a science-fiction fairy tale; I would still argue that what happens before does not do justice to this idea. I viewed "A.I." twice, it could have been as good as "Close Encounters of the Third Kind," but doesn't achieve.

Steven Spielberg might be the most overpraised director of all time; I don't even find his films excessively entertaining. He has so much talent, and so many different stories at hand, but little worth to show for it excluding the $3.

2 billion wealth.