"Where Movie Critics Get A Taste Of Their Own Medicine!"
|
|
Does "A.I." stand for authentic idiocy?
by Herb Kane
July 16, 2001
out
of 4 stars (PG-13)
CRITIC DOCTOR EXAMINES: Roger Ebert (Chicago Sun-Times), Dr J. (Dr J At The Movies), Susan Granger (SusanGranger.com), Adam J. Hakari (ajhakari.com), Susan Stark (Detroit News), Matt Easterbrook (home.istar.ca/~matte/ai.htm), James Berardinelli (reelviews.net), Chris Gore (filmthreat.com), John Anderson (Newsday.com), David Forsmark (Credo)
The trailer for "(A.I.) Artificial Intelligence"
looked interesting. Even more intriguing is that Steven Spielberg
was handed this project from the late Stanley Kubrick, director
of "2001: A Space Odyssey." "A.I." may have
origins from two popular Hollywood directors, but was it a good
film?
"A.I." is a movie about a small boy named David (Haley
Joel Osment). David is a Mecha - or in simple terms a machine.
This life-like kid was created by Professor Hobby (William Hurt)
and was the first to be programmed to love human parents. It won't
take programming to get the audience and critics to love Osment's
performance.
Unfortunately, even Osment couldn't save this boring, weird film.
It's hard to buy into the idea of artificial intelligence. As
I stated in my review of "Bicentennial
Man," a better story would be about a human turning into
a machine - then we might care about the character. I'd rather
watch a high-tech remake of "The Six Million Dollar Man"
than a 90 million dollar story about a machine trying to become
human. "A.I." should really stand for "Authentic
Idiocy."
Matt Easterbrook (home.istar.ca/~matte/ai.htm) said,
"In spite (or maybe because) of its schizophrenic nature,
I thought 'A.I.' didn't suck." Well, it did suck, Matt. Even
the critics themselves appear schizophrenic. Many negative reviews
of the film were given high ratings (3 stars or the equivalent
thereof). You'd almost think Mecha movie critics (programmed to
love this film) issued the star ratings!
Roger Ebert gave it 3 stars (out of 4) and said the film
"miscalculates," "misses the real story,"
"is a failure to really engage the ideas that it introduces"
and "has mastered the artificial and not the intelligence."
James Berardinelli (reelviews.net) gave the movie 3 stars
(out of 4) and said "A.I." is "something of a disappointment,"
"disjointed and uneven," "suffers from a case of
split personality, can't seem to make up its mind," has "underdeveloped
potential and truncated subplots," and "plot threads
are dropped at an alarming rate."
Berardinelli also said, "Spielberg attempts too much
with 'A.I.' To some degree, by trying to tackle all of these issues,
he fails to effectively present any of them."
For the love of God, Berardinelli! Which one of you wrote
the review? Jekyll or Hyde? How can a star rating be so out of
sync with the content of a review? What is it about "A.I."
that critics cannot award a rating that matches their negative
review?
Chris Gore (filmthreat.com) wrote a mostly "positive"
review of the movie and said, "Though the film is far from
perfect, (mainly Spielberg's clunky writing and that final third),
merely the attempt to explore true science fiction themes makes
'A.I.' admirable."
Maybe that's it! Are critics rating the "idea" - the
attempt to create true Sci-Fi? Still - that doesn't make a bad
film good. It appears critics are trying to be honest - pointing
out both "positives" and "negatives." But
something is holding them back from giving an accurate rating
that matches their review. Essentially, they're saying, "Crappy
film equals 3 stars out of 4." Give me a break!
John Anderson (Newsday.com) said about "A.I.,"
"Add or subtract stars at your pleasure. And the four stars
accompanying this review aren't really a testament to anything
but how frivolous and arbitrary assigning stars to movies is."
Frivolous? Arbitrary? If you're just going to pick stars at random
because they are of little importance, John, then drop your rating
system!
Maybe some critics refuse to give "A.I." a low rating
because of Stanley Kubrick. Dare we step on this man's toes when
they are now buried 6 feet under? Kubrick himself may be somewhere
thinking, "The film sucked! Why didn't I make it when I was
alive!"
The fact is - Spielberg made it. Imagine how difficult it must
have been to try and direct a movie with a dead person. I say
this respectfully. Spielberg obviously did this in honor of Kubrick.
But the two directors are very different artists. It's no wonder
terms like "schizophrenic," "uneven" and "split
personality" surfaced in reviews.
David Forsmark (Credo) summed the movie up best: "Tack
on the most arbitrary, ponderous, and pretentious coda in recent
memory, and 'A.I.' will have you leaving the theater shaking your
head in disbelief. Despite the critics' fawning, look for bad
word of mouth to sink 'A.I' pretty quickly."
"A.I" may have attempted to explore true science fiction,
but an "attempt" doesn't make a bad movie good. Nor
does it qualify a negative written review to award the film 3
stars (or the equivalent).
I liked the intelligent reviews, but not the artificial ratings.
--CRITIC DOCTOR
© Copyright 2001 by Herb Kane
All rights reserved.
www.criticdoctor.com
|
|
CAST:
David: Haley Joel Osment
Gigolo Joe: Jude Law
Prof. Hobby: William Hurt
Monica Swinton: Frances O'Connor
Henry Swinton: Sam Robards
Lord Johnson-Johnson: Brendan Gleeson
DIRECTOR: Steven Spielberg
PRODUCERS: Bonnie Curtis, Kathleen Kennedy, Steven Spielberg
SCREENPLAY: Steven Spielberg, based on the screen story
by Ian Watson, suggested by "Supertoys Last All Summer Long"
by Brian Aldiss
U.S. DISTRIBUTOR: Warner Brothers
RELEASE DATE: 06.29.2001
RUNNING TIME: 145 minutes
MPAA Rating: PG-13 (profanity, sexual situations)
|
|