Quick Buzz Feed
Spielberg fails to understand that obsession is not love, and if David were really human, he would know that.
The review critiques the film "A.I.: Artificial Intelligence," focusing on the inexplicable plot point where David, the most advanced robot, remains trapped under a Ferris wheel for 2,000 years underwater. The author finds it highly unbelievable that humanity, despite its technological advancements, would fail to locate or retrieve such a valuable machine from a flooded city. Furthermore, Spielberg's depiction of the blue fairy as an obvious allegory for God is criticized as heavy-handed and pretentious, suggesting a deliberate attempt to mock religious belief by equating God with a children's fairy tale. This contrivance, along with the protracted abandonment, severely strains the audience's suspension of disbelief early in the film's concluding segment.
The narrative leaps forward 2,000 years to introduce mysterious beings who discover David encased in ice. While Steven Spielberg clarifies these are advanced robots, the reviewer strongly contends they are visually and functionally portrayed as aliens. These entities, affectionately dubbed "Glitter Bots" by the author due to their sparkling appearance and telepathic-like abilities, further challenge the film's internal consistency. The review acknowledges that if they are indeed robots, as originally conceived by Kubrick, their interaction with David, the sole 'human-like' entity of his era, would align thematically with the film's exploration of what it means to be "real" in a world of artificial intelligence. However, the film's execution undermines this subtle distinction, making them appear overtly extraterrestrial.
A pivotal moment occurs when David touches the statue of the blue fairy, which shatters without clear narrative justification. The reviewer interprets this destruction as a profound statement by Spielberg, suggesting two possible allegories: either advanced technology renders the concept of God obsolete, or humanity's encounter with its "makers" (the Glitter Bots/aliens) negates the need for divine belief. This interpretation is reinforced by Spielberg's known fascination with aliens and parallels drawn to Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey," where protagonist Dave Bowman transcends into a "Space Baby" after encountering aliens. The article argues that the film uses this transcendence to suggest that realizing there's "nothing to transcend to" is the ultimate reality, leading to a circular and confusing philosophical argument about the nature of "realness" that the author finds unsatisfactory.
The Glitter Bots, after "acting as God," grant David a dream-like 24-hour reunion with a temporary clone of his mother, created from a preserved hair strand. The reviewer lambasts this sequence as "creepy" and visually akin to a "bad commercial from the Nineties," criticizing Spielberg for attempting to portray David's deep, unwavering attachment as love rather than an unsettling obsession. David's innocent yet disturbing drawing of Rogue City architecture, a place associated with prostitution, further emphasizes this blurred line between affection and unhealthy fixation. The article asserts that if David were truly human, he would distinguish between love and obsession, highlighting a fundamental flaw in the character's development and the film's central message. The narrative concludes with David's mother's "death" and David's apparent contentment, a resolution the reviewer finds unsatisfying and emotionally hollow.
The reviewer strongly dismisses "A.I.: Artificial Intelligence" as an "obnoxious" and "boring and pretentious" film, advising readers against watching it. He criticizes its narrative as filled with contradictory ideas and manipulative storytelling devices that offer no genuine depth upon closer inspection. The author concludes by outlining his intention for the subsequent review, which will directly challenge the film and short story's overarching philosophical thesis: "Nobody knows what 'real' really means." He plans to demonstrate how the film inadvertently undermines its own premise, using its internal inconsistencies to construct a counter-argument about the definability of "real."