Quick Buzz Feed
He’s going to pull on your heartstrings to obfuscate from that all-important question: what is the definition of “real,” or to put it more directly, is endowed value real?
The article begins by reviewing the segment where David's "brother" awakens, initiating a period of sibling rivalry marked by various mishaps. A notable point of critique is the character of Teddy, an earlier AI model, who is portrayed as more sentient than David, the protagonist. The author finds this portrayal inconsistent with the narrative, as Teddy, despite being an older model, inexplicably grabs the mother's hair. This action is identified as a significant plot hole; if Teddy lacks genuine emotional investment in David, the action is illogical. Conversely, if Teddy *does* possess concern for David, the act of collecting hair for no apparent purpose after David's misbehavior and near-harm to Monica further undermines its supposed intelligence or intent, creating a confused character dynamic that strains believability within the story's established rules for its AI characters.
The review moves to analyze a pivotal and "contrived" pool scene during Martin's birthday celebration. When a boy attempts to test David's pain sensors with a cake spatula, David exhibits an entirely unjustified, "over-the-top" panic, despite being assured he wouldn't be harmed. This reaction is questioned, as a robot should logically process the lack of danger, while a "real boy" would likely avoid acting cowardly. David then "clearly jumps" (not falls) into the pool, inexplicably holding Martin, leading to Martin's near-drowning. The author highlights severe programming oversights: why would an android with consciousness not be programmed with the fundamental knowledge that humans cannot breathe underwater, and why wouldn't David release Martin when he began to struggle? This sequence is portrayed as a critical failure in logical storytelling and character consistency.
The immediate aftermath of the pool incident exacerbates the critique of David's character. Martin's near-drowning leads to the family's decision that David must be returned to the factory for destruction. However, David himself remains seemingly "totally unaware of his mistake," engaging in drawing "nice pictures for his mommy" without bothering to check on Martin's well-being. This portrayal, intended by Spielberg to evoke innocence and sympathy, is instead seen by the author as indicating David's "dense" nature, undermining his sympathetic status. Consequently, Monica, despite knowing David's fate at the factory, finds herself unable to complete the journey, setting the stage for the next dramatic development – her decision to abandon him in the forest.
The scene where Monica abandons David and Teddy in the forest, though emotionally performed by the actors, is heavily criticized for its lack of believability due to a severe "escalation issue." The author argues that multiple less drastic alternatives should have been explored before resorting to abandonment. These could include taking David back to the factory for the installation of safety features, or attempting to reassign him to another couple with an override of his imprinting programming. The narrative's abrupt transition from a happy family dynamic to the abandonment of a child within a few days is deemed unrealistic. Even Monica and her husband's prior arguments about David's danger (after a "scissors incident") are considered insufficient to justify such a swift and extreme measure without intermediate steps, especially before the pool party incident.
The article concludes by identifying the fundamental flaw in Spielberg's approach to "A.I. Artificial Intelligence": the director has "written himself into a corner" by attempting to portray David as both inherently human and purely robotic whenever the plot demands. Similarly, Monica is simultaneously positioned as a sympathetic figure, justifying David's quest for "realness," while also embodying the human world's ultimate rejection of AI. The author identifies the film's central "bait-and-switch" as diverting from the philosophical question "can robots love?" to the more cynical "humans will never love them back." This narrative strategy, according to the review, employs emotional manipulation to "obfuscate" the deeper, more important philosophical question: "what is the definition of 'real,' or to put it more directly, is endowed value real?" This core philosophical inquiry will be further explored in the subsequent review, signaling a sustained critique of the film's thematic depth.