Derek Flint and SF write two completely spoiler free reviews of A.I.!!!!!

Hey folks, Harry here... Here are two... COMPLETELY SPOILER FREE REVIEWS... the first comes from our man Derek Flint, who has reviewed many films on this site in the past.... and comes through here with the most extensive reaction to A.I. yet. The result... A review that gets me so incredibly jazzed for this film I don't think many will understand why... Flint is grappling with ideas, still swirling the film on his tongue, not sure if he likes the ending or not, unsure if it is that perfect Spielberg note... a bit confused at times... But consumately held by the film. Entranced from beginning to end. THIS IS KUBRICK. In the excellent Jan Harlan documentary that is part of the new Kubrick Box Set, Woody Allen talks about seeing 2001 when it came out and thinking it was an extreme disappointment. He saw it again that year... and was still disappointed. 2 years goes by and he gives it another shot and suddenly for the first time in his life, he realized that the movie was dealing with issues that 2 years prior he was not ready to comprehend... that the movie was ahead of himself. But that upon that viewing he finally saw the film as being the masterpiece that it was.... From the sound of Derek's review... it seems he's in a similar struggle... will you? Will I? Will we pan the film... or give it so-so reviews now, only to see it two years down the road and realize that we were not where Kubrick and Spielberg were... this year, last year, 5 years, 9 years ago? Could be.... But it is that potential... that question that thrills me to the core. Here's Derek Flint and SF.... both wrote COMPLETELY SPOILER FREE REVIEWS!!!!

Hey Harry, one of your favorite spies infiltrated a press junket screening of Steven Spielberg's "A.I."

Apparently, the journalists and critics have been sworn to secrecy as far as their opinions until closer to the actual opening of the film ... but I have no oath to uphold, so I'll share my thoughts without ruining the experience for anyone.

I'd say the film played well for those who were in attendance, although there was no applause at the end which may have been keeping in line with Stanley Kubrick films over the ones Spielberg usually fosters.

It was clear that the viewers respected this movie, even those who didn't openly embrace "A.I." acknowledged that this is clearly not the usual summer fare, nor the typical Spielberg fable. I was able to overhear many comments attesting to this afterwards, including a prominent reviewer from one of the trades who will clearly be giving the film an unequivocal four star rave. He seemed to imply that this was the best thing Spielberg has ever done. (For me, that remains "Close Encounters.")

Spielberg is well known for his ability to manipulate emotions, occasionally drifting into the undesirable effect of treacle. For those who worried that the trailers and ad lines for "A.I." looked like they were leaning far too much on the sentimental side that we've come to expect from a child themed Spielberg flick, rest assured ... this film is in keeping with Kubrick's rather phlegmatic storytelling. It is often muted and chilly. It doesn't feature the "A.E." of "Always" and "Hook," which I'd dubbed "Artificial Emotion."

Although the story will no doubt be recounted by other reviews, justly warning you of spoilers, it doesn't feel right telling much detail surrounding the plot of "A.I." because I found the movie entirely unpredictable at every turn (that includes the time frame of the story and the way it travels forward). Considering the movies we'll be forced to endure this summer, that alone is reason to recommend it.

However, my biggest issue has to do with the script for "A.I." and in particular the third act and resolution ... or rather, lack of it.

The term unsatisfying comes to mind, but I'm forced to wonder if that comes from my expectation of Spielberg's influence over this story. I would have preferred to have a Spielberg ending rather than what I witnessed, even if it were keeping within the late S.K.'s wishes.

Many have said that "A.I." merely looks like a futuristic "Pinocchio" tale, and I was quite taken aback how literally that analogy is made throughout the film using the actual story itself. It felt far too obvious to have "Pinocchio" so constantly prevalent, and I wonder whether Kubrick himself would have pounded the point home as blatantly as done here. Personally, I think not.

Haley Joel Osment's haunted quality is used to excellent effect, but I never felt that any of the other characters were given enough screen time for my satisfaction. Jude Law as a "Mecha" who services women as a galactic gigolo is a fascinating presence, but there's not enough of him and I wasn't happy with his character's eventual disappearance in the plot.

Frances O' Connor and the stunning Ashley Scott also make strong impressions as performers, but their characters are not serviced by this story. In keeping with the tradition of Kubrick's visions ... ideas are often the true stars.

I'm still thinking about "A.I." and wish to see it again, and I suppose that's enough to label it a success. For the first time in a Steven Spielberg & John Williams collaboration, the music didn't overtly call attention to itself. Spielberg tried to channel a great filmmaker before, aping David Lean in the misguided "Empire of the Sun." In that film, visuals dominated and overwhelmed a narrative that got lost somewhere within the storyboarding.

That is not the case here, as Spielberg firmly commands the screen at the height of his powers, amazingly able to invoke Kubrick's touch throughout in framing and shot composition, as well as the way the late master would hold for protracted periods on certain reactions.

Still, I wish Spielberg had drawn on some of his personal strengths in the nontechnical areas. It's clear he's trying to honor Kubrick's vision, but I got the odd feeling that Spielberg was trying to reach for the sort of ambiguity in the finale that made Kubrick's art a must for repeated viewings and debate.

Here, I don't feel that there will be as much discussion as disappointment.

The most mesmerizing and wonderful character in the piece is Teddy, by far. The character plays an essential role and is so very memorable. There are also images of the future that are still staying with me, especially relevant with George W. Bush presently in office who thinks global warming isn't a threat and could be stopped by ceiling fans.

The fact that I'm still thinking about "A.I." is a good thing, and while many might contest that I haven't said much about the film, these are the only thoughts I can safely convey without giving much away.

This is a film that everyone will see, and should ... but right now my chief intention before revisiting "A.I." is to read the original material that it was based upon.

While many read the short story that "2001" was culled from in an effort to get insight into what the film's meaning was, I'm more interesting in reading Brian Aldiss' "Supertoys Last All Summer Long" to see how that piece resolved itself. I'm still waiting and wanting an ending from "A.I."

Still, I highly recommend "A.I." despite my problems with the screenplay. It honors Kubrick's memory in a much better fashion than "Eyes Wide Shut" and I'm grateful Spielberg made it. He's truly paid homage to the late Stanley Kubrick, without falling prey to self aggrandizing, but when you think of the endings of "Jaws" and "Close Encounters"... it does make me yearn for a third act that was cut from Spielberg's cloth, not anyone else's.

Your man,

Derek Flint