Reviews

Don't waste your time. Honest.

French Stewart trying to play Daniel Stern's character, and no one trying to play Joe Pesci. Say no more.

SPOILER:

Grownup is locked in a basement by bad guys. Has cell phone. Does not call police. Don't just suspend disbelief, put it into orbit.

At the beginning of the film, we're asked if a human could be compelled to love a machine. The Professor Hobby character has the answer, but it raises (as so many things in this provocative film do) more questions.

Early in the film, Hobby's team presents him with candidate families for field testing David. The Swintons are singled out because of their biological son's tragic illness. Much later in the film, we learn David has been made in the image of Hobby's late son, also named David.

Now, the easy response would be to conclude Hobby's motivation was to "resurrect" his David. But if that were the case, Hobby would have had David "imprint" on himself. I think Hobby is a cold, calculating SOB, who wants to mass produce "David"s, but needed to prove the "imprinting" program worked. To that end, he picks a family that has lost a child, knowing David will be drawn into the void in their souls. Then, once David is abandoned, Hobby doesn't intervene to retrieve David, but manipulates the situation to allow David to further validate the programming.

For me, the most horrifying aspect of the film was the "5 year warranty" the mass produced David's were to be marketed with. You produce a being capable of "loving" and being loved, but without growth or free will, that will ultimately break down or have to be destroyed - because it loves only its master.

Joe Gigolo, and how he works in AI's plot, are the weakest link in the film. I was left with three unanswered questions:

1) Who (or what) does Joe work for? As a robot, Joe would not necessarily have a need for money himself. Who is profiting from his work, and making his "appointments"? If he is working independently, why? If he is capable of choosing to work on his own, doesn't that imply he has a free will?

2) What was to be gained by framing Joe for murder, and confronting him with the killer? It would only work if the murderer destroyed Joe as well. Presumably, there would be a way to access an android's memory and discern the truth of the matter. Just connecting the android with the corpse would not explain the murder.

3) Aside from a graphic description, what did Joe have to offer the young guys in the car in return for a lift to Rouge City? Money? No. Access? Seemed as if anyone could just drive in. Services? If Joe set something up, it was done offscreen. Information/directions? I would think three guys would already know how to find the place.

All this is saved by a memorable performance by Jude Law.

Much is made of the fact that this was a Stanley Kubrick project that ended up being a Steven Spielberg project, and that fans of each will be disappointed by the compromises made by the other. However, there is one element that I think Kubrick would have done differently, and the film is saved by excellent performances that save the change.

After David is abandoned, the movie suddenly shifts to Joe, the android gigolo. We learn why he does what he does, without having to get into too many details. Then, just as abruptly, Joe is apparently set up for murder, to place him in "big trouble" and oblige him to turn fugitive. All this is done to support his meeting up with David, and providing a motivation for him to help David.

I think it would have made more sense for the plot to go like this. We do not meet Joe until David meets him, while both are in the woods with the other fugitive androids. After Joe and David escape, David would learn about Joe's work first hand, because Joe would "work" to get them money and/or transport. This would likely have been a lot more graphic and disturbing, and would have pushed the movie into "R" territory.