Peter McGinn
Written on 5/8/2021
I bought this on DVD many years ago, convinced I had never seen it. I finally got around to watching it, and it wasn’t until I reached the robot demolition circus (words I bet I have never seen in the same sentence before) that I realized I had watched this movie before. That is a memorable sequence.
In many respects I thought the movie was well made: the special effects, the deep thinking behind the plot, and the writing was mostly good. It almost felt like it was covering too much ground, and I felt there were a few lapses. I will mention only one, and try not to give anything away. There is a pivotal scene where John Hurt’s character is with the AI child David. It took a lot of effort to get David there, so what does the guy do/ he leaves David alone and unchaperoned. And the end of the movie turns on that. Why would he wander off like that except to serve the plot?
Still, the film, mirroring and projecting the story of Pinocchio into the future, was quite an achievement. I liked it, but not as much as a lot of other Spielberg efforts.
Andre Gonzales
Written on 4/14/2023
The movie was actually pretty good. The ending sucked to me though.
CinemaSerf
Written on 11/28/2023
With their son "Martin" supposedly out for the count, "Henry" (Sam Robards) procures a solution for his wife "Monica" (Frances O'Connor) in the form of "David" (Haley Joel Osment). He is a state of the art android. Not robotic in function like previous models, but an adaptive model that can learn to love, to feel, to be... Initially very apprehensive, she gradually bonds with the curious and friendly young man just as readily as dad "Henry" starts not to. Then, re-enter "Martin" (Jake Thomas) who turns out to be a rather malevolent and jealous lad who, with his fellow human friends, contrives a scenario that results in "David" becoming abandoned with only his talking "Teddy" for company. Now "David" had learned of the famous "Blue Fairy" who could turn him into a real boy, so convinced that his mother would love him again, sets out to track it down at the end of the Earth. His adventures along the way are perilous, he meets some salvage hunters with an almost circus-like approach to recycling before alighting on "Gigolo Joe" (Jude Law). His name says it all, his job being to "pleasure" women who want something that bit special. The two share his quest as the latter is pursued by the authorities - but can "David" reach his holy grail? This is heavily based on the "Pinocchio" story and that gives it a solid, potent and dark bedrock for a story of wishing for the moon. Osment is super here as the vulnerable but determined and lost lad looking for a mother's love and affection. Law also reminds us why he was ever an A-lister with an almost Astaire-esque performance as the ostensible wastrel who has more substance to his character than we might expect. The last half hour takes it's time, that could do with being tightened up - but the whole gist of this story of being careful what you wish for is otherwise well balanced between the drama, the emotion, a bit of technology and some fun too. It takes a swipe at the temporary culture that has prevailed for generations and maybe just reminds us that if it seems to good to be true, then it almost certainly is. Looks great on a big screen and is Spielberg at his most sensitively imaginative.
badelf
Written on 6/24/2026
The coincidence of the release year matching 2001: A Space Odyssey feels almost too on-the-nose, especially given that this was originally Stanley Kubrick's project before his death, eventually passed to Steven Spielberg. One wonders if Kubrick would have brought the clarity of vision that this film desperately needed.
The screenplay wanders terribly, unable to decide what it wants to be or say. Is this a meditation on what it means to be human? A cautionary tale about creating beings capable of love we cannot return? A Pinocchio story? A post-apocalyptic fable? The film tries to be all of these at once and commits to none of them, meandering through tonal shifts and narrative detours without ever finding its center. It's quite possibly the worst Spielberg narrative I've encountered; he seems unsure whether to honor Kubrick's darker instincts or impose his own sentimentality, and the result splits the difference in the most unsatisfying way.
What saves the film from complete failure is Haley Joel Osment. Fresh off "I see dead people," Osment brings the same uncanny intensity to David, the cyber boy programmed to love. He's extraordinary, conveying both the artificiality of his programming and the genuine pathos of a being capable of devotion but not understanding why that devotion isn't enough. Watching Osment navigate David's incomprehension of abandonment is genuinely affecting; he makes you believe in the tragedy of a love that can never be reciprocated simply because it was manufactured.
The production values are consistently impressive; Spielberg's craft never falters even when his narrative does. The world-building is meticulous, the effects work holds up, and individual sequences display real visual imagination. But craft without coherent vision can only carry a film so far.
6/10: worth watching for Osment's performance and the technical achievement, but a frustrating reminder that even great filmmakers stumble when they can't find the story's heart.
