A.I. breaks rules but achieves impact

What kind of movie is A.I.?

A strange movie, a confusing movie, and ultimately, a good one. I had a hard time arriving
at that last conclusion, because it seems to break all the rules for what makes a good
movie. (I hate the fact that I am the kind of person who sets up rules for what makes a
good movie, but there is no point denying that I am that kind of person).

According to the rules, which is to say according to me, voice-over narration is bad, and
the sign of sloppy filmmaking. Exposition presented as dialogue is bad, particularly when
it's presented at the beginning of the film -- it suggests the director prefers to tell us about
what is going on, rather than show us, which is by definition what directors do. Movies in
which characters do not change significantly are very, very bad.

Except that some characters did change, or at least show some evidence of growth:
Gigolo Joe, for example (for which Jude Law should receive a Best Supporting Actor
nomination) and the animated Teddy. Ordinarily, I'd take exception to a film in which only
two characters manifested any kind of change, but I have the feeling that Spielberg,
while channeling Stanley Kubrick, might be on to something here.

The film centers around David, played surprisingly well by Haley Joel Osment, who is
supposed to be the first "robot child" capable of experiencing love. Love, as most of us
find out (and the movie makes abundantly clear) is perhaps the most painful of all
experiences, and this is where the movie hits home, asking questions about what love is
and whether, in the end, it's worth all the fuss.

Can a machine -- even one as complex as David -- experience love? Does love retard
personal growth (David, unlike Joe and Teddy, remains more or less the same character
throughout a looong movie). Is the capacity for love the greatest of human achievements
or the flaw that will ultimately doom the race?

Heady stuff, and to his credit, Spielberg doesn't shy away from it. At the same time, he
makes us care about these characters (or some of them, anyway). Say what you will
about the man, he's always at his best when investing seemingly unlikable characters with
emotional appeal. This was no Matrix -- I felt this movie, rather than thought about it.

It's also nice to see some real science fiction on the screen, rather than just things blowing
up in space, in time, in a jungle, etc. That's not to say I won't be seeing Jurassic Park III
(is that really the best name they could come up with?) anytime soon, but I knew I had to
see this one first.