You're not leaving this table, young man, until you finish your . . . oh, never mind.

Steven Spielberg's A.I.: Artificial Intelligence is a masterpiece. It's a beautiful, moving, horrifying, complex film, filled with exquisite moments and grand scenes. It's the exact opposite of the brainlessly convoluted and instantly forgettable fare we've seen so far this summer (see — or better yet, don't — Tomb Raider, Swordfish). A.I. is built around a simple plot but complicated, thought-provoking ideas. What makes us human? What is the nature of the parent/child relationship? What responsibility do we bear for the things that we create?

The story is set in a (hopefully) distant future where resources are scarce and sophisticated robots are used to fulfill a variety of needs, from factory work to sex. To keep population levels in check, procreation is strictly regulated. Robotics expert Professor Hobby (William Hurt) sees a potential market for artificial children and creates David (Haley Joel Osment), the first-of-a-kind robot boy who is capable of love.

That's the setup, and from there the film breaks down into three acts. The first places David with a family. The second sends him on a quest in a strange, confusing world. The third, well, the third should not be described. I will say this: When the second act ended I thought it was the end of the movie, and it seemed like a good ending to me. As it continued, I was certain I was going to hate it. I was wrong. The third act is simple and eloquent and ends with a quietly powerful image that I have been unable to shake. I expect that this is the section that will make or break the movie for the majority of viewers; you'll either love it or hate it.

Joe and David do Vegas.

Much has been written about the genesis of A.I. For those who don't know, it was a pet project of the late Stanley Kubrick, who nurtured the concept for years, discussing it frequently with his friend Steven Spielberg. Eventually, he concluded that Spielberg should be the one to direct it. Spielberg wrote and directed the film, based largely on their conversations and the notes and sketches his friend left behind. I can see evidence of Kubrick in the finished product along with moments that seem completely Spielbergian. (By the way, how cool would it be to have people use your name as an adjective?) The result is elegant and satisfying.

The special effects are incredible and used to great effect. A human actor's face opens up to reveal the mechanical workings inside. Robots in various stages of disrepair roam the countryside, scavenging for spare parts in order to fix themselves. In a haunting sequence, we see a submerged New York City, its familiar landmarks still recognizable. But as good as the effects are, they never distract from the story. Well, rarely. There are moments when you just have to say, "Wow, how'd they do that?"

A robot boy's best friend is his robot teddy bear. Oh, and his robot gigolo.

Osment gives an eerie, subtle performance. The characterization is fascinating; David is a complex character. He's a sweet and lovable boy, yet Spielberg and Osment never quite let us forget that he is programmed to be a sweet and lovable boy. There are moments when he seems completely human and others when we sense something a little off about him. Are David's emotions real? Certainly he thinks so, but the movie itself leaves it up to the viewers to debate and decide.

Acting props also have to go out to Jude Law who plays Gigolo Joe, a sexbot. With his Ken doll hair and cheeky attitude, he enlivens every scene he's in. Frances O'Connor, as David's human "mother" gives a credible performance, but seems a little young for the role. William Hurt is brilliant as the inventor, obsessed with his project, blind to its consequences.

I think A.I. is the best movie that Spielberg has ever made, and when I say that you should know that I'm a big fan of his work, both his "serious" films like Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan and his "popcorn" fare, like Jurassic Park and Jaws. (Why is it that so many people can't accept someone who does both?) It's not a perfect film; the second act is a bit uneven, careening from one lavish set piece to another, some of which wear out their welcome well before they end. But as a whole, he gets it so right. It's a beautifully crafted movie, a visual treat that will amaze you, challenge you and move you.

Gorilla Pants rating: 4 out of 4 bananas

Best time for a bathroom break: In Rouge City, our boys visit a guy named Dr. Know. This gets a bit long and you can probably afford to slip out.