Ex Machina trailer looks interesting

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by norman_frappe, Nov 9, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. tommy-thewho

    tommy-thewho Senior Member

    Location:
    detroit, mi
    Saw it yesterday and loved it.

    Girl kept reminding me of young Natalie Portman..
     
    Scott Wheeler likes this.
  2. Watched it over the weekend. I figured the theater would be less crowded due to Age of Ultron opening. I was right - I think we counted 7 people in the theater. We went to a mid afternoon showing at a local multiplex that we had never been to before. Decent screen, picture and sound - nothing to brag about. It was interesting to see the "Sony 4k" reference at the beginning.

    Was it great? No, but it was pretty good. I took away a different impression than that reflected by the earlier commentary, but I don't want to get into spoilers at this point. I think that it is a movie that should be seen twice (I will wait till it hits Cable for my second viewing). After the (to me, at least) key point is made, earlier scenes take on a different meaning and importance. I would like to watch it with the understanding you gain at the end of the movie to see if any of it is hinted at clearly, or if the acting is (intentionally - she is a robot after all) so wooden that it's not there.
     
  3. johnnyyen

    johnnyyen Senior Member

    Location:
    Scotland
    Well, the seven people who did turn up, saw a masterpiece.
     
  4. robertawillisjr

    robertawillisjr Music Lover

    Location:
    Hampton, VA
    Not to thread crap, but that was my thought when first viewing "Blade Runner" when it was first released, there were about five people at that showing. If it is still in theaters, I will see "Ex Machina" later this week.
     
    wayneklein and johnnyyen like this.
  5. Solaris

    Solaris a bullet in flight

    Location:
    New Orleans, LA
    I saw it yesterday and really enjoyed it, and I agree that it's worth two viewings. It plays with expectations throughout so that you're not sure who to root for, it doesn't have a cop-out ending, the writing is smart, and the acting is very good by the three principals. There's an obvious point or two regarding the Ava character that should have been addressed in the discussions Nathan and Caleb had:

    The robot makes noise when she moves, and is very wooden personality-wise. The assistant Asian robot doesn't make these sounds, thus not giving her away until she reveals herself later. Were these things intentional, or is this just a big of sloppy storytelling?

    This doesn't ruin the film, just a minor point. Of larger concern is the damsel-in-distress thread that Chad cites above, and a creeping sexism that keeps the film from being as smart as it could be. I do want to watch it again, though, to see if some of the things I see on the surface aren't undercut by more subtle gestures.
     
  6. progrocker71

    progrocker71 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Los Angeles
    I think people seeing a "damsel in distress" element to this film are misunderstanding the intent.
     
    Solaris likes this.
  7. Taxman

    Taxman Senior Member

    Location:
    Fayetteville, NY
    Four of us saw it and gave it a big thumbs up. Hours later, we were still talking about it.
     
  8. Bryan

    Bryan Starman Jr.

    Location:
    Berkeley, CA
    Without spoiling too much, I think the ending pretty well rebuts this. I think the song choice for the end credits ("Husbands" by the all-girl band Savages) drives it home as well.

    Don't get me wrong, there was creeping sexism in the film, but I don't think it was endorsed. It was simply a character flaw.
     
    RexKramer, Solaris and johnnyyen like this.
  9. progrocker71

    progrocker71 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Exactly, on all points.
     
  10. Bryan

    Bryan Starman Jr.

    Location:
    Berkeley, CA
    I thought it was good, but maybe not great. It was an enjoyable, intelligent science-fiction film, which we need more of.

    There were a couple of leaps of logic in the film that you kind of just had to accept and run with if you wanted to enjoy it, the biggest one being that a lone computer programmer (Nathan) could create Ava entirely by himself. I'm sorry, he could be a coding genius, but that doesn't mean he would have the slightest clue about mechanical engineering and the other physical aspects of Ava's creation. There are other things one could nit pick, but that's the biggest one.

    I'd still give it 4/5 stars, though.
     
  11. johnnyyen

    johnnyyen Senior Member

    Location:
    Scotland
    Totally agree. I can't add anything else to what you say.
     
  12. Solaris

    Solaris a bullet in flight

    Location:
    New Orleans, LA
    Yes, you're right. I haven't had a chance to really talk to anyone about the movie yet, so what I wrote here were my first, unfiltered and unconsidered thoughts. It really has a much stronger Frankenstein story structure than anything.
     
  13. Monosterio

    Monosterio Forum Resident

    Location:
    South Florida
    If I hadn't already seen the movie, the comments about creeping sexism would really make me want to see it.
     
  14. In real life, I agree, but to me it plays to one of the plot stories the Movie explores - the fine line between genius and insanity. Nathan is, at a minimum, a borderline Sociopath.
     
  15. RayS

    RayS A Little Bit Older and a Little Bit Slower

    Location:
    Out of My Element
    I saw the film last night, and I thought it was the best film I have seen in some time. It is certainly a conversation starter. I for one found the sexism and tawdriness in the film crucial elements rather than distractions. It's difficult to discuss them here without spoiling the film for those who haven't seen it, but there is a feminist statement in the film apart from the numerous existential points raised.
     
  16. Ghostworld

    Ghostworld Senior Member

    Location:
    US
    Yeah, someone said if a person could just create a machine that moved with that fluidity, he would win the Noble prize for that alone, even if all it had for a brain was a TI calculator.

    I was just so let down by this movie. The whole exploration of AI was so damn superficial. I remember the genius (rather bluntly) stating: "If you're wondering. Yeah, you can **** her. There are sensors implanted that send a pleasure signal to her brain." Please Mr. Sci-fi writer. Explain to me how a machine feels pleasure? At least make some tiny effort to. Something that shows you're trying to write a "science" fiction and not a dopey thriller. Someone has said the sessions between the young guy and the android sound like "speed dating." Personally, if I am faced with an artificial intelligence, I am going to be probing the workings of it mind, not talking to it like I'm in a slow dance at the high school prom. And speaking of dancing, the only elevating scene in the who movie was the dance number -- and what does that say about about a supposedly deep film? That you need a dance number to raise it out of its numbness? Honestly, the whole premise that the capability for deception equals a proof of living intelligence is also ludicrous. You can program a $5 Nano bug to work it's way out of a box. Giving an AI the singular task of working it's way out of a cage is like hoping it will develop hamster smarts. Oh, but it used words to trick its way out. Hey, just look at Apple's IOS. The point of that software is to trick you into believing YOU really wanted to pay $18 for Taylor Swift's new album on itunes. The scariest part of the movie was Domhall Gleeson's whinng, cowering nice-boy performance as Caleb. While robot intelligence may be on the rise, Caleb perfectly captures the intellectual stultification of young males and their transformation into politically correct, gender-neutral life forms. Good thing the mad scientist didn't create a kitty, Gleeson would have lost it five minutes into the film.

    I don't know why I'm so worked up over this film, except it let me down so badly. Usually when I get excited and go to one of the first showings of a film, I tend to like it too much because I've had a great outing and I've been pumped up by this experience. This film, I just sat there muttering: "What a load of ####." I guess it doesn't matter, despite all the hype, it's kinda tanking at the box office. Budget was $12M and it's only pulled in $24M worldwide. From the kind of accounting people note here, that's not a rip roaring success. Good. Wait till it shows up on Showtime with a double feature of Galaxina. I think the reason why lots of nerds are lining up to see it twice is because of the unbearably cute (and wholly naked) Alicia Vikander -- a dark-hair little Nordic cutie who is 30 but looks 16. The perfect machine, indeed!
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2015
    Mark Nelson and Dudley Morris like this.
  17. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Senior Member

    Location:
    USA
    Looks cool. I might have to check it out.
     
  18. RayS

    RayS A Little Bit Older and a Little Bit Slower

    Location:
    Out of My Element
    Yeah, I don't know why you're so worked up over it either. :)

    Perhaps because I am not a "nerd" (at least not that anyone has shared with me), I preferred having the element of human frailty play a larger role in the movie than technical AI aspects. We have two men who have a near total inability to have anything resembling a healthy relationship with a female. One who wants to control and be dominant (and sadistic, even), and one who is such a hopeless loser that he falls in love with the first thing that even looks like a female that talks to him. How did Dr. Frankenstein bring life to his creation? I believe he changed the poles from plus to minus and from minus to plus (what does that even MEAN?) That complete lack of technical sense never tarnished the value of the Frankenstein novel or (original, Universal) movies for me. Playing Prometheus is really at the heart of what both movies are about. You are certainly welcome to your opinion and your expectation. Mine were happily met.
     
    Monosterio likes this.
  19. RexKramer

    RexKramer Senior Member

    Location:
    Outside of Philly
    This movie had a lot in common with
    The Avengers AoU. They're both about the dangers of building an AI. One has the Hollywood ending, the other has the indie apocalyptic end. I realized the following day I'd seen two vastly different films on the same subject.
    .

    That's my feeling - the sci-fi aspect was the catalyst for the plot, but the frailty intrigues me more. About the pleasure sensors -
    I don't even believe the character. I believed him when he said it and had the same gut reaction Chadbang did when I heard it, but taken as a whole in the movie it could be a lie. Well, she did seem to have a physical reaction to the sun. Guess I have to think more.
    While I enjoyed this film, it was more for the story than the sci-fi elements. It was a movie made for adults and I think it might come up empty if you look for deep resonant SF motifs. I put it up there with Moon as films which may not bring a lot of unique concepts to the table, but are crafted so well and with enough originality that they are memorable. I highly recommend it as the acting and direction are solid, as well as the story.

    Mark
     
    Solaris and RayS like this.
  20. RayS

    RayS A Little Bit Older and a Little Bit Slower

    Location:
    Out of My Element
    I recommend "Moon" to just about everyone I know. I'm sure some people find it slow-moving or even dull. I found it heartbreaking and thought-provoking.
     
    ZenArcher likes this.
  21. Ghostworld

    Ghostworld Senior Member

    Location:
    US
    To lay all my disappointment as a sci-fan to rest, I finally cobbled all my objections together in a review.

    https://filmbrut.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/251/

    Why I bother with these dumb blogs, I have no idea. To quote Samuel Johnson, "No one but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." :shake:
     
    Gumboo likes this.
  22. RexKramer

    RexKramer Senior Member

    Location:
    Outside of Philly
    I enjoyed the blog entry - it's a very well developed critique and it's made me think deeper about the film. I hope other people follow the link as it's a great jumping point for further discussion. I almost chose to post this
    on your blog to avoid all the inevitable spoiler alerts we'll need to cover (wasn't sure if I'd have to create an account with a password, and I have enough of those in my life).

    While I enjoyed the film I don't love it to the point I'd defend it 'til I'm blue, say in the way I love Birdman or Take Shelter. I only find one of those films every 3-4 years, so I'm not counting that against this film. I think it comes down to expectation. With the dangers of AI being a fairly well-tread subject at this point, I was happy to see a story about the kinds of humans who would seek to create it rather than the dangers of the tech (not to say it didn't go there). Your criticism of it dwelling below the belt is absolutely valid. Still, instead of the evil genius bent on taking over the world
    we get a sex-crazed evil genius.
    . Is that a stereotype - yes. And worse than a Bond villain? Questionable. My wife disagrees but
    I even questioned if the character was so bored with life he wanted to hasten the demise of humanity. He had the speech about creating it because AI is inevitable, so he'd be first. And I feel he's so bored and disassociated from human contact (he manufactures his lovers) he's content of being the one responsible for the apocalypse. Since he fought for his life at the end I guess this could be disputed easily, but theory is often scarier in practice.

    Also your point of the clean direction being Apple-worthy is also a legitimate one. I'm not defending Garland's choice but the friend who saw it with my wife and I thought at times it audibly took cues from Forbidden Planet and visual cues from the Monolith scenes of 2001. Not sure I agree, just offering yet another opinion. But if it was an Apple spot, it'd be appropriate for one of the characters. Don't know if I'd call it hipster but it is a direction style that, if not done right, is a cliche. Not everyone can be Mallick.


    Mark
     
    wayneklein likes this.
  23. Very good movie disliked the ending but I did see it coming from a mile away.
     
  24. I think it was designed to be a gothic horror movie in science fiction clothing much like some of Garland's other work.
     
    Solaris likes this.
  25. Scott Wheeler

    Scott Wheeler Forum Resident

    Location:
    ---------------
    This one is going to go down as a classic. Maybe the best movie I have seen since Beasts of the Southern Wild.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine