Ex Machina Review

[karelm 2,903]

Yesterday I saw Alex Garland's new film, Ex Machina, and LOVED IT!

Trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx0D5jrQOx0

This is actually Garland's first film as director however he has extensive screenwriting experience for Peter Boyles's films, "28 days later", "Sunshine", "Dredd", and "the Beach".

This film is true sci-fi in the style of Blade Runner, the Shining, and Alien with deeply philosophical and existential undertones. It is a slow burn with only 3 main characters (plus an important fourth character with no vocal lines). Similar to Ridley Scott's "Alien" and Kubrick's "The Shining", the setting is a very important part of the story (an isolated and stark Alaskan compound).

I loved this film and found it very satisfying and engrossing because the performances are excellent and the writing top quality. This is sci-fi morality at its best with an excellent cast, acting, and script. This is also an excellent example of a synth only score done right.

[Wojo 2,453]

It got a good review on my local morning radio station.

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

I don't know about this one. It wasn't bad but... those Scott and Kubrick similarities seemed forced. "Try-hard" as they say. It didn't have the natural stillness that Under The Skin had, for example. Maybe it'll age well.

[karelm 2,903]

I don't know about this one. It wasn't bad but... those Scott and Kubrick similarities seemed forced. "Try-hard" as they say. It didn't have the natural stillness that Under The Skin had, for example. Maybe it'll age well.

Yeah, as usual we disagree on this. Under the Skin was forced for me but this one was quite eloquent and will serve as a model of this type of film.

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

Also knowing your penchant for plot weaknesses, I'm surprised some of the head-scratchers and predictable turns in this one didn't bug you.

In all it was just a let down. Another promising chance for deliberate and impressionistic filmmaking to return, only to be squandered on pastiche and an ending visible from miles away.

Interesting score though.

[karelm 2,903]

This was much more thorough than interstellar and I would love to see this team do a reboot on that film.

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

Hmm. Shame that the conversation couldn't continue without you bringing that film up as some sort of retribution or dig for me not liking this one. I'm certainly not going to fill up your review thread with nitpickings of small inconsistencies and goofs - that would be childish, wouldn't it? - but they're there.

Some of the undertones on sexuality were interesting, but it was also bizarrely off-putting how squarely the male lead fit into the "20 something awkward computer nerd" stereotype. Rather bland. So Gleeson was neither good nor bad for me, though Isaac really shines. I'm glad to see him picking up steam.

Jonathan Glazer strikes me as a director with the same natural DNA (though of course not necessarily the same mastery of craft) as Kubrick or early Scott. Garland, to be totally and needlessly frank, seems like a kid who likes that aesthetic but doesn't quite grasp it, and isn't helped by trying to merge it with a certain "hipster" vibe. And much of the dialogue was very boring and obvious.

[Not Mr. Big 4,639]

I just saw it. I liked it well enough but didn't love it. It felt more competent than brilliant to me. Everything in the movie has been done before and done better.

And Interstellar (despite its faults) is much more ambitious and original than this film.

[karelm 2,903]

What I liked about it was…

1. The existential conundrum of defining autonomous life. They did a good job making Ava very sympathetic and this is a credit to acting and writing.
2. The god complex of the Nathan character with his misquotes and ego but really he was more the puppet master. He is a very complex character and his motivations were logically consistent and not obvious. They made him out to be a very malevolent character at the start but it was actually Ava who outsmarted Nathan and Caleb.
3. The buildup of suspense during those power outages was effective and the story built up gradually. Up until the end, I hoped that Ava and Caleb would be able to escape and Nathan would get his comeuppance.
4. I loved how the point of the AI test could have been is Ava believable, does Ava love Caleb, is actually Caleb an AI and the test more to see if he is convinced he is real. Basically this was a multi-layered and nuanced film and I haven’t seen something like this in a long while.
5. Better treatment of complex moral topics than interstellar with its silly love comments and horrific Matt Damon fist fights.

So ultimately good characters, strong themes, beautifully shot, excellent writing and acting.

[Thor 7,478]

This is an absolutely fantastic film -- my favourite of the year so far -- and I've been championing it ever since I saw an early press screening in February. In fact, our (and my) coverage of it at montages.no is partially the reason why UIP decided to distribute it in Norway (the same happened with IT FOLLOWS) -- plus the fact that the exteriors were actually SHOT in this country, of course.

My review is here:

http://montages.no/2015/04/hyperelegant-om-kunstige-intelligenser-i-alex-garlands-science-fiction-perle-ex-machina/

...but it's in Norwegian so it won't do you any good unless you use Google Translate.

[A24 4,327]

It's Garland so I want to see it but I fear it will be a bit 'on the nose'. Hope I'm wrong ... Sci-fi always works best when it shows but doesn't tell.

[Thor 7,478]

It's Garland so I want to see it but I fear it will be a bit 'on the nose'. Hope I'm wrong ... Sci-fi always works best when it shows but doesn't tell.

Plenty of that. There are TONS of layers here -- in the dialogue itself, but more importantly how the audiovisuals underline elements of the story and philosophy. This is science fiction at its very best, IMO.

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

I found the dialogue pretty "on the nose," that was exactly my issue with it.

[karelm 2,903]

I thought the dialog was clever and infused with personality. To each his own.

Thor, nice review (based on google translate!)

[Thor 7,478]

I thought the dialog was clever and infused with personality. To each his own.

Absolutely. So many references going on there that it was a TREAT to observe. Especially the links to Ghita (through Oppenheimer's famous quotes), Carroll's Through the Looking Glass and Plato's allegory of the cave, among others -- each mirroring aspects of the story.

And when the production design, colours, photography etc. continued to mirror some of those themes as well, I was completely sold! My kind of film and science fiction!

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

Plato's allegory of the cave

I thought CHRONICLE handled that better.

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

I thought the dialog was clever and infused with personality. To each his own.

Absolutely. So many references going on there that it was a TREAT to observe. Especially the links to Ghita (through Oppenheimer's famous quotes), Carroll's Through the Looking Glass and Plato's allegory of the cave, among others -- each mirroring aspects of the story.

See none of this impressed me. These seem to be some of the most cliched "philosophical" elements that directors inject to try to make things deep. But instead it just ends up sounding like a high school history class.

[Thor 7,478]

I thought the dialog was clever and infused with personality. To each his own.

Absolutely. So many references going on there that it was a TREAT to observe. Especially the links to Ghita (through Oppenheimer's famous quotes), Carroll's Through the Looking Glass and Plato's allegory of the cave, among others -- each mirroring aspects of the story.

See none of this impressed me. These seem to be some of the most cliched "philosophical" elements that directors inject to try to make things deep. But instead it just ends up sounding like a high school history class.

It's not supposed to impress, really (although it's always nice when you catch a reference that isn't obvious to the Average Joe -- like Nathan repeating the phrase "the good deeds a man has done before, defend him", a reference to Oppenheimer). In fact, there is nothing new in terms of story or concept here. The thing that makes this somewhat of a masterpiece, IMO, is the elegance by which it is executed. How the mise-en-scene mirrors everything in the subject matter, for example.

But hey -- to each their own. If you didn't like it (or was indifferent to it), that's OK. All the more filmatic ecstasy for me!

[karelm 2,903]

I thought the dialog was clever and infused with personality. To each his own.

Absolutely. So many references going on there that it was a TREAT to observe. Especially the links to Ghita (through Oppenheimer's famous quotes), Carroll's Through the Looking Glass and Plato's allegory of the cave, among others -- each mirroring aspects of the story.

See none of this impressed me. These seem to be some of the most cliched "philosophical" elements that directors inject to try to make things deep. But instead it just ends up sounding like a high school history class.

Well for god's sake, don't pretend a movie with horrific dialog and third rate characters/dialog is superior to other films that actually does have quality. You are tacitly voiding your right to be unimpressed.

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

What?

Why is that it that you're so hostile to me? What's the deal, dude?

Last year you gave my younger cousin a call to talk to him about the Hollywood life. That was mighty decent. He appreciated it and so did I.

But things have slowly deteriorated since then. Is it that we seem to have rather different approaches and philosophies on composition, and one time when I made a thread about it I disagreed with some advice you gave? Is it that I prefer some Zimmer music to some Williams music and don't hold Hans as Satan made flesh? Is it because I found some of your critiques of some mechanical, non-subjective issues with Interstellar worth questioning?

I don't know and in thinking about it I find that I don't care. Please put me on your block list rather than subjecting yourself to my obviously intolerable presence.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

You can't demand to be put on an ignore list!

[A24 4,327]

See none of this impressed me.

Sorta like Blade Runner didn't impress you?

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

See none of this impressed me.

Sorta like Blade Runner didn't impress you?

Heh. I'm not unimpressed by Blade Runner, Alex. But beyond its aesthetics not much pulls me back.

I don't think this one will be for you, either.

[Thor 7,478]

Maybe you have an aversion towards android/A.I.-themed films, TGP?

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

Then what about my abiding love for... A.I.?!

No I just have an aversion to (in my view) unsuccessful attempts at what is an essentially sacred cinematic aesthetic to me. But of course though we all might share that reverence, our experiences of it differ and thus so do our metrics for detecting its genuine presence.

[A24 4,327]

"Unsuccessful" because maybe you want movies to provide us with answers?

[Thor 7,478]

Then what about my abiding love for... A.I.?!

That's good to know. At least we're on the same page there.

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

"Unsuccessful" because maybe you want movies to provide us with answers?

No, because it provides too many!

[karelm 2,903]

Grey, your response to me strikes me as overly hostile.

[A24 4,327]

Don't worry, it's his type of humor.

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

It's not humor. He's been subtly rude and insulting for months. And not in the "joking" JWFan way. So no I'm not kidding.

Anything else you have to say can be done privately.

[karelm 2,903]

It's not humor. He's been subtly rude and insulting for months. And not in the "joking" JWFan way. So no I'm not kidding.

Anything else you have to say can be done privately.

Oh screw you. I will dictate my response to your 30 plus posts per day. Thanks for ruining my tread. You are not the victim here.

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

You ruined it yourself, I'm afraid, when you decided to make things nasty and snide. All I did was voice my opinion on the subject of the thread.

It seems you fell victim to the sort of thing that once upon a time you accused me of. It's all a bit of a shame.

If you won't just hide my posts, I'll hide yours. There's no need for these interactions to continue.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

This bickering is pointless!

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

Charming to the last.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Has to be said though, ever since your conduct in the Interstellar threads, you have no right to complain about things getting nasty.

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

For the sake of peace I won't bother explaining again the total lack of seriousness there.

However, assuming the worst of that, is the best response to... do the exact same thing?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Lack of seriousness? You are taking the piss, mate!

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

It should also be said then that a recent reread of that thread clearly shows that the starter of *this* thread was perhaps the lead precipitator of ill-will there - almost appearing to relish the act of sowing discord and criticizing, and not for the sake of discussion.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Who started it?

And why would you re-read threads?

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

To reassess my views on how it all went down. I believe it's far more benign than anyone remembers or wants to remember.

As for who started it... well, frankly I think it was you! Your posts were the ones that began to turn things a tad askew.

You first took issue with my "defense" of the film, finding it ridiculous. May I remind you that you later apologized after realizing you had put up with the same stuff over Skyfall!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

So sad if a person cannot see his own mistakes!

It was you who got a caution by our beloved Mod, not me.

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

You mean when he immaturely called me a fanboy? I didn't lose any sleep over that.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Ofcourse not. Who would?

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

I believe that's a good question for the next Garland film to explore.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Who?

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

Second-rate Kubrick, I believe.

[A24 4,327]

Apparently Garland figured most people saw Blade Runner and he used that to misdirect the audience. He said that in almost every interview each time the words "Blade Runner" came up.

BTW, what do people here (in this thread) think of Sunshine?

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

He should have taken it a step further then, and misdirected audiences by making them assume he was misdirecting them for having seen BR but actually going back and doing the same thing!

I was not a fan of Sunshine. The score may have had more to do with that than the film itself.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Sunshine is the Alien remake by Boyle, right?