Jump to content


Photo

Ex Machina Review


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 karelm

karelm

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 728 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:LA

Posted Yesterday, 01:20 AM

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

 

Trailer:

https://www.youtube....h?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. 



#2 Woj

Woj

    Rick Do It

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23367 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted Yesterday, 01:29 AM

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

#3 TheGreyPilgrim

TheGreyPilgrim

    Cosmicist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10337 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted Yesterday, 01:51 AM

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.

gj9BylC.jpg


#4 karelm

karelm

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 728 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:LA

Posted Yesterday, 02:02 AM

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. 



#5 TheGreyPilgrim

TheGreyPilgrim

    Cosmicist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10337 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted Yesterday, 02:19 AM

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.

gj9BylC.jpg


#6 karelm

karelm

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 728 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:LA

Posted Yesterday, 02:27 AM

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

#7 TheGreyPilgrim

TheGreyPilgrim

    Cosmicist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10337 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted Yesterday, 02:30 AM

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.


gj9BylC.jpg


#8 Mr Big

Mr Big

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2205 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United States.

Posted Yesterday, 05:58 AM

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.  



#9 karelm

karelm

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 728 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:LA

Posted Yesterday, 05:44 PM

What I liked about it was…

Spoiler

 

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



#10 Thor

Thor

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4433 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oslo, Norway

Posted Yesterday, 05:50 PM

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/2...rle-ex-machina/

 

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






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users