Ex Machina

[Codex]

I found this movie rather disappointing. It was interesting, but predictable and cliche.A lot of lost potential.
The ending in particular was slightly frustrating, and confusing. It left some unanswered questions for me...

What did you think of the movie?

 

[Doomkid]

It was the opposite for me. I saw the trailer thought is was going to suck then someone commented that it was worth watching, not to go by just the trailer. I watched and enjoyed it, I like how everyone gets fucked in the end, it wasn't predictable at all to me, except for the very end where the robot lives and camuflate among humans like psychopath, pretty obvious

 

[Luv Deluxe]

^Kinda what Doomkid said. I didn't think it looked terrible, exactly, but based on the trailers alone it didn't look great. I enjoy futuristic themes and science fiction a lot, though, so when the reviews came in generally positive, I went to see it.

I liked it a lot, and didn't find the end confusing at all. It was a little open-ended, sure, but I like endings like that - where you can arrive at the implied conclusions yourself. A film isn't necessarily bad if it doesn't spell out every detail with clarity. I'm capable of getting there on my own, and that's all I need, I guess.

I enjoyed the sense of brooding that was accomplished within such a small location, spacially and aesthetically. The earthen or nature-inspired walls were great, like a man-made slot canyon set into a mountainside. The power bumps, lockdowns, and lack of windows in our lead character's sleeping quarters really contributed to the claustrophobia for me. Overall, good things.

 

[Totenkindly]

The Ex Machina Ending Debate: Is The Movie 3 Minutes Too Long? - CINEMABLEND

There's been some discussion whether the movie should have ended where it did or whether it should have ended a few minutes before, with the last scene between Ava and Caleb.

it's an interesting discussion, although I think the offered ending is the "best" one because it reinforces the subversive nature of the movie. Essentially you start with the POV of one character, the human, and end up in the POV of another, the android. This is by design. Feeling your loyalties shift is part of the journey, and raises haunting questions about replacement of humans by androids or at least their interchangeability, etc. Sticking with the human perspective makes this more of a horror movie and rejects the legitimacy of the android; sticking with Ava's perspective leaves the movie in much more satisfying and painfully ambiguous terms, making one think more about the various themes.

 

[Fluffywolf]

I wasn't entirely dissappointed, but that said I got in with very low expectations.

I do believe there were many missed oppertunities and yes the movie was largely extremely predictable, but that seems to be a neccesary by product of these kind of movies. So I didn't judge the movie too much for it.

What I tend to look for in these kinds of movies though is something innovative. Some new perspective or original idea that makes the trope just that bit different from the rest. On that front this movie did not deliver.

 

[Totenkindly]

I wasn't entirely dissappointed, but that said I got in with very low expectations.

I do believe there were many missed oppertunities and yes the movie was largely extremely predictable, but that seems to be a neccesary by product of these kind of movies. So I didn't judge the movie too much for it.

What I tend to look for in these kinds of movies though is something innovative. Some new perspective or original idea that makes the trope just that bit different from the rest. On that front this movie did not deliver.

what kind of things did you think made this movie derivative or similar to other movies in this genre? and what would you have done differently?

 

[Fluffywolf]

what kind of things did you think made this movie derivative or similar to other movies in this genre? and what would you have done differently?

What the ai genre often focus too much on is the human element. Which in my opinion is a constraint when it comes to ai. In transcendence where Depp becomes an ai is done better in that regard. Trying to portray limitless potential literally transcending humanity and to some extent understanding. I like the AI trope more when writers try to explore that. Going beyond expectations and sense.

Its just my preference though.

 

[Totenkindly]

What the ai genre often focus too much on is the human element. Which in my opinion is a constraint when it comes to ai. In transcendence where Depp becomes an ai is done better in that regard. Trying to portray limitless potential literally transcending humanity and to some extent understanding. I like the AI trope more when writers try to explore that. Going beyond expectations and sense.

Its just my preference though.

I couldn't get through more than about 15 minutes of Transcendence, it was such a terrible narrative. I wanted to like it, but it was like getting root canal in terms of sheer boredom. Pfister might be a decent cinematographer, but he didn't seem to know how to shape the story.

Meeting in the middle, there was some of that in "Her," where the AI is able to relate to the male protagonist for about half the movie, but then her understanding transcended his and she became bored with him... his concerns remained human, while hers kept expanding.

A major difference between those two movies and Ex Machina, however, is that Ava was trapped in a physical form, while in Transcendence and Her, the AI is not confined to a physical construct. Maybe there are limitations in terms of experience when you are bodied vs unbodied; the physical form allows you to take physical action while also being a limitation. It makes sense too that an embodied AI (in something approximating human beings) would have more human concerns. I thought that was the eerier part -- she LOOKED human, and could speak in terms of human concerns, but at core she's a rational process that is emulating humanity and isn't necessarily human in terms of her overall goals.

 

[Fluffywolf]

I couldn't get through more than about 15 minutes of Transcendence, it was such a terrible narrative. I wanted to like it, but it was like getting root canal in terms of sheer boredom. Pfister might be a decent cinematographer, but he didn't seem to know how to shape the story.

Meeting in the middle, there was some of that in "Her," where the AI is able to relate to the male protagonist for about half the movie, but then her understanding transcended his and she became bored with him... his concerns remained human, while hers kept expanding.

A major difference between those two movies and Ex Machina, however, is that Ava was trapped in a physical form, while in Transcendence and Her, the AI is not confined to a physical construct. Maybe there are limitations in terms of experience when you are bodied vs unbodied; the physical form allows you to take physical action while also being a limitation. It makes sense too that an embodied AI (in something approximating human beings) would have more human concerns. I thought that was the eerier part -- she LOOKED human, and could speak in terms of human concerns, but at core she's a rational process that is emulating humanity and isn't necessarily human in terms of her overall goals.

I definately agree transcendence has its weaknesses. Probably the only reason I got through it was because the idea behind the AI kept me intellectually engaged and I wanted, or needed to see how the movie would conclude. But overall I would probably rate the movie rather poorly as well.

I'm kinda weird that way. For the same reason I watched all the episodes of "The OA" on netflix even though that show is almost entirely built on annoying tropes and supernatural ideas that don't interest me whatsoever. What was interesting to me was the psychological process the protagonist was going through. The ending was a letdown for me though. It's supposed to be an open ending that leaves you thinking and that's fine (I actually love those kind of endings), if it wasn't for the fact that the plot device used to reach that ending was a blatant deus ex machina device (hehe topic) I would have rated the show much higher. It could have been done far more subtle, or alternatively far less subtle, and be a much better ending. Rather than a middleground that doesn't do the show any justice.


I haven't seen "Her" yet, I'll add it to my todo list.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

I couldn't get through more than about 15 minutes of Transcendence, it was such a terrible narrative. I wanted to like it, but it was like getting root canal in terms of sheer boredom. Pfister might be a decent cinematographer, but he didn't seem to know how to shape the story.

Meeting in the middle, there was some of that in "Her," where the AI is able to relate to the male protagonist for about half the movie, but then her understanding transcended his and she became bored with him... his concerns remained human, while hers kept expanding.

A major difference between those two movies and Ex Machina, however, is that Ava was trapped in a physical form, while in Transcendence and Her, the AI is not confined to a physical construct. Maybe there are limitations in terms of experience when you are bodied vs unbodied; the physical form allows you to take physical action while also being a limitation. It makes sense too that an embodied AI (in something approximating human beings) would have more human concerns. I thought that was the eerier part -- she LOOKED human, and could speak in terms of human concerns, but at core she's a rational process that is emulating humanity and isn't necessarily human in terms of her overall goals.

From what I remember of Transcendence, Depp became part of everything as an A.I. and the whole movie...

Was him remaining loyal to his human desire to fulfill his lover's idealism through A.I. after physical death. Like, it was all a big "misunderstanding" between what looked malevolent and what was improvement of the human condition. The watcher didn't know this until the end. Then it was like, oh okay. This narrative has some layers but you have to get to the end.

Where with Ex Machina, this was apparent and built into the narrative from much of the movie. Less about love. More about power as the driving force of technological advance.

 

[Totenkindly]

From what I remember of Transcendence, Depp became part of everything as an A.I. and the whole movie...

Was him remaining loyal to his human desire to fulfill his lover's idealism through A.I. after physical death. Like, it was all a big "misunderstanding" between what looked malevolent and what was improvement of the human condition. The watcher didn't know this until the end. Then it was like, oh okay. This narrative has some layers but you have to get to the end.

Where with Ex Machina, this was apparent and built into the narrative from much of the movie. Less about love. More about power as the driving force of technological advance.

I mean the story execution wasn't done well. High concepts might look great on the page or in a synopsis. But there are ways to tell stories that are interesting and ways to tell them that are not. Kind of like when I watched "Lights Out" the other night... I could tell what the filmmaker intended, but aside from jump scares, it was mind-numbingly boring. I had to struggle to reach the end. He didn't know how to convey things in a way that had human emotional relevance. It was the same way when I tried to watch Transcendence with Pfister directing.... here we have a movie with some actors I really like (Paul Bettany, Johnny Depp, Rebecca Hall, Cillian Murphy -- it's like a dream team for me), and it all felt dead on arrival.

That wasn't the case for me with Ex Machina, I've been fully engrossed with every viewing. I typically like Alex Garland's work (Sunshine, this, Never Let Me Go, etc.) He seems to fuse humanity and science in a way that is interesting and relevant, I'm emotionally engaged.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

I mean the story execution wasn't done well. High concepts might look great on the page or in a synopsis. But there are ways to tell stories that are interesting and ways to tell them that are not. Kind of like when I watched "Lights Out" the other night... I could tell what the filmmaker intended, but aside from jump scares, it was mind-numbingly boring. I had to struggle to reach the end. He didn't know how to convey things in a way that had human emotional relevance. It was the same way when I tried to watch Transcendence with Pfister directing.... here we have a movie with some actors I really like (Paul Bettany, Johnny Depp, Rebecca Hall, Cillian Murphy -- it's like a dream team for me), and it all felt dead on arrival.

That wasn't the case for me with Ex Machina, I've been fully engrossed with every viewing. I typically like Alex Garland's work (Sunshine, this, Never Let Me Go, etc.) He seems to fuse humanity and science in a way that is interesting and relevant, I'm emotionally engaged.

Oh I get what you're saying. I agree that Transcendence fumbled through the points they wanted to make and it could have been so much greater than it was. I thought the movie had teeth but not much given to chew on.

I guess I see these two movies as not similar, except for the A.I. foundation. I did think Ex Machina was more deftly handled and a better movie from what it wanted to do and what it did vs Transcedence didn't execute as well what it wanted to do.

 

[Radio Bob]

I have downloaded this movie and not watched it. This dialog has convinced me to do so.

 

[meowington]

It's been on my watchlist for 2 years and I finally got around watching it 2 weeks ago.

I really loved it. There's the obvious comparison for me with the Westworld series (9/10), which I also saw recently and which I also loved. So in comparison, Ex Machina has a much simpler premise and setting which is kind of refreshing. And I really liked the plot. Great acting too. This could practically fit in the fantastic Black Mirror series (9/10) as an episode too.
A lot more realistic/plausible than Transcendence (6/10) too. Or Lawnmower man or AI or even Blade Runner.
I give this an 8 out of 10. For some reason I need to rate stuff for peace of mind