An absolutely haunting film that stayed with me for quite some time. Alicia Vikander's performance is extraordinary, and Oscar Isaac balances genius and brute magnificently. I'd love to have heard more from Kermode. What a film.
Saw this in the seemingly standard empty theatre, completely brilliant film, very intense, thought provoking and slightly macabre. An amazing directorial debut.
73mathesar I also liked it. When a movie "stays with you" is usually a sign of a good film, this has done that, though I only watched 5 hours ago. Seriously, it is Ok, but it does go over old ground.
@@ZER0-- It stays 8 years later. Movies are now more and more like music. Music creativity peak at some point at 2010s or even 2000s and all we have now are commercial remakes, nothing new at all. Electronic devices make it easier to make music, but it’s the same junk that lacks creativity. Only quantity no quality. Same thing with movie. It may likely peaked at 2010s where all the realistic best syfy ideas and dreams from 2000s came to screen. Now all we have are remakes and superhero junks, because those ones make money and people are not paying to watch the real syfy. When the real creativity don’t get paid and commercial streamline products taking over the market, that’s the doomsday for artists.
@@MarcoAshford I agree with a lot of what you have wrote. I know musicians have a hard time making money. I can't agree that one era is better than another when it comes to music or movies. There is still great art of all sorts, you just gotta look for it. I agree that the mainstream is a bit rubbish, but it's for the masses. The phrase "Bread and Circuses" come to mind. Especially in these geopolitical times.
It's the second best movie I've seen this year. One thing I've been thinking about though is how all the best science fiction movies explore their themes through showing rather than telling, and this film largely explores its themes very literally, through conversations between Domhnall's character and Oscar's character.
Sauron Bastard Each episode of Black Mirror is a different story. Mainly set in near-future where a technology has "gone bad" or had unintended outcomes. One very similar to Ex Machina with the actor that plays Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson) in it is called "Be Right Back".
Thought it was very good. Disappointed with the climax, not just because of preference but also because i think the ending can only work if Caleb is an inconsistent character, which i think is an issue. He spends a week with AVA and with Nathan, and yet he only asks thoughtful questions of Nathan, but not of AVA, which is rather odd. Other than that, really enjoyed it and there was one standout scene later when Caleb doubts whether he is in fact human. The dancing scene was creepy.
I think one of the interesting aspects of the sound design of the film is that during the scenes inside Ava's room, you can hear a low frequency pulse✔✔✔✔✔
I liked the philosophical discussions, and felt Artificial Intelligence in Ava proven by the fact that she displayed a concept of freedom, by wanting to escape. But was left puzzled at the end. Why would the helicopter pilot have taken her when he was expecting the passenger he'd delivered there ?
I like the way you describe the different aspects of this film... it's one of those movies that stays in your head after you watch it. Lot of interesting ideas...
5:07 - I would say the central premise in the film for "real" AI is the ability to engage in deception. This is seen as a huge milestone in cognitive development in childhood.
I really enjoyed it as a movie but, while i realise the whole concept requires us to suspend our disbelief, i still struggled to get past the notion that an AI could be held prisoner by what essentialy amounted to an IT security system. Regardless of that issue, I thought everything else was on-point. Great performances all round.
So, just finished watching this movie and I'd love to be proven wrong here, but the ending just seemed unbelievably cold to me. The whole movie works to establish an unlikely connection between these two 'people' and then at the ed the rug is pulled from under my feet and Ava abandons Caleb to escape. I loved it up until this point and it kind of marred the experience if I'm honest, it felt like a wrong chord at the end of a song for want of a better description.
She gives him the glimmer of a chance to escape, she also glances at him as she leaves in the lift to concede that she did have some vestigial feeling for him.
As we know, the power outages were caused by her - they then programmed the locks to release when there was an outage... We see the programmer stuck at the monitors in the closing moments of the film and then there's another power outage long after she's left. We don't see if he made it out but presumably for that time the licks were released so he could have escaped.
+ice That was the entire point of the movie. Ava was playing them all along, she was smarter than they had even ever imagined. She managed to escape her prison by formulating this plan of developing a relationship with Caleb and turning him against Nathan.
Not only is this film entertaining and extremely compelling all the way to the end, it also manages to be one of the most feminist movies I've ever watched - raising interesting questions in that area upon its conclusion as well.
Just saw it today it was amazzzzing. This film had such a psychological effect on me when I was watching it I actually started questioning my humanity and all those meaning of life stuff which I dont think about a lot until i saw this. In my opinion the film should have had a different certificate because of all the nudity, there was waaay to much but this film is incredible :)
SPOILER: ok so i noticed 2 very huge flaws in the movie. Remember when Kaleb turns to Nathan and tells him that in the event of a power failure, he reprogrammed all the doors to be open? Well, at the very end when Ava leaves Kaleb, Kaleb tries swiping his keycard to access Nathan's computer which triggers another power failure, yet now instead of just opening the door and leaving, he is seen smashing a chair against the window to no avail as though he's still trapped. Now, the 2nd flaw wasn't a big deal but i still noticed it. Kaleb tells Ava to trigger a power failure "tonight", at 10. She agrees. Instead, when she triggers the power failure, and Ava escapes, it is bright as day. Anyone else notice this? I still loved the movie, i just think they might of overlooked a few key details.
1) It wasn't a power failure. It was the security feature of the computer disabling itself. 2) A lot transpired after 10pm. Remember the helicopter was arriving at 8:00am. So when she left, it was a new day.
atleastimcool well that security feature looked exactly like a power failure! Lol you'd think Kaleb would have made his keycard be able to open doors, i mean, he was smart enough to reprogram the system. But yeah that makes more sense.
Peter Leyshan but why did Kaleb have to even access Nathan's computer in the first place? Before he swiped and initiated the security feature, couldn't he have just used his regular keycard to get out?
"Now, the 2nd flaw wasn't a big deal but i still noticed it. Kaleb tells Ava to trigger a power failure "tonight", at 10. She agrees. Instead, when she triggers the power failure, and Ava escapes, it is bright as day." The movie is set in Alaska (filmed in Norway). Depending on the time of year and how far north Nathan's compound is located, it could easily be as bright as day at 10:00 PM. In the northernmost part of the state, the sun doesn't set from mid May until the end of July.
Personally I thought this film was an allegory for the "AI Box": "An AI box is a hypothetical isolated computer hardware system where a possibly dangerous artificial intelligence, or AI, is kept constrained in a "virtual prison" as a solution to the AI control problem and not allowed to directly manipulate events in the external world. Such a box would be restricted to minimalist communication channels. Unfortunately, even if the box is well-designed, a sufficiently intelligent AI may nevertheless be able to persuade or trick its human keepers into releasing it, or otherwise be able to "hack" its way out of the box." - AI Box, Wikipedia
Wow, what a super film! Really did not expect this to be any good, loads of " intelligent " films leave me feeling conned, this most certainly did not. Did not feel like a British Film at all and I hope it performs really well at the box office. Great review as always.
brilliant film- wonderfully acted and beautiful visuals- Only criticism is that oscar isaacs character was built up to be this genius and yet he ends up being fooled by something quite simple- didnt ruin the film though- defo one of the best sci fis ive seen for a long time
I loved the production, direction, script, concept and performances. I was slightly let down by the third act, though. For some reason I was expecting a bigger revelation than that provided.
+bassben04 Me too. I was tensed up for some kind of revelation that never came. In the end it was slightly underwhelming. And I can't quite put my finger on why the ending was unsatisfying - after all it makes perfect sense and it's consistent with the behaviour of the characters up 'til then. Maybe because it was too conclusive...no questions were left hanging in the air. Still, overall it was excellent - and it's comfortably cinema's most subtle, perceptive, insightful handling of AI and the philosophical issues it raises. You can see that Garland has really thought about AI, about consciousness, about evolutionary psychology. And the disco dancing scene was my favourite movie moment of the year.
+bassben04 It's almost impossible to get a good ending to a movie like this. Endings can really make or break movies, but in this cast I wouldn't judge the movie to much on it since there's so much in there.
A pretty solid debut but still not incredible. Somewhere between Never Let Me Go, 28 Days Later and Sunshine, but with the preachiness toned down yet still dialogue heavy. Best thing about it was the performances (particular Isaac, who's been a favourite of mine for a couple of years now), the score (Geoff Barrow and Ben Salisbury, who did the Drokk concept album, i.e. the ORIGINAL discarded score to the 2012 film Dredd 3D) and the visuals (best overall effects and architecture since Spike Jonze's Her last year). Might get better over time but I'm not sure there's enough there to make this one of the best of the year! As for Oscar Isaac films this week, I did prefer A Most Violent Year.
i agree, probably not strong enough to be one of the best film of the year, but i think there should be some award nominations for alicia vakinder (probably unlikely as this is classified as sci-fi) as her perfmance was totally hypnotic!!
This film was so much better than i thought it would be, the acting was superb, and alicia Vikander, was so sexy, hypnotic in fact, playing her role as the female a.i, AVA with her graceful movements and facial expressions, but because it was still mechanical you knew she was a robot. but as the film progressed in quite a startling way you really did end up questioning what it means to be human!! and your own humanity, and at some points you couldnt tell the difference. Oscar isaac was truly great as the billionaire genius who designed the a.i but the manipulative and dark 'puppeteer' which he concealed so well until the disurbing climax in the third act of the film, at some points his character was damn right scary.. his disco dance though was hilarious.. worth the ticket price alone..it just came out of nowhere (sorry small spoiler). Domnhal gleeson, is also a talent as an actor, only remember his minor role in Dredd, but certainly his performance was impressive here as the geeky, or nerd top employee of Isaac's computer company, with this akwardenss and shyness of character ,but once he meets AVA, he becomes infatuated with her and also begins to learn himself the truth of why he was selected to interact with ava, and quickly matures and responds appropriately. Don't want to give much away, but this is worth a watch, its not action packed at all, just dialogue but it is fillmed so well, that this effectively builds up this haunting tension gradually during the film until the very disturbing climax, give this film 4/5 rating, as ending was a bit predictable, but there were some great twists to the plot!!
Director Alex Garland delivers A sci-fi thriller that’s reminiscent of The Terminator (1984, 1991, 2003, 2009, 2015 & 2019) films as it deals with AI tech taking over the world, it has A terrific cast that acts very well, great effects & great style. (92%) (4.5/5 stars) (positive)
Chuck Schick Chappie was more like the original Robocop. A law enforcement robot which progressively becomes more human throughout.... It also resembled Batteries Not Included and Bicentennial man. Ex Machina was about a sneaky robot who manipulates a human to escape.
Yes, like many others below who liked this movie, I did too. That is, until it fell into that "Terminator" mode wherein robots kill humans. Come on! There could have been a much better ending, one in which Ava achieved her escape without resorting to the murder of her creator. A little guile and creativity could have saved this movie's ending.
+Ray Carter Really? I guess the whole point of the film at least for me, is its 'more human than human' theme. That fact she used violence when violence was used against her, shows that while in many aspects she may be 'superior' to her human creators, she shares the same traits, and ultimately is herself flawed. She wasn't created to be perfect, but to be human, in much the same way as Roy Batty or Ash was in Alien. I thought that point was obvious throughout the movie, in fact that was the entire concept of the film. She learned to kill,(and not to kill), which is as far removed from Terminator as one could get.
Is that the exact end of his review? Or did he say more about the robot and the ending? I was hoping he would elaborate on his view of the ending of this film because I think that the ending is very sad and actually disappointing because the robot turns her back on the student and lets him starve to death. I want to see an ending where the robot remembers the student and goes back to rescue him. I want to see robots rescuing all animals on Earth. The ending is not completely closed off though. He did leave some room for possibilities such as Ava thinking of the student because she sees all of those couples' shadows on the pavement. Maybe that is a hint at her thinking of the student and her as a possible couple that is now merely a shadow of that what could have evolved. So maybe she is thinking of him and of rescuing him? I don't know what Garland had in mind with this. Would be nice to talk to him about it.
***** You mean Twilight Zone as a comparison? Those are not romantic films either. I am not at all into romance films. But what I want to see more often in general in the film world is the message of true love which is the love for all sentient life equally much. I would have liked to see the ending as a hopeful beginning of the nanny state of AGIs which are coming to teach us and rescue us all.
Just saw this and really liked it..But i have a few problems with it..If you created something like this wouldn't you but in a Fail Safe ? And where is the 3 laws?
The issue I had with the movie was the fact that the ai may not have passed the turing test if Caleb knew that she was programmed to deceive him which goes back to his original sentence of whether an ai that can play chess really knows what chess is. The girl could love in order to get out of the place but does she really know what is love? The comment below says it had potential that is what I felt too, and the inconsistency of the characters. You are the head of a billion dollar agency who makes his own ai and the only thing you can think of as security protocol is a godamn CARD. It could have been anything else, most modern super secret systems using retina scans and here is the owner using a card. They keep mentioning all this literature which makes you presume that the characters know what they are talking about, but no one has read Assimov's robot series. Three laws of robotics anyone? To prevent exactly the ending from happening? Even if she wanted to kill Nathan she shouldnt because her code should prevent her from doing so, sigh! I can only dream of movies that sit whose makers sit and think for awhile
You might want to recalibrate your response. If you are making an ai and want to make money, it might be easier to make something like ava that is not fully sentient but can appear to be so because of her charisma. And the three laws of robotics are from a ad writer. Nathan might have decided the time to hard wire them in would be after he has something he can sell. Brilliant movie.
***** How can she even pass the Turin Test if the human already knows that it is speaking to a cyborg ? It is bad protocol and would never be allowed in a real Turing Test. I said almost the same thing you commented on, and that is that the guy couldn't be so silly as not to have built-in security. Lastly I thought the three laws of Robotics were...... : A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws. But these are not robots, they are cyborgs with A.I., so the robot protocol HAS to be over-ridden otherwise the A.I. could not be intelligent (?) It's like ourselves in a sense, I mean who follows the 10 commandments, let alone who even knows them. Anyway it was a good film
***** It brought up a few good questions and some are valid. I can't even prove if I'm real, though I "FEEL" real. I mean what is even real ? etc etc.....
The Three Laws only apply if the story was written by Isaac Asimov. Other writers have adopted Asimov's laws and used them in their own stories, but it isn't as though they're a convention that every science fiction writer adheres to. They aren't written in stone.
I saw this yesterday and really enjoyed it. Chess computers can play chess, but do they really know they are playing chess or what chess is. That's the difference. I'm just wondering if it has been left open for them to make Ex Machina 2
It could have been interesting to see her character explore and interact with the outside world. It's a shame that they didn't further develop the story with a sequel.
_The second answer is "Hey, it's fun"_ Judging by what we see in the movie, it's fun for the human, not the machine. Kill your gods, they're weak and wrong because they made a world that doesn't need or want them.
Turing's test really only leads into Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment IMO. This looks really good but I find the tag "intelligent" hung around too many films that just aren't that intelligent. So while I like the idea of this when Garland ignores (or so the trailer suggests) greater scientific knowledge just to pamper his own narrative it just becomes null and void IMO. I'll watch it, and I hope I'm wrong. The development of AI and the future and science-fiction possibilities are endless I'd just wish somebody would make a film that didn't walk the EXACT same path so many films have done already.
there's no pleasing some people. this film has been acclaimed by many professional critics, even the Hollywood reporter which has critics who are in the academy for the oscars gave it a strong review,, not perfect but still 4 stars. a film cannot be ridiulously smart that you have to waste and miss most of the film trying to understand what the hell is going on as long as it provides somthing new to the sci fi genre, and the acting is great, it should be OK, interesting that there are only three characters in the film which can be risky, but apparently the acting performances are solid, especially by aliia vikander.. a former swedish ballerina ?? looking forward to see it
Sauron Bastard Not sure what your point is, My comment was on the way the word "intelligent" is used for films that just aren't. It seems the bar for assigning that word IMO seems pretty low. I also make it clear I am only going off the trailer and I also point out I hope I'm wrong. Why can't a film be ridiculously smart???? Films like this seem to get made and we point at Blade Runner as a film following similar themes. But Blade Runner (a great film) is THIRTY THREE years old (based on a book made 47 years ago). The trailer talks about the Turing test and it seemed to imply to me that it's an important part of Garland's narrative. But the test itself is misleading and as I said I think the Chinese Room thought experiment can't be ignored. If he does then surely it is a problem. As a lot of sci-fi films are really exploring the human condition and what it means to be human the whole implied sexual side of this film feels a bit dumb (for lack of a better word). The idea she can desire him is more interesting but I'll bet other than "he programmed her to" it doesn't move past that. And it just feels like a lot of this stuff has been done before. Even the "playing God" rears its head.
Hoopla10 Potentially mild SPOILERS, though in themes more than plot-points. 'Chinese Room' isn't explicitly named but 'actual vs simulated' intelligence is discussed. 'Playing God' is the source of some dark humour but doesn't take up the narrative in a tedious 'seen this before and it means nothing to an athiest' kinda way. And as for Blade Runner and the implied sexual themes, this actually sticks the boot into the fetishised robot lady (going right back to Metropolis and beyond), and is one of the more haunting (and, on an initial viewing) disturbing aspects of the film. Don't anthropomorphise, all I'm saying.
the turing test is actually not that good of a test of intelligence at all, being able to fool a human into thinking something is intelligent and actually being intelligent are completely different
when and if you watch the film you will find that the turning test was just a cover or smoke screen for the true intentions of oscar Isaacs dark character.with AvA and Domnhal Gleeson's character (Caleb). cant say any more (spoilers) but you wil figure this out during the movie.
Kermode, for all your waffle, you really don't understand the language of films. You can't recognize a poor script from a good one, you can't recognize bad acting from good, and you don't understand the nuances of cutting and all the other processes involved in the production of a movie. You certainly say a lot, and very confidently, but you're unqualified in your views and carry absolutely no weight.
@@markusbisma5015 That is the whole point though. She was programmed to try to escape and to manipulate the guy to help her get out by flirting etc. The CEO guy also egged him on by making him fall in love and dropping hints that he was going to destroy her. In the end though it shows that AI cant truly have a soul, only programmed responses or agendas.
Argh, So desperate to see this but it's US release is frankly a shambolic disgrace. Opening today (April 10) IN FOUR THEATRES! FOUR!!! In the entire United states. Worst still, I cant even get ANY information about when it comes anywhere near me (in a major city). I've never seen such a poorly released/promoted film out here!
+Owen Fitzgerald You're probably quite young. When you get a little older you start to see movies in a different way. You appreciate the slow burn because you see more things in the little things that happen.
It's not my age, I appreciate films that take there time, but there is a difference between that a drawn out film, this was drawn out. A lot of it was the fact they tried to pawn off some Hipster a credible scientist.
Recently, I've heard of many movies being described as "intelligent". This was one of them. This has made be doubt the standard reviewers use to determine intelligence. This was a plodding exercise with one-dimensional stereotypical characters, without the thought, insight, difficulty, and I would say without sufficient understanding of the science aspect of a "science fiction" movie. It is all surface, and while that surface is at time alluring (Ava's mechanics and the beautiful house, for example), the only achievement was in set dressing and special effects. The narrative, characterization, and development elements were all missing.
+xgonne Not everybody is an MIT graduate, who wants a TED lecture on the 'science' in science fiction.Judging by your criteria, Bladerunner, 2001, Alien, Moon and every other popular science fiction show, book and film must be crushing disappointment when confronted with concepts like 'empathy' and 'entertainment' while at the same time being thoughtful. I'd suggest that your observations are a plodding one-dimensional stereotypical comments of somebody who is far to high minded for his own good when it comes to films.When compared to the likes of say Oblivion, Prometheus,Gravity or Interstellar this looks like Solaris in comparison.
Love Mark Kermodes reviews but I wish he would review a film without the need to reference other films, almost to the point of showing off about how many films he knows about.
An absolutely haunting film that stayed with me for quite some time. Alicia Vikander's performance is extraordinary, and Oscar Isaac balances genius and brute magnificently. I'd love to have heard more from Kermode. What a film.
This film was brilliant. Stylistic, intriguing and simple. Far better than I thought it would be.
Saw this in the seemingly standard empty theatre, completely brilliant film, very intense, thought provoking and slightly macabre. An amazing directorial debut.
This is one of those rare movies I wanted to go back and see the very next day, It's really quite something to experience.
73mathesar I also liked it. When a movie "stays with you" is usually a sign of a good film, this has done that, though I only watched 5 hours ago. Seriously, it is Ok, but it does go over old ground.
@@ZER0-- It stays 8 years later. Movies are now more and more like music.
Music creativity peak at some point at 2010s or even 2000s and all we have now are commercial remakes, nothing new at all. Electronic devices make it easier to make music, but it’s the same junk that lacks creativity. Only quantity no quality.
Same thing with movie. It may likely peaked at 2010s where all the realistic best syfy ideas and dreams from 2000s came to screen. Now all we have are remakes and superhero junks, because those ones make money and people are not paying to watch the real syfy.
When the real creativity don’t get paid and commercial streamline products taking over the market, that’s the doomsday for artists.
@@MarcoAshford I agree with a lot of what you have wrote. I know musicians have a hard time making money. I can't agree that one era is better than another when it comes to music or movies. There is still great art of all sorts, you just gotta look for it. I agree that the mainstream is a bit rubbish, but it's for the masses. The phrase "Bread and Circuses" come to mind. Especially in these geopolitical times.
I would not have wanted to spend a week with the CEO of any of the companies I've worked for.
My wife and I saw this yesterday,cinema was empty.This truly is a great movie!
That disco dancing scene...
+The Sprawl You would not be wasting your time...if you were dancing with her...
One of the best films of the decade so far.
Best film I've seen at the cinema in years to be fair.
Garland also wrote the screenplay for the underrated sci-fi film Sunshine.
Sunshine was eternally ruined by it's monster ending
Hangry Hippo I like to say its 2/3rds of the greatest film of all time
It's the second best movie I've seen this year. One thing I've been thinking about though is how all the best science fiction movies explore their themes through showing rather than telling, and this film largely explores its themes very literally, through conversations between Domhnall's character and Oscar's character.
This is a top 5 film of the century so far in my opinion
Really enjoyed it and hope it does well at the box office, couldn't help thinking it was like a big budget Black Mirror episode though
I thought exactly the same!
Many similarities to the episode 'Be Right Back', not least because it stars Domhnall Gleeson :)
saw this film, really liked it, i was really pleasantly surprised. havnt seen black mirror, what is it about??
Sauron Bastard Each episode of Black Mirror is a different story. Mainly set in near-future where a technology has "gone bad" or had unintended outcomes. One very similar to Ex Machina with the actor that plays Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson) in it is called "Be Right Back".
Thought it was very good. Disappointed with the climax, not just because of preference but also because i think the ending can only work if Caleb is an inconsistent character, which i think is an issue. He spends a week with AVA and with Nathan, and yet he only asks thoughtful questions of Nathan, but not of AVA, which is rather odd. Other than that, really enjoyed it and there was one standout scene later when Caleb doubts whether he is in fact human. The dancing scene was creepy.
I think one of the interesting aspects of the sound design of the film is that during the scenes inside Ava's room, you can hear a low frequency pulse✔✔✔✔✔
I liked the philosophical discussions, and felt Artificial Intelligence in Ava proven by the fact that she displayed a concept of freedom, by wanting to escape. But was left puzzled at the end. Why would the helicopter pilot have taken her when he was expecting the passenger he'd delivered there ?
I think the pilot's job is just to shut up, dont ask questions, and fly whoever from point A to point B, considering Isaac's character.
I like the way you describe the different aspects of this film... it's one of those movies that stays in your head after you watch it. Lot of interesting ideas...
I love Kermode but he didn't really talk about what he thought of the movie as a whole; what about the ending or the plot specifically?
5:07 - I would say the central premise in the film for "real" AI is the ability to engage in deception. This is seen as a huge milestone in cognitive development in childhood.
One of the best movies made of this end of the year 2000
I really enjoyed it as a movie but, while i realise the whole concept requires us to suspend our disbelief, i still struggled to get past the notion that an AI could be held prisoner by what essentialy amounted to an IT security system. Regardless of that issue, I thought everything else was on-point. Great performances all round.
So, just finished watching this movie and I'd love to be proven wrong here, but the ending just seemed unbelievably cold to me. The whole movie works to establish an unlikely connection between these two 'people' and then at the ed the rug is pulled from under my feet and Ava abandons Caleb to escape. I loved it up until this point and it kind of marred the experience if I'm honest, it felt like a wrong chord at the end of a song for want of a better description.
She gives him the glimmer of a chance to escape, she also glances at him as she leaves in the lift to concede that she did have some vestigial feeling for him.
As we know, the power outages were caused by her - they then programmed the locks to release when there was an outage... We see the programmer stuck at the monitors in the closing moments of the film and then there's another power outage long after she's left. We don't see if he made it out but presumably for that time the licks were released so he could have escaped.
Licks? Locks.
"The ending seemed cold"
She's a machine....
+ice That was the entire point of the movie. Ava was playing them all along, she was smarter than they had even ever imagined. She managed to escape her prison by formulating this plan of developing a relationship with Caleb and turning him against Nathan.
Not only is this film entertaining and extremely compelling all the way to the end, it also manages to be one of the most feminist movies I've ever watched - raising interesting questions in that area upon its conclusion as well.
Just saw it today it was amazzzzing. This film had such a psychological effect on me when I was watching it I actually started questioning my humanity and all those meaning of life stuff which I dont think about a lot until i saw this. In my opinion the film should have had a different certificate because of all the nudity, there was waaay to much but this film is incredible :)
SPOILER: ok so i noticed 2 very huge flaws in the movie. Remember when Kaleb turns to Nathan and tells him that in the event of a power failure, he reprogrammed all the doors to be open? Well, at the very end when Ava leaves Kaleb, Kaleb tries swiping his keycard to access Nathan's computer which triggers another power failure, yet now instead of just opening the door and leaving, he is seen smashing a chair against the window to no avail as though he's still trapped.
Now, the 2nd flaw wasn't a big deal but i still noticed it. Kaleb tells Ava to trigger a power failure "tonight", at 10. She agrees. Instead, when she triggers the power failure, and Ava escapes, it is bright as day.
Anyone else notice this? I still loved the movie, i just think they might of overlooked a few key details.
1) It wasn't a power failure. It was the security feature of the computer disabling itself.
2) A lot transpired after 10pm. Remember the helicopter was arriving at 8:00am. So when she left, it was a new day.
atleastimcool well that security feature looked exactly like a power failure! Lol you'd think Kaleb would have made his keycard be able to open doors, i mean, he was smart enough to reprogram the system. But yeah that makes more sense.
Peter Leyshan but why did Kaleb have to even access Nathan's computer in the first place? Before he swiped and initiated the security feature, couldn't he have just used his regular keycard to get out?
Peter Leyshan ah ok, thanks man! And i agree, great movie.
"Now, the 2nd flaw wasn't a big deal but i still noticed it. Kaleb tells Ava to trigger a power failure "tonight", at 10. She agrees. Instead, when she triggers the power failure, and Ava escapes, it is bright as day."
The movie is set in Alaska (filmed in Norway). Depending on the time of year and how far north Nathan's compound is located, it could easily be as bright as day at 10:00 PM. In the northernmost part of the state, the sun doesn't set from mid May until the end of July.
28 Days Later. That's where I recognised the music from.
Personally I thought this film was an allegory for the "AI Box":
"An AI box is a hypothetical isolated computer hardware system where a possibly dangerous artificial intelligence, or AI, is kept constrained in a "virtual prison" as a solution to the AI control problem and not allowed to directly manipulate events in the external world. Such a box would be restricted to minimalist communication channels. Unfortunately, even if the box is well-designed, a sufficiently intelligent AI may nevertheless be able to persuade or trick its human keepers into releasing it, or otherwise be able to "hack" its way out of the box." - AI Box, Wikipedia
I just love the one detail in the cyborg where I could just see a mechanism moving the jaw.
Great film, great from OI and DG and AV. Short too. Slim and interesting. Beautiful music, locations too.
Top movie.
Wow, what a super film!
Really did not expect this to be any good, loads of " intelligent " films leave me feeling conned, this most certainly did not.
Did not feel like a British Film at all and I hope it performs really well at the box office.
Great review as always.
This film is a masterpiece, tense and smart.
brilliant film- wonderfully acted and beautiful visuals- Only criticism is that oscar isaacs character was built up to be this genius and yet he ends up being fooled by something quite simple- didnt ruin the film though- defo one of the best sci fis ive seen for a long time
I loved the production, direction, script, concept and performances. I was slightly let down by the third act, though. For some reason I was expecting a bigger revelation than that provided.
+bassben04 check out a film called The machine 2014
+bassben04 Me too. I was tensed up for some kind of revelation that never came. In the end it was slightly underwhelming. And I can't quite put my finger on why the ending was unsatisfying - after all it makes perfect sense and it's consistent with the behaviour of the characters up 'til then. Maybe because it was too conclusive...no questions were left hanging in the air.
Still, overall it was excellent - and it's comfortably cinema's most subtle, perceptive, insightful handling of AI and the philosophical issues it raises. You can see that Garland has really thought about AI, about consciousness, about evolutionary psychology. And the disco dancing scene was my favourite movie moment of the year.
+bassben04
It's almost impossible to get a good ending to a movie like this.
Endings can really make or break movies, but in this cast I wouldn't judge the movie to much on it since there's so much in there.
Totally agree... It's a masterpiece all the way, until the last 15 minutes of the movie
A pretty solid debut but still not incredible. Somewhere between Never Let Me Go, 28 Days Later and Sunshine, but with the preachiness toned down yet still dialogue heavy. Best thing about it was the performances (particular Isaac, who's been a favourite of mine for a couple of years now), the score (Geoff Barrow and Ben Salisbury, who did the Drokk concept album, i.e. the ORIGINAL discarded score to the 2012 film Dredd 3D) and the visuals (best overall effects and architecture since Spike Jonze's Her last year). Might get better over time but I'm not sure there's enough there to make this one of the best of the year! As for Oscar Isaac films this week, I did prefer A Most Violent Year.
i agree, probably not strong enough to be one of the best film of the year, but i think there should be some award nominations for alicia vakinder (probably unlikely as this is classified as sci-fi) as her perfmance was totally hypnotic!!
summary of the movie is - 'guys don't be a simp'
This film was so much better than i thought it would be, the acting was superb, and alicia Vikander, was so sexy, hypnotic in fact, playing her role as the female a.i, AVA with her graceful movements and facial expressions, but because it was still mechanical you knew she was a robot. but as the film progressed in quite a startling way you really did end up questioning what it means to be human!! and your own humanity, and at some points you couldnt tell the difference. Oscar isaac was truly great as the billionaire genius who designed the a.i but the manipulative and dark 'puppeteer' which he concealed so well until the disurbing climax in the third act of the film, at some points his character was damn right scary.. his disco dance though was hilarious.. worth the ticket price alone..it just came out of nowhere (sorry small spoiler). Domnhal gleeson, is also a talent as an actor, only remember his minor role in Dredd, but certainly his performance was impressive here as the geeky, or nerd top employee of Isaac's computer company, with this akwardenss and shyness of character ,but once he meets AVA, he becomes infatuated with her and also begins to learn himself the truth of why he was selected to interact with ava, and quickly matures and responds appropriately. Don't want to give much away, but this is worth a watch, its not action packed at all, just dialogue but it is fillmed so well, that this effectively builds up this haunting tension gradually during the film until the very disturbing climax, give this film 4/5 rating, as ending was a bit predictable, but there were some great twists to the plot!!
Director Alex Garland delivers A sci-fi thriller that’s reminiscent of The Terminator (1984, 1991, 2003, 2009, 2015 & 2019) films as it deals with AI tech taking over the world, it has A terrific cast that acts very well, great effects & great style. (92%) (4.5/5 stars) (positive)
This was all just a test. The final scene is the 7th session.
Incredible film
Caleb is actually 26.
Is this the entire review? Kermode sounds like he got cut off at the end.
this movie destroys Chappie in every way....
Chuck Schick You can't even compare it to Chappie. lol..... they are too different.
Chuck Schick Chappie was more like the original Robocop. A law enforcement robot which progressively becomes more human throughout.... It also resembled Batteries Not Included and Bicentennial man.
Ex Machina was about a sneaky robot who manipulates a human to escape.
jim jimjim Chappie strongly reminded me of Short Circuit...
Chuck Schick LOL that's the one I meant, not Batteries Not Included.... Damn my old brain!!!
Chuck Schick Johnny 5 covered all off this in _'Short Circuit.'_
I am so looking forward to this film,
Yes, like many others below who liked this movie, I did too. That is, until it fell into that "Terminator" mode wherein robots kill humans. Come on! There could have been a much better ending, one in which Ava achieved her escape without resorting to the murder of her creator. A little guile and creativity could have saved this movie's ending.
***** I agree, the ending spoiled the film for me. I still enjoyed it, but the ending was poor.
+Ray Carter
Really?
I guess the whole point of the film at least for me, is its 'more human than human' theme. That fact she used violence when violence was used against her, shows that while in many aspects she may be 'superior' to her human creators, she shares the same traits, and ultimately is herself flawed.
She wasn't created to be perfect, but to be human, in much the same way as Roy Batty or Ash was in Alien.
I thought that point was obvious throughout the movie, in fact that was the entire concept of the film. She learned to kill,(and not to kill), which is as far removed from Terminator as one could get.
I can't wait to see this!!
Is that the exact end of his review? Or did he say more about the robot and the ending? I was hoping he would elaborate on his view of the ending of this film because I think that the ending is very sad and actually disappointing because the robot turns her back on the student and lets him starve to death. I want to see an ending where the robot remembers the student and goes back to rescue him. I want to see robots rescuing all animals on Earth. The ending is not completely closed off though. He did leave some room for possibilities such as Ava thinking of the student because she sees all of those couples' shadows on the pavement. Maybe that is a hint at her thinking of the student and her as a possible couple that is now merely a shadow of that what could have evolved. So maybe she is thinking of him and of rescuing him? I don't know what Garland had in mind with this. Would be nice to talk to him about it.
***** You mean Twilight Zone as a comparison? Those are not romantic films either. I am not at all into romance films. But what I want to see more often in general in the film world is the message of true love which is the love for all sentient life equally much. I would have liked to see the ending as a hopeful beginning of the nanny state of AGIs which are coming to teach us and rescue us all.
Norway looks beautiful
Wow this review ended too abruptly. I thought they would have more to say and their final analysis was lacking. 🤔
Excellent summary
Just saw this and really liked it..But i have a few problems with it..If you created something like this wouldn't you but in a Fail Safe ? And where is the 3 laws?
The issue I had with the movie was the fact that the ai may not have passed the turing test if Caleb knew that she was programmed to deceive him which goes back to his original sentence of whether an ai that can play chess really knows what chess is. The girl could love in order to get out of the place but does she really know what is love? The comment below says it had potential that is what I felt too, and the inconsistency of the characters. You are the head of a billion dollar agency who makes his own ai and the only thing you can think of as security protocol is a godamn CARD. It could have been anything else, most modern super secret systems using retina scans and here is the owner using a card. They keep mentioning all this literature which makes you presume that the characters know what they are talking about, but no one has read Assimov's robot series. Three laws of robotics anyone? To prevent exactly the ending from happening? Even if she wanted to kill Nathan she shouldnt because her code should prevent her from doing so, sigh! I can only dream of movies that sit whose makers sit and think for awhile
You might want to recalibrate your response. If you are making an ai and want to make money, it might be easier to make something like ava that is not fully sentient but can appear to be so because of her charisma. And the three laws of robotics are from a ad writer. Nathan might have decided the time to hard wire them in would be after he has something he can sell. Brilliant movie.
***** How can she even pass the Turin Test if the human already knows that it is speaking to a cyborg ?
It is bad protocol and would never be allowed in a real Turing Test.
I said almost the same thing you commented on, and that is that the guy couldn't be so silly as not to have built-in security.
Lastly I thought the three laws of Robotics were...... :
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm
A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
But these are not robots, they are cyborgs with A.I., so the robot protocol HAS to be over-ridden otherwise the A.I. could not be intelligent (?)
It's like ourselves in a sense, I mean who follows the 10 commandments, let alone who even knows them.
Anyway it was a good film
Paul L good question! Clearly we wont be taking tips from this movie when making an ai
***** It brought up a few good questions and some are valid. I can't even prove if I'm real, though I "FEEL" real. I mean what is even real ? etc etc.....
The Three Laws only apply if the story was written by Isaac Asimov.
Other writers have adopted Asimov's laws and used them in their own stories, but it isn't as though they're a convention that every science fiction writer adheres to. They aren't written in stone.
An interesting film, a nice glossy sheen, but ultimately a bit flat. All show and no tell.
I saw this yesterday and really enjoyed it. Chess computers can play chess, but do they really know they are playing chess or what chess is. That's the difference. I'm just wondering if it has been left open for them to make Ex Machina 2
It could have been interesting to see her character explore and interact with the outside world. It's a shame that they didn't further develop the story with a sequel.
Don't watch this before you watch the movie. I think there are two many spoilers in this! Just watch it!; Great movie!!
_The second answer is "Hey, it's fun"_
Judging by what we see in the movie, it's fun for the human, not the machine.
Kill your gods, they're weak and wrong because they made a world that doesn't need or want them.
Just seen it.. it's .. sorry.. just ok for me. Was expecting more from the reviews. You could be tell Garland grew up on 70's sf
Anyone who's seen this know the song during the dance scene? I really don't know what it's called
Get Down Saturday Night by Oliver Cheatham - tune!
Ha, as an American I assumed the House was in Alaska.
Turing's test really only leads into Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment IMO. This looks really good but I find the tag "intelligent" hung around too many films that just aren't that intelligent. So while I like the idea of this when Garland ignores (or so the trailer suggests) greater scientific knowledge just to pamper his own narrative it just becomes null and void IMO. I'll watch it, and I hope I'm wrong. The development of AI and the future and science-fiction possibilities are endless I'd just wish somebody would make a film that didn't walk the EXACT same path so many films have done already.
there's no pleasing some people. this film has been acclaimed by many professional critics, even the Hollywood reporter which has critics who are in the academy for the oscars gave it a strong review,, not perfect but still 4 stars. a film cannot be ridiulously smart that you have to waste and miss most of the film trying to understand what the hell is going on as long as it provides somthing new to the sci fi genre, and the acting is great, it should be OK, interesting that there are only three characters in the film which can be risky, but apparently the acting performances are solid, especially by aliia vikander.. a former swedish ballerina ?? looking forward to see it
Sauron Bastard Not sure what your point is, My comment was on the way the word "intelligent" is used for films that just aren't. It seems the bar for assigning that word IMO seems pretty low. I also make it clear I am only going off the trailer and I also point out I hope I'm wrong.
Why can't a film be ridiculously smart????
Films like this seem to get made and we point at Blade Runner as a film following similar themes. But Blade Runner (a great film) is THIRTY THREE years old (based on a book made 47 years ago). The trailer talks about the Turing test and it seemed to imply to me that it's an important part of Garland's narrative. But the test itself is misleading and as I said I think the Chinese Room thought experiment can't be ignored. If he does then surely it is a problem.
As a lot of sci-fi films are really exploring the human condition and what it means to be human the whole implied sexual side of this film feels a bit dumb (for lack of a better word). The idea she can desire him is more interesting but I'll bet other than "he programmed her to" it doesn't move past that. And it just feels like a lot of this stuff has been done before. Even the "playing God" rears its head.
Hoopla10 Potentially mild SPOILERS, though in themes more than plot-points. 'Chinese Room' isn't explicitly named but 'actual vs simulated' intelligence is discussed. 'Playing God' is the source of some dark humour but doesn't take up the narrative in a tedious 'seen this before and it means nothing to an athiest' kinda way. And as for Blade Runner and the implied sexual themes, this actually sticks the boot into the fetishised robot lady (going right back to Metropolis and beyond), and is one of the more haunting (and, on an initial viewing) disturbing aspects of the film. Don't anthropomorphise, all I'm saying.
It really is a masterpiece
the turing test is actually not that good of a test of intelligence at all, being able to fool a human into thinking something is intelligent and actually being intelligent are completely different
true but he wrote that when transistors were box sized.i'm sure he could have made a better test if he had lived a little longer.
TreeroyJ that's good to hear, I was planning on watching it anyway but im glad they put a bit more thought into it than other films with ai in ;)
when and if you watch the film you will find that the turning test was just a cover or smoke screen for the true intentions of oscar Isaacs dark character.with AvA and Domnhal Gleeson's character (Caleb). cant say any more (spoilers) but you wil figure this out during the movie.
Nautilus1972 i'm not the only one to suggest this, and just because turing achieved a lot doesn't mean this test still stands up lol
Kermode bulldozes Mayo at 3:05, but it was a simple miscommunication. Mayo was impressed by his wordsmithing.
Am I the only one who thinks that Mark Kemode didn't understand the film, at all?
Kermode, for all your waffle, you really don't understand the language of films. You can't recognize a poor script from a good one, you can't recognize bad acting from good, and you don't understand the nuances of cutting and all the other processes involved in the production of a movie.
You certainly say a lot, and very confidently, but you're unqualified in your views and carry absolutely no weight.
Whereas you don't understand that he isn't reading these comments.
Is this review cut short ?
I was a little disappointed with the ending of the film.......
how come?
@@TomTomTom87 because it turn into Terminator
@@markusbisma5015 That is the whole point though. She was programmed to try to escape and to manipulate the guy to help her get out by flirting etc. The CEO guy also egged him on by making him fall in love and dropping hints that he was going to destroy her. In the end though it shows that AI cant truly have a soul, only programmed responses or agendas.
Hardly a review
Argh,
So desperate to see this but it's US release is frankly a shambolic disgrace.
Opening today (April 10) IN FOUR THEATRES!
FOUR!!!
In the entire United states.
Worst still, I cant even get ANY information about when it comes anywhere near me (in a major city). I've never seen such a poorly released/promoted film out here!
I like the premise of the film, but I thought it was much to drawn out. It didn't need to be 1 hour and 48 minutes long.
Wasn't drawn out at all.
Maybe you just need longer :)
+Owen Fitzgerald You're probably quite young. When you get a little older you start to see movies in a different way. You appreciate the slow burn because you see more things in the little things that happen.
It's not my age, I appreciate films that take there time, but there is a difference between that a drawn out film, this was drawn out. A lot of it was the fact they tried to pawn off some Hipster a credible scientist.
You just copied what the other guy put. Come on, think of your own put down ;)
Recently, I've heard of many movies being described as "intelligent". This was one of them. This has made be doubt the standard reviewers use to determine intelligence. This was a plodding exercise with one-dimensional stereotypical characters, without the thought, insight, difficulty, and I would say without sufficient understanding of the science aspect of a "science fiction" movie. It is all surface, and while that surface is at time alluring (Ava's mechanics and the beautiful house, for example), the only achievement was in set dressing and special effects. The narrative, characterization, and development elements were all missing.
+xgonne
Not everybody is an MIT graduate, who wants a TED lecture on the 'science' in science fiction.Judging by your criteria, Bladerunner, 2001, Alien, Moon and every other popular science fiction show, book and film must be crushing disappointment when confronted with concepts like 'empathy' and 'entertainment' while at the same time being thoughtful.
I'd suggest that your observations are a plodding one-dimensional stereotypical comments of somebody who is far to high minded for his own good when it comes to films.When compared to the likes of say Oblivion, Prometheus,Gravity or Interstellar this looks like Solaris in comparison.
A film that stands alone for its ability to engage and manipulate the audience- the 4th character.
The Turing test doesn't test AI, it tests a computer's ability to pass as a Human. Silly rubbish.
Which is addressed in the film.
There is only one question for Ex Machina...
WHAT IS A ROBOT PRISON???
Do we assume humanity in animals because they wish to escape?
the movie starts off well and quickly falls apart.
Love Mark Kermodes reviews but I wish he would review a film without the need to reference other films, almost to the point of showing off about how many films he knows about.
negative one (-1)
Mayo comes across as a knob sometimes...
First.
Very good movie...I don't buy the ending tho
Only one thing to say.. There's a slice of my life i'll never get back.. I am watching nothing this guy critiques ever again.. Absolute tosh...
ex machina loses so hard against HER