“Ex Machina” Movie Review

Year: 2015

Director: Alex Garland

Writer: Alex Garland

Stars: Alicia Vikander, Domhnall Gleeson, Oscar Isaac

Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson) is a young programmer working at a search giant (an obvious jab at Google), who is selected to spend a week at the private estate of the company’s CEO, Nathan Bateman (Oscar Isaac). When Caleb arrives, he finds out that Nathan has chosen him to participate in a special Turing Test to assess the human capabilities and level of self-awareness possessed by Nathan’s latest A.I. creation. The A.I. that Nathan created has the body of a beautiful female, called Ava (Alicia Vikander), who quickly еlicits Caleb’s sympathies. Not a completely originaly concept, but the plot isn’t the most important element of the film. It’s the ideas. “Ex Machina” is not an action-based, or filled with flashy effects, story. It’s a quieter, smarter science fiction, that’s best when the characters just talk to each other, discussing what is intelligence and humanity.

A first-time director, Alex Garland, has previously written the scripts for Danny Boyle’s “Sunshine” and “28 Days Later.” Besides a solid script, he gets really good performances out of his actors and manages to add tension and fluidity to the dialogue. After hearing a lot of praises on the look of the movie, I wasn’t particularly amazed. Actually, besides a few cooler shots in the beginning, it soon becomes pretty boring cinematically. The soundtrack isn’t particularly impressive either, but it’s sufficient.

“Ex Machina” isn’t something really new to the genre, but it’s fresh and thoughtful film among all the summer blockbusters. A big plus is that most of its science is based fundamentally on technologies that already exist. Thus, it’s warning us that huge corporations with great amounts of private information, acquired via social media and internet searches, are probably just as scary as having to deal with an android having a convincing human conversation. After all, the robot in “Ex Machina” can freely draw all the information for people from the web, especially having access to all of the search engine’s data.

In fact, the conversations in the first part of the movie, is what intrigues the most: how can the Turing test be optimized to truly prove an A.I., or even the “feelings” of a machine? And on the other side of that coin lies the question – what is it to be human, how intelligent is humanity itself, if it’s so dependent on its own weaknesses? Maybe we can’t even truly test A.I. if our senses and emotions are so easy to manipulate. Furthermore, we can see how flawed are actually the humans in the movie. Caleb is way too easily influenced by his emotions and from the very beginning, we can tell that Nathan is slightly off the rails. He’s actually the drunk creator, who had to, at least partially, sacrifice his own humanity to create a self-aware  intelligent being. There’s an interesting discussion between the characters about A.I. having sexuality, since it defines the evolution of all living things. It also justifies some of Nathan’s weirder traits, and some fan service in the film, characteristic of the B-movie sci-fi.

“Ex Machina“’s plot offers some delightful twists and turns. However, towards the end things become rather predictable and really not as exciting as they are in the first part, when the audience is still trying to figure out what’s going on. A rather enjoyable and intriguing watch, “Ex Machina” is not a waste of time, but it’s been really over-hyped, it’s nowhere close to a new classic, let alone the “Blade Runner” or “2001” of our time.

The movie has 8,1 on IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0470752/?ref_=nm_flmg_dr_2

7,9 from users and 78 from critics on MetaCritic -  http://www.metacritic.com/movie/ex-machina

91% on RottenTomatoes -  http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ex_machina/?search=ex%20m

Trailer:

“Avengers: Age of Ultron” Movie Review

Year: 2015

Director: Joss Whedon

Writer: Joss Whedon, Stan Lee & Jack Kirby (comic book)

Stars: Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Hemsworth, Scarlett Johansson, Jeremy Renner, James Spader, Samuel L. Jackson, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Elizabeth Olsen, Paul Bettany

One of the most anticipated films of 2015, “Avengers: Age of Ultron” has finally come to Europe and it lives up to the expectations, mostly. Although not perfect, and arguably not quite as good as the first one, it is not really a disappointment either. Overall, I really liked it, but I wish it was a bit more than a good comic book movie. And that’s only because I have faith in Joss Whedon, who’s capable of great things. But the fact is that “Avengers” is not just his movie, it’s a Marvel property before anything else. It still worked out very well, having in mind how many characters and plot elements Whedon had to juggle. The film also touches on some interesting themes, facilitated by Tony Stark’s ego and willingness to take any risk in order to ensure world peace.

Just like the first “Avengers” the best thing about the film is the interaction between the characters. That said, for me, some of these scenes didn’t work as well as others. The jokes are more than what you’d expect from the trailer and even Ultron has a dark sense of humor. Besides that humor, the most thrilling characters are possibly Ultron himself and Vision. Ultron was put together a bit too fast and I wish more of his motivations were clarified.  Still, he is one of the best Marvel villains, if not the best. Vision, although having even less screen time, is absolutely magnificent. I guess we owe that to a great performance from Paul Bettany and the fact that he wasn’t CGI-ed, but relied entirely on make-up. As for the main Avengers team, the focus this time is mainly on Hawkeye, Black Widow and Banner. I did find some of the revelations for Hawk Eye a bit stereotypical though. Unfortunately, with so much going on, you wind up wanting more from most of the heroes. The story and motivations of the twins seemed a bit forced into the overall arc, and Aaron Taylor-Johnson’s accent just takes the audience out of the movie. And his acting as a whole – I just couldn’t buy it. Both siblings could have been used better, but I found Scarlet Witch much more interesting than Quick Silver, who, essentially has two lines of dialogue.

I didn’t expect obvious product placement as well, but it was there. Then, there’s the “epic” moment when I was just thinking how all comic movies are just trying too hard to top each other. And although the movie is a bit darker and the stakes are higher, when some of the most dramatic moments happen, they aren’t really that effective, mostly because some characters aren’t so well developed. And although the threat to civilians is addressed, we only see the ones that are rescued. Besides, normal people get shot at with huge lasers and survive.

I don’t think that the visual effects were that spectacular as well, especially with the 3D. The big fighting sequences sometimes looked blurry or just kind of fake. I’m sure that in 2D will be much easier to tell what’s going on the screen. For comparison, in “Guardians of the Galaxy” the 3D was more efficiently used and looked better. The same goes for the effects. Probably, of all action scenes, the first is the best, especially considering that it is an intricately composed long tracking shot.

As all Marvel movies, “Avengers” also has to set up the following films and some of the scenes dedicated to this task aren’t very organic to the plot and feel just like thrown here and there. For example, there’s a rather irrelevant Thor scene that seems out of place. For the most part, the weaker parts are balanced out by the humor and character interactions. So, “Avengers: Age of Ultron” remains an enjoyable movie-going experience. I am also looking forward to the release of the director’s cut that will supposedly have an alternate ending and a lot more extra footage that could deliver on some of the lacking character development and motivations.

The movie has 8,4 on IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2395427/?ref_=fn_al_tt_4

Still no results from users and 72 from critics on MetaCritic - http://www.metacritic.com/movie/avengers-age-of-ultron

80% on RottenTomatoes -  http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/avengers_age_of_ultron/

Trailer:

Classic Movies: “Akira”

From Wikipedia

Year: 1988

Director: Katsuhiro Otomo

Writer: Katsuhiro Otomo, Izo Hashimoto

Stars: Mitsuo Iwata, Nozomu Sasaki, Mami Koyama, Tessho Genda

“Akira” is a gritty dystopian sci-fi thriller that depicts the city of Neo-Tokyo in 2019, 31 years after World War III. The futuristic city is in chaos with violent riots on the streets and warring teenage gangs on motorcycles. The plot of the film focuses on the gang leader Kaneda and his younger friend Tetsuo. Accidentally they get involved with a dissident group, that’s trying to unveil a secret government project. The film is based on Katsuhiro Otomo's manga of the same name and explores mainly the first half of the story.

“Akira” is considered by many to be the first movie that brought Japanese animation to the attention of western audiences. It also showed Hollywood that animation can be efficiently used for gritty and adult topics. It is certainly one of the most influential films in the genres of animation and sci-fi at the least. And just a reminder: “Akira” isn’t a family film, it’s an R-rated feature with some graphic and disturbing scenes.

Since the manga of “Akira” is over 2000 pages long and the story is very complex, don’t expect to necessarily get all the answers by the end of the movie. “Akira” gives all the basics, but doesn’t hold your hand, saving you from big chunks of exposition and awkward scientific explanations by the characters. Even without clarifying everything, the movie manages to explore (at least partially) various ambitious themes, mainly focusing on the dichotomy destruction – creation, also evolution – dehumanization, politics, friendship etc. Here I must admit that after seeing “Akira” two times I’m still not completely confident in these conclusions. It’s such an electrifying ride and there’s so much going on, it may leave you wanting more and I’m sure there’s plenty to learn from the manga. Having in mind the dense and dynamic nature of the film, I was happy with the story. Although not completely rounded, it’s more than what most big sci-fi action movies will give you. There’s also an argument that the main heroes could benefit from some more character development and I could understand that – it would be nice, only if the film was longer, but I couldn’t say that they were underdeveloped either. While I was watching it I didn’t really need anything more. Sure, I would spend some more time with them, but not because I didn’t like them – on the contrary. I might just get the manga.

“Akira” exceeds in what very few films manage to do. It creates its own unique world that’s so vast, yet extremely dense: you can almost feel the weight of the buildings and hear the roar of bikes and angry protesters around every corner. It has an outstanding style achieved with 160 000 single images, which is 2/3 times more than usual. It also set another record for animated film by utilizing 327 colors, 50 of which were specifically manufactured for the movie. That’s due to the fact that most of “Akira” takes place at night, a setting which animators usually shun away from, because of increased color requirements. “Akira” is also one of the first Japanese films with the voices recorded before the animation. Unlike American productions, in Japan the animation is normally created first. All these innovations cost about ¥1.1 billion ($11 million) - a record for Japanese animated film at the time.

When movies create fictional worlds I often find that an entire animated universe is much more fascinating and convincing than bunch of CGI effects mixed with real images. The attention to detail, the stylistic quality of “Akira” is great example of how this can be achieved. If I have to make a comparison I’d say that the look of Neo Tokyo and its atmosphere is closest to that of “Blade Runner”, but still distinctive and maybe even more breathtaking (while I acknowledge the disadvantages of “real” movies). I can’t even start thinking about how the thousands of buildings and miniscule windows were painted by hand.

Much of the unique “Akira” feel is due to the soundtrack, too. With emphasis on drums and the use of big choir the music feels very tribal and visceral, but still futuristic. And it hasn’t aged in any way. The music is the sound of the city, its gangs and its desperate, enraged citizens, as well as its “mystical” secrets. At times it may sound a bit too “visible” for some, but Japanese film-makers don’t like hiding a great soundtrack as many western directors and composers often do. The use of silence is also integrated to a great effect in “Akira”.

Look out for the famous toys scene, the music for which is nice and simple at first glance, but also incredibly creepy and haunting. It wouldn’t be as legendary if it wasn’t for the great use of sound and silence. This composition can be just as unsettling as any of the classic horror soundtracks. And unbelievably Tsutomu Ohashi (under the pseudonym Shoji Yamashiro) wrote it before seeing a single scene or script for the movie. It was only partially edited to fit the scenes afterwards. In one fighting episode the vocals are structured as a sequence of gasps and it may sound absurd on paper, but it’s amazingly fitting and invigorating when you hear it in the scene. And this is just one of the things that you can find only in “Akira”, along with other jaw-dropping moments and particularly dream sequences. Even the movie poster itself is a cult image. Thus, “Akira” successfully demonstrates how animated films can surpass the live-action ones in creativity and rich cinematic techniques. Not accidentally, in 1999 Roger Ebert wrote an essay titled “Japanese animation unleashes the mind”.

P.S.       Watch it with subtitles! The English dub isn’t in any way better than the original, the characters don’t even sound like angry teenagers, but like kids from Disney movies and most importantly – it just doesn’t make sense, the story and the characters are fundamentally Japanese. On that note: Although being delayed for many years, Warner Bros’ live-action “Akira” remake unfortunately hasn’t been completely shut down. But let’s pray it does, because this PG-13 project with grown-up American cast set in Manhattan and helmed by an average director that hates the source material, would turn out very much like this:

The movie has 8,1 on IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094625/

87% on RottenTomatoes -  http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/akira/

Opening scene (sorry for the bits of French subs, but other clips and trailers I found reveal too much):

"Interstellar" Movie Review

Year: 2014

Director: Christopher Nolan

Writers: Jonathan Nolan, Christopher Nolan

Starring: Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain, Mackenzie Foy, Ellen Burstyn, Michael Caine

"Interstellar" isn't easy to review without giving away spoilers and after just one viewing. And although I'd like to see some things again, I don't really think that I could get through all the three hours again. And I don't mind long movies, if they can capture my imagination for the entire runtime. For me, "Interstellar" did feel like a 3-hour movie, if not longer. The first hour I actually enjoyed - the setup was interesting and somewhat endearing, except for the expositional footage of interviews. The beginning of the film worked mostly because of the good performances of Matthew McConaughey as Cooper and Mackenzie Foy, who plays his daughter - Murph. The young actress is really exceptional.

The film’s logic becomes a bit questionable when a pilot, who worked as a farmer for the last a couple of years (at least), is sent to the first of its kind space journey without a single day of preparation. However, the second part of the movie is still quite enjoyable, despite some plot holes and absurdities. At one point, after the mission has started, one of the astronauts explains to McConaughey, who is a trained pilot and brilliant engineer, what is a wormhole. Not just that, he explains it in the way Carl Sagan would explain it to 5^th graders. It's just ridiculous - if Nolan doesn't believe in the intelligence of his audience, he could at least explain things without making his heroes look like idiots - couldn't they find a kid to explain to or something?

On the plus side, "Interstellar" works on emotional level, at least most of the time and that's mainly due to the solid performances. The movie represents very well the effects of relativity on the life of the characters (despite the fact that they constantly remind you - "yep, that's because of relativity"). The scene dealing with that somewhere in the middle of the film is probably one of the things that worked best. Although, after seeing many people grow older, suddenly there's this one character that haven't changed a bit - I swear I could hear silent laughs in the cinema. However, emotion and sentimentality often go a bit too far in this movie. After the first stop in the journey another intelligent scientist suddenly starts an entire monologue justifying a decision based on the power of love.

So far, so good. But the last hour of the movie was exhausting. I lost interest in the forced melodrama and suspense. From the moment the character Man appears things become more and more convenient and absurd. Everything that happens with this guy rings false, his monologue is the most unconvincing thing ever and it’s assisted by surprisingly bad acting. After that the movie desperately tries to create tension again, which it regularly does via docking sequences - not one, but a few and not surprisingly they are all the same - 10 minutes of basically fitting ship holes. And we know that they'll do it anyway! However, the incredibly loud and booming soundtrack might keep you awake throughout all of this. Yes, even more disappointingly Hans Zimmer used two chords for the entire film and combined them with a lot of noise, really loud noise, but maybe the sound mixing is also to blame.

Towards the end the movie gets more and more convoluted, sentimental and convenient, which is the bigger problem. And being more convoluted and flashy isn’t equivalent to being more scientific or ambitious. There are so many things in the last minutes of the film that are there just for convenience and melodrama. Even the things that happen on Earth - the decision that the brother makes at the end and the forced tension between them (as if they're going to kill each other) - all this makes no sense, it's just a trick to create false drama.

Still, probably the biggest problem is that in order to explain and wrap up everything the film-makers decided to use a well-known sci-fi trope that's inherently problematic, because it's a paradox.

Surely, the movie is shot on film and looks good, we know that's the important thing for Nolan. It also has the most inconvenient robot - that bulky thing could not move like that in real life (probably the reason why his "action" scenes were edited so choppily), but that's a minor thing. The robot was the obvious comic relief, but it worked well, without him the movie would be too dreary.

I suppose "Interstellar" is an “ok film”, but the hype and its huge ambition turned it into a disappointment. It isn't among Christopher Nolan’s best movies, it's even much closer to the bottom for me. In comparison to other recent space movies – I’m still waiting for something as thought-provoking and engrossing as Duncan Jones’ “Moon” or visually immersive as “Gravity”. I actually can't really think of "Interstellar" as a sci-fi or an art movie - maybe a good family drama and above-the-average blockbuster. I just don't believe that the biggest challenges and existential questions facing humanity are to be explored by sentiment/the power of love and convenient plots where everybody's safe.

The movie currently has 9,0 on IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0816692/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

8,5 from users and 73 from critics on MetaCritic -  http://www.metacritic.com/movie/interstellar

74% on RottenTomatoes -  http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/interstellar_2014/

Trailer:

“Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes” Movie Review

Year: 2014

Director: Matt Reeves

Writers: Rick Jaffa, Amanda Silver, Mark Bomback

Starring: Andy Serkis, Jason Clarke, Gary Oldman, Toby Kebbell, Keri Russell, Kodi Smit-McPhee, Nick Thurston

The story of “Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes” picks up about decade after the events in “Rise Of The Planet Of TheApes”. At that time the virus unleashed in the first movie has wiped out most of humanity, while the apes are thriving and building their own community. This film has a new director - Matt Reeves who did “Cloverfield” in 2008. The old team of writers is joined by Mark Bomback and the result of their collective effort is a better and smarter script.

“Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes” was quite good. But this one is better in every aspect – the themes are more thoroughly explored, the dialogue is smarter and the plot is meticulously thought through. All characters in this film are well-rounded, this time both apes and humans. Needless to say, Serkis as Casear and Toby Kebbell as Koba both give strong compelling performances. And how could you forget the adorable Maurice (Karin Konoval)?! As to the human characters – the leader of the group – Malcolm, played by Jason Clarke is absolutely fascinating. Clarke puts so much emotion and intensity in his character without even speaking, so you could easily believe that he’s a real person dealing with his fears and desperation in a critical situation. Gary Oldman in the role of Dreyfus, although given less screen time also manages to create an intense and believable character. Sadly, the female heroes are not as strongly presented.

“Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes” explores the main issues from the franchise more effectively, focusing on politics and diplomacy in time of crisis and war. It touches on our anthropocentric philosophy and self-entitlement as the better species. In a few scenes Koba takes advantage of this mindset to fool a few humans to think he’s just a stupid animal. And although kind of funny, these scenes are also very unsettling exactly for the same reasons. Simply, but effectively this concept is later reversed when Caesar says that he used to think that apes are better than humans.  

The movie does really good job at showing us the two sides of the conflict by focusing on two families from both species. We understand their fears and desires and by exploring the tension within both groups we see how thin the line between peace and war can be. On both sides we have the piece-makers and the assholes. But the film treats them equally, so we understand the motivations of the violent characters just as well.  

Strangely, the film has a little bit of “Jurassic Park” feel, at least for me. There are a few scenes with people nervously waiting in vehicles stopped in the middle of the rainy forest, a man dragged from under a car and the most obvious one – people hiding from a stampede of apes under a fallen tree. I don’t know if that’s on purpose, but as someone who grew up with “Jurassic Park” I absolutely loved it. Speaking of this, “Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes” builds tension very well. For a while it also turns into a war movie with well-directed action scenes and awesome dramatic shots. Of course, at the end there is a little bit of spectacle, not over the top, but suitable for a big blockbuster. Although well-done this act relies almost entirely on CGI that’s a bit noticeable.

The soundtrack by Michael Giacchino draws the attention with its more dominant use of percussions and a little bit old-school dramatic vibe that also reminds me of older movies like “Tarzan” or maybe the original “Planet Of The Apes”. I think it adds nicely to the great emotional pull and themes of the movie. And finally, I’d like to give this entertaining, endearing and smart cinematic adventure 5 Kubricks.

The movie has 8,0 on IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2103281/?ref_=ttfc_fc_tt

90% on RottenTomatoes -http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/dawn_of_the_planet_of_the_apes/?search=dawn%20of%20th

8,2 from users and 79 from critics on MetaCritic - http://www.metacritic.com/movie/dawn-of-the-planet-of-the-apes

Trailer:

“Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes” Review

Year: 2011

Director: Rupert Wyatt

Writers: Rick Jaffa, Amanda Silver

Starring: Andy Serkis, James Franco, Freida Pinto, John Lithgow, Tom Felton

“Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes” isn't a sequel or a prequel to the original movies, it’s not exactly the standard remake, too. It is closest to a re-imagining of “Conquest Of The Planet Of The Apes” (1972) with different, more relatable for the 21st century, plot.

Having said that, the great achievement of the movie is to actually make the entire story of how the planet of the apes came to be rather plausible. You don’t watch this movie occasionally going “That’s absolutely ridiculous”. The story is pretty much straightforward, but the detail is what makes it an enthralling experience. The movie is a little less than 2 hours long and it feels like half an hour. I heard some complains about the pacing in the beginning of the film, but for me it was timed perfectly:  it gives you time to get to know the characters before the badassery of the apes ensues.

The movie has a surprising emotional pull and the brilliant Andy Serkis as Caesar just breaks your heart. He is indeed the lead in the movie and the most fleshed out character, not Will Rodman, the scientist who takes care of him (played by James Franco). He is more schematic and far less engaging, but sometimes reminds us of doctor Frankenstein. John Lithgow`s performance as Will’s father is also good and touching. But as a whole the humans are largely in the background of the story, the most intriguing characters all throughout the movie remain the apes. The best example is Freida Pinto’s role as Will’s girlfriend who, except for being very beautiful, doesn't really have anything to do on the screen.  But that’s not that unsettling, since the monkeys are genuinely fascinating and the movie deliberately focuses on them. You understand their motivations and even root for them by the end.

The cinematography is great, the movie is beautifully shot. The CGI is also excellent (all motion capture), for me it wasn't entirely convincing in the scenes with the younger Caesar, but it didn't really take me out of the story. I have another minuscule gripe – the presence of a little bit of voice-over, which probably the movie could go without.

The movie touches the well-known questions about intelligence, our treatment of animals (minorities if you wish), corporal greed, what can be justified in the name of science etc. These problems are presented, although not explored in huge dept. Still, “Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes” is a terrific movie, well above the average blockbuster – it is visually gripping, smart, well-balanced and moving. I give it 4 and a half Kubricks.

The movie has 7,6 on IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1318514/?ref_=nv_sr_3

82% on RottenTomatoes - http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/rise_of_the_planet_of_the_apes/?search=rise%20of%20the%20plan

7,8 from users and 68 from critics on MetaCritic - http://www.metacritic.com/movie/rise-of-the-planet-of-the-apes

Trailer (warning: as most Hollywood trailers, it shows too much):