Intcatinfo
A Masterpiece!
Kaelan Mccaffrey
Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.
Deanna
There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.
Philippa
All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.
MrFilmic
Although well traversed, especially more so since the turn of the century, artificial intelligence and its impact on humanity remains one of the main Sci-Fi tropes. Android certainly fits into this category, well written and well acted for the most part it does however ultimately let itself down at the final hurdle, with an ending that seems more fitting of a lesser film With shadows of Ex Machina and the excellent Westworld TV series, Android tackles the concepts of human vs created awareness, with some expected and unexpected consequences. With only 4 characters on screen the script is effective and the performances are engaging Certainly worth watching and without giving anything away, expect to be stimulated cerebrally rather than adrenergically!
Heather B
This was more amazing than "Ex Machina." The story line was intense and illustrates the perils of our human race rapidly evolving toward sentient cyber life. *SPOILERS--Do NOT read ahead if you have not yet watched the movie* Spoiler ALERT, Spoiler ALERT!!! Rainn Wilson's character was brilliant and vile. It was harrowing to watch the last few scenes of the movie and the almost psychopathic rendering of the antagonist was amazing. Plot twist was somewhat expected, but not to the extent it was carried out, and the lack of moral compass that it unveiled in those who would use technology, and people, and emotions, at all costs. Loved it.
siderite
The film's title is appropriate, since that is the feeling you are getting from the movie. Somehow, something is wrong with it, but you can't put your finger on it. The twist at the end was pretty predictable as well, but somehow they botched it up with the very last scenes. If they change the ending - not in its idea, but its handling - the movie gains an instant extra rating point.However the biggest harm that anything can do to this film is that it was released soon after Ex Machina when they are approaching similar subjects. It is not the same thing, but close enough, and clearly not as good. I have to think, would I have liked the film in 2014, let's say? And the answer is probably yes. Change the ending scenes, make the pace a little more alert, maybe remove some of the slow scenes or some of the bad ones (because there are some that are just stupid) and you get an instant winner.Bottom line: interesting concept, not bad yet mediocre implementation, badly written ending scenes. Uncannily close to a good movie.P.S. Why do movies try to seem smart with chess analogies, and then really botch them completely? Even the weakest chess player in the world would instantly see that the people doing the scenes had no idea how the game is played.
tktansey
That Matthew Leutwyler's sci-fi chamber piece "Uncanny" was made 3 years before Alex Garland's "Ex Machina" is interesting. That Leutwyler made his film for a fraction of Garland's budget is admirable. That Leutwyler's plot doesn't make a lick of sense is a shame.Seriously, what was the point?"Uncanny" and "Ex Machina" share similar story lines: an outsider is invited into the high-security lair of a reclusive genius in order to interact with and evaluate a new form of artificial intelligence. In each case, the outsider and the AI are of different genders and the reclusive genius has an agenda. Predictable consequences ensue. But where "Ex Machina" follows these events to their logical conclusion, "Uncanny" gives up on logic entirely for the sake of a surprise ending that a) isn't much of a surprise and b) negates almost everything that happened over the preceding 80 minutes.On paper, the movie was probably conceived to be an insightful meditation on what makes humans humane and robots less so. Thrown in for good measure are some thoughts on what can and can't be controlled in sentient beings and whether we as a race are innovating and engineering ourselves right into obsolescence. There's also a bit about masters and servants and which are which. All big, important ideas that Garland's film handles with much more style and intelligence. Still, it wasn't "Ex Machina" I thought about as I watched the film. What came to mind more was "Frankenstein." The book, not the movie. In the book, there's a relationship between the creator and his creation. They're in this together in the name of science and discovery. But that relationship sours when Dr. Frankenstein rejects the monster to be with his fiancée. I'm paraphrasing here, but that's the gist. "Uncanny" seemed to be moving in a similar direction. Actually, the movie was moving in exactly that direction. There was even the interesting possibility that roles were being reversed.Then came the final cryptic ten minutes and it all turned out to be a huge waste of time. Adding insult to injury, there's an end-credits scene so nonsensical it's laugh-out-loud funny. Not, I'm guessing, what the filmmakers intended."Uncanny" isn't a bad movie, it's a bad story. The cinematography is fine (though the lingering shots of Shiva, the Destroyer, are a bit overly), the acting is adequate (if you don't mind watching Rainn Wilson, in a mercifully short cameo, chew scenery), and events move along at a fairly brisk pace. It's just that those events simply don't add up when you get to the end. Note: One question bothered me as I watched both "Uncanny" and "Ex Machina". Why, why, why—if you're going to build a creature and make it both smarter and stronger than yourself—why wouldn't you include an "off" switch?
