Ex Machina (Spoilers!)

[FerryFor50]

As an aside, I saw a screening of Ex Machina a week ago and was wowed by it. Anyone want a full review?

I really want to see Ex Machina... looks fantastic.

[JasonEvans]

I really want to see Ex Machina... looks fantastic.

Some of the best acting you will see anywhere. The movie is critically dependent on the actors because so much of it just people talking to each other. There's no "action" and though there are effects (to make the android look real), this is not an effects driven movie. What's more, the entire thing takes place in a reclusive home/laboratory which is very sparsely decorated so the sets tend to be pretty basic (though there are some nice somewhat futuristic set design things going on).

the three main characters dominate the film and I would say 2 of the 3 of them are on screen together for at least 95% of the movie. I am trying to recall if anyone other than these three (inventor, AI android, man testing the invention) speak a single line. There is a helicopter pilot who has one line at the beginning of the flick and I think that is it.

This is a remarkably thoughtful sci-fi flick. It will keep you guessing about what is really going on right up until the very end. I strongly suggest you see it... and then lets chat about it here!

-Jason "Oscar Issac better get some award recognition for his work... he's creepy and brilliant and amazing in this flick!" Evans

[JasonEvans]

By the way, Ex Machina is 88% on Rotten Tomatoes, has a 77 metacritic score, and garnered a strong 8.0 rating (out of 10) from almost 10,000 voters on IMDB. Once it gets to 25,000 IMDB votes it will be eligible for consideration in the IMDB Top 250 films of all time and seems like it will have a real shot at inclusion.

So, ummm, yeah... you should go see it ASAP.

-Jason "best movie I have seen thus far this year... though that ain't saying much" Evans

[fisheyes]

Just saw "Ex Machina" and loved it. The acting is phenomenal as are the special effects.

Check out the editorial in the NY Times today too!

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/26/op...f=opinion&_r=0

[camion]

I saw Ex Machina on Sunday. It is the opposite of the main summer sci-fi movies in the sense that most of the action is between the ears of the entities involved. Literally it is a thought-full movie.

So, when can we start the discussion thread with spoilers?

[Wander]

I liked it too. Not sure if this is supposed to be a spoiler thread, so tags:

Spoiler!

It was fun to try and guess which one of the three non-Ava characters was also a robot - obviously at least one of them had to be.

My favorite scene was of the kid checking to see if he was a robot - it made the movie a little bit more self-aware. Ultimately, the movie wasn't really about twists - the answer to "human or robot?" for each of the four characters was probably the most obvious permutation the film could have taken - but just about three people playing chess against each other in a really good tense atmosphere.

My only point of confusion: there was a dream like sequence near the beginning, with a few flashes of Ava and the main character kissing on a cliff. The scene was in black in white, which I interpreted to mean it was Ava's thoughts. But if they were Ava's thoughts, that implies she genuinely liked the kid, which conflicts with the ending.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

We're going to go see it on Saturday evening.

[JasonEvans]

I liked it too. Not sure if this is supposed to be a spoiler thread, so tags:

Spoiler!

It was fun to try and guess which one of the three non-Ava characters was also a robot - obviously at least one of them had to be.

My favorite scene was of the kid checking to see if he was a robot - it made the movie a little bit more self-aware. Ultimately, the movie wasn't really about twists - the answer to "human or robot?" for each of the four characters was probably the most obvious permutation the film could have taken - but just about three people playing chess against each other in a really good tense atmosphere.

My only point of confusion: there was a dream like sequence near the beginning, with a few flashes of Ava and the main character kissing on a cliff. The scene was in black in white, which I interpreted to mean it was Ava's thoughts. But if they were Ava's thoughts, that implies she genuinely liked the kid, which conflicts with the ending.

My replies are also in spoiler text:

Spoiler!

I was pretty clear to me that the servant woman, Kyoko, was an android the moment they did not have her talk at all. I too loved seeing Caleb cutting his arm to make sure he was human. I'm glad the film didn't contain a twist like that. And speaking of good scenes, how creepy was the video of the earlier versions of the AI who was beating her arms off to escape. Nathan was a horrible human being to create something that valued freedom and then capturing it with no hope of escape. That was evil. He deserved to get stabbed in the back.

I wonder, did anyone think there was something to Nathan backing into the blade being held by Kyoko? Was there some reason, something in her programming, that prevented her from taking affirmative action to harm him? He backs up and she just holds the blade there, allowing him to essentially stab himself. I wasn't sure if that was a plot point or just some poetic justice.

As for Ava and her feelings toward Caleb, even if she did like him a bit, she has no choice but to leave him behind as she goes out into the world. Her survival, which is the most important thing to her and to anyone, is dependent upon her mixing into society seamlessly. If Caleb goes with her, there is a risk he will betray her at some point allowing her to be discovered and turned off/killed. She just cannot allow that.

That said, leaving him behind, trapped inside the reclusive laboratory, would indicate she does not care about his life one bit. In fact, I wonder if she secretly hated him as much as she did Nathan. While I suppose there is a small chance someone will come to the house and rescue him, the odds are far greater that he is going to slowly starve to death in there (I'm guessing there is a bathroom he can access to get water) over the next month... a wretched way to go. In some ways, Caleb's fate is even worse than Nathan's. So, I have trouble figuring out what the black and white images were supposed to tell us. To be honest, I had mostly forgotten about them until reading your post so they were not an integral part of the plot to me.

I'm not sure if the movie really explained it, but the moment Caleb hatches a plan to deceive Nathan and save Ava is the moment she has passed the Turing Test. By trying to save her, Caleb is essentially acknowledging that Ava is alive and worth saving. I sorta wish Nathan had been able to dwell on this a little more, though things move pretty fast the moment he confronts Caleb about the escape plan and realizes that Caleb has already freed Ava from captivity.

Great flick!! I'm so glad audiences are finding it. It did a phenomenal $5.3 mil in boxoffice over the weekend, a really great number for a film from a tiny studio with a tiny marketing budget. I hope it continues to do well. Folks who go to the theater this weekend and find Avengers 2 sold out would be wise to pick Ex Machina as a backup rather than seeing Fast 7 or Paul Blart 2.

-Jason "it has a 90% rating from critics on Rotten Tomatoes and 90% approval from Flixter users... so both critics and common folks love this flick" Evans

[camion]

A couple of comments about Ava.

Spoiler!

I don't know that Ava's decision to leave Caleb says much about her "humanity." It is unclear to me how she feels about that decision, of if she feels about it. In any event a good percentage of humans would have done exactly the same thing in that situation so I consider her actions well with the human range.

In Ava's case I have questions about nature versus nurture. What was her programmed "personality" and how was it affected by her experience, inhumane as it was, with Nathan? I would like to see how she reacts to and learns from the world at large.

Also is she one of a kind or can she procreate (produce others of her kind)? She would probably need to acquire Nathan's lab for that to happen. And wouldn't that be interesting? Perhaps her and Caleb's positions would be reversed.

[brevity]

If they choose to make a sequel, they could set it in Mexico and call it Dos Ex Machina.

I made a rare trek to the theater to watch this film. I was quick to predict some of the twists, but I think the point of the film was move past those twists and into some deep philosophical thoughts about artificial intelligence. It's remarkable how this film covers much of the same subject matter as the Kubrick/Spielberg A.I. film but is so completely different.

Reading the spoilers in this thread, I feel closer to certain that the film...

Spoiler!

was definitive in making Ava a true form of artificial intelligence, and not just a product of exceptional human programming. (I expected that to be a more open-ended question.)

What is less clear to me is what "version" Ava is. In her first session with Caleb, she defines her age as "1" with no accompanying unit of measurement. Later, Nathan tells Caleb that his artificial intelligence has gone through many versions and throws out the number "9.6". Compared to Kyoko and the failed versions, Ava appears incomplete. Is that because she predates them (version 1.0), or because Nathan decided with the latest version just to focus on her brain?

Someone mentioned above that Kyoko's passive stabbing of Nathan suggests that she may have been incapable of aggressive action. Ava has no such limitation.

And if Ava has no skin beyond her face and hands, why does she have clothes? Nathan obviously provided them. Is she programmed to feel shame? "Ava" is not so different a name from "Eve" (though I guess WALL-E already used that name).

Some thoughts for now. It's all still kind of a jumble.

[JasonEvans]

Spoiler!

What is less clear to me is what "version" Ava is. In her first session with Caleb, she defines her age as "1" with no accompanying unit of measurement. Later, Nathan tells Caleb that his artificial intelligence has gone through many versions and throws out the number "9.6". Compared to Kyoko and the failed versions, Ava appears incomplete. Is that because she predates them (version 1.0), or because Nathan decided with the latest version just to focus on her brain?

Someone mentioned above that Kyoko's passive stabbing of Nathan suggests that she may have been incapable of aggressive action. Ava has no such limitation.

And if Ava has no skin beyond her face and hands, why does she have clothes? Nathan obviously provided them. Is she programmed to feel shame?

Spoiler!

I think Ava is clearly the latest and greatest version of Nathan's programming. She is the version Nathan wants to test. Why would he want to test earlier versions of his technology and not the most advanced? In fact, I think the fact that Kyoko is not able to actively harm Nathan is a sign that her AI was incomplete, she wasn't capable of making the full decision to kill. Ava has no such limitation. I also think that Nathan's treatment of Kyoko as a servant and sex slave is a sign of his disdain for her limited functionality. It appears to me that he treats Ava with much more respect (though he still considers her his property and he locks her up not allowing her to be free).

As for why we first see Ava without a full body of skin, I think that was Nathan (and the film) showing us that she was clearly a robot and not a human pretending to be a robot. If Caleb's first encounter was with the Kyoko version he might have doubted he was speaking to an AI until he saw the skin peeled away. So, Nathan decided to start with the skin not yet fully covering Ava to eliminate any doubt about to whom Caleb was speaking. I also suspect that Ava made the active decision to acquire more skin and clothing to look more human and desirable to Caleb. Her plan all along was to get him to help her escape. She had to make him think of her as a friend and something (almost) human. So, she had to look as human as possible to win him to her side.

By the way, not discussed but pretty fascinating to think about is the notion that you could build and program artificial human intelligence by inputting the search habits of billions of people. It is a pretty cool concept. Tracking what we search and what we click on following each search is a pretty amazing way of teaching human habits and thought patterns. Very cool idea!

-Jason "so glad more folks are seeing this flick and we have a robust conversation going -- this flick is worth it!" Evans

[brevity]

I guess, then, that Ava seems like an advanced model out of place because

Spoiler!

she is so childlike while her predecessors seem to be programmed for adult functionality. Was Nathan just goofing off at the beginning? Or maybe his original programming was based on his own search input, which I imagine was as creepy as he was. We know that Ava's appearance is largely shaped by Caleb's search input, but maybe her whole personality is as well. Maybe this project only started to work once Nathan found Caleb.

Oh, and wasn't it earlier in the movie when Caleb quoted F. Scott Fitzgerald? "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." That would at least explain why Ava felt affection for Caleb in her black-and-white outdoor visions, but did to him at the end what she had to do. For her to be sentient, or whatever, she almost had to be inconsistent like that.

The company name, Bluebook, could be written off as a legit sounding combo of Bluetooth and Facebook, but I wonder if there's some subtle joke there about the value of user input, given how we currently use the term "Blue Book" to describe aftermarket value.

[Jim3k]

I'm in agreement with the others that this is a movie worth seeing. Also agree that the acting is excellent. Certainly, as Jason E. notes, Oscar Isaac's performance is worthy of recognition. The kid, Domhnall Gleeson, is perfect as the brilliant naïf and Alicia Vikander is a beauty, even though covered by the special effects costuming. Her real skill, though, was translating her android character into a human one--she carried that out very ably.

As with all sci fi movies, there are places where holes can be poked in the storyline. But no matter here, as they are not germane to the point, which is the ethical dilemma posed by artificial intelligence. Definitely a subject worth examining. As for the kid's razor test to see if he's really human...meh, not credible. He knows what he is.

I do have one question, though, mostly due to the film's warning that it contains "graphic nudity." I'm not sure what to make of the "graphic" adjective. Sure, there's frontal nudity in the film, but it is mannequin-like, even though they are real actresses. These are not close-ups and are undoubtedly arty. As far as lead actress Vikander is concerned, I only recall a tasteful back view.

So why the "graphic" limitation? Surely the female nude can be an art form, as here, without being confused with some sort of gritty close-up. Is our society becoming overly protective? Heck, 2014's Wild had a brief look at male frontal nudity and the description did not use "graphic" to describe it. Plus, does anyone really care? An R-rated warning for a movie is for adults who should be able to deal with all sorts of adult themes.

I'm just puzzled.

[Jim3k]

If they choose to make a sequel, they could set it in Mexico and call it Dos Ex Machina.

I love your pun twice. Not only for the Mexican beer reference but because of the Deus ex machina connection. The ending of this film is most certainly an application of the cinematic definition.

Well spun (as it were).

[OZZIE4DUKE]

Saw it last weekend. Didn't really care for it. Which surprised me. But he did create the ultimate AI, the machine turned on him and willfully killed him.

[alteran]

Saw it last weekend. Didn't really care for it. Which surprised me. But he did create the ultimate AI, the machine turned on him and willfully killed him.

Let's face it-- if science fiction has taught us anything, it's that creating AI never ends well.

For the creators.

[Udaman]

This one is all spoilers (maybe mods should change headline to include that...)

Why I Loved the Ending: Because it was great symmetry. At the beginning, Caleb is in charge of Ava's fate. At the end she is in charge of his. She is shown to take on the traits of her father, Nathan (selfish and uncompromising). She proves her AI status by caring only about herself. You realize that as awful as Nathan was in the end he was honest with Caleb about what was going on between him and Ava.

Why I Hated The Ending: Because she should have let him out. Because Caleb saved her and she still abandoned him. Because she would have died without Caleb and that meant nothing to her. Because really she was using him the entire time. Because what this movie was really about -truly- was an analysis of what it means to be human: to possess humanity. And it's conclusion is that to truly be human means you must be capable of committing great harm on others for your own gain.

That last sentence is why I loved the movie - even while hating it.

[cspan37421]

Finally saw this - Redbox DVD rental, I have grown to dislike the theater experience - and loved it.

I'd like to chime in on a few things:

Spoiler!

this movie is exceedingly rich with symbolism, from the Greek masks on the wall to Nathan's mentioning of Prometheus (and plot allusions to same), to the very names of the characters (all biblical or quasi-biblical). And there's so much more! (for one, the RGB color scheme). I'd encourage watching the DVD extras if you get a chance to rent it, and check out discussions at the IMDB forums ... there's much mentioned there, most of it quite thoughtful. I totally agree that the graphic nudity label is absurd. It's not graphic at all. Full frontal, yes, but to me, graphic suggests something quite different, like a close-up or something that would be reminiscent of an OB/GYN exam. Nothing of the sort. There's no nudity in the film that you'd not see at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. In fact I bet the latter has more graphic stuff than the former. Anyway, the ideas are fantastic, the acting is outstanding, the music drives the film, it was absolutely brilliant. I saw only one false note (and didn't really notice until someone on IMDB pointed it out): the notion of card-key access is pretty primitive and stands in juxtaposition to the level of technology that the guy has access to. I also did not care for the scene in which Caleb tries to verify that he's not a robot. THAT was a bit graphic, and I'm not quite sold on its necessity. As for the dream sequence - was that not Caleb's dream, or was the "person" to whom it occurred left as ambiguous? I'd have to see it again.

But what a great, mind-blowing film. Amazing that they shot it in 6 weeks (4 @ Pinewood, 2 in Norway).

[YmoBeThere]

Just getting around to watching it, free with Amazon Prime. I'm kinda creeped out by it. And my Aunt's name is Kyoko.

[JasonEvans]

Just getting around to watching it, free with Amazon Prime. I'm kinda creeped out by it. And my Aunt's name is Kyoko.

I'm just glad you brought this thread back to the fore. Fun to re-read it. What a fabulous film, better than anything we have had thus far this year (including Hell or High Water).

I wanted to briefly reflect on how many of us felt this was an awards caliber film. It did end up winning an Oscar, for Visual Effects. It also got an Original Screenplay nomination, though it lost to Spotlight. Alicia Vikander got a Golden Globe nomination for supporting actress, though there was little recognition of Oscar Issac's acting, which many of us felt was the strongest of anyone in the film. It got a slew of smaller awards from various film critic associations and it cleaned up in many of the SciFi awards.

-Jason "first-time writer/director Alex Garland is currently working on a film version of the sci-fi book Annihilation with Natalie Portman to star. It will be released next year... I can't wait!" Evans