Transcendence

Transcendence is a bold, beautiful, sometimes confounding flight of futuristic speculation firmly rooted in the potential of today’s technology.

The most galling thing about Transcendence, though, isn't its inability to get a handle on what, if anything, it wants to say about the enormous changes happening to the human race, it's the movie's ending, which seems calculated to reassure us that everything's going to be fine as long as the right people are in charge, especially if they're good looking.

The story soon devolves into a far-fetched, futuristic snooze-fest that often defies its own logic. Characters' motivations are rarely clear, and allegiances shift with no explanation.

Pfister, who, like his mentor Nolan, adamantly continues to shoot on film (not digital), shows a sure hand at staging scenes, creating visuals and setting a tone -- if only all the diverse elements here fit comfortably under the same tent.

Transcendence wants to use this future panic to comment meaningfully on our current interconnectedness and inorganic lifestyle, but it’s screaming too much to have that conversation.

The real trouble with Transcendence is that it just isn’t all that scary — at least not in the way that it wants to be.

Ambitious to a fault, this cautionary fantasy about artificial intelligence has so much on its muddled mind, and so little sense of dramatic grounding, that it grows ever more preposterous before lurching to a climax that's utterly unfathomable.

A movie that, at the end, caught me with his optimism on the argument of AI. A group of very good actors (Rebecca Hall was great) in what i think is a really good movie

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

This movie is just like some 90s B-class fiction, while the core story is nice, it lacks logic sometimes. The great cast is combined with overall boringness and blandness. This movie could be good, but it isn't.

This sci-fi film is quite interesting, as it gives you a lot to think about after seeing it. It was devastated by the critics and very badly received by the public and I even understand the reasons, in that it is not good and has serious problems, but let's face it: there are much worse films that break box office records and bring the critics to their knees. The script is complex and requires attention: everything happens around Dr. Will Caster, a scientist who, together with others, wants to create artificial intelligence similar to human beings, who understands things instead of just quantifying them and calculate solutions, like machines do. The idea would have different applications in terms of medicine, education, defense etc. but it opens a Pandora's box of ethical, moral and religious issues, and that bothers a lot of people. After an attack and in the face of certain death, Dr. Caster's wife decides to take the decisive step and insert her husband's memories, conscience and personality into the supercomputer on which they had been working. Thus, after his death, the machine creates an artificial intelligence that resembles the late scientist in everything, except in the absence of soul and ethical scruples. There is a lot of complexity in this film, so it is not suitable for those who are not willing to think and pay attention. However, little by little, the film lost and wraps itself in an increasingly complex plot, leading to an action climax that would seem, at first, exaggerated and uninteresting. This loses consistency and logic. But the film succeeds in launching topics for discussion at the level of science, religion, morals and ethics. After all, the cybernetic entity created in this film is truly the creation of a human and cybernetic god, omnipresent and omniscient. The film is rich in subjects to debate and it is worth seeing it in this light. Directed by Wally Pfister, who is best known for his work in cinematography, it has a good cast, full of well-known names. However, the lack of a coherent story and structured direction has greatly hampered their work. Rebecca Hall is the actress who receives better material to work with and the result is that she works better and shows more talent than the rest. Paul Bettany is usually a safe bet, but he doesn't seem to know what to do here. Morgan Freeman is uninspired and Johnny Depp does nothing more than say the lines and show his face. Kate Mara and Cillian Murphy don't have time to do much. Technically, it is a regular film. We have regular CGI and good sets and landscapes, in addition to a very good cinematography, where we can see the attention of the director, who understands that much more than script and direction. In fact, when we finish this film, we easily conclude that it is a film that promises a lot and looks very good at the beginning, but it develops so badly and wants to be so much that, in conclusion, it ends up being nothing. All because of a bad director and a bad scriptwriter. It is a pity.

A technological film created by a group who neither seem to understand nor care about the overarching narrative implications. A star-studded ensemble cast with little enjoyment in their own individual portrayals. At two hours, it’s a bore masquerading as a philosophical think piece. My embarrassment is overshadowed by Wally Pfister's insurmountable lack of insight.