Ex Machina

4 Stars (out of four)

Okay, I'll say it.  With no sense of hyperbole whatsoever.  I have seen my first masterpiece of the year.  In fact, in several years.  Ex Machina is the type of deep, thoughtful movie that I continually pray for and when it occasionally happens, gives me hope that originality and daring is NOT dead in Hollywood, merely beaten severely, robbed and left gasping for life in a muddy, bloody ditch, tenaciously holding onto life against all odds, but very much alive.

Ex Machina takes place in the near future, where the greatest programmer in the world has created a truly sentient AI (artificial intelligence) and put that brain in an automaton, creating a truly sentient being.  He selects a great programmer to have several tests with the AI, named Eva. The goal of the tests, a series of interactions with Eva, are to determine whether she is truly sentient or merely the world's greatest chess program; that is, only responding based on a confluence of related variables that will bring about the best result based on odds.  But like all great sci-fi, it is much more than that.  It asks deep philosophical questions on what is sentience?  What is a person?  What are the ethics of creating and/or destroying a unique sentience?  What are the consequences of creating an artificial life?  Ultimately, what makes us...US?

All great scientific achievement or leaps forward create inevitable ethical questions and consequences, both intended and unintended.  The lawyer in the play Inherit The Wind sums it up well when talking about Darwin's Theory of Evolution and the inevitable demystifying of the Bible, "I think there is a man up there saying, 'Yes, you may have a telephone.  But you will lose privacy. The charm of distance.  Yes, madam, you may vote.  But you lose the privilege of hiding behind a petticoat.  Yes, mister, you may conquer the air.  But the birds will lose their wonder.  And the clouds will smell of gasoline.'"  With each leap forward, something inevitably changes.  And that change is not necessarily always good.  As I watched Ex Machina, I realized I read this story before, in a book written 197 years ago in 1818.  Ex Machina is a modern retelling of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein: The Modern Prometheus.  In it, Shelley asks what are the consequences of dabbling in God's domain, both to the dabbler and to his creation.  What happens when the dabbler cannot contain his creation?  What are the unintended consequences of a myopic pursuit of a seemingly noble goal that was not thought all the way through?  Ex Machina goes even one step further: what happens to the inventor who believes he is not answerable to human ethics, taking the role of God?

This all sounds terribly overblown and pretentious, but I assure you, it's not.  It asks all these questions and more, in an interesting and ultimately terrifying way.  But this is an old story and an old question humankind continues to struggle with.  For instance, the movie asks the question that if Eva is truly sentient and you disconnect her or erase her thoughts, are you killing a life?  Is it ethical to do this if you make a mistake, or for any reason?  What rights do an artificial life form have?  Are they the same as people?  Why or why not?  Today's modern society has been wrestling with several similar moral conundrums.  When is it, if ever, moral to abort a baby?  What are the consequences of cloning body parts?  Whole humans?  Should we use stem cells harvested from fetuses?  Are people born or bred gay or transgendered?  Big Bang or Intelligent Design?  Should we alter genetic code in fetuses to avoid debilitating diseases?  To choose race, eye/hair color, intelligence?  Should we create AI?  I'm not suggesting one or the other, merely pointing out these are very important conversations to have.  

Now, other films have touched on this in recent years from Divergent, Jurassic Park, A.I., The Island, Gattica, The Sixth Day, Star Trek, THX 1138, Westworld, The Terminator, her, to Aliens.  I could go on and on.  They all share a common theme, where is the line drawn?  But Ex Machina approaches that question both skillfully and entertainingly, and takes a stand.  This movie blew me with its intelligence, it's thoughtfulness, it's curiosity to explore, and its unambiguous judgement.  Whether or not you agree with that judgement it is not the point; rather, that you think past your prejudices and beliefs and seriously ask yourself, and others, these questions.  It is important in order for a society and an individual to progress that we have these moral inventories from time to time.  Otherwise, you end up like much of the Middle East, or more specifically, ISIS-stuck forever in a vicious loop where you are convinced you are correct and everyone else is wrong, longing for a past that grows more beautiful with each passing year and inevitable revisionism while the future is a dark, terrifying unknown.  As naïve as it may sound, it is imperative that stories like this are told and that people discuss them.  That's how ideas happen.  As I stated before, I unequivocally think this movie is a masterpiece: Entertaininly told, masterfully thought out.  Please see it and show Hollywood that content does matter, that thoughts are important.  There is nothing wrong with Michael Bay-esque fast food occasionally.  But sometimes, a sumptuous feast should be partaken as well.  So adults, see this on your next date night and leave that damn Lego Movie to the kids under 8.

Avengers: The Age of Ultron

3 Stars (out of four)

Well, Joss Whedon does it again.  I continually find it amazing how well he handles ensemble action pictures.  He usually has the perfect combination of character (to keep the story on a higher level) while infusing great action sequences (to keep it interesting).  Marvel Studios has been very astute in keeping him on both Avengers movies because it could have devolved into mindless claptrap in less capable hands (yes, I'm looking at you, Michael Bay and George Lucas!).

The Avengers: The Age of Ultron is essentially picking up the pieces from the events of the first Avengers, Iron Man 3, and Captain America: The Winter Soldier.  After the near annihilation of NYC after the alien invasion the Avengers thwarted, and reeling from the dissolution of SHIELD, Tony Stark and Bruce Banner ask Thor if they may study Loki's scepter before Thor takes it back to Asgard.  They find it has one of the immensely powerful Infinity Stones in it.  Through deciphering the science behind the Infinity Stone, Stark mentions they could use some of its properties to build a sentient machine to prevent the next alien invasion before it happens.  It works only too well, creating a sentient program named Ultron that inserts itself into the Internet so that it becomes part of all all things.  It begins to build copies of itself to wipe out humanity.  Stark and Banner then build the artificial life form The Vision, which they will use to battle against Ultron.  The end is a mindless melee of thousands of Ultrons and the world is saved once again.  There's a lot more to it, but I don't want to give everything away, and in some cases, doesn't make a lot of sense.

Frankly, just because the movie doesn't make a lot of sense doesn't mean that it's no good.  It's a hoot.  The magic element for me in this outing was the development of all the characters, particularly the Black Widow and Hawkeye, who up to this point have essentially been background eye candy.  This movie goes behind these two shadowy figures and really gets underneath who they are.  There is an interlude in the movie at a farm that some people have complained about, (most notably Disney and Marvel execs-see article: http://www.avclub.com/article/corporate-drone-joss-whedon-fought-pure-artistic-i-218967?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:1:Default) because they felt it's boring and slowed the movie down.  Well, it sort of does, but the movie needs this exposition to humanize their characters.  Basically, anyone who hated it is either nine years old or has not progressed past nine.  This exposition is the point of excellence to the film that it lacks otherwise.  It gives some much-needed depth to the characters and story, giving us a reason to like Johannson's Widow other than her fabulous tits.  This is what separates good movies from great movies, sparks like this.

Unfortunately, this fairly good, but somewhat insensical movie gets ruined by its last, epic 15-minute fight scene.  I realize that's how all these movies need to end, but there needs to be a better way to do it.  Captain America: The First Avenger, Guardians of the Galaxy, Iron Man 3 and the first Avengers all suffer from this malaise.  It seems that the final clash has no real reason to be there other than ending on a high note.  The fights are too big and impersonal and unillustrative of a greater theme. Instead, the point seems to be shoving as much fake-looking CGI visual information in the frame as possible, which ultimately takes us out of story.  We feel we are watching an unreal comic book.  It no longer engages, but rather pounds us into submission.  Filmmakers have become overly dependent on CGI to tell their stories, it has made them lazy.  Like any other tool or spice, CGI should be used sparingly, to support the greater themes rather than being the point unto themselves.  That's why The Winter Soldier's final act works so well.  Yes, it was busy, but in the end, it was about Steve Roger's moral compass fighting against the seemingly inevitable compromises and corruption that he felt SHIELD represented. That's what works there. In Ultron, it's our heroes fighting a bunch of little Ultrons, but doesn't really go anywhere beyond that.

The movie was fun, very entertaining and enjoyable on several levels, and only goes off the rails at the end.  I hope Marvel learns from it (according to the article above, I'd say they didn't), but I will not hold my breath.  In any case, see it.  It is good fun and worth the watch.  And don't bother with the 3D.  It doesn't really add anything other than $3-$5 to your ticket price.

Safety Last!

3.5 Stars (out of four)

There were three great geniuses in the early days of silent comedy.  You probably know, and have seen, something from each.  The first is the little tramp, Charlie Chaplin, who was one of the definers of early cinematic language.  It is said he is one of the five universally known characters throughout the world (the other four are Superman, Sherlock Holmes, Mickey Mouse and Tarzan in case you were curious). The second was Old Stoneface Buster Keaton.  The third, while you may not know his name, you definitely have seen his most famous picture:

His name was Harold Lloyd, and most people have largely forgotten him.  This is unfortunate, because unlike Chaplin and Keaton, whose characters were essentially a dancer and acrobat respectively, they really aren't like anybody you knew.  The were archetypes and fairly unrelatable.  Funny, no doubt, but not real in the conventional sense.  Indeed, Lloyd started his career as a Chaplin rip-off called Lonesome Luke in several two-reellers:

But once he put on the glasses, boater hat and suit, he became The Boy, a Joe Everybody, and that suited him perfectly, and was probably a better transition.

Much better, don't you think?  With this new look, his character became a normal person, and with the character, he was less over the top as Chaplin and Keaton were, so it come off much more endearing and believable.  Now this is not to knock Keaton and Chaplin at all.  Far from it.  They were geniuses in their own right.  But Lloyd was a new type of comedian for a new type of age; one that didn't ham it up (as much), and therefore makes me like him more. He reacts how I think I would react in the situations he's in from talking to a woman to hanging 10 stories above from a clock.

So, Safety Last!, like most silents, is pretty simple.  Lloyd plays a small town guy who moves to the big city to seek his fortune so he can marry his girl. He works as a clerk, but has lied to his girl that he is a big manager, so she decides to surprise him with a visit.  Lloyd arranges a publicity stunt to win a $5000 prize his manager has put up to bring in new shoppers.  His roommate, a consturuction worker, will climb the outside of the 12-story building.  Unfortunately, a cop is looking for him, so he is constantly dodging the cop and tells Lloyd to climb the building himself to the first floor, go in a window, and he will put on Lloyd's coat and hat and finish.  Unfortunately, he can't dodge the cop so he tells Lloyd to keep climbing floor by floor.  Hilarity ensues.

Lloyd did several thrilling movies like this, and while he was never in any real danger, they look fantastic.  See setup below.

It's an in-lens camera trick with a forced perspective.  Yes kids, this is what they did before green screen, and it was revolutionary.  Lloyd is at his charming best in this film, utterly irresistible to watch, and yet very funny.  Not knockabout comedy in the conventional sense, but very funny nonetheless.  If you have never watched silents before, absolutely start with Chaplin in Modern Times or The Gold Rush.  But take some time and catch this gem, too.  It is a hoot and great fun.