Ex Machina is a very smart movie. It didn't feel robotic.

Rating: 8/10 (31 May 2015)

This movie is a thinking man movie. Still there were some Artificial Indifferent from me in some parts in the film. Directed by Alex Garland, this spectacular low budget film, tells the story of Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson), a coder at a global search engine company, who is invited to do a Turing test, with the company's rich, reclusive, genius boss Nathan Bateman (Oscar Isaac). It's there, that Caleb's test of a machine's AVA (Alicia Vikander) ability to exhibit intelligent behavior equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human, turn into a psychological thriller. Without spoiling the movie, too much, this movie is really beautiful and powerful in how it was shot. The estate is an ultra-modern clear, full of glass and steel, but it's located in a beautiful, secluded spot underground in the mountains, surrounded by greenery. It use the spacious frame to juxtapose nature and science, chaos and order. Indeed there's something Kubrickian about the cold and calculated precision of the movie, which perfectly complements the subject matter. It has that feeling of, 'while, we might think of ourselves, as civilized men, but we're only, one step out of the jungle', type of a feel. Seeing how most of the film, takes place in one location, it gives the audience, a sense of isolation and claustrophobia. It makes the escape, so much more memorable. The ending to the film is also a shout-out to philosophical, Plato's Allegory of the cave theory. The ending is a bit upsetting to some viewers, I can understand why. After all, the movie is titled, 'Ex-Machina', which is a phrase that originated in Greek tragedies in which, an actor playing a god would be lowered down via a platform AKA machine to solve the characters issues, resulting in a happy ending for all. In this story, there was no last minute "Deus ex Machina" that changed the story. The pacing is good, plodded along, from start to finish, as flawed characters made terrible decisions, and bad outcomes followed. Even, with the twist toward the end; the movie plot seem very predictable. My problem with the film isn't that, but how oddly, the film tries to dumb down the complex material. There were times, where Caleb speaks, very fluently about technical concept, only to have Nathan shut his smart psychoanalyze down to beat around the bush. It doesn't make, any sense. He can understand Caleb's jargon perfectly well; but he's dumbing himself down. Yes, I know, the movie had to have some entertaining moments, so it doesn't sound like a boring science exposition lecture, but gees some of the pop culture sum-up dialogue didn't work. It doesn't make, Nathan look believable, as a man that create A.I, when he is dancing, and acting like a fret-boy. Still, Oscar Isaac's performance was one of the better parts of the film. He has the right amount of charisma, and charm to be, somewhat likable. Domhnall Gleeson matches, a great, against Nathan. He fills the character with the right amount of innocence and vulnerability that make him the ying to Nathan's yang. Alicia Vikander is pretty good as Ava. She was able to show Ava's stillness and the robot like manners in which she moves, and how she talks. She's aided by some pretty remarkable-yet-subtle visual effects work. She's a stunning sight to behold, her face the perfect depiction of feminine beauty. The movie does have graphic nudity, but it wasn't done in a titillating, sexism gross way. This film is very European in its approach to nudity. More poignant than eroticize. It shows the beauty of the female form, as a natural thing. Could, the movie cut down on it? Yes, but it wasn't exploiting nudity, just for eye-candy. It was needed for the film's plot. For the most part, other than the nudity, this could have been a PG-13 film. The violence is very tame, the language wasn't harsh, enough. It could had work. The creepy, futuristic music score by Geoff Barrow and Ben Salisbury rings true emotionally, bringing a combination of eliciting both strong thoughts and feelings. It's bursting with ideas, theories, and moral questions about the concept of artificial intelligence, and it leaves these theories open to interpretation by a smart audience. Still, I wouldn't call this movie, original. Most sci-fi movies made these days, recycles old ideas like the dangers of artificial intelligent so much, that it might be tiresome to some viewers. In 2015, along, when this film was made, there were more than a dozen of the A.I films, similar to this. While, this movie has a lots of familiar themes, taken from art, literature, psychology, film, sciences and other. It's not gimmicky. Many were very thought-provoking. There are countless amounts of references, worth researching on your free time, ranging from classic material, like Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, Charles Perrault's Bluebeard, Ovid's narrative poem about Pygmalion, and the Greek myth of Prometheus to post 20th century, media sources like the Blue Book by Ludwig Wittgenstein, 1966's Star Trek episode "Requiem for Methuselah,", and Embodiment and the Inner Life: Cognition and Consciousness in the Space of Possible Minds, a book about the history of Artificial Intelligence Embodiment by Murray Shanahan. The movie even makes us, wonder about real life issues, like how companies are using people's personal data for their own use and sailing it to third parties. It's very creepy. Overall: While, the movie might have some plot holes and inconsistencies; for the most part, it's a very well-made film. I wish, I could go into more in-depth analyzing, but it would take, pages upon pages of discussion to get, through it. Still, viewers should have a great deal to talk about, on their own. It's a must-watch. Recommended it.