2 Oscar nominations for this? Seriously?

Rating: 1/10 (11 February 2016)

There have been a frightening string of films lately. Movies that sell themselves as an original, intelligent take on a topic (e.g Interstellar) or as a never-before-seen interpretation of a familiar story (e.g. Noah). What's common in all of them is that they are all hollow and lack any kind of logic. Ex Machina is one of those movies. An insult to intelligence.
It is excruciatingly slow, boring and confined, and done very cheaply. Minimalistic (very contrived) setting, minimalistic (very irritating) music, bad lighting, artsy (totally unnecessary) camera angles, and less than a handful of actors, mostly talking rubbish. The characters are underdeveloped (to put it mildly) and/or illogical. The plot, paper thin. And they nominated the script for an Academy Award. OK, I give up.
There is literally one special effect in the whole movie: Alicia Vikander's robot body. Is it done effectively? Yes, but it is not a big deal at all, and certainly not ground-breaking. Guess what? Another Oscar nomination, for the visual effects.
I should have known better. I wasn't a fan of Alex Garland's previous works (e.g. 28 Days Later or Sunshine) either, but I like philosophical SF movies (from Tarkovsky's Solaris to Kubrick's 2001, from Spielberg's A.I. to Gilliam's Brazil, you name it), so I thought I'd give it a try. I wasted 2 hours of my life.