Why not wait till it appears in your TV schedules?

Rating: 6/10 (14 April 2016)

This is quite a nice little movie, and I enjoyed a pleasant 126 minutes watching it, but quite frankly I can see just as good – and often better – on television almost every week, and I really fail to understand why such a movie should be elevated to the point where it was nominated for best film. I think the answer is that it was directed by Spike Jonze, and everyone knows that a Spike Jonze movie must be good. Just like a Woody Allen film, until he fell out of – and is now back in – favour.
As soon as I started watching this film it immediately put me in mind of a really clever little TV drama I saw last year on Channel 4, entitled 'Be Right Back' from the 'Black Mirror' series, written by Charlie Brooker. While the plots are a bit different, it is the same basic idea, and quite honestly, I much preferred the Charlie Brooker drama. 'Her', (the movie), is about a lonely geek, (Joaquin Phoenix), who is in the final stages of divorce, and spends his spare time playing video games. He purchases a new system for his computer and his smart phone, which is advertised as the world's first artificially intelligent operating system. He is 'introduced' to Samantha, the voice of the system, which comes in the guise of a sexy female voice. (Scarlett Johansson).
He finds himself drawn to Samantha as he spends more and more time talking to her and eventually he falls in love with her. 'Samantha' uses her powerful artificial intelligence to help him and stimulate him in ways real women have been unable to do. He even has some kind of cyber-sex with her, but we are spared the dubious pleasure of being a voyeur to this, although we do hear it taking place. It is a strange tale which is entertaining enough, without pulling at the heartstrings or really offering anything in the way of some kind of spiritual fulfilment that we might expect from an Oscar nominated movie.
I know that the professional critics absolutely adore Joaquin Phoenix, but I find him an odd fish who is somehow devoid of emotion and as such, he leaves me cold. He had rave reviews for his performance in the 'The Master' which I found one of the most boring, over-long and overrated films of 2013. So for me he does an adequate job in the lead role, but evokes no feelings of sympathy, empathy or even dislike from this reviewer. Maybe that is the idea, but if it is, then I fail to see the point. Surely viewers need to get involved and emoted with a movie they are watching?
Contrast 'Her' within the afore-stated, low budget TV movie, 'Be Right Back'. In 'Be Right Back', the lead role is a woman, and we see her briefly living happily together with her husband before she loses him in a car accident. We immediately relate to the pain she is going through and unlike 'Her', the cyber internet friend in this story is her dead husband. He is recreated by some kind of 'grief assuaging outfit' from all his myriad social profiles, text message history, emails, Facebook postings and goodness knows what else. His voice is recreated from his real voice, recorded from web cam conversations and phone calls. It is a very clever piece of mayhem, and almost credible. Unlike in 'Her', the cyber recreation of the lost husband eventually manifests itself in 'physical form' when a package is delivered, which becomes a life-like robot who is the spitting image of her dear departed beloved.
Ultimately, the end result for both tales is a re-awakening of faith and hope in real humanity - rather than in some artificial creation. If you have not seen either story, which one appeals to you the most? Her, the Oscar nominated movie, reinforces my view that it is completely unnecessary to spend countless millions of dollars on films that can be made for a fraction of the price if you cut out the exorbitant fees paid to over-priced stars. At a rumoured 20 million dollars, 'Her' was a cheap movie by Hollywood standards, but still dwarfed more than ten-fold the cost of putting 'Be right Back' on our TV screens.
'Be Right Back' was, in my humble opinion, a better-crafted movie, evoking much more empathy with the leading players and with a better, more cynical and satirical message to impart. And as if 'Her' wasn't trivial enough, we didn't even get a single glimpse of the absolutely gorgeous Scarlett Johansson, who in my view is one of the loveliest of Hollywood lovelies. (Couldn't they have had a 'dream sequence' in which Joaquin imagined what his Samantha might look like – preferably in bed? No, I suppose notScarlett might have doubled her fee)
What did the reviewers say?
Of course, the professional critics are ecstatic about it. I mean Spike Jonze! Joaquin Phoenix! they probably wrote their glowing reviews before they had even seen it..
And what about the punters from IMDb?
"Just about the best thing you can see in 2013" "I love everything about Her" "In a word, brilliant!" "HER – a visually beautiful ode the technological age."
They go on and on. Not that I necessarily disagree with them, but I do feel that their praise is a bit OTT.
Ah at long last, here's one,
"Immensely disappointing!"
No, that's not quite right either. But why not wait till it appears on your TV schedules? It really isn't worth the effort of going down- town to your cinema to see it or even buy the DVD. And it certainly didn't deserve an Oscar nomination.