Ex Machina (2015)

Ex Machina has to be my favorite science-fiction movie of recent times. It handles the subject of AI and Machine Learning in quite a sensible and sensitive way. The story begins with a software programmer who’s won a contest to go hang out with the CEO of his company for a week. Upon reaching what seems like a high-security black-ops location, he is told by the reclusive CEO, Nathan, about the real purpose of why he’s there. He is initially in awe of the CEO who’s created an AI that is quite advanced and human-like. In fact, the CEO has brought the programmer over for the purpose of what he initially reveals as conducting the Turing test. A Turing test that would have to be quite advanced in its own since the AI in question has quite a developed consciousness.
The movie has a few layers that are peeled quite well in the quintessential three acts of a movie narrative. There are three distinct character arcs, the one of the programmer, one of the CEO and the one of the AI. These are also the only three important characters in the movie with almost equal speaking parts. As the beginning of the story, we are led to believe that the CEO is evil, his AI creations are the victims the programmer is the potential savior.
The CEO is clearly a genius who wants to steal fire from the gods, and create an AI that is most honestly human in it’s consciousness; in it’s natural inclinations to enjoy it’s own beauty and that of the world around it, seeking love and protection, and ultimately freedom from any shackles. An AI that aspires to the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, if you may. And it’s the shackles that prove to be the CEO’s undoing. While he constantly challenges the programmer’s insecurity and use of formal deterministic methods for the task at hand, he himself seems deeply insecure about how he can control the intelligence of his AI’s. In fact, there is almost a patriarchal streak in his method. He has created only female AI’s, all with great care towards the female aesthetic, and even has a version that serves as his maid and lover and does not speak (back). The AI the programmer has been brought to experiment with seems to have a specific use case that the CEO wants to test. He reveals this only in the end.
The programmer is intelligent and is keen to figure out why he is there. He is torn between understanding the intentions of the CEO, who seems to be controlling every aspect of the experiment, and the AI, who seems to be working hard to gain his trust and confounding the task of testing her. He becomes increasingly distrustful of the CEO and overly trusting of the AI, who he begins to develop feelings for. He also finds out about the other failed AIs and the maid and realizes he has not been told the complete truth about the experiment. He plans to rescue the AI and lock the CEO in his own prison. But things do not go as planned.
The AI can be considered the main protagonist of the story although she is mostly behind a glass wall. We know as much about her as does the programmer and as is revealed by the CEO progressively. She comes across as pensive and unhappy at first but hopeful upon meeting the programmer. It’s hard to distinguish her as an AI except for the electronic sounds that she makes when she moves (a clever device by the film-makers). The conversations between her and the programmer are initially about friendship but progress towards love. Not very different from a bar conversation except without the flippancy (since the setting is an experiment) and with a glass barrier preventing any physical exchange of emotions. Very similar perhaps to a modern day web chat conversation in which you sometimes cannot determine whether you’re talking to a human or a bot. The AI seems truly desirous of the human qualities of love and admiring beauty. She also dwells on the subject of good and evil and tries to create a frame of reference for herself with the programmer being good and the CEO being evil. She seems to want to break out of the shackles the CEO has created and be with the programmer. She colludes with him to escape the facility. Little do both of them know that the CEO is aware of their plans. And programmer is not aware of her true intentions.
And then it’s revealed that the CEO wanted to study exactly that. An AI’s ability to utilize the emotions of friendship and love to escape her circumstances and ultimately become sentient and self-sufficient. The programmer realizes he had been unwittingly baited merely for his online profile (single, lonely male with no family and a love for programming) and not to collaborate with the CEO on his AI projects. We see now that the CEO does not really have an evil side but is as afraid as anybody to open the Pandora’s Box but wants to push the envelope as geniuses do. But as a result of the multiple dimensions of the experiment, things do not go as planned for anyone but the AI. The AI escapes with the programmers help  but in a Frankensteinian turn ends up killing her creator and locking in the programmer (understandably to avoid another having another captor) to go out to the world she’s been waiting to explore. Not as a monster but as a sentient creature dressed as a human. The movie’s ending leaves us to imagine what the possibilities might be. I must admit, I want her to become the CEO of the company and mass create AI’s to rule the world. Despite the negative aspects of the film, I found it to be a really sensitive handling of the subject. People are quick to either be in awe of AI or be afraid of it. And we have geniuses working in the field of AI pushing the boundaries of what is possible. So the movie is a reflection of the current state of affairs with AI. I am hopeful and the movie was that AI’s can be a force for good and a reflection of the good attributes of humankind, of kindness, empathy and unconditional love. Let us not be afraid and embrace a future where technology will help us be more human than we are now.

Cloud Atlas (2012)

I was left wanting more out of this film. Very rarely have I seen films do justice to 3 hrs of screen time (Oliver Stone's might be the only exception). This one was no different. Would it have made sense to have 3 connected period pieces in half the screen time. Perhaps.

Too many unnecessary distractions as well. Kitschy costumes, labored facial prostheses, invented tongues and gruesome violence. I still liked the film for stirring me like the time I read 'Brave New World'. But it fails as a movie, on too many levels.

Snitch (2013)

Dwayne Johnson (or 'Samoan Hulk' as Roman in Furious 6 rightfully christened him) is fast becoming my favorite actor with potential. He was able to pull off the concerned father willing to go the distance to save his son, quite admirably.

Which is not to say that the rest of the acting performances weren't as good. The screen time was allocated quite judiciously and the lesser known actors playing the families of the protagonists did quite well. There was even a conscious attempt to make John Mathews (Dwayne's character) as civvie as possible despite his rippling muscles. Well, he had his shirt on at all times. Susan Sarandon makes for a hot corrupt district attorney. Agent Cooper's (Barry Pepper) metal-head goatie did not come in the way of well-rendered restrained performance.

The failing of the movie was that it was not the tight plot that it could have been and the production quality was abysmal. There was a half-baked attempt to build an aura around the cartel lord and some of the twists in the narrative were confusing. For example, I did not understand why Daniel (Jon Bernthal) had to take out Malik's smalltime gang around the same time that the big cartel cat was about to be apprehended. It did seem like the movie had a hurried end considering the buildup till the second act. The visuals left a lot to be desired with mostly flat medium shots and not-so-gripping action.

I'm more than glad if this can be Dwayne Johnson's ticket to the mainstream.

Fast & Furious 6 (2013)

Wholesome action flick that has a message to boot (the one about standing by your family). Never mind the endless runway scene and human football catch by Toretto. I did check my brain at the door after all. And it's chock-a-bloc with snappy and funny-as-hell dialogue. My personal favorites listed below.
--
Tej Parker: You've gone from Shaggy to Scooby. This is something we don't doooo.
--
[Roman asks Tej for change to use the vending machine]
Tej Parker: You're a millionaire and still asking for money?
Roman: That's how you stay a millionaire.
--
Tej Parker: It’s all between you and the car you build it’s a bond, it’s a commitment.
Hobbs: Sounds like a marriage.
Tej Parker: Yeah, but with cars when you trade up they don’t take half your shit.

Flight (2012)

The opening scene of this movie immediately makes you loath the protagonist, Whip Whitaker (played by Denzel Washington). Nothing too riling about the scene. In fact, there's a gratuitous dose of nudity for those looking for it. It's a suitable character introduction considering what the rest of the movie will unravel about the man. The gripping event that follows this opening scene sets the tone for the rest of the film. Thank heavens I won't spoil that for you.

I'm not one to trump up directors for the flaws of a Holllywood film. No, that stuff should be reserved for the auteurs. I think the film is an honest attempt to potray a man with a problem. It's shot and edited well enough to make you watch it till the end. The soundtrack is indulgent but entertaining still. Here's what I think is the biggest problem with this movie. The protagonist is made larger than life and other characters are hardly developed. It's a point-of-view (POV) film and likely viewers with alcoholics in their family will be more appreciative of this approach. But Nicole (Kelly Reilly), Chip's love interest, is almost caricatured as this junkie waif. John Goodman's caper, Harling Mays might well have walked into the set for 'The Big Lebowski'. Hugh Lang (Don Cheadle), the defendant's lawyer could have been a strong anti-thesis of the main man but no. This movie could have just been called 'Whip'.

Given that it's a POV film, another suitable title for the film could have been 'Denial'. The movie does a very good job of showing us how a man let's his denial snatch everything he holds dear from him. And it takes just that for him to see his problem in true light. The conclusion of the film is an appropriate one that leaves the viewer with a sense of closure.

One last nit. Is someone going to replace Denzel Washington as Hollywood's slickest nigga already? He's getting old, you know.

The Wrestler (2008)

I'm loaded in all six compartments with prejudice on this one. Be ready to bite the bullet. So, Darren decided to make it more real for us than we know it is. Half an hour into this film, and I was still watching the gratuitous violence and wondering. Wait, let me summon up the right American phrase? Guts and Glory? A world weary, slow- witted, once successful wrestler who has to put up with the vagaries of creativity in the world of pro-wrestling. Blades, staples, forks, what have you. Beats me why I have to watch and sympathize with a third of screen time about this medieval sport. Oh no, not a sport, but a show - that the performer puts up for his followers. The blood he purposefully gushes for his fans. This shit he puts up with just because it's the only thing knows to do for a living. The only respite being the cheering he gets in the ringside and back in the wings from fellow performers. What the bleep. Him trying to apologise and get back into his daughter's life after god knows how long is the so not convincing middle of the film. I don't know about this being the Mickey Rourke performance of a lifetime. It's not even the accurate working class hero that we try so hard to make out to be - what with his binges of drinking and sex with a girl his daughter's age. He does'nt come across as a hercules of the human condition. And because he can't even pick up the pieces in his life, he reconciles to being the fading star carrying the burden of WWF. And goes on to live his death wish in the end. I don't mean to be a prissy prude and this might have been a cockle-warming candidate for the bleeding heart non-critic that I once was, but this movie made me want to puke the beer and glazed chicken wings I had for dinner.

Infernal Affairs (2002)

I finally saw Infernal Affairs. I'd wanted to see this film even before Marty decided to plagiarize it as The Departed. I was aghast to observe that Marty's story is ditto down to the last detail (except for the romance which gets a Hollywood twist).

Infernal Affairs, which is a Hong Kong production, seemed more slick to me than a lot of Hollywood thrillers which get killed on cliches'. Minimal dialogue and the effective use of visual cues, traditional and high-tech, to progress the plot makes for more attentive viewing. The visual consulting of Christopher Doyle is evident in the film. 

Marty had his star cast and his ability to New-Yorkise a script like Infernal Affairs going for him. But it is disappointing to know that he does'nt bring anything new into the script apart from the snappy dialogue, a murky romance and an irreconcilable ending. 

This has left me wondering now - why did the Academy finally shower him with awards for a film that that does'nt even come close to all of his original work till now?