Quote:

---

Originally posted by ecgordon:
The only two I've seen this year that I'm anxious to see again are Ex_Machina and Predestination. I hated Jupiter Ascending, was just meh on Age of Ultron, and haven't seen that many others yet.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Just watched Mad Max. Vibe was like Waterworld in negative contrast. I will likely see it again, it lived up to the hype, but the CGI had some lame times - I'm talking the steering wheel here.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ecgordon:
The only two I've seen this year that I'm anxious to see again are Ex_Machina and Predestination. I hated Jupiter Ascending, was just meh on Age of Ultron, and haven't seen that many others yet.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I would consider this film for Best of the Year, it is in my Top 5.


Ex Machina: Loved the tone and pace of the film, a real Indie work of art. Oscar Isaac was slimy and conniving as the modern-day Frankenstein. But for my money Alicia Vikander as Ava, stole the movie. She was brilliant. Childlike, manipulative and calculating; conveying emotion and emotionless almost simultaneously. Truly an underrated and unknown performance - until now. Very little in this movie is predictable, it felt like a Twilight Zone story to the 10th Power, the film moved quite well and had a solid storyline. Dr. Frankenstein (Mary Shelley) would be proud.


SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ecgordon:
I'm not sure where you're getting your information, JSF. It could be that the screenplay was written in 2013, but the film itself is copyright 2014. It's first theatrical release was Jan. 21 of this year.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I would consider this film for Best of the Year, it is in my Top 5.


Ex Machina: Loved the tone and pace of the film, a real Indie work of art. Oscar Isaac was slimy and conniving as the modern-day Frankenstein. But for my money Alicia Vikander as Ava, stole the movie. She was brilliant. Childlike, manipulative and calculating; conveying emotion and emotionless almost simultaneously. Truly an underrated and unknown performance - until now. Very little in this movie is predictable, it felt like a Twilight Zone story to the 10th Power, the film moved quite well and had a solid storyline. Dr. Frankenstein (Mary Shelley) would be proud.


SGG

---

Not predictable? Have you seen Blade Runner?
Why do you think Ex Machina was copyrighted in 2013 yet only released now?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I would consider this film for Best of the Year, it is in my Top 5.


Ex Machina: Loved the tone and pace of the film, a real Indie work of art. Oscar Isaac was slimy and conniving as the modern-day Frankenstein. But for my money Alicia Vikander as Ava, stole the movie. She was brilliant. Childlike, manipulative and calculating; conveying emotion and emotionless almost simultaneously. Truly an underrated and unknown performance - until now. Very little in this movie is predictable, it felt like a Twilight Zone story to the 10th Power, the film moved quite well and had a solid storyline. Dr. Frankenstein (Mary Shelley) would be proud.


SGG

---

Not predictable? Have you seen Blade Runner?
Why do you think Ex Machina was copyrighted in 2013 yet only released now?

---

Yes, very clever.......both stories involving robots and AI.

This was a story about manipulation, human foibles and AI taking those little quirks and expounding on them with dexterity, aplomb and subtlety. Ava took intellect to a frightening new level of efficiency, taking the ball from the new Dr. Frankenstein and running with it to it's illogical conclusion.

Before I say anything else, the illogic I speak of is that of her human creator. Didn't he suspect that with her intellect she would develop exponentially, but not just her brain power, but also the most basic of human traits the need for contact with others and freedom.

---

Quote:

---

As I saw it, Ava learned this behavior from her creator, she absorbed all the human behavior we learn from exposure to others like us. Dr. F's evil and dark side came shining through and she learned to be just as manipulative as he was. She even learned violence. This is what our children learn as they watch us for cues for how to be human beings. Our parents/creators are our first teachers. And, like our parents, we humans turn a blind eye to our children's little foibles.

Tell me, what similarities did you see?

By the way, I did not immediately think of Blade Runner.


SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Did you not notice that the entirety of Caleb's time on film was in this secluded, controlled environment?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ecgordon:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Did you not notice that the entirety of Caleb's time on film was in this secluded, controlled environment?

---

No, when we first see Caleb he is at the corporate offices of Bluebook, then he is in the helicopter flying to Nathan's place, then walking from the helicopter through fields and forest to the secluded building. Of course, if your theory is correct then all of that could have been projected into Caleb's mind, but I don't think so.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
SPOILER ALERT for Ex Machina.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I would consider this film for Best of the Year, it is in my Top 5.


Ex Machina: Loved the tone and pace of the film, a real Indie work of art. Oscar Isaac was slimy and conniving as the modern-day Frankenstein. But for my money Alicia Vikander as Ava, stole the movie. She was brilliant. Childlike, manipulative and calculating; conveying emotion and emotionless almost simultaneously. Truly an underrated and unknown performance - until now. Very little in this movie is predictable, it felt like a Twilight Zone story to the 10th Power, the film moved quite well and had a solid storyline. Dr. Frankenstein (Mary Shelley) would be proud.


SGG

---

Not predictable? Have you seen Blade Runner?
Why do you think Ex Machina was copyrighted in 2013 yet only released now?

---

Yes, very clever.......both stories involving robots and AI.

This was a story about manipulation, human foibles and AI taking those little quirks and expounding on them with dexterity, aplomb and subtlety. Ava took intellect to a frightening new level of efficiency, taking the ball from the new Dr. Frankenstein and running with it to it's illogical conclusion.

Before I say anything else, the illogic I speak of is that of her human creator. Didn't he suspect that with her intellect she would develop exponentially, but not just her brain power, but also the most basic of human traits the need for contact with others and freedom.

---

As he explained to Caleb, yes he knew this and that was the real test (for Ava, as stated to Caleb), to see if she could use that intellect to trick Caleb to satisfy her need, and which ended up being the unintended result of her seducing Caleb to trick Nathan.

Quote:

---

As I saw it, Ava learned this behavior from her creator, she absorbed all the human behavior we learn from exposure to others like us. Dr. F's evil and dark side came shining through and she learned to be just as manipulative as he was. She even learned violence. This is what our children learn as they watch us for cues for how to be human beings. Our parents/creators are our first teachers. And, like our parents, we humans turn a blind eye to our children's little foibles.

Tell me, what similarities did you see?

By the way, I did not immediately think of Blade Runner.


SGG

---

SPOILER ALERT for Ex Machina.

The basis of detection in Blade Runner was the Turing Test. Rachel was the model who lasted the longest on the test, far beyond the prior record, which is why Dekker said she was a prototype model, which was confirmed (at least that was the statement). Rachel did not know she was one, much like in XM when Caleb tries to cut his fingers (could not damage the skin while disassembling a pre-formed multi blade razor cartridge, or trying to cut or puncture the skin - anybody ever try to do that without injury, even the slightest cut?) Dekker also didn't know he was a replicant, both he and Rachel thought they were human. Did you at any point suspect that both Caleb and Nathan in XM were non-human? I can grant that the death and blood quantity argues that the creator Nathan was human, but the interviewer Caleb seems only the superior model to Ava. Did you suspect that the real test was not of Ava, but of Caleb's ability to assume he was human, and not discover the truth? That it was a test of his advanced model, not her older version?

All of the replicants in BR wanted to live longer, most were willing to kill to accomplish this. Particularly those who knew they were not human. Now that I think of it, that is another parallel: those who knew they were not human were willing to kill to experience more(by living longer), and not be terminated, and those that did not know they were not human had less rebelliousness, and did not kill those they thought were human.

We don't know all that Ava thought. Did Ava think Caleb was human, or a more advanced model? Did she previously think Kyoko or the other girls were human, or not - before she found the closet?

Did you not notice that the entirety of Caleb's time on film was in this secluded, controlled environment? His recall of everything outside this enclave could have easily been implanted. In fact, how many times had Caleb been rebooted prior to this round of the test? Had he figured it out all the prior times? When he did the prior times, did he not feel comraderie with Ava, and help her?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Speaking of the Turing Test in BR, was it a conundrum?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ecgordon:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Speaking of the Turing Test in BR, was it a conundrum?

---

Even though it was similar, the technical name of the test in Blade Runner is Voight-Kampff, which was what it was also called in the novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ecgordon:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Did you not notice that the entirety of Caleb's time on film was in this secluded, controlled environment?

---

No, when we first see Caleb he is at the corporate offices of Bluebook, then he is in the helicopter flying to Nathan's place, then walking from the helicopter through fields and forest to the secluded building. Of course, if your theory is correct then all of that could have been projected into Caleb's mind, but I don't think so.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
So far it has been:
Ex-Machina,
Woman in Gold
Predestination.
Blackhat,
Kingsman,
Jupiter Ascending
Taken 3.
Mad Max.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
So far it has been:
Ex-Machina,
Woman in Gold
Predestination.
Blackhat,
Kingsman,
Jupiter Ascending
Taken 3.
Mad Max.

---

Anybody think Jurassic should be added?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ecgordon:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
So far it has been:
Ex-Machina,
Woman in Gold
Predestination.
Blackhat,
Kingsman,
Jupiter Ascending
Taken 3.
Mad Max.

---

Anybody think Jurassic should be added?

---

Does anyone think JSF should take some titles off his list? This is about the "BEST" films after all, not the biggest money-makers. Jupiter Ascending...really?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ecgordon:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
So far it has been:
Ex-Machina,
Woman in Gold
Predestination.
Blackhat,
Kingsman,
Jupiter Ascending
Taken 3.
Mad Max.

---

Anybody think Jurassic should be added?

---

Does anyone think JSF should take some titles off his list? This is about the "BEST" films after all, not the biggest money-makers. Jupiter Ascending...really?

---

You have a point about Jupiter Ascending, I say this having seen the film, but there are only 3 others from the list that I've seen:

Ex-Machina (This film is one of the year's best)
Kingsman (it was entertaining and fun, but that's about it)
Mad Max (had some moments, but overall not up to par)

Jurassic World - have not seen it

Truly it's as you stated, the biggest blockbusters aren't always the best films. Birdman did not make a killing at the box office (at least not in the same vein as Jurassic) but I consider it one of the Best Films, if not THE Best, of 2014.

We need to keep looking!


SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ecgordon:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
So far it has been:
Ex-Machina,
Woman in Gold
Predestination.
Blackhat,
Kingsman,
Jupiter Ascending
Taken 3.
Mad Max.

---

Anybody think Jurassic should be added?

---

Does anyone think JSF should take some titles off his list? This is about the "BEST" films after all, not the biggest money-makers. Jupiter Ascending...really?

---

You have a point about Jupiter Ascending, I say this having seen the film, but there are only 3 others from the list that I've seen:

Ex-Machina (This film is one of the year's best)
Kingsman (it was entertaining and fun, but that's about it)
Mad Max (had some moments, but overall not up to par)

Jurassic World - have not seen it

Truly it's as you stated, the biggest blockbusters aren't always the best films. Birdman did not make a killing at the box office (at least not in the same vein as Jurassic) but I consider it one of the Best Films, if not THE Best, of 2014.

We need to keep looking!


SGG

---

As an early entry of the year, Jupiter had the benefit of a weak field, thus more easily "best" at the time.
Although my opinion of it was not stellar, I wanted to attempt to preserve potentially future forgottens before they were overshadowed. I did not think Jupiter had great box office.

If several posters agree that certain ones on the list should be removed, that is fine. I just didn't want to denigrate possibilities that some others had been enthused about, just because of my opinions.

Ex Machina was one which I had enjoyed, and actually which had partly inspired this thread. At the time, I had not seen many others comment about it, but now several have.

Ex Machina is becoming what I have considered a bellweather indicator - not many have seen it, but those who have universally either rave about it or at least really enjoyed it.

In the past these types of gauges have been Little Princess, City of Lost Children, and others I do not recall right now. Some say there are 2 types of music lovers: those who like what they know, and those who know what they like. Those who like what they know are enamored with those tunes which they first kissed to, first boinked to, first had various life-memory events to or during - in other words, whatever pop fluff was playing at the time, chosen by some DJ or programmer or other random party, or tunes repeated incessantly. And those who know what they like can hear the beginnings of a tune (for the first time) and immediately recognize something which resonates with them, not just because of the life situation they are in at the moment. Films can be the same - and these bellweather films identify those who just flow with the crowd, choose the most popular, versus those who truly observe a worthy film gem among the chaff, one in the shadow of the blockbuster. Ex Machina seems to be one of those which helps identify and classify the reviewer or critic. Once Leonard Maltin gave a crappy useless review of Little Princess, I could see more clearly and focus on how horrible of a critic he was.

Edit: other bellweather works: Galaxy Quest, The Man Who Knew Too Little, and a little gem called Firefly - if somebody says they saw Firefly and it did not impress them, I am afraid my opinion of the person suffers, and their opinions are minimized.
And UHF. Michael Richards' Stanley Spudowski, pre-Nanny Fran Drescher, comedy gold.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I understand what you're saying. I think that people, at times, think they know what they like and watch a film accordingly. There are those that know and those that really don't care as long as they're entertained. There's nothing wrong with that, movies, since the beginning, were meant as entertainment.

That bellweather, very important. That film that you measure all other against.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
So far it has been:
Ex-Machina,
Woman in Gold
Predestination.
Blackhat,
Kingsman,
Jupiter Ascending
Taken 3.
Mad Max.
Terminator: Genysis

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
So far it has been:
Ex-Machina,
Woman in Gold
Predestination.
Blackhat,
Kingsman,
Jupiter Ascending
Taken 3.
Mad Max.
Terminator: Genysis
Survivor (Milla Jovovich)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I understand what you're saying. I think that people, at times, think they know what they like and watch a film accordingly. There are those that know and those that really don't care as long as they're entertained. There's nothing wrong with that, movies, since the beginning, were meant as entertainment.

That bellweather, very important. That film that you measure all other against.

---

Just to be clear about my meaning: I meant the bellweather was a measure of the person, the critic, the opinion holder. Very few films can be used as that gauge, that standard, that winnower or culler to discern the two types of critic. I did not mean the bellweather was to measure other films against. Sorry if I was not clear.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ecgordon:
I know some will find this hard to believe, but I love UHF. Another wild and crazy film that is high on my list is Buckaroo Banzai. And the Coen's second film Raising Arizona. The positive factor is that every seemingly crazy, nonsensical thing about them is that they actually do make sense within the context of how the story and characters have been established.

Where I draw the line is when characters and situations are manipulated in a non-logical way just to get to a particular scenario even when that contradicts the premise that has already been established, or worse, just to get to a particular visual special effect. Jupiter Ascending was nothing but visual set-pieces wrapped around a flimsy and cliched story. And from what I've been reading, Jurassic World is full of stupid people doing stupid things, or even supposedly smart people doing stupid things. I'm with SGG, it's the story that matters, and even though Firefly and Serenity had great FX, it was the story and the strength of the characters that made it special.

I'm on a limited budget now, so I'm not going to the theater for every remake, reboot, prequel, reimagining etc. that comes along. I'm tired of that crap and want more original stories, even if they draw from previous similar films in the way that Ex_Machina did. Or when everything I read about them is positive, which has not been the case for much except for Fury Road, which I haven't seen yet, but is likely to be at the discount theater soon. I'm not big on action for action's sake, or FX that doesn't enhance the story, so the list of films that normally catch my attention is usually very short.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I understand what you're saying. I think that people, at times, think they know what they like and watch a film accordingly. There are those that know and those that really don't care as long as they're entertained. There's nothing wrong with that, movies, since the beginning, were meant as entertainment.

That bellweather, very important. That film that you measure all other against.

---

Just to be clear about my meaning: I meant the bellweather was a measure of the person, the critic, the opinion holder. Very few films can be used as that gauge, that standard, that winnower or culler to discern the two types of critic. I did not mean the bellweather was to measure other films against. Sorry if I was not clear.

---

No problem. Obviously I believe a film can be a bellweather - such as A Clockwork Orange, 2001: A Space Odyssey or Casablanca (to name a few).
For me, that critic was Roger Ebert.


SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I understand what you're saying. I think that people, at times, think they know what they like and watch a film accordingly. There are those that know and those that really don't care as long as they're entertained. There's nothing wrong with that, movies, since the beginning, were meant as entertainment.

That bellweather, very important. That film that you measure all other against.

---

Just to be clear about my meaning: I meant the bellweather was a measure of the person, the critic, the opinion holder. Very few films can be used as that gauge, that standard, that winnower or culler to discern the two types of critic. I did not mean the bellweather was to measure other films against. Sorry if I was not clear.

---

No problem. Obviously I believe a film can be a bellweather - such as A Clockwork Orange, 2001: A Space Odyssey or Casablanca (to name a few).
For me, that critic was Roger Ebert.


SGG

---

You discovered Ebert to be the fraudulent idiot, or the visionary?
I lost all respect for him with his Kick-Ass spoilers.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
No problem. Obviously I believe a film can be a bellweather - such as A Clockwork Orange, 2001: A Space Odyssey or Casablanca (to name a few).
For me, that critic was Roger Ebert.


SGG

---

You discovered Ebert to be the fraudulent idiot, or the visionary?
I lost all respect for him with his Kick-Ass spoilers.

---

Visionary. But, like all of us, he made the occasional mistake. Ace Ventura comes to mind. I, for one, valued his approach and input regarding cinema. He more often than not pointed me in the right direction when it came to recommending a film.

From your statement, I'm guessing you disagree.


SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

What did he opine of Ace Ventura?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:
Well, he'z ded now, so that problem iz solved. He will never bother you agen.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Roger Ebert said to Jim Carrey about Ace Ventura, "One critic felt that you had no talent at all and should never be in another movie. I didn't feel that way. I said I hated the movie, too, but that you'd done good work in the past, and I was sure you'd do good work again in the future."

This was Carrey's opening to say, "Gee! Thanks a whole lot!" But he sighed. "Yeah, some of the reviews were pretty brutal. You know what? Some of the worst ones came in a couple of days before the movie opened and I thought, well, this is keeping my feet on the ground."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I would consider this film for Best of the Year, it is in my Top 5.


Ex Machina: Loved the tone and pace of the film, a real Indie work of art. Oscar Isaac was slimy and conniving as the modern-day Frankenstein. But for my money Alicia Vikander as Ava, stole the movie. She was brilliant. Childlike, manipulative and calculating; conveying emotion and emotionless almost simultaneously. Truly an underrated and unknown performance - until now. Very little in this movie is predictable, it felt like a Twilight Zone story to the 10th Power, the film moved quite well and had a solid storyline. Dr. Frankenstein (Mary Shelley) would be proud.


SGG

---

Not predictable? Have you seen Blade Runner?
Why do you think Ex Machina was copyrighted in 2013 yet only released now?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I would consider this film for Best of the Year, it is in my Top 5.


Ex Machina: Loved the tone and pace of the film, a real Indie work of art. Oscar Isaac was slimy and conniving as the modern-day Frankenstein. But for my money Alicia Vikander as Ava, stole the movie. She was brilliant. Childlike, manipulative and calculating; conveying emotion and emotionless almost simultaneously. Truly an underrated and unknown performance - until now. Very little in this movie is predictable, it felt like a Twilight Zone story to the 10th Power, the film moved quite well and had a solid storyline. Dr. Frankenstein (Mary Shelley) would be proud.


SGG

---

Not predictable? Have you seen Blade Runner?
Why do you think Ex Machina was copyrighted in 2013 yet only released now?

---

I am wondering if the copyright I saw in the quick credit roll was for the studio logo, instead of the film itself.

Anyhow, I really hope Alicia Vikander has a breakout performance in Man from UNCLE. She looks great in the trailer. She might have one of those timeless beauty qualities, able to play the future in Ex-Machina and the 60's in MfU and maybe many other time periods. I wonder if she would be bad-a$$ in some medieval or combat flik?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1638355/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_1

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:
Just saw Ex Machina. Great movie. A good companion movie to AI.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I would consider this film for Best of the Year, it is in my Top 5.

Ex Machina: Loved the tone and pace of the film, a real Indie work of art. Oscar Isaac was slimy and conniving as the modern-day Frankenstein. But for my money Alicia Vikander as Ava, stole the movie. She was brilliant. Childlike, manipulative and calculating; conveying emotion and emotionless almost simultaneously. Truly an underrated and unknown performance - until now. Very little in this movie is predictable, it felt like a Twilight Zone story to the 10th Power, the film moved quite well and had a solid storyline. Dr. Frankenstein (Mary Shelley) would be proud.


SGG

---

Not predictable? Have you seen Blade Runner?

---

Anyhow, I really hope Alicia Vikander has a breakout performance in Man from UNCLE. She looks great in the trailer. She might have one of those timeless beauty qualities, able to play the future in Ex-Machina and the 60's in MfU and maybe many other time periods. I wonder if she would be bad-a$$ in some medieval or combat flik?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1638355/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_1

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ecgordon:
The only two I've seen this year that I'm anxious to see again are Ex_Machina and Predestination. I hated Jupiter Ascending, was just meh on Age of Ultron, and haven't seen that many others yet.

---