The Machine (I) (2013) User Reviews

More A.I. Explored

[view_and_review · 6/10 · 7 May 2015]

A.I. usually comes in four standard flavors:

1.) The program that resides in a singular non-robotic machine or device such as HAL in Space Odyssey.

2.) The ubiquitous program that infiltrates every computer related device on a network such as Skynet or the Matrix.

3.) The A.I. that inhabits a robot that is obviously a machine like Johnny 5 in Short Circuit or Chappie.

4.) The A.I. that inhabits an android type body of which is virtually indistinguishable from a human like D.A.R.Y.L., David from A.I., or the androids in Blade Runner.

The Machine is of the fourth type. The vessel was a very attractive female that was patterned after her creator, Ava (Caity Lotz). She was just robotic enough in her movements, gestures and speech to know she wasn't real, but still human enough to question your feelings about her.

This movie was dark, both literally and figuratively. I don't think there was any sun shown until the very end. The Machine (meaning the movie because the android was simply called Machine as well) had a mysterious element to it as is usually the case when governments are involved. The government wanted a weapon and Dr. Vincent McCarthy, the lead scientist for the government project, wanted something entirely different. The two parties clash in a violent way.

This is not one of my favorite A.I. movies but it is done pretty well. They never introduced a truly unique perspective on the topic so it didn't move the scales much. The acting was passable as were the special effects so I'd say the movie was between OK and good, leaning more towards good.

Better than I thought it would be

[getbobt · 7/10 · 8 April 2014]

I just wanted to say to anyone that was thinking... hmmm... is it worth spending the 90 min to watch, I would say, Yes. It was actually better than I thought it would be. So many movies now a days are just simply painful, it is no wonder they are remaking every thing in sight. Can't Hollywood come up with something original. I mean are vampires and zombies the only thing you can come up with???

This movie make me think of the movie - Her. Not only is it similar in subject matter, it also has some shared weaknesses.

However, while both of these movies have there problems, some plot holes and such, they also have some good things as well. They have surprises, they have some unexpected, they have some good camera work and especially this one has some good special effects.

These two also have something in common that most robot movies do not have. But, if I told you what it was, it may spoil the movies.

Better than expected

[J-bot6 · 7/10 · 21 April 2016]

I actually enjoyed this film more than I thought I would, although the first half-hour didn't really work on me. I could see the low-budget in the initial shots. Because of this, I wasn't fully paying attention. However, I kept finding that I needed to keep rewinding to check out what I missed since the plot was actually moving along quite fast.

Then at about the half-hour point, this movie really captured and kept my attention throughout. I really like the acting and the way the lead actress moved (including her dance and combat movements).

As for scenes, the interior shots were set up well. The dark lighting was really effective and the eye glows worked very well. Editing was actually pretty quick and the story was compelling. I was actually concerned for the characters (which doesn't seem to happen for me very often in movies today).

One of the real standouts is the visual effects work. It's phenomenal (especially considering the low budget). The intro credits look fantastic, the robot-creation sequence is just amazing, and the glow effect on the robot was pretty phenomenal. I have a feeling that the VFX teams did some serious overtime on this one. I also suspect the effects houses didn't make much on this production although I suspect the shots they did will make great portfolio material.

If I had a qualm with this movie, it's the soundtrack. On one hand, it uses very cool CS80 sounds, similar to Blade Runner. Unfortunately the shots that used this instrument didn't have the 'weight' to warrant that sound. Believe me, I love that synth, but it needs to be used strategically. Then there's the other style of music which is typical of movies like Her or Ex Machina. I didn't think that score worked particularly well either. Perhaps something in-between the two styles would have worked better. The Blade Runner style was more mysterious and haunting than this film's presentation and the more modern score was too light and nondescript for the shots it was attached to. Regardless, there were sections of music that did work nicely. I seem to recall the music near the end of the film being spot-on.

In general, this is a film that I can recommend to people who like science fiction and the topic of A.I., androids, cyborgs, etc.... It's actually quite a thoughtful film. Interestingly, I found that I prefer this movie over both Her and Ex Machina.

Caity Lotz is impressive amongst the array of sci-fi

[amesmonde · 6 August 2014]

When a scientist is killed, Britain's Ministry of Defence clash with a lead scientist over plans for an artificially intelligent, self-aware and conscious android.

Inventive, visually interesting science fiction, packed with an array of sci-fi ideas. With an wealth of unapologetic camera light flare and well executed effects Caradog W. James The Machine delivers a thinking man's sci-fi with action thrown in for good measure. Computer scientists Caity Lotz and Toby Stephens give good innings with Lotz stealing the show in a dual role.

With echoes of Vangelis and Jean Michel Jarre, Tom Raybould's score helps smooth over any flaws of the film. In addition, making up for some clunky paced and staged scenes is the design of The Machine with her stylised look and robotic soft voice which will stick in the mind long after the credits.

With some great special effects and some strong performances this is solid entry in modern British sci-fi. James delivers a brooding, stylish and highly atmospheric science fiction. Recommended.

Low Budget Movies Should All Look This Good

[LeonLouisRicci · 7/10 · 4 September 2015]

Fantastic Look and the Score is Effective, Minimalist and Silky. This is a Creepy, sometimes Frightening Film filled with War-Battered, Brain-Damaged Robots and few Humans.

The Low-Budget takes a Back Seat to the Imaginative Scenery and the Mood is all Melancholy. There is barely a Light in Sight and the Literal Darkness of the Scenes does Enhance the Gloomy Appeal of the Story.

Caity Lotz in a Dual Role is Stunning and Toby Stevens as the Scientist in Despair is OK. The Story may be Nothing New and the Ending will Not Surprise Sci-Fi Geeks. But Viewers will most likely remember the Feel of the Film and it is Unique in that respect.

Overall, Above Average B-Movie with its Sci-Fi Roots Showing most of the Time, although Not in the Foreground. It's an A.I. Trek that is a Welcome Inclusion in the Sub-Genre. Low-Budget Movies should all Look this Good and They Can with Fertile Imaginations.

The New World

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 13 July 2014]

In a near future, China is in war against the West and UK government is developing war machines to fight against the Chinese. The scientist Vincent (Toby Stephens) works in a military base developing artificial intelligence for the Ministry of Defense, using soldiers near death in his experiments. However his true intention is to find a cure to his daughter Mary (Jade Croot) that has Rett Syndrome. When Vincent meets the scientist Ava (Caity Lotz) that has developed an advanced AI, he invites her to work with him for the Defense Department. However Ava snoops around the base and the chief of the research Thomson (Denis Lawson) simulates a Chinese attempt to kill her.

Vincent decides to use Ava's face and shape to build an indestructible AI Machine. Soon he discovers that the Machine is developing feelings and growing up as human being. When Mary gets worse and has to be submitted to a surgery, Vincent learns that the Machine has life and is in love with him. But Thomson wants to transform her in a killing machine for the military.

"The Machine" is a low-budget UK movie with a promising story that is a combination of "Death Machine" (1994) and "Universal Soldier" using artificial intelligence. However the story deserved a better ending since the conclusion is very disappointing. The comparison with "Blade Runner" is ridiculous and the music score is a rip-off of the classic sci-fi music by Vangelis. Actually it could be a prequel of "Terminator" franchise but never "Blade Runner". My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Soldado do Futuro" ("Soldier of the Future")

Note: On 04 March 2023, I saw this film again.

The Machine review at Bath Film Festival followed by Q&A

[sarah_venn · 6/10 · 17 December 2013]

The Machine is set in the near future where Britain is still in recession and the there is a cold war between the West and China. Vincent McCarthy (Toby Stephens) a scientist working with the MOD is trying to create an implant that will bring human feeling and emotion back to the war veterans that he is treating, which will also be used in not only the robotic soldiers but the robotic peacekeepers as well. It is revealed that Vincent's daughter is extremely mentally disabled, providing another interest for his research.

The implants that he has developed make the patients extremely violent and also seemingly unable to communicate. Vincent teams up with Ava (Caity Lotz) who has developed software in which the robot isn't programmed, but learns from talking with her creator and shows signs of life and emotion. He hopes that with this technology he will make the breakthrough to making a conscious machine and on a personal side help cure his daughter. Ava becomes suspicious of the operation after she enters a restricted area and finds that the patients are kept as prisoners and does not trust Vincent's boss Thomson (Denis Lawson), and suspects his motives are against what she believes in.

Ava's snooping didn't go unnoticed by Thomson and he had her assassinated. Vincent then goes about putting Ava's software into a cyborg which is in the image of Ava herself, and so the Machine is born. To find out what happens I suggest you get to the cinema in March 2014 when the film will be released in the UK.

The Q&A at the end of the film with director Caradog James and producer John Giwa-Amu gave a greater insight into the films motives and workings. Carodog explained about the great level of research he did in preparation for the film, visiting the MOD and looking into the research they are currently conducting into robotics where they are looking at organic cells to assist how they develop Artificial Intelligence. He mentioned the quantum theory work of Roger Penrose who has researched consciousness and the brain. On talking about the future of humans and cyborgs, he thought the more realistic future would see how we augment our bodies such as with Google Glasses and he also mentioned how one audience member at the premiere in Tribeca had a chip in his hand to be able to access his computer. So maybe the future for is not too distant! Most of the audience enjoyed the film and questions of what it means to be human obviously arose, as well as the comparisons to Frankenstein. There was one festival goer who exclaimed that he thought the end of the film was like a scene in a video game and accused the producer and director of adding this for monetary reasons. They came back with the difficulty of balancing commerce with art, and that commerce doesn't necessarily mean making money but reaching a greater audience. Carodog finished by saying that their next film will be a horror, that they hope someone in the audience will be so scared they will have a heart attack – he hoped it would be the guy that asked the last question!

To see the review on the Bath Film Festival blog please visit:

http://bathffblogger.wordpress.com/2013/12/09/the-machine/

It's All in the Mind

[sure_man · 6/10 · 27 January 2015]

Frankenstein meets the Terminator meets Blade Runner meets Barbie as emergent biotronic warriors mobilizing against the yellow menace. I actually didn't think it was that bad with some imaginative stuff resonating across several levels of boilerplate. How do you know you're alive? At what point do we become conscious with conscience? How is this programmable in a machine? And how about when a machine can "feel", like appreciate a sunset? I appreciated the irony of the scientist saving her daughter, and then her preferring to play with her "mother". That was funny. Would have liked to have known a lot more about the "machines" that communicated in garble-speak, a language we humans can't understand. What were they talking about? What was the role of the "chief security officer" and what was her backstory? She appeared to play a significant yet underdeveloped role that was under-communicated.

A monotone machine experience at best...

[paul_haakonsen · 5/10 · 13 April 2014]

I had no expectation for this movie, and can't really claim that I did any prior investigation into it before sitting down to watch it. And now that I have, I sit here with a somewhat hollow feeling.

While the movie was nice visually and atmospherically, then content-wise and story-wise, then "The Machine" didn't really lift the bar in any possible way. The storyline was nearly non-existing, or at least simple to the level of being pointless, which made the movie suffer terribly.

The concept of the movie does raise a valid question about robotics and their usage, but director Caradog W. James really didn't manage to establish anything in that sense. And the movie ended up being a rather shallow experience and a pointless one as well.

I will say that the acting was adequate, and people were doing good enough jobs with their given roles and characters. But everything was just a tad too superficial, and the actors weren't really allowed to shine on the screen.

Visually, then the movie was nice to watch. Now, don't expect a billion dollar Hollywood CGI fest here, then you will be sorely disappointed. But the effects team behind "The Machine" pulled it off quite nicely, and the effects came off as believable and real. Although, one thing did raise a question mark, as a machine, would would you see billowing steam exhaling from Caity Lotz's mouth during the "revolt" scene? That was just a stupid mistake (either that, or I pay way too much attention to everything in the movies).

I am giving "The Machine" a 5 out of 10 stars, because it was a mediocre experience that suffered from a horrible storyline, and had the effects and acting to lift up the movie despite the bad storyline. But come the ending, there really were no particular point to this movie.

Good AI movie

[imrigu · 7/10 · 5 July 2020]

This is a good AI movie to watch. Plot, acting, execution, everything is good but not great definitely because it's a low budget movie. Story is simple and in this budget segment, it is probably one of the best movies.

An Uneven Blend of Ideas Great and Terrible

[chrism-41414 · 5/10 · 31 May 2013]

The Machine follows the story of two irritating scientists as they stand slackjawed at the edge of one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time. That's about all I can say without giving away any spoilers, and in all honesty that's already a more accurate plot synopsis than the one that already exists on the IMDb.

This movie had some genuinely impressive moments, which are the result of some very competent film-making; the visual effects are beyond anything I could've possibly imagined and are nothing short of spectacular given the film's low budget. Aside from this, the cinematography is very impressive - however it segues from being beautifully shot to appallingly shot so frequently it will leave you both dizzy and confused.

The set design was also impressive, and more accurate than you might assume - a Q+A with the Director revealed that care had been taken to make the sets look authentically MoD. As well as this, the techno-babble isn't as stupid as it initially sounds either - the crew have indeed done their homework.

However, I'm sorry to say it was all for nothing, as the three critical elements that keep people interested - the script, acting and casting - are nothing short of appalling. The characters are incredibly flat - often spewing robotic exposition, and they occasionally have outright bizarre sweary outbursts in a desperate bid to make the dialogue seem more brooding.

The film's leading actress is sublimely annoying, and her shrill, squeaky voice made me want to knaw off a thumb before the hour mark. As for Tobey Stephens, after 10 years of following they guy's career, I still can't tell if he's a bad actor, or if he's consistently fed awful scripts. Either way, in this film he often acted as though he'd just witnessed some horrible event and had been given a powerful sedative.

The fundamental flaw with this film is that some very talented people worked very hard to put together a visually stunning piece of work - although seemingly no one had read the script. It was awfully clear, right from the opening scenes that it'd been written in one draft, possibly over a weekend. This was incredibly frustrating to witness, because there's no reason that independent, low-budget films - when done right - can't become world-wide blockbusters (i.e. Paranormal Activity). However, once its film festival run is all said and done, Red&Black Films will see this movie fade away into obscurity; and they will say it's because they didn't really have the resources, or they didn't have bigger names attached, but they will be wrong. It's because the whole idea was flawed right out of the gate; and the basic elements that were at their own fingertips right from the get-go (dialogue, characters, pacing) were so catastrophically out of whack it sunk a film that really could've been something special. Shame.

Dark, glossy British Sci Fi for 2013

[paulfrankl87 · 8/10 · 18 June 2013]

I thought this film was beautiful - the use of special effects were stunning and were utilised in a clever way that added to the atmosphere rather than overshadowing the plot.

The Machine is an interesting, dark sci-fi that focuses on character and mood rather than flashy guns and action scenes. I heard it described as a kind of prequel to Bladerunner, and agree this could be true. It has a good script with unexpected plot turns and no excessive dialogue. The delicacy it deals with with issues of loss and mourning was great.

It is a new take on the classic Frankenstein story, is beautifully shot, and was an entertaining film to watch at Tribeca this year.

AI meets ER

[colmmag · 6/10 · 21 May 2017]

It's a ripping good tale, but my god it starts too slow. The exposition is clumsy. It has a typical British TV series look and feel to it. However it's worth sticking with. Once the AI is achieved the film takes on it's own flavour and direction. From then on it captures the viewer. The problem up to that point, it looks and feels slow dark ponderous. There is an issue with the machines that don't speak. We hear them speaking all the time, in the presence of humans and it's not clear the humans don't know they don't don't speak. It seems the makers didn't really want to deal with exposing the setup and jumped through pieces that could have made for an engaging opening 20 mins. I stuck with it, because I had read some reviews, but paused it to give myself a rest. It's a good movie with a clumsy start. Great middle and not a bad end. It's certainly better than a lot of stuff out there these days.

No artificial intelligence, nor any of the other kind

[joris-van-zundert-285-869013 · 3/10 · 9 October 2014]

I agree with a review here that something has gone amiss with the IMDb review scores. This title should not have ended up 6.1 (currently, October 9, 2014). Usually 6.1 means palatable, easy to watch, might reasonably entertain you. This does not. What good acting might have been enjoyed has been cut to pieces in post production which rendered a potentially entertaining story in rushed unrelated sequences that quite simply annoy. In scifi we suspend our disbelieves maybe even more than in any other genre, but the AI/tech depiction is–apart from a somewhat credible reference to the Turing test–so blatantly stupid and crude it fails the story completely. Just one example: the scientists are clever enough to repair human brains into functional AIs, but are too stupid to figure out how these humanoids are communicating?! The plot and characters are far too predictable to be entertaining. On top of that the acting is rather more annoying than emphatic–especially in the case of the protagonists Ava and Vincent. And could the screen writer who made up evil guy Thomson please start acknowledging that his audience might actually have a brain? The bad character should be interesting, multidimensional. Instead Thomson is flatter than a steamrollered pancake. "Blade runner for a new generation"? Please, at this rate Blade Runner will do fine to convince new generations to come.

It isn't perfect, but at least it has a brain in its head.

[The_Film_Cricket · 11 April 2014]

I can't get anywhere without my GPS. I'm told that I am "directionally challenged." I depend on my cell phone for so much that I could be accused leaving normal functions to wires and microchips. When I get home, I spend a majority of my time on the computer. I don't think I'm alone. This is the landscape of the 21st century, and I suspect that I am not alone in the opinion that we are less than five years away from the development of computers that can think for themselves. Will I be so dependent then? Having seen Caradog James' effective science fiction thriller The Machine, I have reason to think not.

The movie takes place in a time and place that it becoming so standard that it is beginning to get tiresome – the dystopian not-too-distant future. An opening title informs us that the western world has been embroiled in a cold war with China so severe that it has pushed this hemisphere into a non-stop economic depression. The new space race is the arena of artificial intelligence. Our focus falls on a hunky British scientist named Dr. Vincent McCarthy (Toby Stephens), a dedicated man whose work in the field has yielded some complications, test-wise. He pushes forward in the technology without giving much thought to the moral implications of what he is working on.

The failures put the good doctor on edge. His research seems to be at a stand-still. Then he meets Ava, a scientist who has developed a computer that can teach itself through conversations it has with human beings. With McCarthy's body structure and Ava's artificial brain, they could be magic together. Unfortunately, the government isn't interested in magic, they want – not surprisingly – a super soldier.

Ava eventually experiences a fate worse than death. In its wake, Vincent steals her likeness and turns it into his machine. What follows is not exactly groundbreaking but is at least asking fundamental questions about the moral nature of the science itself. For example, if Dr. Vincent is able to save brain damaged soldiers by way of the A.I., does that person have a quality of life? If a machine can learn faster than a human being, does that make the artificial intelligence more advanced? The movie never really debates these questions, but at least it acknowledges them. What's key here is that, unlike most science fiction which is about clanging and banging metal and noise – this one has a point to make. It sees a bleak future. The halls and corridors of Dr. Vincent's lab are made of cold steel, as if the humanity has been washed out. The score is mechanical, reminding us of The Terminator or Blade Runner. In fact, Ridley Scott's popular epic seems to have inspired much of what we see here. This could easily have been a prequel to that film, in which we see the creation of the replicants.

Within all the cold and steel, it is interesting that director Caradog James returns the focus back on the human element. It lies at the heart of this story. Dead center of this story is bridge between the natural and the artificial – Ava. She's been retooled into a machine, but she has an infant's sensibility. She's still learning her way around, yet you wonder how much of her personality is Ava and how much is the machine.

I like a movie that has me asking those questions. I like a movie that dares to question the moral state of something as hot button as artificial intelligence. As the world moves closer to the hot spot of A.I., it's an interesting debate. The Machine may not be groundbreaking, but it leaves you thinking about it when it's over.

Variation on a theme

[jfcc9086 · 7/10 · 11 April 2014]

This Uk science-fiction film is a real sleeper. It is unfortunate that it is under the radar. It is sharp, suspenseful and especially well made in the production design and anticipation visuals department. Given it's budget, the visuals could put to shame some enormously budgeted recent sci-fi films.

It is rightfully claustrophobic given its plot, the characterization is very satisfying for the genre. The cybernetic telepaths are a surprising element if not to say a hoot! The old school if not vintage Alan Howarth like soundtrack gives it a B-movie atmosphere of the good kind contrasting sharply with the 2013 visuals. Its a lot of fun!

However, it is still a variation on a theme, I could not help but to think Dr. Frankenstein, Frankenstein, Data-Lore, Ash, Terminator and the likes including the yet unfilmed R. Daneel Olivaw throughout.

That being said, yes its a mixed bag, but for fans of sci-fi robots like me. I do not think this one should be missed.

A Glimpse Into The future

[majorrogerhealy · 7/10 · 18 April 2014]

I liked this quite a bit. The acting was top notch, the director really knows how to tell a story, and, despite a limited budget, I thought the special effects were very good. I also appreciated how the set designs covered up that limited budget by keeping you focused on the action up front. Although we've seen the basic story before, at no time did I find the film predictable; Director/Screenwriter Caradog W. James does a nice job of keeping the viewer slightly off balance with some beautiful camera work and a screenplay that tweaks the small stuff enough (what are the AI saying to each other?) such that the tale may be familiar but the trajectory is not. Both the lead actors are impressive with Caity Lotz impressively so pulling double duty in a movie that relies on her performance in a big way. Toby Stephens, who has been around for awhile, delivers a solid performance, walking that fine line between jerk and misguided soul. I can understand why some here see it as the beginning of Skynet or the Tyrell Corporation but personally I'll go with "Weyland-Yutani." Very good. Makes me interested in seeing what James and/or Lotz due in the future.

Good mix of Sci-Fi

[hell-gourmet · 7/10 · 13 April 2014]

A very good mix of already classics Sci-Fi: Terminator, Blade Runner and Ghost in The Shell...but a bit more dark.

The actors are good in the their roles. Caity (Abba) is between a "replicant" and Motoko Kusanagi.

There are script flaws like in any other sci-fi movie, but we already know what "fi" means in this genre, no? ;-)

A bit abuse of dark scenarios helps to the atmosphere but not in all the scenes.

British Sci-Fi fans most be proud of a movie like this, not only by the commercial success or not but the attempt to create universes for new comers sci-fi lovers.

Beautiful acting and cinematography makes up for a weak plot

[The_Dead_See · 7/10 · 7 October 2014]

You should see The Machine if only for Caity Lotz. I understand she's known for the TV series Arrow, but I've never seen that. I first saw her in 'The Pact' and was intrigued by how grounded and three dimensional a character she managed to create out of fairly average scripted one. In The Machine, she's an absolute revelation, so beautifully machinelike and tragically human at the same time. This is an actress to keep our eyes on, with acting chops like this she's gonna be huge someday.

I like to draw comparisons between movies whenever I can so that readers here have a better sense of what I might like and whether my opinion will be relevant to their tastes. The analogy I would draw here is that 'The Machine' is to 'Blade Runner' what 'Equilibrium' was to 'The Matrix'.

To elaborate - Equilibrium was a somewhat flawed, low-budget carbon-copy of The Matrix yet it was still enjoyable and valid in its own right because of some fine acting, beautiful cinematography, and a few pretty cool action moments. The Machine is in a similar position when compared to Blade Runner. It explores a very similar theme - the line between human and fabricant - and employs a very similar feel with it's bleak, placid tone, haunting synthesizer score, and impressive art direction. It's obviously not as good as Blade Runner - barely any film is - but it is thoroughly enjoyable nonetheless.

The weakest part of the work is the final act, which devolves into a generic low-budget action scene. Caity Lotz is a complete badass to watch and I love my action scenes - but after such a gently paced and thoughtful first two acts, the third seems out of place and forced here. I kind of wish they'd gone for drama instead and maintained the slow-burn nature through to the end - just as Blade Runner did.

Regardless, the weak third act of The Machine isn't enough to topple the outstanding foundation of intriguing concepts and stunning visuals that came before it. This is a film that will find its way onto my sci-fi shelf for sure.

Decent, but nowhere near the films it compares itself to

[rnixon1974 · 5/10 · 16 January 2015]

I wanted to see this because of Caity Lotz. I enjoyed her on the shows Arrow and Stalker.

As much of an effort as she gives, she can't save this flick in the end.

SPOILERS.

Midway through the film, Ava, Lotz' character, gets killed. Then things take a turn. The mad scientist uses Ava as a template of sorts to create the titular Machine. Predictably, Ava/Machine is more than a bit dangerous (sorry for paraphrasing Roxette and/or Big Data).

Putting aside the melodramatic score, I could have dealt with the next couple of plot turns. But the last two swerves were a bit random, and I could all but see the writer grasping at straws trying the hammer out the end of the third act.

The last scene is particularly lackluster. As the credits rolled, I muttered, I could have written a better ending than that.

If you are a Lotz fan, by all means, give this a look. Otherwise, stick with a better grade of female cyborg. Some examples: Terminator III, the Sarah Connor Chronicles, the Six Million Dollar Man, Alien Resurrection (Joss Whedon's script is nothing like the others in that series, so be warned; it's as much a black comedy as anything), Screamers (from waaaay back in the 80s), the Battlestar Galactica remake, Mann and Machine (if you can even find that short lived early 1990s show) and Star Trek Voyager (after all this time, still gotta like Seven of Nine).

I enjoyed this movie

[pejman-44134 · 7/10 · 1 April 2020]

It is well acted and the story line is good. All the action is towards the tail end but it is still very enjoyable to watch.

Slow burn sci-fi that's almost unwatchable

[envision-greater · 2/10 · 29 June 2014]

I watched this movie last night, and I'll preface this very short review by saying I vocally questioned the movie multiple times with "is everyone in this place really that stupid?!"

Couldn't stand the pacing. Couldn't stand the acting (Toby Stephens was alright most of the time). The main actress (Caity Lotz) was only slightly more tolerable when she was a robot than she was as a human. The logic was all over the place and ridiculously flawed. One minute it seems the military installation is advanced and under tight guard, even pivotal to winning the cold war with China, and the next Lotz is wandering off and hacking into computers like no one's watching. Almost everything was telegraphed, and I was incredibly surprised when their wasn't a sex scene between man and his newly-created sex bot (not being crass, but seeing how terrible most of this movie was in the B-movie sense I was really expecting it).

I can't confidently recommend this to anyone. The movie looks pretty at times, but I was bored and frustrated through most of it.

Stylish, atmospheric, refreshing

[FreakNumberOne · 8/10 · 9 April 2014]

It is such a relief to see an honest to god B-movie these days. A film with a somewhat flawed script, limited budget, tons of vision and the balls to take itself seriously.

The machine is about a future where elite scientists are able to re-animate the dead into powerful robot bodies, or graft advanced thought-controlled prosthetics onto the living. The robot's intelligence is the final hurdle, trying to make a subject that is both intelligent and entirely controllable. One of our protagonists is a scientist hoping to bring back his daughter as a machine. He's working with a mysterious corporation to achieve that goal. The rest of the movie is the movie.

If this sounds like a cheesy predictable premise, it is. But many many productions would take this story and do far less with it.

The Machine understands why Sci-fi was so vivid and memorable in the 70's and 80's, it's about art. Bold, heavily featured, skillfully realized art design-much of which here is brought to life through skillful practical effects. It really shows. Things feel real. Sets feel real, violence feels real, CGI is used well and, as the case should always be, doesn't draw undue attention to itself. It also has a fantastic synth-score that gets that synth-scores weren't great because they were cheesy, they were great because they were cold, otherworldly and isolating. Also that the good ones kicked ass.

In the final act, the Machine does what B-genre films do and turned into a gun-fight; but who cares, I'd already seen a good film.

I'm not sure what it was trying to say about artificial intelligence. It was sort of about innocence and sort of about man's inhumanity to man, sort of about procreation and creation. In the end it was mostly about kicking and punching. But it doesn't really matter if a movie wraps things up in a neat package. As long as it presents a premise, gives that premise a little room to breathe, and presents you with bold iconic imagery, I'm in.

Nice movie.

[ed1056 · 7/10 · 11 April 2014]

Enjoyable, remarkable for a low budget movie, congratulations :) About the AI concept, not bad, but neither the scientists and supercomputers are on the right track, sorry for philosophizing,can't help it, the brain will remain the ultimate challenge for humans and computers to crack, and the day we crack it we've killed it :)

AI, is still and will remain in the science fiction domain, anything close to our brain will always be MIMIC, can seem very antiquate perspective, but the brain contains too many variables to ever be replicated, and in my opinion mimic is not the same as replica, that said, this movie is a must, at times " seems like blade runner " :)

a cheap looking and sounding movie with nothing in common with blade runner whatsoever

[vailsy · 2/10 · 13 September 2014]

on the back of the DVD box it said something like.. the closest movie to blade runner since 1981 with blade runner written in bold type

please know that this movie even though it was made in 2013, looks and sounds like a made for TV British film made in the 1990's. It starts off reasonably but it quickly becomes evident that this is not a good movie at all

the direction is all over the place, the visual effects look cheap and nasty with no effort made to obscure this, and there is no interesting sound at all. the score is irritating, vangelis this isn't, there is absolutely no ambiance present.. no machinery hums, nothing. what?

let's discuss blade runner for a moment.. . blade runner had an incredible score which doubled as ambiance most of the time. the replicants were good because they were acted out as humans, there was no hammy robot impressions. this is not so in the machine. in the machine they have their own klingon style language and each actor is pretending to be a robot with the main one acting like a small child

the ending is abrupt and confused. either avoid this movie or know what to expect before you see it, i.e don't pay any attention to the blurb on the back of the DVD box