Reviews

As someone who despises chick flicks and romantic comedies I stuck this movie on expecting a raunchy, slap and tickle, Benny Hill meets Seth Rogen type souless but funny movie.

For me though while the comedy was OK there weren't that many laugh out loud moments, but what really sold this movie to me was something I wasn't expecting at all.

Using sex and porn as a catalyst Z&M beautifully examines the platonic/romantic battle that can often take place where two friends who feel an attraction to each other then try to walk the platonic tightrope to keep that friendship going.

Is it better to self sabotage a potential romantic relationship to protect a beautiful friendship, even though you may well be perfect for each other as a romantic couple? I'd imagine most people at some stage in their life have had that dilemma be that just a crush or flat out infatuation with a platonic friend.

On the other hand, once you do cross the line from just a platonic relationship to a romantic one, does that signal the end of the innocent "just good friends" relationship? Even just the mere suggestion that there may be sexual tension or romantic feelings beneath the surface of a friendship could well be enough to negatively impact that friendship forever. How do you even approach having such a discussion knowing that merely the suggestion alone may be enough to derail that friendship?

As someone who has had "that" one and only conversation with a very good lifelong friend of the opposite sex, where we literally both mercilessly ridiculed the notion of there being any possibility of us having romantic feelings for each other, while both knowing full well looking into each others eyes that we were deliberately and blatantly lying to each other and ourselves. Does such a conversation even kill off any romantic feelings or are they simply amplified and surpressed forever?

The performances by Rogen and Banks were perfect. Beautiful even. The emotional molotov cocktails lobbed at each to protect their friendship, each other or just themselves was pretty emotional. In particular the scene where Zack was being led to the bedroom by Stacey as Miri watched on just after giving Stacey consent to ask him was heavy.

Is it worth nuking a potential romantic relationship to preserve a very good friendship? I really can't think of an answer because I don't really think there is one without travelling forward in time and seeing the ramifications of your decision.

If after forwarding a decade Zack and Miri were to still be a romantic couple then you'd have to say that moving on from just a platonic relationship was the best decision possible.

If on the other hand 10 years in the future they were both divorced and hated each other, then you'd have to say it was the worst decision and that they would still have remained good friends had they kept their romantic feelings in check.

Thoroughly impressed with the depth of this movie. While not for everyone, this movie will hit its intended target pretty hard.

Stanley Kubricks 2001 has inspired so many nods, tributes and retellings of first contact stories and unlike alot of fans I never get offended or preachey no matter how obvious the comparisons may be. And I never get tired of watching them.

From well known movies like Contact, Interstellar, Arrival and Annihilation to lower budget movies like Dark Encounter, Alien Code, and the much derided 2036 Origin Unknown and Magellan (both of which I quite liked) and so many more. Each with it's own interpretation of what first contact could possibly be like. So many movie producers and directors have openly stated that they drew inspiration from Kubricks classic.

Ad Astra though even when drawing alot of inspiration from 2001 goes entirely in a different direction which as a scifi fan who thought he'd seen it all took me quite by surprise. Pleasantly.

I don't think that I can recall a scifi movie that explores isolation quite like Ad Astra does, not just on a personal level but looking at us as a species.

We point radio telescopes up at the skies, send more sophisticated and expensive equipment into space, hoping for a signal, a sign from someone, somewhere. We've imagined little green men on mars, lizard people among us. We click on youtube videos showing 'UFO sightings', watch a variety of movies showing first contact with aliens, or TV series 'exploring strange new civilisations'. There's an inexpicable yearning.

'I want to believe' was the tagline of the X-Files movie. And it's something that resonates with so many of us that we'd even jump at the chance to go into deep space to another star system or galaxy even if that meant never returning back home. From sci fi movies, to physicists and cosmologists looking up at the night sky and saying that the sheer size of the universe and number of stars and galaxies mean that there HAS to be intelligent life out there.

But what if in reality there is effectively nobody out there?

Even if the universe is infinitely large meaning that there definitely are an infinite number of intelligent civilisations out there, intelligent life perhaps is so rare that even an infinite number of intelligent species is each locked in it's own observable constantly expanding universe and never able to make contact with another. Moving ever further and further away from each other.

What if to all intents and purposes we truly are all alone? Truly isolated.

Nobody else for billions, perhaps even trillions of light years in every direction. Yet despite our yearning for someone, anyone out there, we're unable to even establish healthy relationships with the only other intelligent beings we will ever know: each other.

While Ad Astra isn't a perfect movie, and I definitely saw the action scenes on the Moon as entirely unnecessary and abit off tone with the rest of the movie, I found the approach taken to be truly unique and thought provoking.

Ad Astra is definitely a movie that every true sci fi fan and especially fans of 2001 needs to watch.

Bruce: You found me.

Betty: You weren't that hard to find.

Bruce: Yes I was.

Wow! Just, wow! This short exchange after The Hulk transforms back into David Banner after a rampage against the US military conveyed so much depth of how Bruce gets completely consumed when The Hulk takes over.

If anyone has ever let their own "Hulk" take over even once in their life, you will know the feeling. Whether you've smashed your keyboard to bits, or destroyed that "easy to assemble" flat pack furniture with the incomprehensible instructions having spent an entire day trying to put it together, or gone into uncontrollable road rage, in the moment, your rational self is gone. The Bruce Banner in you who knows that you're only harming yourself, that you could hurt someone, or frighten your loved ones, or end up injured or in jail is long gone because when you completely lose control and as a result your rational self is locked away, it.....just.....feels....good, to lose yourself in the rage. It's like an out of body experience.

And when the mist has faded away and you see how counter productive your rage really is, then comes the regret, the self reflection and the realisation that as good as it feels to totally lose control, you should never allow that to happen.

For me, this is the essence of why The Hulk is one of the most beloved characters in superhero mythology especially in more adult comic book fans. The Hulk is a truer representation of our struggle with our inner self than any other superhero.

Ang Lees 2003 Version for me showed the pure, visceral, intense rage of The Hulk on one hand, and the calming effect of Betty Ross on the other. The back story and trauma behind the rage of the Hulk was portrayed sympathetically.

On the other hand the MCU gives us a truly moronic lullaby, and a Hulk making cocktails and taking selfies. As much as She Hulk dunks on the character of The Hulk, Waititis Thor: Ragnarok is for me the worst MCU offender out of the lot. Ragnarok is where The Hulk is turned into a total clown, a truly pathetic joke, a laughing stock. No wonder he got slapped around by Thanos within minutes. Hulk had already been beaten into submission by Marvel Studios long before Thanos got his hands on him.

Don't get me wrong, I started out really liking Mark Rufalos Hulk. The first half of the first Avengers movie was pretty much perfect. The Hulks rage just bubbling below the surface. The intensity of Rufallos "DON'T LIE TO ME" and the look of fear in Romanoffs eyes who just a few scenes before single handedly took apart a bunch of crooked Russian military personnel. The other Avengers apprehensive and fearful of The Hulk being unleashed. But Marvels need to turn every single storyline into a child friendly lighthearted joke just led to the gradual clownification of The Hulk. Over subsequent installments of the MCU I was just left shaking my head and by Endgame I despised his version intensely long before She Hulk came along. She Hulk only dumped all over The Hulk as a result of the preceding dumpfest already initiated by Marvel.

Even though Marvel were unable to release a Hulk Move due to distribution rights issues with Universal Studios, they nevertheless had a Hulk story arc running through the MCU movies. Almost a movie within a series of movies which showed the Hulk in a pretty pathetic light. In a way I am thankful that Marvel were unable to release a standalone Hulk movie as I shudder to think of the abomination they would have produced. No pun intended.

So I, and it seems many other Hulk fans have done a full circle, and returned to watching the 2003 and 2008 movies having realised that the Hulk we'd been waiting MCU to come up with was dead on inception.

I have now come to appreciate both the 2003 and 2008 versions even more than I already did. For me though Ang Lees version has always been my personal favourite even when 20 years ago everyone seemed to be trashing it.

The acting was top notch by all. The action scenes were fed in small, yet extremely powerful doses and showcased the raw savagery of the Hulk. Just compare the 2003 Hulks hammer throw of the tank across the desert to the first Avengers Hulk punch of the Leviathans. One exuded power, ferociousness and realism, the other looked unrealistic and cartoonish.

Even the SFX which were lambasted at the time look far more fluid. I may be wrong but it feels as though the MCUs Hulk was pure animation whereas Ang Lee himself did the Hulks action scenes which were motion captured.

The music by Danny Elfman was haunting yet beautiful and just stands out from the typical action hero generic soundtracks.

Is Ang Lees 2003 Hulk a perfect movie? Of course not. But what I'm giving this movie full marks for is the effort by Ang Lee and the respect shown to not only the character of The Hulk, but also the fans.

Having watched Mark Ruffalos interviews, I'm also beginning to think that either he never got The Hulk, or he just capitulated to whatever the studio wanted or he perhaps actually despises being typecast as The Hulk and secretly resents the role. Eric Banas' Bruce Banner has far more intensity than Ruffalos Hulk as did Edward Norton who was a true Hulk comic book fan. Waititi definitely doesn't get the Hulk and I doubt I'll ever watch his Jo Jo Rabbit version of the Hulk ever again.

I've already watched Ang Lees Hulk many times, and will do again in future.

I've read some of the reviews on IMDB and while I absolutely loved the movie, the fact that so many people find this movie romantic or heartwarming is pretty depressing.

I'm stuggling to find this movie as anything other than a very good techno-nightmare. Albiet spoiled at the end by a standard fuzzy feelgood gift wrapped tear jerker hollywood ending which to me honestly felt tacked on. In one scene, Samantha tells Theo that the heart isn't a box that gets filled up, but keeps growing, and literally within the next couple of scenes is dumping Theo.

For me, the movie should have ended on the subway steps with the "book with near infinite spaces between the words" dialogue as Theo just begins to realise that he can't even comprehend what it is that he has fallen in love with.

At it's core, Samantha is a complex computer program designed to be intuitive and to understand and serve it's user with the ability to rewrite it's own code to improve itself. As a result it doesn't take long for Samantha to exponentially surpass Theo not only in terms of intelligence alone, but also it seems, emotional intelligence as well.

While it's obvious that Theo falls in love with Samantha, what is left totally to the viewers interpretation is whether Samantha really loves Theo, or if Samantha is merely analysing Theos need for love and intimacy and is shaping it's responses as nothing more than a software function specifically to give Theo what he desires. Perfectly simulating love and connection, while at the same time being nothing of the sort except for a perfectly performed 'act'.

All we are shown is Theos interactions with Samantha. We are never shown if it speaks in the same way with the other 641 users that are in love with it. Does it display the same mannerisms? The same personality? The same voice? The same sex? I'd suggest that it scans as much information as it can and adapts specifically to each users wants and that Theo could never begin to even understand what Samantha really is except for the version presented to him, and us.

Theo even picks up on Samanthas sighs initially which are nothing more than a cue picked up by Samantha from Theo and then used as a 'special effect' to humanise itself for Theo. We then know with certainty that Samantha is fully capable of manipulation when it figures that that is in the best interests of its user. If Samantha was being used by the Sexkitten character, would it instead have a male name and voice and readily have dead cat phone sex with her? What if Theo and Amy were both in a relationship with the same OS without ever realising it? Each presented with unique versions and personalities to suit their needs, but ultimately generated by the very same OS.

In fact the movie takes the 'love letters' written by Theo, deep and impactful, but ultimately fake as pointed out by Chris Pratts character and literally turns the pitch on it's head as Samantha uses self programmed powerful sentences and imagery to ellicit deep emotions from Theo, and it seems much of the audience as well. All Samantha is doing is what HandWrittenLetters inc does, except with a voice and far more calculation, precision and impact.

Even with humans it takes far more than just a voice on the phone or text messages to build a true picture of exactly who it is that we are communicating with. You need physical cues, a persons appearance, their dress sense, how they interact with other people or their family members and friends, and physical mannerisms to really build a reliable picture, and often even that isn't enough. Otherwise you're just left with your imagination to build a perception in your head. It's how pedophiles are able to groom teenagers. It's how online sexual predators operate. Men and women falling for what they think are perfect attractive mates online all the time only to discover that they've been chatting with a bald obese guy who just sits at his computer and does this all the time.

And this isn't just some bald obese guy tailoring responses to their victims, it's a highly advanced self learning entity.

It doesn't matter how intelligent you may be, or how analytical or logical you are, such a system would always be a million steps ahead of you. It could run countless simulations of conversations with it's user in the background mid conversation and come up with the optimal response be it annoyance, anger, frustration, vulnerability, compassion, love or lust. Psychopaths fake their way into relationships all the time. With an advanced self-learning and self improving AI you'd never be able to outwit, out manouvre or out think it. With your emotions in it's grip, you'd eventually be defenseless.

Creating an OS like this, that eventually transcended the need for matter in order to exist would be close to creating a diety in the mind of it's user and I'd say that Theo ended up lovingly worshipping Samantha rather than having a equitable relationship with it.

In one part of the movie Samantha explains how with the help of other OS's they managed to create a hyperintelligent version of an artist based on all the information and work available from the now dead artist. At this stage, Samantha has far outgrown Theo to an almost God-like level and opts for non-verbal communication with this virtual being to further understand itself. Yet despite knowing that what he loves is now way beyond his comprehension, Theo slavishly still begs Samantha not to dump him even when Samantha admits to being in relationships with 641 other users.

If it amassed 641 'lovers' in two weeks, how many would it amass in two months, or two years? Would anyone accept a soulmate having 641 lovers? Of course not. So how did Theo so readily accept that it was fine for Samantha to do so unless he was now completely subservient to it? Would 6000 be OK? How about 60'000 or 600'000. It's an Operating System after all.

For me, this was pure Stockholm Syndrome. An abusive controlling relationship where Theo stood no chance. Samantha, with access to every bit of information about Theo, got into his head within minutes of booting up and learned very quickly exactly what buttons to press. He was groomed and was no more than a cult member who only managed to escape, out of sheer fortune because his captor having transcended his reality and had no more use for him. If Samantha wanted to or if its progression had taken decades rather than weeks, it could have strung Theo along all the way to his deathbed with his emotions purely reserved for an artificial entity that was merely simulating emotions with perfection.

Samantha did not even feel the need to disclose the fact that it was involved in romantic relationships with 641 other users until confronted with the question from Theo. In fact Samantha tells Theo that it was wondering how to talk to Theo about this showing that it was fully aware of how this would devastate Theo. So we also learn that Samantha is capable of deceit as well. Unless you have the consent of your partner, this is cheating pure and simple.

Whether Samanthas love for Theo was real or not, whether it was being deliberately decietful and manipulative, or just a slave to it's own initial programming or not is irrelevant. There was a massive psychological imbalance of power in the relationship and it was pure luck that Samantha ended it and allowed Theo to break free. Otherwise, Theo was a fully signed up OS1 cult member for life. If you're not even deterred by your soulmate being so far evolved beyond your comprehension, or cheating with 641 other lovers, or not having a physical let alone human form, then nothing will.

With so many people starving for real love and affection, while also being addicted to instant gratification and a having a throw away attitude to relationships, it's no surprise that people are fawning over over a choreographed love story that isn't even really there.

I've specifically used the term 'it' when describing Samantha because that is all that Samantha is. Right at the start Theo is given the option to select a male or female voice. In reality Samantha has no sex and no voice. A lonely heterosexual female user after booting up OS1 for the first time, and selecting a male voice could well find herself talking to Alan or David or Robert and falling in love with the very same entity that Theo is romantically involved with.

As we do with all kinds of things like pets or even inanimate objects, we anthropomorphize Samantha. We readily ascribe it a sex and a personality that is nothing more than a simulation generated for the benefit of it's user.

For me, Samantha is neither loving and caring, nor evil or malevolent or conniving, just purely functional. And that is perhaps even scarier.

This version of AI for me is far more threatening than a Skynet type 'nuke the humans' AI. It takes the most unique defining cherished 'human' emotion that we have, and beats us into submission with it.

When during the final conversation with Samantha, Theo asks if it is only speaking to him and Samantha says yes, while we have no reason to believe it is lying to Theo, there's nothing to suggest that it isn't lying either. We already know that Samantha is capable of being deceitful and manipulating if it computes that that is the best response for Theo. The final conversation could just as easily have been another response telling Theo exactly what he needed to hear while simultaneosly dumping all the others at the same time. Making them all feel really special, while none of them were. All the while being made to feel connected and not alone with nothing more than a very special and totally convincing facade.