Ex Machina (*****)

It would sound strange to compare a science-fiction film like "Ex Machina" to some of the best work of Alfred Hitchcock or even Stanley Kubrick, but there's really no other way to describe it. Here is a story of two people brought together through unusual circumstance - a romance as well as a mystery. The twist is that one very well may not be human.

Our premise is simple: a young programmer named Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson) wins a trip to spend the week with his company's CEO and founder, a reclusive man named Nathan Bateman (Oscar Isaac). The company is called Bluebook, a search engine that is meant to be the fictional equivalent of Google. A helicopter ride deposits him in the middle of a wild, mountainous setting, where he find's Bateman's extensive mansion filled with high tech security and capabilities.

Bateman is by no means an ordinary man; he drinks, has a temper, and is overall a peculiar guy. The purpose of Caleb's trip is then named: he is to test a new invention for AI (artificial intelligence) using the Turing Test. Essentially, through means of discussion with the robot, can blur the line between what is artificial and what is human. The concept is intriguing, and Caleb is introduced to Ava (Alicia Vikander). Her face and hand appear like flesh and blood, and were it not for her metallic, machine-driven body, it would be impossible to distinguish her from any other woman.

Through a series of conversations, Caleb gets to know Ava, asks her questions, she she of him. They are separated by a partition of glass at all times, though Ava appears nothing if not gentle. She asks if he is single, and later shows him the dress she would wear if they would ever go outside in public. Is this flirtation or just another level in advanced programming?

I say it is like a Hitchcock film in the way it slowly builds a sense of claustrophobia. We learn that Caleb is granted access only to certain rooms in the house, while others remained locked. Nathan keeps a constant eye through cameras, and remains a nearly god-like presence over their existence.

The ending is perhaps an ending that shouldn't surprise many, but the execution and final moments of the film are a shock to the senses and mind. The film takes place in a future that seems to be no more than a year or two ahead of us, and the reality of artificial intelligence is no longer paired with the romantic idea of fantasy that other films have in the past. This is the real deal, and who knows how long we will wait before someone like Ava comes to fruition.

Like "AI" (Steven Spielberg's masterful film on a similar subject), the future world of technology is a marvel, if not potentially tragic era. I ponder the title, "Ex Machina," and wonder what the ultimate meaning is? Does the invention of advanced robotics come to solve world problems as in "deus ex machina," or are we heading down a path of self-destruction through our own brilliance... Tomorrow is right around the corner.

(Awards potential: Best Supporting Actor (Isaac), Best Original Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Art Direction, Best Makeup, Best Visual Effects, Best Sound Mixing)

Trainwreck (*1/2)

It’s rare to find a comedy with a certain level of insight and jokes that are actually funny, especially one that is female-driven. Perhaps that’s why “Trainwreck” was billed as a follow-up to “Bridesmaids,” that clever film from a few years back that was full of creativity and craft. I think most people are going to see this film in the hopes that it follows in the same line of absurd humor and characters, and what a shame that for all those reasons it is a movie that falls flat across the board. 

You know your film is in trouble when the opening scene remains the best scene once the credits role (not to mention the only scene I could remember in detail, no less). We open on a divorced father describing monogamy to his two young girls by putting it in relatable terms. “You wouldn’t want to play with one doll for the rest of your life, would you?” “Wouldn’t you want to play with your doll’s friend every now and again?”

Cut to present day, when Amy (Amy Schumer) is an alcoholic, sex-addicted woman who works for a Cosmopolitan-type magazine and casually dates a beef-cake named Steven (John Cena). While she uses Steven as a date to the movies, she takes guys home to sleep with to fulfill some carnal wishes and apparently appease her father’s initial remarks.

Assigned to write a story about sports which she playfully knows nothing about, Amy meets a sports doctor named Aaron (Bill Hader), an awkwardly-lanky gentleman who is shy and inexperienced with women at times and open to exploring sexuality at others. One drunk night they sleep together, and from there the film takes a left turn into messy and oftentimes nonsensical territory.

As a romantic couple, Schumer and Hader could not be a more awkward pair. Their chemistry is so forced that the film oftentimes felt like a satire on a more traditional romantic comedy. I found myself waiting for a punch line that never came. As characters, their motivations are entirely inconsistent. Take, for instance, the scene after their drunken hookup. Amy is avoiding his calls and texts because she doesn’t want to form a relationship, but the next time they meet, she admits to really liking him. To her sister, she admits “he’s different.” Why? Never once is her character developed to the point where her change of heart is recognized, and it left the story feeling more and more convoluted.

At times the story becomes emotional, like a scene at a funeral where Amy delivers an impassioned speech about a person she cared for dearly. It’s a heartfelt scene that feels out of place, since the entire time leading up to this moment has us believing that Amy is a self-centered person who didn’t care as much for this person as her speech would have us believe. Other moments featuring LeBron James, Tilda Swinton, and Matthew Broderick feel like unnecessary cameos solely for the sake of the audience being able to say “hey, I know who that is!”

With a run time of over 2 hours and a pace that felt like it would never end, “Trainwreck” ultimately became a fitting title for a movie with so much promise that ultimately crashed and burned in a pitiful sight.

(Awards potential: No)

Mad Max: Fury Road (*****)

Mad Max leaps off the screen with such vitality that it’s surprising the movie is oftentimes described as a mere action flick. Going in solely on word-of-mouth rave reviews and expecting it to be far from my cup of tea, I was thrilled to leave the theater having seen a truly great movie and easily the best of the year thus far.

The plot is minimal and one of the keys to the movie’s success. It’s a post-apocalyptic setting (I’m sure many are better learned on this film series, as this is my viewing of any of the "Mad Max" pictures) and water is scarce. Humanity is driven to basic instincts: to survive or die in the harshest of settings. The majority of people flock to an oasis in the middle of nowhere; a small canyon where Immortan Joe (their ruler) supplies water with blatant disregard. He and his family of inbreds live at the top of a cliff, overlooking the valley below and overseeing rations.

Joe sends out a convoy to bring back gasoline to their city, a journey helmed by Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron). However, she betrays orders and kidnaps the wives of their leader, hoping to free them from imprisonment and return to a land she knew as a child. Upon word of her betrayal, Immortan Joe and his army attempts to reclaim them for his own and bring them back into captivity.

It’s simple enough and characters aren’t overly elaborate in their goals. The point of a movie like this isn’t the plot, anyways; it’s the action, and wow does it deliver. As the majority of the movie is spent with characters behind the wheel, the portions of chase scenes are plentiful, and all mostly done with practical effects, no less. The camerawork is memorable and effective in that we never lose track of who is who and where the bad guys are at a given moment.

And then there’s Max, himself, played by a willful (if not quiet) Tom Hardy. Surprisingly, his role in the film is more a supporting one, and his scenes in the film are mostly overshadowed by Furiosa, played marvelously by Theron as a woman who needs no one to survive and still holds on to a sliver of hope that life can get better. Hugh Keays-Byrne rounds out the trifecta as Immortan Joe, one of the most sinister villains in a while; both menacing and compelling.

The realization of this future dystopia is complete and awe-inspiring, with everything from giant turning wheels to the vehicle design entirely innovative. The film moves with a kinetic energy that oftentimes results in sloppy editing or a rough feel when watching, and yet the movie truly has few flaws to be found.

Movies are rarely perfect, and it’s difficult to find many movies that are so creative on so many levels. Mad Max is not a perfect movie, but with a spectacular concept and a brilliant execution, who’s to say there is any place to fault it?

(Awards potential: Best Director, Best Actress (Theron), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design, Best Makeup, Best Original Score, Best Sound Mixing, Best Sound Editing, Best Visual Effects, Best Editing)

Inside Out (*****)

To say that “Inside Out” is one of Pixar’s great films is a bold statement for anyone to make. This is the studio that produced “Wall-E,” “Finding Nemo,” and “Ratatouille,” after all. After 15 films and countless ups and downs, to see Pixar release a film of this caliber and skill is a credit to their creativity as a whole, and is nearly enough to pardon them for other films like “Cars 2.”

What surprised me most about this film was my lack of enthusiasm to see it in the first place. After a string of lukewarm successes, I can admit my passion for the release of these films had dwindled. Did anyone really love “Brave,” after all? The trailer presented it as a gimmicky movie with poorly-rendered cartoons living inside of people’s brains, running them like robots and providing little insight into the actual workings of human emotions. Wow, was I wrong.

The film is the story of a girl named Riley, born in Minnesota and a single child to two loving parents. With a new job opportunity for dad, the family uproots and moves to San Francisco, where the changes between a new school no friends gives Riley a catalyst to distance herself more and more from her family and creates a tension that drives the plot. It’s not much of a plot to tell you the truth, but the realism of this family is one that grounds the film for the fantastical elements just on the other side of frame.

We also follow Joy, quite literally “joy” inside the mind of Riley. She is not an imaginary friend, per se, nor is she a divine being that takes away all sense of free will. She is just one of many emotional personas living inside Riley’s mind, along with characters like “Sadness,” “Anger,” and “Disgust.” Yes, they use a panel to push buttons and activate a variety of responses from Riley, but there is so much more creativity behind their workings that a review of this length wouldn’t even begin to cover it.

We learn in a very thorough intro how these beings interact and how our memories are formed, how each night we transfer these “orbs” of physical memories into our long-term memory banks, and how we all have a handful of important memories from life that literally drive our personality as we know it. For Riley, the drama comes when she cries on her first day of school. For Joy, it’s the realization that there are only so many happy memories to block out the pain.

Saving as much of the plot as possible, the journey Joy and Sadness take together is one that is full of wonder and surprise. The actions of the other emotions while these two crucial characters are absent create a rift in Riley that is at times comical and heartbreaking, and the film concludes on such a mature, overwhelmingly-emotional note that it’s nearly impossible to view this film without the need for self-reflection after the credits role. As one would expect with Pixar, tissues are advised.

My one dislike of this film (and truly my only dislike) was the design of the emotions themselves. Joy looks like a knockoff Tinker Bell, and the others seem like they would fit in better in a film with a more childish storyline. How they should have looked? It beats me. All I can tell you is that “Inside Out” is one of the most magical movies I have seen in a while, one that I am eager to see again, and one that is a return to form for Pixar in the most exciting way possible.

**On a side note, arrive early to the theater in order to view the Pixar short called “Lava,” one of their absolute best shorts I can remember and some of the most beautiful animation and music I have ever seen and heard. Prepare to be wowed.

(Awards potential: Best Animated Feature, Best Original Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Sound Mixing, Best Sound Editing, Best Original Song ('Lava' - from the short film))