Teknolust

This sleeper entertains with Tilda Swinton's beauty, hyperbolic web-tech, and subtle-smart humor.

The "R"-rating is inexpilcable. Does a film get rated "R" for showing condoms? The "sexual" situations are all implied, there is no nudity and I cannot recall any harsh language or violence in the film.

The special-effects portraying souped-up computor interfaces are all part of the thin-guise of sci-fi genre and the film's humor. A microwave window doubles as a networked PC, "hard-drive crashes" pun erectile dysfunction.

Tilda is cast in the most lighthearted and cute role(s) that I have ever seen her play and her deadpan-pretty portrayal(s) delight the eye. Her three-way dance routine is very entertaining.

I felt that the theme of this film was the "joy of Life" intruding into and dominating technology.

I purely love movies which sharply polarize the viewers! These are the films which consistently make worthwhile viewing -- regardless of how we feel about the film, there are enough people with opposing viewpoints that we can consider for a fresh insight on things...

"Teknolust" is this process, in small. To some, it seems dull, to others, thoughtful. Some find it obvious and crudely drawn, others see it as a symbolic metaphor. Some belabor the obvious scientific inconsistencies, while others focus on the human side of things.

This movie is something of a landmark, being the first(?) feature-length production to be shot entirely in digital 24P. The sharp visuals are the result of this. (No technical stuff, but 24P is a step toward making digital video more "film-like". It is interesting to note that the director still chose to keep, and exaggerate, the "digital feel" for the production.) Tilda Swinton is definitely a draw -- one of my favorite actresses, utterly fearless, and it is delightful to see her with so much to work with. LOVED her interpretive dance -- sheer fun! Upon considering the reviews which felt the acting to be hopelessly wooden, I can see where they are coming from. But it may well be that this was a deliberate approach by the director -- doesn't Rosetta tell Ruby to be "more robotic" on her web portal, as she is starting to appear "too real"? The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that the slightly detached acting was yet another mechanism to make us question what is real and what is only presented to us.

The movie features many wry little jokes -- I love that Rosetta's geneticist associate is named "Crick" (Crick & Watson & Wilkins were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1962 for discovering DNA) -- and I suspect that further viewings will reveal more. Lots of little questions, too -- like why does Agent Hopper have little adhesive bandages on his face, in different places during the movie? Does he have a disease? There are also some interesting questions raised about our reality in a digital world. How many copies are we removed from the original? At what point does copy degradation set in? (The copy center employee who is fascinated by skewed, imperfect copies is a brilliant concept for a character.) For many people, daily and digital lives are overlapping. What would it be like if they blended, with just as much casual copying and exchanging of information? (A virus is essentially an information packet.) Is "real" reality ultimately more desirable than digital "reality"?

I look forward to watching Teknolust again. With an open mind. And a touch of dream. And some friends, to discuss it with afterward.

My wife and I saw this film at the Toronto International Film Festival in 2002. We both thought it was very creative and thoroughly enjoyable. Personally i wish it would be released to video at least.In some sense the movie reminded us of Thomas In Love.

"Teknolust" is so inane, it's offensive. As someone who has spent years in both microbiology and computer labs, I found the storyline & dialog completely nonsensical. It was so bad, I couldn't even laugh.

Remember those "corporate bs generators" that randomly chose one word from each of 3 columns to create phrases that sounded like they meant something, but didn't? I think the writers for this movie combined a "computer bs generator" with a "virology bs generator" and used that to create the script.

Lame, lame, lame!!! Don't waste your time.

Don't be fooled by the provocative title and the R-rating, this film has only implied sex and only the briefest nudity. Rather, it is a thought-provoking but odd piece of work that delves into the meaning of relationships between men and women, the need to experience life's pain along with pleasures, and the different roles that we play to survive in society. The film is about a scientist who creates three computer generated/robotic duplicates of her own self. The duplicates exist in a virtual reality "safe" from the harm that the real world can levy on them. As the film progresses, we see through the interactions with the main character that they have become her alter egos. Trouble brews when they start to become self-aware and want more freedom. As I watched the film I was surprised by the apparent low budget it was made with but how it outshines most big-budget Hollywood blockbusters in its depth and scope. The acting is OK but amateurish, with occasional bad timing and wooden responses. The dialogue seems to get a little too long and pretentious at times and you have to be very attentive to catch the double entendres and metaphors in order to keep up with the script. Despite all this, it was a very good movie that proves that there is under-appreciated talent out there that Hollywood refuses to acknowledge. People that liked films like Slaughterhouse-5, Orlando, or the Handmaid's Tale would be advised to give this film a try.