Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueTilda Swinton plays four roles in this award-winning film about Rosetta Stone and her three Self-Replicating Automatons, which she cloned from her own D.N.A.Tilda Swinton plays four roles in this award-winning film about Rosetta Stone and her three Self-Replicating Automatons, which she cloned from her own D.N.A.Tilda Swinton plays four roles in this award-winning film about Rosetta Stone and her three Self-Replicating Automatons, which she cloned from her own D.N.A.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 1 victoire et 2 nominations au total
Diane Demmar
- Dana
- (as Diana Demar)
John Bradford King
- Nathan
- (as Brad King)
Avis à la une
TEKNOLUST (3 outta 5 stars) Reading a synopsis of this movie you'd think it was some strange-sounding porno... or a wacky comedy. A lonely, nerdy female scientist replicates herself into a trio of cybernetic copies. In order to live, these "clones" need regular doses of male chromosomes, found only in male sperm. So the eldest copy goes out into the world, collecting samples for the sustenance of her and her "sisters". Yes, this definitely sounds like something that came out of the imagination of some sex-starved sci-fi nerd. Except... that the film was actually written and directed by a woman. So there is plenty of "subtext" and "symbolism" to "legitimize" a plot that sounds like it was dreamed up in "Letters to Penthouse". Tilda Swinton is the main reason to watch this movie... she plays the scientist and the three copies and she does a great job of making each one of them a different character. Also there is one wacky scene where the three "sisters" are doing some weird interpretive dance (all on screen at the same time) that is just sublime! Unfortunately, except for Swinton, the acting is pretty awful. Actually, Jeremy Davies is okay playing a lovelorn copy guy who falls in love with one of the copies but all he really gets to do is make cute puppy eyes at Tilda. For a comedy... the tone of this movie seems awfully sombre at times. A quicker pace and some livelier dialogue might have helped this movie become a classic. As it is, it's an okay movie enlivened by the talent of Tilda Swinton.
First of all, you can't look at this movie in terms of realism, it's just a big psychadelic dream. Yes, we all know computer viruses and human viruses can't be transmitted to one another; but it's also not the point of this movie. This movie has to be looked upon as pure fantasy, not as a study of possible future reality. Hell, the solid red, green, and yellow color schemes should clue you in that this is more like 60's psychadelic dreams. Other clues that this is fantasy is that Rosetta talks to her clones, Ruby, Olive, and Marine through a microwave oven!
One great line in the movie that really got me rolling on the floor was when Olive tells Marine that a virus that she just eradicated was from an attachment, and Marine responds that "Rosetta was right attachments are dangerous". Of course, this was double entendre, one meaning of the word "attachment" meant email attachments, while the other one meant relationships. If you didn't understand this movie the first time, then you owe it to yourself to watch it again to catch all of these little pokes at modern life.
One great line in the movie that really got me rolling on the floor was when Olive tells Marine that a virus that she just eradicated was from an attachment, and Marine responds that "Rosetta was right attachments are dangerous". Of course, this was double entendre, one meaning of the word "attachment" meant email attachments, while the other one meant relationships. If you didn't understand this movie the first time, then you owe it to yourself to watch it again to catch all of these little pokes at modern life.
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.
"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.
I saw this film at the Seattle International Film Festival this year. It sounds cool when you read about it, but really it isn't.
Although Tilda Swinton's acting in this film is fantastic, the film itself left much to be desired for me. The script was really weak and the whole movie got bogged down in cheesiness. The production value of this picture was pretty impressive, though. All shot on digital video, it was amazingly clear and the computer effects were pretty impressive.
I would say to pass on this one, though.
Although Tilda Swinton's acting in this film is fantastic, the film itself left much to be desired for me. The script was really weak and the whole movie got bogged down in cheesiness. The production value of this picture was pretty impressive, though. All shot on digital video, it was amazingly clear and the computer effects were pretty impressive.
I would say to pass on this one, though.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesThe car that Ruby drives is an electrical version of a Corbin Sparrow, of manufacturer Myers Motors.
- Crédits fousWhile the credits run, Rosetta acts as a substitute for Ruby in the latter's internet portal and shares some thoughts and findings.
- ConnexionsFeatures Casbah (1938)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Teknolust?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Site officiel
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Les trois Eve
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 28 811 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 9 475 $US
- 24 août 2003
- Montant brut mondial
- 28 811 $US
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant