Uncanny

Uncanny is one of those very rare movies that quickly and effectively engages the viewer.

This is a slow burn sci fi, there is not an abundance of special effects or action. What you get instead is a mostly well written, very clever story with a message about deception and surveillance. Technology may be amazing but, in the wrong hands, it is not necessarily our friend.

The acting is of a very high standard. Its hard to fault the cast in any way. That said, the story which is almost excellent lets the film down somewhat in the last five to ten minutes. Its conclusion is a little clumsy, whilst the rest of the film is carried with an airy, almost effortless, deftness. A more subtle conclusion, would still have carried the films message and I suspect, left a more indelible impression on the viewer.

So is Uncanny worth your time? Yes it is. It may be a little flawed but this is still a very good film with a very relevant message. Eight out of ten from me.

"This kid the next big thing? Some Asperger's cousin of yours ready to get all Good Will Hunting on coding and change the world?"

Was "Ex Machina" according to you the epitome of future technology and a demonstration of potential consequences of it, "Uncanny" is for sure a level higher. Not because of the shown interior design or the futuristic technologies, but because of the surprising denouement. Despite the austere imagery and decidedly lower budget, this film managed to captivate me pleasantly. Especially because of the interactions between the characters. Ditto as in "Ex Machina", the number of protagonists is limited, so the focus is on the dialogs. Eventually they didn't end up in a tangle of irrelevant side issues. And despite the limited display of high-end technologies, the intellectual level was boosted by a series of (for me anyway) incomprehensible, technological gibberish such as aerated titanium, convert a hemispheric image into a planar representation, chambered baths of synthetic hymotrips, proloanaprotiese that demolishes gluten, pesinium vibo receptors en proprioceptive information. I'm not an engineer. That became clear after a while, because it went over my head at certain times.

It seems that artificial intelligence and robotics are the new, sexy hype. During the last year we were bombarded with films which had this as a central theme. Besides "Ex Machina" we were also treated to "Automata", "Chappie", "Transcendence", "The Machine" and "Her". Every movie demonstrated the dangers that lie in the further development of A.I. Should we worry about these self-developing machines getting a self-consciousness? And what about certain ethical issues? How will these highly intelligent beings operate in our society? And how will these artificial individuals react and act towards humans? This latter aspect was subtly elaborated in this rather excellent, low-budget film. A complex interplay between human individuals and an artificial,eerily human-looking robot. What takes place before your eyes, is a complicated love triangle with an android whose feelings resemble those of humans. With jealousy playing a major role.

The most striking is obviously the acting performance of David Clayton Rogers as Adam, the autonomously operating robot designed by David Kressen (Mark Webber). The way he plays Adam is sublime throughout the film. He acts in such a way that you're convinced that he's truly an artificially intelligent being. That puzzled look and the astonishment about the way David and Joy respond to him. That lost look while he's scanning all possible feedbacks in his mind, after which a stream of words follow as if he's quoting from a Wikipedia page. His designer sometimes exhibits the same characteristics. So you start to wonder if he isn't an android as well. The way he formulated his response whether or not joy is pretty for example: Her hair is nice. Good facial symmetry. Delicate features. Nice fashion sense. Yes, I do. I think she's pretty.

And finally there's Joy (Lucy Griffiths), an intelligent journalist who studied robotics (but as far as I understood she didn't graduate) and someone who worked on or designed a game called "Aquaria 3". Apparently this game was so successful, it wasn't necessary for her to continue her studies. This was the only thing that bothered me. Why was she chosen to be the person to write a report about such a highly technological issue? Or was there an additional plan specially created for her? Anyway, her performance were convincing enough.

I'm sure many will say this film is as slow as a snail and there's an absence of action and excitement. But the gradual build up, brilliant dialogs and subtle interplay of the characters is necessary so that the denouement will come as a surprise. Although I had two specific outcomes in mind, it still was an intriguing film with a disturbing result. Let me end with a slightly humorous remark: I'm sure that Adam is the ultimate dream for a woman ... a sophisticated home-garden-kitchen robot with "Tarzan" -like features ... Well, I guess the vision of the future will look appetizing for some.

More reviews here : http://bit.ly/1KIdQMT

The plot was intriguing in this small flick, and the acting was quite good. It took me about 30 min into the movie to start to suspect what going on, but I was not trying to figure out the movie. This was a cool little sci-fi flick. Nothing earth shattering but well done and entertaining. I am glad I watched it. I like the theme of Robots and humans. I love the show Real Humans (2012– ) "Äkta människor" from Sweden. In that show they called the Robots, Hubots- best name ever. Now it has been remade for the UK/US version, (not nearly as good as the Swedish version). Still good. Those shows take the theme of Uncanny further.

Reporter Joy Andrews (Lucy Griffiths) does an in-depth week-long interview with tech scientist David Kressen (Mark Webber). He introduces her to Adam (David Clayton Rogers) and later reveals that Adam is actually an AI robot. His wealthy boss Castle (Rainn Wilson) monitors the situation from afar.

Coming out around the same time, this was being overshadowed by the indie hit Ex Machina. There is an obvious visual CGI wow factor about Ex Machina that this does not have. Leaving that aside, they are both traveling on similar and well-worn sci-fi lanes. The acting for both male leads is limited to the stiff robotic nerd persona or an actual robot. Griffiths has an easy presence. I'm always taken by her brilliant blue eyes. This is an extended Twilight Zone episode or Black Mirror for the modern audience. It's a perfectly capable film that stays compelling to the end.

This film is probably going to be compared to ex machina because of the similar theme. It is a completely different story so do not fear repetition if you have seen ex machina.

I will not reveal any of the story line - I have seen one of the reviews on here that does actually indicate part of the storyline. The story is quite slow so it is not really a popcorn flick. I do not remember ever feeling bored. The story unfolds at a fairly casual rate.

The acting is good. The characters are intriguing and quite varied. I though the lady was actually quite unpleasant and childish (even for her age group) but she was not necessarily unbelievable. I am sure certain people will empathize with her.

Just remember that it is a low budget movie with very few actors. Take it for what it is but bear in mind that it is probably better than many films that had a far higher budget.