garcianc2003

Rating: 5/10 (edit: I updated my rating to 9/10 upon second viewing)

I finally decided to watch Devs because of Alex Garland's stellar track record thus far. The concept did not disappoint. Like with Anihilation, Garland found a way to convey on the screen some very complex ideas, and he deserves credit for that.

However, the execution of the film/series could have been better.

Story: I won't go into detail regarding the story. Everyone who talks about this movie seems to be incredibly mindful of spoilers but, within the first 20 minutes of episode 1, it should be easy to guess where things are going. In a way, the story follows turns similar to Ex Machina. Ironically, and perhaps unintentionally humorous is that "Devs" completes the phrase (you will see what I mean if you get to the end). There are some huge plot-holes in this story, and I am not even talking about the scientific ones. For instance, the character of Jen simply disappears without explanation, and without Kenton's involvement, even though she was involved in a deception along with Lily. Nobody seems to care or ask what happened to Jen. The ending is, there is no other way to say this, terrible. The moral dilemma of the characters is not even touched upon during a final episode that is mostly filler.

Acting: There is some great acting, but mostly (at times) on the part of Nick Offerman and Zach Grenier. Also, I love some of the dialog given to Stephen McKinley Henderson's character.

Directing: Some of the episodes seem to have been directed by someone else. The style is not consistent throughout. For example, there are some episodes where the emotion of the story is palpably heavy (i.e. the first 2 episodes), while during the middle episodes, much more terrible things happen without much of a pause - and that is saying something in a story that moves so slowly.

Other nit-picky stuff: The choice of music was at times very good but I did not get the connection between 60s songs and religious chants. They did not seem to be associated with anything, though they sounded good. if you are an audio fanatic you will also hate how some of the microphones appeared to have distortion when the actors' voiceovers were recorded. There were many lens artifacts on some of the shots - I am not just talking about artistic lens-flare here and there; I mean even dirt on he lenses. During one of the scenes in episode 7, you can even see movement reflected behind two characters sitting at a table when only two characters are supposed to be in the room. These production mistakes gave the impression that the project was rushed.

I think us sci-fi fans are tougher on this movie because these concepts are seldom put in the hands of such a capable director, and we expected more "wow". I do recommend that people watch this series for the though-provoking concepts, both technological and philosophical, that it presents.

During one of the early scenes in Flora, the characters are huddled around a campfire taking turns exchanging banter (as a lazy-writer's way of exposition) and getting drunk. One of the characters holds up a patch that says "Victorin University - 1929" and the camera focuses on the patch for a few seconds as if it were some form of product placement or a home shopping network sales pitch. An so it goes on throughout the movie. it seems like the writers were trying to explain every aspect of the movie to the audience and the actors themselves. However, the actors did not seem to get it either. The patch was a "surprise" design by the character showcasing it, but later in the film we see that everyone is wearing one already...

Nothing in this movie works. The acting and writing are so bad that it made the movie entertaining as an unintentional comedy. It was like an SNL parody sketch of Annihilation or The Happening.

Whoever was in charge of costume looks like they searched the internet for "1929 fashions" and made enough sets to hold the movie until all the characters were in jumpers. The 1929 period seems to have been chosen as a convenient way to remove technology from the plot as a potential plot hole, yet the little technology in the film was poorly researched. For example, a character holding a record player on his lap while rocking to the music should cause the player to skip; the breathing masks the characters used (and that are still used today) would prevent characters from speaking normally and also use oxygen canisters that only produce oxygen for an hour or less - the Navy uses a version of these masks called OBA (oxygen breathing apparatus) that I have worn too many times to care.

The ending is nothing short of pretentious. There was nothing the director or the writers did to support any conclusion, implicit or explicit.

There are so many more plot holes and inaccuracies in this movie that they are not even worth mentioning.

(5/10) Recently, I had been complaining that the science fiction genre was getting murky. Movies like Gravity and Salyut-7 are not science fiction, they are simply fiction or drama in my opinion (so why are they cluttering my feed?). Also, superhero movies are not science fiction. I feared that the genre as I had come to love in the tradition of Phillip K. Dick was being watered-down into a never ending stream of sequels that amounted to infomercials for merchandise.

So it was indeed refreshing to find Infinity Chamber among my streaming recommendations. I jumped at the chance and was delighted by the film, despite my 5/10 star rating.

The plot of a futuristic totalitarian regime trampling on people's liberties has that Phillip K. Dick tone, though there was not much of a social commentary made by the movie as a whole. I don't know if they just missed the mark or if the movie intentionally avoided those subjects. What was left was mildly entertaining, and mostly as an intellectual exercise in trying to unravel the plot.

Except for an adequate effort by Christopher Soren Kelly (Frank), the acting was horrible and not believable whatsoever. There are only four named characters in the film, and Christopher is in every scene, so the bulk of the acting load is thankfully on his shoulders.

The movie does a pretty good job at keeping us guessing, but the ending is pretty clear (in my opinion) and, therefore, unsatisfying. Although I have heard of different possible interpretations for the ending, there is only one possibility unless the viewer is willing to overlook one gigantic gaping plot hole posed by a key and a coffee shop owner with a selective memory.

I still recommend watching this film to anyone who wants to see "real" science fiction, as it used to be.