Simone

The cult of celebrity is brilliantly examined in Andrew Niccol's `Simone.' Al Pacino plays a washed-up `art film' director who is fed up with the spoiled leading ladies with whom he has to work. After his latest leading lady (Winona Ryder in an excellent performance) walks out before the end of production, Pacino is left with an unreleasable film. He is approached by an adoring fan, a `computer geek' dying from cancer, who offers him a solution to his difficulties. Pacino rejects the offer, but the geek sends him a computer disk containing `Simulation One.' When Pacino activates the disk, up pops a stunningly beautiful female,' who is a programmable simulation. Pacino adds personality ingredients from famous actresses of the past, and, viola, `Simone' is created.

Inserting Simone's image and voice into Ryder's footage, Pacino completes his film. However, Pacino's work is overshadowed by his creation. Simone becomes a world famous celebrity, a cult goddess.

Combining the cult celebrity of Garbo, Princess Di, Farrah Fawcett and Pamela Anderson, with maybe a little Britney Spears thrown in, Andrew Niccol has created a sharp satire of hero worship. Lacking an ego, Simone is the projection of everyone's desires; men want her and women want to be like her. Even more fascinating is Pacino's revelation that he is jealous of his creation, even when he has no need to be. Niccol sustains his sharp satire of celebrity until the very end of the movie.

Where `Simone' stumbles is its flat romance between Pacino and his former wife, Christine Keener. I'm sorry, but for me Keener lacks anything resembling sex appeal. Had this role been given to Kim Basinger, Rita Wilson, Cybil Shepherd, Ellen Barkin or Lauren Hutton, the `younger beauty/aging beauty pathos could have been examined. As it stands, `Simone' lacks the kind of conflict which could have given it real spark. Nonetheless, `Simone' is a fun, funny movie and is definitely worth seeing. I give `Simone' a `7'.

"S1m0ne" is a different kind of movie, with an original, different and very interesting idea. But, despite this clever premise, it was a disappointment.

The plot is brilliant in fact: Viktor Taransky, a producer with his career in danger, desperately needs a success. He decides to create a virtual actress named "Simone". "Simone" is perfect, gorgeous, beautiful and sexy. She's not real, but nobody knows that and she becomes a major hit.

However, this intelligent and amazing idea is ruined as Simone's fame grows to the extreme. Viktor Taransky, not to reveal the truth, is forced to "hide" her from the public and this ends up becoming too much for him. That's when the movie becomes ridiculous: he decides to ruin Simone's image in all ways, but the more he tries to do it, the more the public likes her. From this part on, the rest is pointless and pathetic. The ending is probably the worst and most ridiculous ending I've ever seen in a movie.

Al Pacino, as usual, is great and this role of Viktor Taransky is one of his best roles. The beautiful Rachel Roberts is great as "S1m0ne".

In conclusion: it's truly a pity how such a genial idea was ruined by rubbish humor. The movie had potential to be much better than this. After all, the plot was so good... a wasted opportunity. If this movie was made more carefully, it could have something special like "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" and "The Mask".

Very good satire on the cult of celebrity, in which the whole world falls all over itself in praise of a non-existent actress.

The movie also deals, to a much lesser extent, with the conflict between wanting to create a perfect artistic vision and wanting to create art that is in the world. It's not the most pointed or savage of satires, but it is quite a funny one.

Some people here have criticized it for being predictable, which really misses the point of satire. Satire is based to a great extent on the frightening predictability of people, and it must follow a logical train of escalating events or what's the point. The biggest failing in the movie is near the end where it jumps track from a logical train of events to a dumb plot device, which while not a fatal error is lazy and takes away from the overall effect of the film.

But mainly it's just funny. Consistently so from beginning to end. And also notable as about the only good performance I've seen from Winona Ryder since Mermaids.

By Greg Ursic

Many people bemoan the loss of the Hollywood mystique, when contract actors were essentially owned by the studios and lived glamorous, carefully tailored lives, and were surrounded by an air of mystery. The public however is just as much to blame for this - our insatiable need to know everything - how much the stars earn, who they're dating, what they're addicted to ... - has left them then without any semblance of privacy. It's amazing that today's superstars don't immolate under the spotlight's glare. While the days of discovering the next screen legend in ice cream parlours may be over, they may soon be created over a banana split...

For Viktor Taransky bad things do indeed come in threes, in his case, movies: a former Oscar nominated director, his last three films have been box office dogs. His comeback attempt is apparently dashed when the star ("A supermodel with a SAG card") of his latest film walks out on him citing creative differences. Replacing her seems impossible - as an agent eloquently notes "[For my client] having no credits is better than having a Taransky credit." He also learns that rock bottom can always be adjusted when the studio chief - who also happens to be his ex-wife - lets him know that he's being fired. Distraught and demoralized, Viktor's salvation appears in the guise a seemingly deranged genius who offers him the ultimate software for the director who can't find a star - who says you can't make em like you used to?

For those accustomed to Al Pacino's typical cast of characters -serious, dark and brooding, with an intensity level that never drops below 10, Viktor Taranksy is a refreshing change. As the real (read: flesh and blood) star of the film, Viktor is a man with a quandary - a director with integrity and vision, who actually sees beyond the box office, he must perpetrate a hoax, to get his film made and salvage his career. Pacino is appropriately low key and morose- even when Viktor should be bathing in the glow of success there is a palpable manic undercurrent and sense of foreboding. The supporting cast is a mixed blessing.

Catherine Keener, who plays Elaine, Viktor's ex-wife (her second role as a Hollywood executive in as many months), has suprisingly little presence in the film - her dialogue is light and her character is relatively inconsequential. I can only assume that this was done so as not to detract from the other adult female lead (see below). Evan Rachel Wood, delivers a solid performance as the daughter, supplying maturity and offering sage advice to her self-involved immature parents. Of course the real star is Simone.

As a synthespian, (or as the designer of S1MøNE software notes "The pc term is "vactor") Simone is happy with every script she receives, never complains about her perks and will never age - a director's dream. Though sultry and seductive, she projects a soothing screen presence, and you feel the symbiosis between her and Viktor. It wasn't until the credits started rolling that I realized Simone really was a computer generated image (this is confirmed by both the press kit and everything I've been able to find on the internet) and is a composite of Hollywood leading ladies from the past (drawn from the "Legends Library").

Although marketed as a comedy, "Simone" highlights the growing impact of technology on how we perceive reality. While moviegoers have come to expect special effects in their films, most don't realize the extent to which they are actually utilized - it is not uncommon for actors to be made thinner, or taller, with the click of a mouse. Several films have already employed synthespians to perform difficult stunts and last year's Final Fantasy showed how far the technology had come (bankrupting a movie company in the process). Simone demonstrates that actors themselves may soon be in jeopardy. Of course there are other issues lurking in the background: will we be faced with the spectre of Jimmy Stewart in Scary Movie 6 or Grace Kelly hawking feminine hygiene products? More disturbing is the possibility that in the near future the news reports we're watching could be wholly fictional and we would have no way of knowing? But that's more than enough paranoia for one review.

The first half of Simone is both fun and engaging as the public's thirst for knowledge about Simone grows: co-stars brag about partying with her, people say that she speaks to something in them because she is so real (irony at its best), and Simone reaches virtual demigoddess status. Unfortunately, the manic pace and almost giddy feel of the film begins to wane in the second half, meandering between different plot elements, and winding up in a too perfect conclusion.

Go for the matinee and stay for the popcorn.

Director and writer Andrew Nicol has only a few scripts and movies in his record, but all are memorable. He wrote and directed 'Gattaca', wrote 'The Truman Show' script, and here he is again both writing and directing with 'S1m0ne'. It is seldom that one director chooses his films in such a focused manner, and in his case it certainly pays back.

'S1m0ne' is another story about Hollywood, but a really original one. Since the film was released the first completely virtual film became reality, and some of the best movies of 2002 combine real actors and fantastic computer generated characters. Is this a threat to the big star system? This is the main theme of the movie. The second, and maybe even more important is the cult for icons, the morbid fascination of the public with the life of celebrities. The two themes play well together, combined with the excellent portrait that Al Pacino creates for his Faustian director.

I liked the movie. It has enough interesting material to keep the interest. The weaker points are the length - yet another film which would have benefit if it was 10-15 minutes shorter - and the final which is too conventional relative to the originality of the rest of the script.

8/10 on my personal scale - go and see or rent it, you will not be disappointed.