2050

With the exception of Dean Cain, the acting was not very good, the soundtrack was silly and the actor playing the brother was awful and seemed gay. (Not there there is anything wrong with that!) The concept for the film is a good one but the dialogue seemed unnatural, the music was distracting and overall this movie was a waste of time! The only difference in the future in New York City seems to be drones.... Lots of drones!!!

I think this could have been a much better movie in spite of being low budget... maybe the writer and director learn from this movie and do better next time... just like Ed Wood said! 😁🎥🎬

The film takes an interesting premise and plays it inoffensively as possible, and drags the thin plot over far too long of a run time. If this was a short youtube scifi short it might have been bearable, but at full length its just wasted potential.

...., Don't Bother, you'll never get these wasted minute back.

Go watch the UK production 'Humans' instead, it's a lot more thought provoking and deals with the disruptions to society and family that the technology will bring in the near future. There's very little to make this turkey stand out from the crowd, visually it's uninspiring, there's no real plot, just a load of over-wordy sentences strung together with no real meaning - the Director and Writer should watch "Ghost in the Shell : Stand Alone Complex" to understand how to use dialog properly during scenes with limited activity on camera. The actors do a fair job of trying to deliver the lines with conviction, but the dialog they're given to work with, just makes the viewer want to skip forward.

While some elements are different, it is essentially a remake made to appear different. Sorry Cherry 2000 from the 80's is better than this film

I really struggled rating this one. I have a softspot for any nice cinematography set in New York City. Don't know why, have never been there. Just something so human and organic about that city.

As for acting: some really really bad, most slightly below average, and occasionally excellent. Same for directing.

The main companion robot was really good in her role. The others were fine. There was some unevenness in how the director saw their movements and expressions. Maybe he could explain it off as older and newer models. The companion to the main protagonist seemed more natural, but with a slight emptiness in the eyes. The other models felt very artificial.

And finally to what drags my rating way up to 7, which most wont agree with it deserving for good reasons. But I just had to give it some reward for a couple things it does very well.

It doesn't get too deep. It's not a complicated highly metaphysical issue. It's an issue we are currently facing, just in a different form. Devices. Loss of human contact and meaningful interaction. Inability to know how to interact.

On the flip side, they make the very valid point that we overcomplicate the meaning we give to sexual devices. Our social conditioning adds way too much subtext (you need the device or the roll play because Im not enough, you don't trust me enough, etc...).

Finally, there is a brilliant comment near the end (non-spoiler, it doesn't impact the outcome or story of the film). It involves releasing sterile insects into a population to help control or eradicate that population. A simple comment, but one the writers were brilliant to see and make the connection to sex bots.

So I don't want to over emphasize this film and say it's amazing. It's more of a film with a lot of lost potential. In the right hands, with the right director, and some cleaning up of the script and dialogue, it could be an excellent film. Not ground breaking, but good. But again, some people may find it too simplistic. I loved the simplicity.

And we certainly can't fault those who struggle to get through this film. They have good reason.

Last note: the ending dialogue is excellent, however, it ultimately ends flat.