Avaliações de usuários

A.I. usually comes in four standard flavors:

1.) The program that resides in a singular non-robotic machine or device such as HAL in Space Odyssey.

2.) The ubiquitous program that infiltrates every computer related device on a network such as Skynet or the Matrix.

3.) The A.I. that inhabits a robot that is obviously a machine like Johnny 5 in Short Circuit or Chappie.

4.) The A.I. that inhabits an android type body of which is virtually indistinguishable from a human like D.A.R.Y.L., David from A.I., or the androids in Blade Runner.

The Machine is of the fourth type. The vessel was a very attractive female that was patterned after her creator, Ava (Caity Lotz). She was just robotic enough in her movements, gestures and speech to know she wasn't real, but still human enough to question your feelings about her.

This movie was dark, both literally and figuratively. I don't think there was any sun shown until the very end. The Machine (meaning the movie because the android was simply called Machine as well) had a mysterious element to it as is usually the case when governments are involved. The government wanted a weapon and Dr. Vincent McCarthy, the lead scientist for the government project, wanted something entirely different. The two parties clash in a violent way.

This is not one of my favorite A.I. movies but it is done pretty well. They never introduced a truly unique perspective on the topic so it didn't move the scales much. The acting was passable as were the special effects so I'd say the movie was between OK and good, leaning more towards good.

Fantastic Look and the Score is Effective, Minimalist and Silky. This is a Creepy, sometimes Frightening Film filled with War-Battered, Brain-Damaged Robots and few Humans.

The Low-Budget takes a Back Seat to the Imaginative Scenery and the Mood is all Melancholy. There is barely a Light in Sight and the Literal Darkness of the Scenes does Enhance the Gloomy Appeal of the Story.

Caity Lotz in a Dual Role is Stunning and Toby Stevens as the Scientist in Despair is OK. The Story may be Nothing New and the Ending will Not Surprise Sci-Fi Geeks. But Viewers will most likely remember the Feel of the Film and it is Unique in that respect.

Overall, Above Average B-Movie with its Sci-Fi Roots Showing most of the Time, although Not in the Foreground. It's an A.I. Trek that is a Welcome Inclusion in the Sub-Genre. Low-Budget Movies should all Look this Good and They Can with Fertile Imaginations.

I just wanted to say to anyone that was thinking... hmmm... is it worth spending the 90 min to watch, I would say, Yes. It was actually better than I thought it would be. So many movies now a days are just simply painful, it is no wonder they are remaking every thing in sight. Can't Hollywood come up with something original. I mean are vampires and zombies the only thing you can come up with???

This movie make me think of the movie - Her. Not only is it similar in subject matter, it also has some shared weaknesses.

However, while both of these movies have there problems, some plot holes and such, they also have some good things as well. They have surprises, they have some unexpected, they have some good camera work and especially this one has some good special effects.

These two also have something in common that most robot movies do not have. But, if I told you what it was, it may spoil the movies.

When a scientist is killed, Britain's Ministry of Defence clash with a lead scientist over plans for an artificially intelligent, self-aware and conscious android.

Inventive, visually interesting science fiction, packed with an array of sci-fi ideas. With an wealth of unapologetic camera light flare and well executed effects Caradog W. James The Machine delivers a thinking man's sci-fi with action thrown in for good measure. Computer scientists Caity Lotz and Toby Stephens give good innings with Lotz stealing the show in a dual role.

With echoes of Vangelis and Jean Michel Jarre, Tom Raybould's score helps smooth over any flaws of the film. In addition, making up for some clunky paced and staged scenes is the design of The Machine with her stylised look and robotic soft voice which will stick in the mind long after the credits.

With some great special effects and some strong performances this is solid entry in modern British sci-fi. James delivers a brooding, stylish and highly atmospheric science fiction. Recommended.

In a near future, China is in war against the West and UK government is developing war machines to fight against the Chinese. The scientist Vincent (Toby Stephens) works in a military base developing artificial intelligence for the Ministry of Defense, using soldiers near death in his experiments. However his true intention is to find a cure to his daughter Mary (Jade Croot) that has Rett Syndrome. When Vincent meets the scientist Ava (Caity Lotz) that has developed an advanced AI, he invites her to work with him for the Defense Department. However Ava snoops around the base and the chief of the research Thomson (Denis Lawson) simulates a Chinese attempt to kill her.

Vincent decides to use Ava's face and shape to build an indestructible AI Machine. Soon he discovers that the Machine is developing feelings and growing up as human being. When Mary gets worse and has to be submitted to a surgery, Vincent learns that the Machine has life and is in love with him. But Thomson wants to transform her in a killing machine for the military.

"The Machine" is a low-budget UK movie with a promising story that is a combination of "Death Machine" (1994) and "Universal Soldier" using artificial intelligence. However the story deserved a better ending since the conclusion is very disappointing. The comparison with "Blade Runner" is ridiculous and the music score is a rip-off of the classic sci-fi music by Vangelis. Actually it could be a prequel of "Terminator" franchise but never "Blade Runner". My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Soldado do Futuro" ("Soldier of the Future")

Note: On 04 March 2023, I saw this film again.

You should see The Machine if only for Caity Lotz. I understand she's known for the TV series Arrow, but I've never seen that. I first saw her in 'The Pact' and was intrigued by how grounded and three dimensional a character she managed to create out of fairly average scripted one. In The Machine, she's an absolute revelation, so beautifully machinelike and tragically human at the same time. This is an actress to keep our eyes on, with acting chops like this she's gonna be huge someday.

I like to draw comparisons between movies whenever I can so that readers here have a better sense of what I might like and whether my opinion will be relevant to their tastes. The analogy I would draw here is that 'The Machine' is to 'Blade Runner' what 'Equilibrium' was to 'The Matrix'.

To elaborate - Equilibrium was a somewhat flawed, low-budget carbon-copy of The Matrix yet it was still enjoyable and valid in its own right because of some fine acting, beautiful cinematography, and a few pretty cool action moments. The Machine is in a similar position when compared to Blade Runner. It explores a very similar theme - the line between human and fabricant - and employs a very similar feel with it's bleak, placid tone, haunting synthesizer score, and impressive art direction. It's obviously not as good as Blade Runner - barely any film is - but it is thoroughly enjoyable nonetheless.

The weakest part of the work is the final act, which devolves into a generic low-budget action scene. Caity Lotz is a complete badass to watch and I love my action scenes - but after such a gently paced and thoughtful first two acts, the third seems out of place and forced here. I kind of wish they'd gone for drama instead and maintained the slow-burn nature through to the end - just as Blade Runner did.

Regardless, the weak third act of The Machine isn't enough to topple the outstanding foundation of intriguing concepts and stunning visuals that came before it. This is a film that will find its way onto my sci-fi shelf for sure.

I had no expectation for this movie, and can't really claim that I did any prior investigation into it before sitting down to watch it. And now that I have, I sit here with a somewhat hollow feeling.

While the movie was nice visually and atmospherically, then content-wise and story-wise, then "The Machine" didn't really lift the bar in any possible way. The storyline was nearly non-existing, or at least simple to the level of being pointless, which made the movie suffer terribly.

The concept of the movie does raise a valid question about robotics and their usage, but director Caradog W. James really didn't manage to establish anything in that sense. And the movie ended up being a rather shallow experience and a pointless one as well.

I will say that the acting was adequate, and people were doing good enough jobs with their given roles and characters. But everything was just a tad too superficial, and the actors weren't really allowed to shine on the screen.

Visually, then the movie was nice to watch. Now, don't expect a billion dollar Hollywood CGI fest here, then you will be sorely disappointed. But the effects team behind "The Machine" pulled it off quite nicely, and the effects came off as believable and real. Although, one thing did raise a question mark, as a machine, would would you see billowing steam exhaling from Caity Lotz's mouth during the "revolt" scene? That was just a stupid mistake (either that, or I pay way too much attention to everything in the movies).

I am giving "The Machine" a 5 out of 10 stars, because it was a mediocre experience that suffered from a horrible storyline, and had the effects and acting to lift up the movie despite the bad storyline. But come the ending, there really were no particular point to this movie.

I thought this film was beautiful - the use of special effects were stunning and were utilised in a clever way that added to the atmosphere rather than overshadowing the plot.

The Machine is an interesting, dark sci-fi that focuses on character and mood rather than flashy guns and action scenes. I heard it described as a kind of prequel to Bladerunner, and agree this could be true. It has a good script with unexpected plot turns and no excessive dialogue. The delicacy it deals with with issues of loss and mourning was great.

It is a new take on the classic Frankenstein story, is beautifully shot, and was an entertaining film to watch at Tribeca this year.

Frankenstein meets the Terminator meets Blade Runner meets Barbie as emergent biotronic warriors mobilizing against the yellow menace. I actually didn't think it was that bad with some imaginative stuff resonating across several levels of boilerplate. How do you know you're alive? At what point do we become conscious with conscience? How is this programmable in a machine? And how about when a machine can "feel", like appreciate a sunset? I appreciated the irony of the scientist saving her daughter, and then her preferring to play with her "mother". That was funny. Would have liked to have known a lot more about the "machines" that communicated in garble-speak, a language we humans can't understand. What were they talking about? What was the role of the "chief security officer" and what was her backstory? She appeared to play a significant yet underdeveloped role that was under-communicated.

The Machine follows the story of two irritating scientists as they stand slackjawed at the edge of one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time. That's about all I can say without giving away any spoilers, and in all honesty that's already a more accurate plot synopsis than the one that already exists on the IMDb.

This movie had some genuinely impressive moments, which are the result of some very competent film-making; the visual effects are beyond anything I could've possibly imagined and are nothing short of spectacular given the film's low budget. Aside from this, the cinematography is very impressive - however it segues from being beautifully shot to appallingly shot so frequently it will leave you both dizzy and confused.

The set design was also impressive, and more accurate than you might assume - a Q+A with the Director revealed that care had been taken to make the sets look authentically MoD. As well as this, the techno-babble isn't as stupid as it initially sounds either - the crew have indeed done their homework.

However, I'm sorry to say it was all for nothing, as the three critical elements that keep people interested - the script, acting and casting - are nothing short of appalling. The characters are incredibly flat - often spewing robotic exposition, and they occasionally have outright bizarre sweary outbursts in a desperate bid to make the dialogue seem more brooding.

The film's leading actress is sublimely annoying, and her shrill, squeaky voice made me want to knaw off a thumb before the hour mark. As for Tobey Stephens, after 10 years of following they guy's career, I still can't tell if he's a bad actor, or if he's consistently fed awful scripts. Either way, in this film he often acted as though he'd just witnessed some horrible event and had been given a powerful sedative.

The fundamental flaw with this film is that some very talented people worked very hard to put together a visually stunning piece of work - although seemingly no one had read the script. It was awfully clear, right from the opening scenes that it'd been written in one draft, possibly over a weekend. This was incredibly frustrating to witness, because there's no reason that independent, low-budget films - when done right - can't become world-wide blockbusters (i.e. Paranormal Activity). However, once its film festival run is all said and done, Red&Black Films will see this movie fade away into obscurity; and they will say it's because they didn't really have the resources, or they didn't have bigger names attached, but they will be wrong. It's because the whole idea was flawed right out of the gate; and the basic elements that were at their own fingertips right from the get-go (dialogue, characters, pacing) were so catastrophically out of whack it sunk a film that really could've been something special. Shame.

This is a good AI movie to watch. Plot, acting, execution, everything is good but not great definitely because it's a low budget movie. Story is simple and in this budget segment, it is probably one of the best movies.

This movie was much better than I expected going in. I basically had nothing else to watch that night and decided to give it a try and I had a good time. Its not going to blow anyone's mind but I did think that it was good approach to how an AI might grow early in its life. Most movies don't really tackle that part and I think it is the most interesting and has many possibilities.

The movie is mostly a drama with a little bit of action here and there. In this movie, China and USA are in a cold war which has become somewhat militant. The race is to create the best robots to fight the war. The rest is somewhat predictable so I wont say anything else. Good movie.

I liked this quite a bit. The acting was top notch, the director really knows how to tell a story, and, despite a limited budget, I thought the special effects were very good. I also appreciated how the set designs covered up that limited budget by keeping you focused on the action up front. Although we've seen the basic story before, at no time did I find the film predictable; Director/Screenwriter Caradog W. James does a nice job of keeping the viewer slightly off balance with some beautiful camera work and a screenplay that tweaks the small stuff enough (what are the AI saying to each other?) such that the tale may be familiar but the trajectory is not. Both the lead actors are impressive with Caity Lotz impressively so pulling double duty in a movie that relies on her performance in a big way. Toby Stephens, who has been around for awhile, delivers a solid performance, walking that fine line between jerk and misguided soul. I can understand why some here see it as the beginning of Skynet or the Tyrell Corporation but personally I'll go with "Weyland-Yutani." Very good. Makes me interested in seeing what James and/or Lotz due in the future.

A very good mix of already classics Sci-Fi: Terminator, Blade Runner and Ghost in The Shell...but a bit more dark.

The actors are good in the their roles. Caity (Abba) is between a "replicant" and Motoko Kusanagi.

There are script flaws like in any other sci-fi movie, but we already know what "fi" means in this genre, no? ;-)

A bit abuse of dark scenarios helps to the atmosphere but not in all the scenes.

British Sci-Fi fans most be proud of a movie like this, not only by the commercial success or not but the attempt to create universes for new comers sci-fi lovers.

Occasionally things come along in the world that are not quite perfect as they are but their value lies more in their ability to act as a harbinger of things to come in the future. Think Alan(sp?) Turring's very first attempt at a "thinking machine" and the simple calculations that even it found difficult at first. 60 years later and we are knee deep in the age of computers 10,000 times more intelligent that we can now wear on our wrists. Such is the case with this simple film The Machine. On the surface there isn't much to it. I can easily see most people having a tough time even sitting through it, from sheer boredom more than anything. This is NOT a mainstream work of entertainment meant but more an exercise in intellectual pondering. Yet underneath it's surface -- like the work of early Wes Anderson films but in a completely unrelated manner -- The Machine hints at a wide variety of conversational depth that anyone interested in Artificial Intelligence will find intriguing and thought provoking.

Enjoyable, remarkable for a low budget movie, congratulations :) About the AI concept, not bad, but neither the scientists and supercomputers are on the right track, sorry for philosophizing,can't help it, the brain will remain the ultimate challenge for humans and computers to crack, and the day we crack it we've killed it :)

AI, is still and will remain in the science fiction domain, anything close to our brain will always be MIMIC, can seem very antiquate perspective, but the brain contains too many variables to ever be replicated, and in my opinion mimic is not the same as replica, that said, this movie is a must, at times " seems like blade runner " :)

on the back of the DVD box it said something like.. the closest movie to blade runner since 1981 with blade runner written in bold type

please know that this movie even though it was made in 2013, looks and sounds like a made for TV British film made in the 1990's. It starts off reasonably but it quickly becomes evident that this is not a good movie at all

the direction is all over the place, the visual effects look cheap and nasty with no effort made to obscure this, and there is no interesting sound at all. the score is irritating, vangelis this isn't, there is absolutely no ambiance present.. no machinery hums, nothing. what?

let's discuss blade runner for a moment.. . blade runner had an incredible score which doubled as ambiance most of the time. the replicants were good because they were acted out as humans, there was no hammy robot impressions. this is not so in the machine. in the machine they have their own klingon style language and each actor is pretending to be a robot with the main one acting like a small child

the ending is abrupt and confused. either avoid this movie or know what to expect before you see it, i.e don't pay any attention to the blurb on the back of the DVD box