AVALIAÇÃO DA IMDb
6,1/10
18 mil
SUA AVALIAÇÃO
Um homem rouba uma máquina que pode extrair, gravar e reproduzir as memórias de uma pessoa para tentar resolver o assassinato do cientista que a inventou.Um homem rouba uma máquina que pode extrair, gravar e reproduzir as memórias de uma pessoa para tentar resolver o assassinato do cientista que a inventou.Um homem rouba uma máquina que pode extrair, gravar e reproduzir as memórias de uma pessoa para tentar resolver o assassinato do cientista que a inventou.
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Artistas
- Prêmios
- 1 indicação no total
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Elenco e equipe completos
- Produção, bilheteria e muito mais no IMDbPro
Avaliações em destaque
I am an easy sucker for any sort of film involving memories (Memento, Rashomon, etcetera) and this one had a plot synopsis that just begged me to take it in. It also made me think of the movie "The Discovery" about a scientist who supposedly finds proof of the afterlife, and while many people are committing suicide, he develops a machine that lets him apparently view a recently deceased person's memories.
I would have liked to see some manner of mystery or even a bit of incoherence done with the memories that are played back in this film. They all look too perfect; perfect vision, perfect audio, camera angles that would require the person to be behaving very oddly (such as an extreme closeup of someone's fingers playing the piano would've meant the viewer would've had their head resting on the piano). The intro video the scientist Gordon Dunn shows at a presentation looks absolutely nothing like recorded memories, and completely like something you'd see in a GoPro promo or some other HD digital camera technology.
The thing about memories, even fresh and recent ones (at least in my experience) is that they can often be an incoherent mess. Sometimes I won't remember large portions of conversations, but manage to somehow understand the conversation that was unfolding. I can "feel" certain attitudes and concepts and sensations rather than hear them. Sometimes the memories are completely wrong, as well; sometimes it's foggy and blue on a summer day, and sometimes just by the act of trying to remember something, I don't so much "remember" as create a fantastical re-construction of the memory.
Nothing of that sort is explored in this movie, and it's quite a shame, because the story that they did go for is very plain and straight-forward. The memories just become a sidepiece and a means of confirming people's stories in a murder investigation being conducted by one incredibly lucky and bold man.
Peter Dinklage is that man, playing Samuel Bloom, some guy whose brother dies in a car accident and who now he is obsessed with getting into contact with Gordon Dunn to use his machine so he can view his own memories, obsessed with remembering what his brother's last words were as he was dying.
In the process, he takes it upon himself to pretend to be various people, question people involved in Dunn's memory experimentation, use the machine to confirm their stories, and so on. He is perfectly at ease using a fake name and taking advantage of having watched people's memories before meeting them so as to better pass himself off as someone who may have worked for Dunn or with one of the subjects.
But this also makes for another thing that the movie just passes over, to its detriment. Peter Dinklage is a little person. There's no mistaking it when you see him. This never comes up in a derogatory or limiting way for him or his character; his character could just as easily be played by any other actor of any other size and nothing at all would change about the film or the character.
But while that's a good thing for him as an actor, it leads to some really odd moments in the movie, as well as a plothole or two, where Peter Dinklage's height would either be a liability for his character, or a benefit for certain characters who are trying to track him down. Knowing that he is a little person would make finding him significantly easier, especially when he thrusts himself into the middle of the murder investigation by stealing the memory recording machine.
It feels like the film was more focused on its plot, blissfully unaware of how predictable it was, rather than filling out the details that could have made the movie much more intriguing and fun to watch. The desire for Sam to revisit his brother's death just to remember his last words loses a significant amount of impact when those words are actually revealed, and it turns out you already figured it out right at the start of the movie when the death happened. It hardly feels fair to label it as a spoiler because of how predictable and ultimately insignificant it was.
It also feels like the filmmaker at some point realized this was a very insipid line to follow, and rather than commit to it in some mildly nihilistic way, they tack on a pointless twist, one which not only plays little to no role in the ending, but one for which, due to them ignoring Peter Dinklage's height, becomes a rather significant plothole.
Overall, this was a movie that had a fun and novel concept to play with, toyed with us with the potential of this concept (the idea of a world in which anyone's memories could be viewed on the spot by others in perfect HD) and proceeded to do very very little with it, more focused on its boring and predictable story than with running wild with its imagination and doing something really memorable.
I would have liked to see some manner of mystery or even a bit of incoherence done with the memories that are played back in this film. They all look too perfect; perfect vision, perfect audio, camera angles that would require the person to be behaving very oddly (such as an extreme closeup of someone's fingers playing the piano would've meant the viewer would've had their head resting on the piano). The intro video the scientist Gordon Dunn shows at a presentation looks absolutely nothing like recorded memories, and completely like something you'd see in a GoPro promo or some other HD digital camera technology.
The thing about memories, even fresh and recent ones (at least in my experience) is that they can often be an incoherent mess. Sometimes I won't remember large portions of conversations, but manage to somehow understand the conversation that was unfolding. I can "feel" certain attitudes and concepts and sensations rather than hear them. Sometimes the memories are completely wrong, as well; sometimes it's foggy and blue on a summer day, and sometimes just by the act of trying to remember something, I don't so much "remember" as create a fantastical re-construction of the memory.
Nothing of that sort is explored in this movie, and it's quite a shame, because the story that they did go for is very plain and straight-forward. The memories just become a sidepiece and a means of confirming people's stories in a murder investigation being conducted by one incredibly lucky and bold man.
Peter Dinklage is that man, playing Samuel Bloom, some guy whose brother dies in a car accident and who now he is obsessed with getting into contact with Gordon Dunn to use his machine so he can view his own memories, obsessed with remembering what his brother's last words were as he was dying.
In the process, he takes it upon himself to pretend to be various people, question people involved in Dunn's memory experimentation, use the machine to confirm their stories, and so on. He is perfectly at ease using a fake name and taking advantage of having watched people's memories before meeting them so as to better pass himself off as someone who may have worked for Dunn or with one of the subjects.
But this also makes for another thing that the movie just passes over, to its detriment. Peter Dinklage is a little person. There's no mistaking it when you see him. This never comes up in a derogatory or limiting way for him or his character; his character could just as easily be played by any other actor of any other size and nothing at all would change about the film or the character.
But while that's a good thing for him as an actor, it leads to some really odd moments in the movie, as well as a plothole or two, where Peter Dinklage's height would either be a liability for his character, or a benefit for certain characters who are trying to track him down. Knowing that he is a little person would make finding him significantly easier, especially when he thrusts himself into the middle of the murder investigation by stealing the memory recording machine.
It feels like the film was more focused on its plot, blissfully unaware of how predictable it was, rather than filling out the details that could have made the movie much more intriguing and fun to watch. The desire for Sam to revisit his brother's death just to remember his last words loses a significant amount of impact when those words are actually revealed, and it turns out you already figured it out right at the start of the movie when the death happened. It hardly feels fair to label it as a spoiler because of how predictable and ultimately insignificant it was.
It also feels like the filmmaker at some point realized this was a very insipid line to follow, and rather than commit to it in some mildly nihilistic way, they tack on a pointless twist, one which not only plays little to no role in the ending, but one for which, due to them ignoring Peter Dinklage's height, becomes a rather significant plothole.
Overall, this was a movie that had a fun and novel concept to play with, toyed with us with the potential of this concept (the idea of a world in which anyone's memories could be viewed on the spot by others in perfect HD) and proceeded to do very very little with it, more focused on its boring and predictable story than with running wild with its imagination and doing something really memorable.
Let me first start out by saying I believe Peter Dinklage is one of the most underrated American actors of our day. I believe that will change as time passes. He is as strong n stage as he is in film. His performance in Rememory is not different.
As I typically do in my reviews, I avoid telling the story of a films narrative or plot. I try to stick to my opinion and what I feel is good or bad about a film on its merits or shortcomings.
Rememory is a unique journey about the concept of capturing memories, good and bad, all the way back to early childhood, and being able to view them in real time on a machine built by a brilliant Psychologist.
This concept may be very "out there" for people to believe but the film tells the story I. A very believable way. It's not hokey in any manner and the story moves at an interesting pace. I felt it started a bit slow but picks up rather quickly about 20 minutes in and is a good ride from that point on.
Acting is terrific and special effects and concept were far above average. The sub-ploy intertwined well with the main story and gives a feel of unease which is a big reason the film works IMO.
Again, Dinklage carries the film on his shoulders and delivers another fine performance as the protagonist on a journey seeking the truth, at his own peril, against a big corporation nipping on his heels once he starts making inquiries into the death of the designer and builder of the "machine".
No spoilers here....I am not a big fan of Sci-Fi but have to say this film felt more like a Thriller and is in fact, and is done very well for a concept that seems highly unlikely despite the advances in modern technology.
Any fan of unique thrillers lead by great acting and original screenplay with an added terrific soundtrack, this is time well spent.
As I typically do in my reviews, I avoid telling the story of a films narrative or plot. I try to stick to my opinion and what I feel is good or bad about a film on its merits or shortcomings.
Rememory is a unique journey about the concept of capturing memories, good and bad, all the way back to early childhood, and being able to view them in real time on a machine built by a brilliant Psychologist.
This concept may be very "out there" for people to believe but the film tells the story I. A very believable way. It's not hokey in any manner and the story moves at an interesting pace. I felt it started a bit slow but picks up rather quickly about 20 minutes in and is a good ride from that point on.
Acting is terrific and special effects and concept were far above average. The sub-ploy intertwined well with the main story and gives a feel of unease which is a big reason the film works IMO.
Again, Dinklage carries the film on his shoulders and delivers another fine performance as the protagonist on a journey seeking the truth, at his own peril, against a big corporation nipping on his heels once he starts making inquiries into the death of the designer and builder of the "machine".
No spoilers here....I am not a big fan of Sci-Fi but have to say this film felt more like a Thriller and is in fact, and is done very well for a concept that seems highly unlikely despite the advances in modern technology.
Any fan of unique thrillers lead by great acting and original screenplay with an added terrific soundtrack, this is time well spent.
I find myself at a bit of an impasse with Rememory. Most critics felt it was meandering and dazed in its attempt to capture melancholy profoundly. That Rememory was unsure of its footing and never reached stable ground to begin with. I don't disagree with that, but I do disagree that what it gave wasn't enough.
Most movies can improve upon something somewhere, Rememory is no exception. Peter Dinklage carries the movie with his empathetic, melancholic, and reminiscent Samuel Bloom. His performance throughout is packed with emotion and push for the story, a snapshot of lives interwoven into a mystery. But without his character and even with it things don't ever pick up pace too much.
From my view Rememory doesn't seem like it's meandering or unsure but rather that simply it's content knowing the envelope wasn't pushed, that the message within was more important in the director/writer Mark Palansky's mind. And that, the message, is where my impasse comes into play.
I don't think anything exceptional is done here. There's a fair handful of shots that're delectable, the set design is good, same for casting, costume design, VFX, and the writing is stable. But not driving the story as much as it could. Instead Samuel Bloom wanders his way through a story with no suspense, and a climax that is equal parts sorrow, and malaise. More malaise than anything. It's like a stitched together series of beautiful shots (and satisfying color grading) but more like a Black Mirror episode without the darkness, or the drive.
Despite that, I enjoyed Rememory immensley, I felt a connection to the characters, and I know all too well how longing for what once was feels like, and what it feels to want to forget. What was shown spoke a lot to me. My rating for Rememory is far more biased than I am known to do. Everyone has biases and while my rating is largely based on what's presented in the film it's also how it made me feel and because of that take this rating with a grain of salt, you might not connect and you might think it's far worse. Not everyone has dealt with loss that permeates, regrets that rip you open, or have to live with all that knowing that "moving on" is just another name for a lie. A cut always leaves a scar, time doesn't change that.
Most movies can improve upon something somewhere, Rememory is no exception. Peter Dinklage carries the movie with his empathetic, melancholic, and reminiscent Samuel Bloom. His performance throughout is packed with emotion and push for the story, a snapshot of lives interwoven into a mystery. But without his character and even with it things don't ever pick up pace too much.
From my view Rememory doesn't seem like it's meandering or unsure but rather that simply it's content knowing the envelope wasn't pushed, that the message within was more important in the director/writer Mark Palansky's mind. And that, the message, is where my impasse comes into play.
I don't think anything exceptional is done here. There's a fair handful of shots that're delectable, the set design is good, same for casting, costume design, VFX, and the writing is stable. But not driving the story as much as it could. Instead Samuel Bloom wanders his way through a story with no suspense, and a climax that is equal parts sorrow, and malaise. More malaise than anything. It's like a stitched together series of beautiful shots (and satisfying color grading) but more like a Black Mirror episode without the darkness, or the drive.
Despite that, I enjoyed Rememory immensley, I felt a connection to the characters, and I know all too well how longing for what once was feels like, and what it feels to want to forget. What was shown spoke a lot to me. My rating for Rememory is far more biased than I am known to do. Everyone has biases and while my rating is largely based on what's presented in the film it's also how it made me feel and because of that take this rating with a grain of salt, you might not connect and you might think it's far worse. Not everyone has dealt with loss that permeates, regrets that rip you open, or have to live with all that knowing that "moving on" is just another name for a lie. A cut always leaves a scar, time doesn't change that.
Man of the moment Peter Dinklage takes main role in this little beauty. I've never been keen on his acting (tortured soul type) - but hey it obviously works. I've been watching him for a long time (check The Station Agent 2003 which is when his career really kicked off) "Space Pants" aside - which is probably the reason for his tortured soul - Rememory is a nice little detective /mystery / Sly-fi (my new term for sci - fi films that aren't that futuristic, you have my permission to use it, the entire new series I'm working on at the moment is Sly-fi.. But I digress..) Finally a film that doesn't concentrate on his size.. although you might still.. He really appears to be spear-heading the small person in a film without prejudice. 7.4/10
It's a must see. Peter Dinklage shines in a compelling techno-whodunit that challenges the viewer to explore the concept of intrusive memory. Supported by incredible performances by Julia Ormond and the late Anton Yelchin, Rememory is an elegantly nuanced and disturbing tale that will leave you guessing until the end. A symptom and part of the daily struggle that is PTSD, intrusive memories bring back the past in such a way that you feel like you are reliving that past moment with brilliant clarity, unable to escape it. Rememory looks at the nature of memory and shows the world what it is like to be in the moment of an intrusive memory that seems so real that it forces you question the very nature of reality.
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesThe gorgeous modern house used as the home of the Dunns was discovered via the girlfriend of a crew member. Built on the outskirts of the town where they shot, it had been used for commercial purposes (a sizable expense) previously. The director feared they wouldn't be able to afford it; however, fortunately for him, the owner was a Game of Thrones (2011) fan and decided to let them use it as long as he and his family got to meet Peter Dinklage.
- Erros de gravaçãoThe position of Gordon Dunn's corpse changes; from the first time one can see it, to when the police are on the scene. By example, watch his right arm closely.
- Citações
Carolyn Dunn: And I am what is left. I guess, in part, we're all remains of unfulfilled dreams.
- Cenas durante ou pós-créditosAt the end of the credits, you can hear the Rememory machine beeping and then powering off.
- Trilhas sonorasMistaken for Strangers
by The National
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
- How long is Rememory?Fornecido pela Alexa
Detalhes
- Data de lançamento
- Países de origem
- Idioma
- Também conhecido como
- Rememory
- Locações de filme
- Empresas de produção
- Consulte mais créditos da empresa na IMDbPro
Bilheteria
- Faturamento bruto mundial
- US$ 70.124
- Tempo de duração1 hora 51 minutos
- Cor
- Proporção
- 2.39:1
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente
Principal brecha
What is the French language plot outline for A Máquina de Lembranças (2017)?
Responda