Conceiving Ada

Ok, first off *DO NOT* watch this movie if your idea of an independent film is something starring Johhny Depp or Hugh Grant. That said, *DO* watch this movie if you liked 'Pi,' or other movies that were shot on almost no budget, but still somehow manage to mix cinematic exploration of abstract concepts with elements of science fiction. Don't expect to understand this movie the first time you watch it, but after two weeks of mulling it over as you try to get to sleep at night, it'll come to have more meaning.

Conceiving Ada is an odd, but ultimately somewhat rewarding film. I had picked it up largely based on the presence of Tilda Swinton, not expecting much from it beyond her performance. I was pleasantly surprised.

The film has a somewhat awkward framing device of a modern computer scientist who discovers a means of communicating with the past. Through the eyes of the modern scientist, we see the life of Ada Lovelace, the world's first computer programmer.

At times, the approach gives a feeling of nothing so much as a PBS or BBC low budget documentary on Lovelace's life, particularly the way in which it is divided up into snippets. Furthermore, the science behind the communication with the past is preposterous, and requires a serious suspension of disbelief. This is not hard science fiction, folks, despite the real world elements. The cameos by Timothy Leary are equally distracting, adding nothing to the plot.

However, both the woman who plays the modern scientist and Tilda Swinton manage to be engaging. The film is definitely worth a look.

This textured and thoughtful film tells the story of Ada Lovelace whose 19th century work provided the foundation upon which computer language is built. Her genius thwarted by social convention, Ada gets a second chance at immortality when a 20th Century computer genius reaches back in time to communicate with her. Both the 19th and 20th Century female geniuses must find a way to be true to their work, the driving passion behind each of them and raise their children. As a working mother I found these issues well presented. As someone who is in awe of computers and genius, I found the intensity of the performances inspiring.

I'm the sort of person who went down to the local library and read books on Babbage's difference engine whilst my schoolmates were playing football etc.. So, if there is any such thing as a target audience for this film, then I guess I'd probably be included in that.

Maybe I just need to watch it again. A previous reviewer mentioned not to watch this film whilst being tired. Maybe that was my mistake.

I tried my best to enjoy this film, and there are aspects of it that I do like, but overall I found it amateurish and quite plodding.

Being somewhat of a self confessed computer nerd, I just can't help but pick up on the exact time frame when the movie was actually made, and how the employed graphics reflect that time (i.e. 1997). Having played games of the era c.f. "Mind Grind" to cite one example, this film cannot escape that 16-bit colour low res multimedia explosion of that time. Now thankfully this has somewhat lessened in more recent years in the gaming world at least, in favour of actual game play.

Having to resort to watching this movie via a German FTA satellite channel (as I don't think it's ever been aired on UK FTA TV, well not recently anyway), I was mildly amused to see the end credits note Gottdog (God dog) had 4 people working on it's design. Maybe it's mean spirited of me to be amused by this, given that ten years have elapsed since the movie was made, nevertheless the end result makes movie graphics from the eighties look good by comparison.

But, as for the main story, I agree that the format isn't the best idea. Like others I agree that Ada deserves a film without the sci-fi angle, and a more straightforward biographical approach would perhaps be better suited to covering the life story of this remarkable lady.

There are fundamental mistakes that undermine my enjoyment of this movie. First of all the underlying idea that somehow lost real-world information from the past can be accurately reconstructed through some sort of extrapolation via software based intelligent agents, seems somehow ludicrous.

Also, the theme running through the movie that a computing device can indeed predict the mechanics of all things through the course of time (e.g. the winds) is now known not to be the case.

OK, so the Victorians may have held this view, but the 20th century works of Gödel proving that no mathematical system can be complete, Turing's works on the limits of computability, not to mention chaos theory and quantum mechanics, have all completely undermined these ideas, which seem central to how the modern day researcher's software is supposed to work.

Finally, the clicking of the mouse in the air to mean "programming" is also just plain wrong, as previously mentioned.

This film maybe could have been OK, but at least some technical and scientific consultation would have given the film some much needed credit in the believability stakes.

I won't forget the film though, as like "Pi", it is clearly a unique work, but with too many fatal mistakes for me to truly enjoy it, 3/10 from me.

From the technical point, this was incredibly amateurish. Cheap computer effect, tasteless colorization of scenes made it sickening. Lighting was arbitrary, often leaving characters in the dark or completely black. Shaky camera movements, use of normal-telephoto lenses/focal lengths in tiny rooms caused an 'in your face' unbearable shots that induced dizziness. Clueless positioning and compositions were baffling and bizarre. No photographer on crew? The DP that insisted on using Panavision gear did not deserve that privilege. Continuity was the least concern here, often mixing computer screen shots with no relation to what the character is actually doing. (loved that holding the mouse in the air and clicking on nothing...) The MIDI (yes...) soundtrack was pathetic. Room tones where way too loud. Directing- All the scenes painfully reminded an acting class session. Weird exchanges, off-mark pompous reactions and unflattering intimate shots.

The editing was bearable but did not help fixing the flawed script. I felt as if I was watching a sequel and missed the whole explanation to the events. Arbitrary locations appear out of context and disappear in a few seconds. I did not gain anything beyond my basic knowledge of Ada. I only felt injustice to her character.

I could go on. The movie was so bad it was depressing. There is nothing like making art look bad to spoil my mood. I ended up renting Antz. Important? No. Honest effort? Yes.

Hey Lynn: Hands off that computer. And no buts! Ya hear me?!