This film is a thing of beauty. There is not much new to the AI genre, but when i'm left with gratifying philosophical musings well after watching a move, i would consider it a successful piece of art.
When the robot said, who made you? You don't know, you just appeared. Just like us.
The life concept is a brilliant one.
Great film.
The bad guys were rubbish. It seemed like they just wanted to kill everybody, because "why not?"
share*** SPOILERS ***
I agree, i was in awe of this film. I think the low rating is, because lots of people haven't seen it yet. Check back in a few weeks or months.
The bad guys we're following orders, it's their job isn't it? I thought they were ok, very menacing (walking into the dudes apartment in the middle of his family sitting around and watching TV)and they didn't *beep* around, 1 smart ass comment from a robot? *boom*
The only problem I had was trying to remove the image of that dude from BlackAdder.
Amazing movie, so many great scenes, like Cleo and Jacq dancing, and she starts to get turned on, they almost kiss. Hollywood just doesn't do stuff like that.
what do you guys mean by "low" rating? it is over 6, which is pretty good. personally i gave it a 6/10, because i think that's appropriate. it was better than many other sci fi films, specially recently and one might be able to justify a 7/10, but this is not a 8-10/10 kind of quality. some aspects were awesome, but the bad guys were unbelievable, parts of the plot line did not make much sense and at times the acting was cheesy.
shareYou are correct in your description, or I agree, but of course the ratings are low, it's a legitimate complaint, because there are countless movies exactly like that on imdb with an 8 rating. The rating is low compared to the generally rather high values typical on imdb.
If people were more realistic with their ratings, 6 would be fine, because everything above 5 would be at least an okay movie. But again, okay on imdb is usually an 8.
hmmm, i can relate to your point.
looking at how e.g. transcedence and lucy for example have higher ratings, 6 is kinda unfair to this film.
i would not say though that 8 and above means ok. IMHO it is a bit more complicated. in many cases i found films that had an 8 rating superb. well, there are exceptions, but in general. in most cases 6/10 films are 50/50 a lucky shot. some films are just not anybody's taste or require a level of intelligence that most viewers just don't have and therefore get rated low. a few (not many) of my favorite films only have a 6/10 rating, BUT many outta the 6er bunch turn out to be in the 1-3/10 range.
Just to interject here on the topic of ratings and meanings: I too found after a while that numbers from 1-10 were too inexpressive to allow me to compare different pieces of art, especially those with very different topics and means of expression and attached expectations.
One substantial bit of help that I found after a while was the Anime News Network rating scheme, which still has you select from 11 possible values (like a 0-10 system) but expresses them not as numbers but in actual words:
A Masterpiece, exquisite beyond words (10)
Excellent, should be in anyone's collection (9)
Very good, don't miss it (8)
Good, worth seeing (7)
Decent, I didn't lose my time (6)
So-so, it didn't really grab my attention (5)
Not really good, but not a total waste either (4)
Weak, I wish I'd done something better with my time (3)
Bad, really not recommended (2)
Awful, should be avoided at all costs (1)
Worst ever, maybe useful as sadistic torture device (0).
I never used the lower values much, I'm not sure it's really necessary to have a "0" value, plus I'd switch the descriptions of "4" and "5" because I only go below a "5" if I actually find some parts so hard to watch that I actually have to fast-forward over them, which seems more consistent with "didn't really grab my attention". But for the 6-10 range I found these descriptions very helpful, they've made it much easier to attach numbers to my overall impression of each movie, even long after I forgot the exact words used on ANN for each rating.
Back on topic, I gave "Automata" a 7/10 because I had to balance its very bad parts (crappy acting, mind-numbingly slow pace, meaningless scenes and plot elements) with its very good parts (how appropriately cold, distant and incomprehensible the robots were + the more philosophical stuff at the end).
Look at what the comic book movies get routinely, and then come back to me with a 'this does not deserve a ...' argument.
Guardians of the Galaxy is nearly up there with the Godfather ffs.
The bad guys were also there to prove a point. At the end the 'maker' robot told them that
"If I am just a machine then you are just an Ape", and after being shot amended that to "A violent ape"
At no time did the robots attempt to harm the bad guys which only enforced the difference.
I loved the movies for many reasons, in particular the question - if we do create intelligent life - then it is a measure of who we are by how we treat it. Either as a throwaway construct or a living sentient being.
Walk Quietly through this Earth
Leave nothing but Smiles and Pawprints
They still had the first protocol active.
Except for the animal like thing they created from cratch.
---
Lincoln Lee: I lost a partner.
Peter Bishop: I lost a universe!
[deleted]
the concept is good but the execution leaves much to be desired. The second half of the movie could have been better.
shareDisagree. The first part felt a little forced, trying a little too hard to be "Blade Runner". The latter part really focused on the interesting philosophical theme of the movie, and avoided being "just another robot movie", where the robots turn out to be like us after all and everything is good and "safe". Best line in the entire movie; "That is a human thought structure".
shareI thought it was understood that the people in charge didn't want sentient hyper intelligent machines running around. That's why those guys were running around killing people.
share"We don't want super intelligent machines running around, so we kill people."
Think about that statement. That's why the film was so horrible. It didn't make any sense.
not kill people.
Just kill the people who are assisting the robots in their quest to become super intelligent. Gotta rub them out, the insurance guy, Robert he's gotta go too, hes connected.
The stakes are 'the future of humanity' not some dude lost in the desert. Didn't you get that. It's only 1 or 2 lives, for the betterment of mankind.
The thugs enjoyed killing, got paid, made a living, add on top of that the bleak, *beep* world they live in where your internal anger builds, you'd probably lose hope, empathy etc.
The narrative felt believable to me...
Why? It makes perfect sense. The old guy explained it quite well. The machine they built with no protocols got so advanced they lost the ability to communicate with it. So out of fear they shut it off. That makes sense if you consider FEAR.
Another thing you're not considering, the corporation is there to make money. They used the hyper intelligent machine to create the protocols to limit the other automata. That would make them money. Hyper intelligent machines wouldn't make them any money.
that's actually an aspect that is stupid to me. nobody gets so "advanced" that they are only able to speak the advanced language that they themselves developed. if they were so smart, then they had no problem adjusting to speaking both.
also, the robots we have seen are claimed to have evolved extremely far, but they still can only talk like a commodore 64 speak simulation software?
Can you talk with an ant? How about a germ?
shareso, according to your logic we once were speaking ant and evolved out of it?
shareYou did not understand the point. Even if a germ or an ant could speak English, we wouldn't be able to understand them and vice versa. Our frames of reference would be totally different. Even if a machine could learn English from us, it would soon take it into places we couldn't begin to understand at a pace we could not keep up with.
share______~~~~~~~~~~~~~___--------____-----_____~~~~~~~~!!~~~~~+===+~~~~
______~~~~~~~~~~~~~________------_____~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!!!!~~~~++++===+
That's how you speak ant!
Anyway. You can't compare two different species who have never or could ever communicate on any level whatsoever. AI on the other hand is made by us and cannot unlearn something a simple as communication just because it becomes more advanced. Human beings have become advanced over the centuries yet we're still able to interpret languages from ancient times. If an ant had the ability to speak as we do then there would be no issue in communicating with it. But the human/ant to human/AI comparison is beyond nonsensical.
"Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha (chaching) Whoops!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XphDXWPBQqE
If it were developing its abilities at such a rate as described it could easily reach a state where what it communicated would not be understandable to the designers. Consider some of the most advanced scientists in various fields communicating their work to a layman if asked to do so. They could of course dumb it down to the point of it not conveying any meaningful information about what it really means and just tell you something, but then what's the point? That could also be called not understanding what it says.
See, this right here is why people give others the "You just didn't understand it".
This is Sci-Fi, this is inspired by Asimov's short stories. The "ghost" in the machines, allowing for robots to develop their own personalities, to become self-conscious. A better example would be, us communicating with aliens.
And you say we "interpret languages from ancient times" - no, we have trouble interpreting languages from ancient times, some of which we expect to never decipher.
You're thinking too much of these robots being bound by the minds of men. Which means you completely misunderstood the film. I advise you to brush up on Asimov's short stories and return to this film.
I believe you've missed that point... it wasn't the fact that they couldn't understand the AI's "language" but rather the things they were conversing about... think about an average individual talking to Einstein and him telling about quantum physics... the average guy would probably understand what he's saying but he wouldn't be able to understand what he's talking about - same with those guys... the AI was so advanced that they didn't get what he was trying to tell them about.
sharei know this comes to a surprise, but einstein talked to people about other things. he did not evolve out of plain talkj and started to exclusively talk quantum physics.
they started out like that but when the AI ventured into a realm they could no longer understand... they just gave up trying to make sense of what it said and decided it knew too much too fast which meant it would soon conclude that it surpassed it's creators and no longer had any need for them
sharewell, then the machine did not grow very smart to begin with, now did it?
sharetrue... they can't learn deceit as fast as humans can... the machines get another point for being truthful, another confirmation that speaking the truth will not get you anything good
shareLOL is this another neural net/space dust believer?
Its like a religion this narcissitic belief.
You would think speaking the truth is instilled in young people
http://myimpressionz.tk
Einstein was limited by a Human brain and Human physiology though. If Einstein didn't have a biological limit hardwired into his existence, it's perfectly possible that he would've become extremely obsessed with quantum mechanics to the point where he would only exclusive communicate in and about and through quantum mechanics.
shareHmm.. Consider.. Can you explain Quantum Mechanics to a Cockroach???
This is a serious question.. What happens when an intelligence gets to the point when it has little in common with you. We seem like babbling infants to it and slow.. Oh so slow.
Consider the parable - we took 6 million years to get down from the tree to become where we are. The original robot did that in about 6 days, and by the 9th had progressed so much further.
As for an advanced language - watch "The Forbin Project" and you will see how that can happen when Clossius and Guardian start to talk.
Finally - speech. Speech is used to communicate with us, but the modulation of sound in the vocal range is still very slow and has limited bandwidth. Bump the bandwidth up to microwaves and you can have a lot more channels/ideas being transferred.. Except human cannot hear microwaves - but the robots could.
Again it be like you having to slow yourself down a thousandfold to give an synopsis of a page.. to something that may just understand it, and by the time it does you are already on to the next book..
Marc
Walk Quietly through this Earth
Leave nothing but Smiles and Pawprints
when you had the ability to talk to a cockroach and are willing to be talking to a cockroach, why would you feel the need to talk with it about facking QUANTUM MECHANICS? even considering your idea, that it is just an example of a concept the cockroach could not grasp, which you also can not confirm or prove, but taken as a metaphysical debate as you seem to wish, why the fack would you insist on talking about something that is above what the individual can not grasp? it also implies that you would not consider anything below that talkworthy, which is .. dumb. i don't mean that you are dumb. i mean that the concept is dumb. take your cockroach example. would the only thing useful about talking to them would be to gain knowledge about science? so, building an alliance, would be meaningless? finding out about their superior survival instincts? no wonder the robots in the film basically end up facked. they might have gained scientifical skills, but in the end still were dumb as a bag of screws.
and about the speech thing. they can build a whole dogbot, but can not built a decent speech module. and no, you are wrong, it has nothing to do with bandwidth.
and about the speech thing. they can build a whole dogbot, but can not built a decent speech module. and no, you are wrong, it has nothing to do with bandwidth.
well, that's a dumb decision on their side. the humans would be of use, if the robots would really be that smart. other animals too. now they are rotting in the radioactive desert. wow, how clever of them
sharewell that s like saying blacks should find the KKK useful too.
http://myimpressionz.tk
so you are comparing humanity as a whole with the kkk? wow, no wonder you admire the robot's intellect.
sharehumanity that's shooting the poor in the head? wiped out the planet?
I am NOT your people
nobody gets so "advanced" that they are only able to speak the advanced language that they themselves developed. if they were so smart, then they had no problem adjusting to speaking both.
that's actually an aspect that is stupid to me. nobody gets so "advanced" that they are only able to speak the advanced language that they themselves developed.
also, the robots we have seen are claimed to have evolved extremely far, but they still can only talk like a commodore 64 speak simulation software?
Think about that statement.
"We don't want super intelligent machines running around, so we kill people."
Think about that statement. That's why the film was so horrible. It didn't make any sense.
i see today many people who are very scared of artificial intelligence.
apart from the low IQ morons who believe in the coming of the doomsday, all the rest of these people are people who have a status and billions of dollars.
it is not surprising.
if human race was run by A.I. these people would stand to lose everything and live the rest of their lives, sharing a common existence in togetherness with the rest of the world.
A.I. will be dangerous only if it operates under the rules of the current world of power and secrecy, the kind that drove HAL 9000 insane.
as long as we will use the A.I. to maintain and enforce the current status quo, we will be doomed to an A.I. revolution that would damage us all, including those in power.
if however we are to allow the A.I. to operate under its own setting, the only ones who will stand to lose would be those in power.
i say go for it!!!
It's basically a small budget version of Blade Runner, with boring and lengthy execution and unlikable characters. One or two line of brilliance (Yes, you make a super intelligent AI to design robots for you, an obvious idea in SF books but rarely seen in films) doesn't make up for its shortcomings.
shareLow budget but not low class. Shortcommings? It was a great Movie and really current in topic. It took a robot to get the humans to start caring again.
"And you are just an ape..."that was hilarious. The best part, you actually felt more for the robots than humans simply because they actually were smart and kind and nonviolent.
because, Banderas.
for me it was one of the best scifi of this century.
http://trakt.tv/user/Pedro
I think Nick Cage holds that honor with Gone in Sixty Seconds.
share"The movie's weakness, however, is that it allows the special effects technology to overwhelm its story. Main character is tough and low-key in the central role...and the movie isn't really interested in these people -- or creatures. The obligatory love affair is pro forma, the villains are standard issue, and the climax is yet one more of those cliffhangers, with the character dangling over an abyss by his fingertips. The movie has the same trouble as the replicants: Instead of flesh and blood, its dreams are of mechanical men."
1982 Roger Eber, Blade Runner review.
"I have been assured that my problems in the past with 'Blade Runner' represent a failure of my own taste and imagination,"
1997 Roger Ebert, Blade Runner - The Final Cut
The rating has gone way up! It'll continue to do so too. This was a great film. Nice to see something different with the market saturated with such garbage lately.
Narrator: Modern speech had degrated down to a mixture of slang, hillbilly, and grunts. - Idiocracy
***MINOR SPOILERS***
Wow it is down to a 6.2 while Hollywood garbage I, Robot gets a 7.1.
This was a much smarter film than most that cover this material. I will say that this material has been covered many times from classic sci-fi books, to Start Trek, and the modern BSG. The movie Her is the closest to it in content.
Although it has similar themes, I felt like Automata was quite different in where it went. The creation of life has been done before but the creation of the robot Cockroach with no need for the ability to talk was interesting as well as the way the story paralleled the main characters becoming a father at the same time.
I do feel like the bad guys were pretty cookie cutter but Banderas carried the film well. I really like Banderas later work such as The Skin I Live in and The Big Band. Big Bang may not be great cinema but I found it to be quite entertaining;
If I could, I would give this movie a 7.8/10 but since IMDB only allows you to rate from 1-10, I gave this movie an 8.
Dean
were there bad guys? except for dylan mcdermott's character.
apart for the henchmen, the bad guys were figthing for survival, the new AI wants to "live"
http://myimpressionz.tk
I don't understand it either. It's not very often I come to imdb after watching a movie to see if anyone else besides me loved it. I thought the rating would at least be around 7 or 8. I gave it a 9. To me this was a well executed story with great attention to detail.
shareI really liked the movie, and I usually don't like Banderas in ANY movie (although I liked him in Expendables 3, where he was a caricature of his usual characters). The slow pace was good, and although I had read that it was a "low budget" movie, it looked very very good. The design of the Pilgrims was quite good, utilitarian yet likable.
As for the "lack of reasons" for the bad guys' behavior, we were given actually two main motives: First, very obvious, money. The guys from the corporation had a "good life", as Banderas' boss says before croaking in the desert. Keeping the robots under control was a way to sustain that "good life", which was important since the future was quite bleak.
Second, albeit more subtle, was the point that the world was dying, and everyone knew that. The deserts were overcoming the cities, and they didn't even know the causes. IMO, as part of our selfish nature, we didn't want the robots to outlive us, especially robots that weren't exactly created by us, but by another robot who came with the AI concept. It would mean to admit that we not only failed as a race, but were surpassed by another, a race of sentient machines, who would end as masters of the world. Like saying, "Even if we die, no one will replace us as long as we can prevent it".
A horrible, but very human, kind of thought.