Linbeymusol Wonderful character development!

Bardlerx Strictly average movie

Senteur As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

Scotty Burke It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

Marty Houser Encompassing virtual reality, the potential of computers, communication with the past, the ongoing struggle to express your identity in a constraining society, and the fascinating Ada Byron Lovelace portrayed by the fascinating Tilda Swinton, this film should have been great. But it is lousy, terrible if you consider the potential! The acting - aside from Tilda Swinton and Karen Black - veers from tolerable to atrocious. The plot construction is awkward to say the least - the modern day programmer is a dull one-note character, but half the movie is spent setting up her character, and then when Ada finally appears, it is to narrate the events of her life, not to present an engaging story (Swinton almost pulls this off, though). You never fully get to know her as a real person, just an icon from a grad student's history paper.The digital effects, such as a digital dog and bird, are lousy and distracting, considering it was 1997 and not 1985. And, finally, the script is just bad. Bad, often pretentious dialog - especially the fights between the programmer and her boyfriend, which made me squirm - cold and distant characters, and zero attempt to create a sense of wonder. The programmer successfully contacts a person in the past! Astonishing! But it hardly seems to surprise anyone, and her boyfriend says, "Well, be careful." (Although we're given no clue then or later why it might be dangerous, and it never seems to actually be dangerous.)Also, despite being about computers and Ada Lovelace and her love of mathematics, it is clear no one involved with the script had any knowledge of mathematics OR computers - any references to these subjects come across as complete mumbo jumbo that defies any suspension of disbelief.One scene, towards the end of the movie, is quite good, a monolog by Tilda Swinton expressing her sadness at the fragility of life but her joy in that life. Poignant, passionate, and insightful, it seems to be dropped in from another movie.So I am disappointed in this movie, because it is a missed opportunity for a fascinating little cult film. If you find the subject matter interesting, you might want to rent it, but be forewarned. See Orlando for another, much much better examination of gender roles in history with a great Tilda Swinton performance.***spoiler/question: * *At the end of the movie, Ada asks that her memories not be preserved (in what I thought was the best scene in the movie). But then the modern day programmer seems to do it anyway, transferring the memories into her little girl (hence the title of the movie). Am I correct, that the programmer violated Ada's wishes without even struggling over it? Or is this another confusing plot point that I'm misinterpreting?

Scrimshaw Hatcheck I haven't seen anything this bad since I walked out of the James Bond movie "Moonraker" twenty years ago. I managed to sit through the entirety of this one only because of Tilda Swinton, but there was nothing she could do to save this beast.As a cross between "Pi", "Orlando", and "Tron", this movie failed miserably in every aspect of moviemaking. The characters were cardboard and unable to evoke any kind of sympathy. The plot was wholly unbelievable. The acting was, with the exception of Swinton, amateur. The computer graphics were worse than in "Tron." Timothy Leary was extremely annoying. I could go on, but what's the point.The only good thing I can say about this film is that Tilda Swinton was in it. I have no idea why an actress of her caliber consented to appear in such a dud, but she most likely regrets it now.Don't waste your money or your time on this stinker. There's nothing worth seeing here.

Ruby Liang (ruby_fff) Sounds like an oxymoron right there. Contradictory as it may seem, it's literally that: Travels back in time, capturing a moment in history in "real" time -- "Mo-memory" captured and SAVE'd. Computer enthusiasts, come ye one and all -- this includes computer graphic artists, programming experts. Mind you, leisurely-paced is truly so -- nothing's really hurried. If you want action -- it's very much simply intellectual intercourse. It's not Hollywood intrigue -- it's mind game -- not tour de force like "Brainstorm" -- yes, L-E-I-S-U-R-E-L-Y-paced -- nothing really hits you over the head.It's intriguing -- but NFE (Not For Everyone). Some might think it's too slow or seemingly just chatters and undramatic -- 'less you're a computer literate, -enthusiast, ever-fascinated by Tilda Swinton (no matter how long or short her appearance is), or simply love a film however it may be delivered. See it with an open mind (Empty your cache before you go).There are nuances of little indications: a computer-minded person could very well be, at times, lacking in "real" emotions and feelings -- the human touches. E.g., Ada Byron King (Tilda Swinton) said to the main character Emmy, "Can you save me?" and Emmy (Francesca Faridany) said, "yes" and hit SAVE. Or, to take this further, one might see it as a comparison of then and now: what may seem difficult and impossible for a woman to break through barriers to be recognized (as the mathematical genius that Ada was) then, is fairly easy and accessible now, as Emmy hits a key and it's done -- she will be recognized for what she has researched, programmed and discovered!Ah, there's some insights into the life of a computer couple -- some diet suggestions: they're presented as a certain COLOR day of the week, e.g., bananas are included on Yellow day, then there's BLUE day menu, WHITE day entree. (Are you curious?)Written and directed by Lynn Hershmann-Leeson, it does feel like a story told from a woman's perspective. Definitely showed the "obsessive" pursuit of what the main character (perhaps autobiographical?) is after in her participation and wanting to succeed in this M.I.T. "ALIVE project".You may say this is a love story -- love in different angles juxtaposed on the computer grids. There's also a dog of an interest called Charlene. Its ultimate gist of the whole event could be summed up in what Ada said -- that we should not be hung up in what she, the past, thinks and tried to immortalize her memory -- we need to move beyond and be in touch with the present and feel ALIVE and continue to discover things… When Emmy was talking with her mentor (Timothy Leary portrays) who appeared on the wall size screen, it brought to mind Dennis Potter's "Cold Lazarus" -- a stylish scientific tale with also an advance techno challenge theme of capturing a specific person's memory and "SAVE" -- keeping the memory ALIVE and recallable. The specific person is namely Albert Finney's character in the prequel "KARAOKE". If you enjoy Albert Finney and relish Dennis Potter's amazing storytelling, you must not miss "KARAOKE" nor "Cold Lazarus".This film also reminds me of Douglas R. Hofstadter's books -- 1) "Metamagical Themas: Questing for the Essence of the Mind and Pattern (An Interlocked Collection of Literary, Scientific, and Artistic Studies)", and 2) his Pulitzer Prize winner "Godel, Escher, Bach: An eternal Golden Braid (A Metaphorical Fugue on Minds and Machines in the Spirit of Lewis Carroll)". There's also 3) Rudy Rucker's "The Fourth dimension -- A Guided Tour of the Higher Universes". All three are worthwhile books -- fun and intrigue -- if you're so like-mindedly disposed.A caveat: If you're tired -- unless you're a computer "nerd" -- you probably don't want to view this movie yet, as the seemingly flat tone and leisurely pace until Tilda appears may not pick you up. If you're curious and patient, and you love the idea of what computers can do, go for it, this can be enjoyable and insightful for you.Other Tilda Swinton gems that has more of her: "Orlando" 1992 written and directed by Sally Potter, and "Female Perversions" 1996 written and directed by Susan Streitfeld, both for mature audiences.

bafoon 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?!