Diagonaldi Very well executed

SparkMore n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

Kidskycom It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

Neive Bellamy Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

gengar843 WHAT IF... a blank AI template could learn how to be anyone just by listening to memories of who that AI is supposed to be? The gist of this intriguing and moving film is that the act of programming the AI through such memory-learning not only provides a comforting and familiar companion but also helps humans learn more about themselves and each other. CRITIQUE OF THIS: First, it will depend not only on the level of programming but who programmed. Second, it will depend on the level of emotional, intellectual, and spiritual growth of the humans who provide the memories. Third, it depends on the self-maintenance of the technology.The first part of the critique is not handled by the film. It is supposed that these sorts of AI are widely accepted, and perhaps even available beyond the rich family onscreen, though we only see this one family. So we suspend any disbelief that such technology should even be made available to mankind, because it obviously is here.The second part of the critique is the meat of the film. We are treated to various emotional issues of the human characters, and interaction with the AI characters during such emotional states, which forms the basis of that AI's memory and reflection on such memories. Do AI feel or learn to feel emotions? Watch the movie and see... Intellectual level is also displayed, and we are left to wonder what sort of AI companions would be formed by the less intelligent among us. What sort of idiotic AI would be created? As it is, the film only projects intelligent, calm, logical AI... As for the spiritual, this is only briefly handled, in a very offhand, and may I say brusque, if not insulting, fashion. We are therefore not permitted to know what such AI would think of God, commandments, proverbs, salvation, and so forth. Everything is propelled by human memory. On the other hand, the AI seemingly have access to every sort of science and art, so we cannot say religion is excluded. Also, since the film focuses only on this one family, we do not know how the criminal mind would use such technology, or if such is possible.The third part of the critique is most interesting. At the end, when all humans in the household are no longer, the AI interact with each other, and teach each other memories given to one but not the other. The AI incorporate these things in an emotionally stable fashion, the writer taking liberties what constitutes "normal" human behavior. The ending is, ironically, a moral, not a cautionary warning.I wonder if the technology is mobile, if the AI can travel, can go on jaunts and trips, can be at the beach or in a museum, or if it is housebound. I also wonder its energy source, whether there are regular updates or big fixes or firmware. I wonder about hacks and viruses. I wonder whether the AI can run amok, or if they can lose memory.In all, this is a very good movie, a sort of warm-hearted Woody Allen without the humor, good-intentioned but not without its darker moments. I think you'll like it.

Alexander_Blanchett Its a good concept that delivers an interesting movie about love, memories, regret and secrets. The film lives from its wonderful cast who are all very well picked and delivered good performance, however it suffers from its rather weak direction by Michael Amereyda who tried to make it too artsey for its own sake. Lois Smith delivers a great and charming performance. And I am glad she got some material to work with actually instead of just second hand supporting roles as usual. She really got talent and gave her role a lot of good and interesting facettes. Another great performance came from Geena Davis. One of her best recent performances. Davis really understood her role, which surely wasn't easy and the audience was easy to care for it, at least I did. Tim Robbins was also fine and did have some good and difficult moments. Also not a bad performance by Jon Hamm who might have had the most difficult role but mastered it well enough, even if he appeared a bit wooden, which was intentionally. But what was it with that annoying score/soundtrack? That really played the movie down which is a shame. It had a lot of potential but they tickled the wrong ankles at times. Too bad. Still worth to see for the performances.

Joe Stemme Michael Almereyda's adaptation of Jordan Harrison's Pulizer Prize nominated play is an intriguing bit of sci-fi lite. MARJORIE PRIME begins almost as if it were a ghost story. Marjorie (a superb Lois Smith) is sitting with her deceased husband Walter Jon Hamm) for a chat. Marjorie is a very elderly and frail woman suffering the infirmaries of old age including bouts of severe memory loss. Walter is an A.I. Hologram (called a Prime) programmed to look and relate as her spouse. Significantly, Marjorie has chosen to be with the Walter of his 40-something appearance. In keeping with the A.I. theme, the Primes are set up to continually learn from the information that it is told, hears, sees and experiences in order to became more and more like the human it is replacing. Majorie's daughter Tess (Geena Davis) and son-in-law Jon (Tim Robbins) are also present in order to care for Marjorie - and, to advance Walter Prime's learning curve. At first, Tess and Jon's presence comes off as a bit of an intrusion in the Marjorie-Walter Prime futuristic ghost story, but, it soon develops that there are a couple of more complications that their presence is meant to convey. There are a couple of other minor characters, but, this is essentially a four person play, as befits its stage origins (Almereyda's attempts to 'open up' the adaptation are fairly minor and not all that effective save for some flashbacks). As the movie progresses, a few more layers are revealed. But, although there are some nice nuances, they don't always advance our understanding of the themes of memory and loss that are at the heart of the story. Some of the later revelations seem more redundant than illuminating. At a sparse 98 minutes (including credits) this is a case where the slim running time isn't long enough to explore its ambitions. Almereyda's screenplay does give greater depth to the sci-fi underpinnings than the play supposedly did. But, those expecting a straight sci-fi tale will likely be somewhat disappointed (even though it takes place in an unspecified future, everyone wears modern clothes, drive current-day cars etc. The only sci-fi accessory is a clear plastic card cellphone). But, those elements aren't at the heart of the movie. It's an engagingly intimate tale with a lovely central performance.

sfdphd Wow, I just saw this film at the San Francisco Film Festival and it blew my mind, as we used to say. Very powerful story that sneaks up on you and by the end takes you further than you thought it would at the beginning. Intense if you have experienced deaths in the family or just aging and loss of memory. Some people in the audience openly sobbing or sniffling by the end. Takes you on an almost psychedelic mental journey, if you are open to it and allow yourself to contemplate your own relationships. Felt therapeutic and mind-altering. I was definitely in an altered state as I stumbled out of the theater. The future felt close at hand....I'm still a bit stunned as I write this. Kudos to the writer/director and all the actors.