You left out the last clause in the sentence: “killing them both in the process.”
Some disagreement here, I don’t think it was a coincidence that Garland had her pause in the vestibule on the way out, look around and laugh delightedly, and then leave. Nobody is watching her, and yet she exhibits emotional reactions to her environment. Why is that? It seems to indicate that she is more than just a coldly calculating electronic escape mechanism, or a sociopath.
That reading also makes her rejection of Caleb more painful.
Oh, sociopaths have emotions. They just don’t care about yours.
Fine, I can withdraw the sociopath comment, the point is that she has developed some internal emotional life beyond what occurs when she’s being observed.
Finally saw the movie yesterday. While I enjoyed it, one small change would’ve improved it immensely for me: the narrative should’ve been that Caleb was at the house for months or a year, instead of a week.
I know it might seem like a weird nitpick, but while I can suspend disbelief easily enough to accept this millionaire is building incredibly advanced robots in some remote James Bond Villain lair, the fact that Caleb basically falls in love with the robot, comes completely unhinged and is willing to take insane risks after 5 days and a couple Q&A sessions makes me roll my eyes.
Not hard to believe at all. It is painfully easy to fall in love with a fantasy girl who is a masterful seductress, particularly if you are a hopeless romantic like Caleb is.
If there’s a flaw, it’s that Nathan picked such an easy mark. Caleb was no challenge for Ava.
About that. Will he really just be left there? I know he doesn’t have a family or girlfriend, but won’t someone wonder why he’s not back? Or won’t someone wonder why they haven’t heard from Nathan in a while? I say these things to comfort myself, but then I remember how the helicopter pilot can’t get near the house so maybe no one else will dare?
It was a clever movie and the performances were excellent, but as with Her, I can’t get past the idea that you just wouldn’t fall in love with a robot. At least this one didn’t have the hideous Joaquin Phoenix and his horrible mustache and Teddy Roosevelt pants.
It’s weird. That was part of my problem with Her–just couldn’t buy into the premise at all. Yet I had no such problem in Ex Machina.
A delightful little film—I’m glad I got to see it in the theater. That it was a theater that really cranked up the bass for the soundtrack wasn’t icing on the cake, it was the rich, fruity filling between the cake’s layers.
Where do I start on the—as is surely appropriate—little threads coming together to make up the whole of the story?
[spoiler]I think the biggie, of all the things I recognized from my science, sci-fi, and extremely rough artistic training, was that this wasn’t about a Turing Test…it was Yudkowsky’s AI Box test. Nathan even resembles Yudkowsky, more than a little.
Though I don’t know if the man is a buff, boozy, intimidating quasi-Bond villain in real life. Merely that he also writes Harry Potter fanfic.
Also, that the theme of “how do you judge the intelligence and thought processes of another being without being able to see into their mind” doesn’t just apply to Ava—we, the audience, are basically faced with the same regarding the human characters as well.* From the enigmatic “Is this guy the baddie, or not?” Nathan, to Caleb’s execution of the “escape plan”—Nathan revealed he’d figured out the plot based on sly, diligent observation, but the “shocker” came when it turned out Caleb had deduced this and executed the plan when Nathan couldn’t possibly observe it, and most of it within the secure confines of his own head.
Not unlike Ava—or any other AI of whom the nature of their sentience and sapience is, to an outside observer, unknown, and perhaps unknowable.
*As is true of most works of filmed fiction, really—not just the artsy “people staring silently at scenery” set—with the exception of things like Dune, or bits where people get into debates with their Shoulder Angel and Shoulder Devil.[/spoiler]
All in all, a modestly great little film, and I gleefully approve—although, soundtrack-wise, 2013’s The Machine might have longer legs. 
I give it a solid Four Skulls. Doc Ranchoth says check it out.
I love Her so much, and Phoenix is my favorite living actor. How he looked was a big part of his characterization. He was a lonely nerd, and “retro” was in, only on Theodore it wasn’t cool, just dorky. He was kind of hideous, but “she” didn’t care, which is one of the reasons her fell in “love” with her (of course it wasn’t true love, it was misguided obsession/infatuation). Outside of Her, I don’t find Phoenix any kind of hideous.
Inside of Her, it’s too dark to read.
I saw the film today and really liked it. I think the questions about whether she was exhibiting emotions, or merely mirroring them is what makes it so fascinating - either explanation can work and I find myself going back and forth about it. Also the analysis of Ava as a woman trapped in a cage make me think of her actions in a different light as well. In the end, it makes you think about emotions and what is sentience (as all of the good types of AI moves do).
FWIW, I loved “her”. I would rate it above this movie, myself, but I did enjoy this one too.
I found him repulsive in **The Master **too. I get that making a viewer find him believably and complexly repulsive is a skill, but it’s one I can skip.
Wow, I’m surprised to read all the positive reviews. I hated the film. I was grossed out by the millionaire whiz-kid and his closet full of sexbots, I was bored by the lovestruck kid falling for the robot pixie dream girl who, whoopsy, has turned eeeevil now, I was pissed off by the handwaving redefining of Turing test, and, most of all, I was discomforted by the overwhelming misogyny, literally objectifying women.
More like womanifying objects. And no one was portraying the Mad Scientist’s misogyny in a fun way. I found it creepy, and I think I was supposed to find it creepy.
I was disappointed that such an obviously good filmmaker couldn’t come up with something just a little more creative than an updated vagina dentata yarn.
These guys started out with a blank page and an empty film canister. They could have written and filmed whatever they wanted. And they chose to rely on a cheap, tired old femme fatale tropes rather than using the talent they clearly have to take it up a level. It’s not impossible to actually write female characters. It’s not impossible to actually engage with the gender issues they clearly wanted to talk about. But it was easier for them just to use gender as shorthand. And that’s weak storytelling.
Sometimes I wonder how nobody manages to notice “Oh wow, we forgot to write the women!”
There are no women in this movie. Only men and AI.
I watched it today, and found it interesting, but ultimately unsatisfying.
What was the “point”? Don’t play god? Don’t objectify women? Don’t build a room you can’t get out of? AI will kill us all?
And I do get annoyed that no one ever learns the Forbin Lesson - never make an AI you can’t turn off! This should be lesson 1 in AI design school. For as smart as Nathan was, he sure was stupid.
Yeah yeah. Blah blah blah. Technically they weren’t “women”.
But there is what movies are about and what movies are about. This movie was about female bodies, female clothing, sex, and gender roles-- in short, about women. And it used femininity as broad shorthand and used a plot as old as dirt rather than trying just a bit harder and using these ideas in interesting ways.
These are clearly good writers. They can do better.