Directed by:
Wally PfisterScreenplay:
Jack PaglenCinematography:
Jess HallComposer:
Mychael DannaCast:
Johnny Depp, Rebecca Hall, Paul Bettany, Morgan Freeman, Cillian Murphy, Kate Mara, Cole Hauser, Cory Hardrict, Olivia Dudley, Clifton Collins Jr., Luce Rains (more)VOD (3)
Plots(1)
Dr. Will Caster (Johnny Depp) is the foremost researcher in the field of Artificial Intelligence, working to create a sentient machine that combines the collective intelligence of everything ever known with the full range of human emotions. His highly controversial experiments have made him famous, but they have also made him the prime target of anti-technology extremists who will do whatever it takes to stop him. However, in their attempt to destroy Will, they inadvertently become the catalyst for him to succeed—to be a participant in his own transcendence. For his wife Evelyn (Rebecca Hall) and best friend Max Waters (Paul Bettany), both fellow researchers, the question is not if they can...but if they should. Their worst fears are realized as Will's thirst for knowledge evolves into a seemingly omnipresent quest for power, to what end is unknown. The only thing that is becoming terrifyingly clear is there may be no way to stop him. (official distributor synopsis)
(more)Videos (9)
Reviews (15)
At its most basic, Transcendence is not as stupid as some people who in their joy at having discovered a couple of holes in the logic have claimed. At its core, it’s a pretty decent sci-fi premise that greatly suffers from the behaviour of the main characters, which at times feels really weird and stupid. The actors are good, the technical aspect is fine, too, but I have a problem with its hysterical technophobic tone. Yet, in spite of all the issues (mostly in the script) that Transcendence has, it is still a pretty watchable movie. But somewhere deep inside there is potential for a lot more, that much is clear.
()
This is what a film would look like if Christopher Nolan got high, drunk, and filmed a philosophical sci-fi in a cheerful mood with a lot of unanswered questions about saving the world. It’s hard to understand how so many renowned names and relatively solid actors could agree to such a screenplay travesty, because I can't remember a worse job by a screenwriter in a blockbuster in recent memory. Nothing works, neither the emotions, nor the logic of the plot, nor the chemistry of the characters. Incredibly poorly directed flop.
()
Disclaimer: I will spoil a lot in this review. I went to see Transcendence in a cinema and had absolutely no idea what to expect. The critics were pretty rough about it. But when do I actually listen to the critics, right? Plus, it seems as if the journalists were conducting some kind of a witch-hunt for Johnny Depp. They say his movies are not so good anymore, they say his characters are not that interesting and that this movie is overcomplicated… I don’t know what they watched, but I think they left during the first ten minutes, because if they watched the whole movie, these alleged movie fans could never say such bullshit about Transcendence. True, the first half an hour was pretty demanding, I was almost thinking that I’ll take a nap in the cinema, but as soon as the first discussion about God began, the movie got quite interesting. Wally Pfister created perfect philosophical grounds for a nice thriller. What if somebody found God, what if that God materialized into a human shape and what if he tried to rule? Would he try to rule in a good way, or a bad way? Hard to say as people would still not understand it. And as the movie repeats several times, people fear what they cannot understand. And that’s what turns it into an absolutely amazing sci-fi in the second half, something the director immediately won me over with. The finale ended in the best way it could. It contemplated over feelings, good and evil and I really liked that. I especially liked the scene where Johnny is deciding whether to help his beloved or not. I will say nothing more on purpose. You simply have to watch it and either the finale will really please you…or not. And I think that causes the overall rating of the film as well.
()
I get the feeling that Wally Pfister bit off more than he could chew and couldn't transform his ambitions into a form that would allow us to speak about Transcendence as a powerful experience. The position of a director is simply more demanding than that of a cinematographer. Pfister evidently tried to shoot not only an entertaining genre film but above all a film with a deeper meaning. The result is a strange mishmash that neither entertains nor gives the impression of an artistic work. What good is it to engage a significant personality and acting chameleon Johnny Depp when the director tries to suppress him and he doesn't really fit into such a role typologically? He is simply wasted in it, and I can think of a dozen better candidates who would have been much more effective. The prevailing feeling in the end is disappointment and the impression that I have in front of me a grandiose but pathetic-looking B-movie. Overall impression: 40%.
()
SPOILERS AHEAD. I wouldn’t want to be in the shoes of those who go to the cinema for the new blockbuster starring Johnny Depp and then wind up watching a wordy low-key sci-fi flick in which their favourite actor is more heard than scene (and turns in a significantly less convincing voice performance than Scarlett Johansson in Her). To be very lenient, I will describe Transcendence as a mainstream variation on early Cronenberg films that also thematise the media as an extension of the human senses. However, this film isn’t clear on the position from which it wants to approach the intertwining of the virtual and real spaces, whether to reject it (because it turns people into robots) or celebrate it (because it aids the fulfilment of a romantic relationship). ___ During the exposition, the originator of the idea of an all-encompassing artificial intelligence is presented as a generally likable scientist and respected colleague who is loved by his wife and admired by the lay public. Basically an acceptable protagonist. Except that when his ideas start to come to fruition, he stops acting “right” and the film starts to show him in a less than favourable light – among other things, by using sinister music like that found in noir films (just one indication of the work’s inveterate lack of humour). Should we thus start rooting for the technophobic opposition? However, that opposition is represented by people who are rightfully branded as terrorists. The only connecting link between these two extreme positions, the rationally thinking character played by Paul Bettany, joins the terrorists in the second third of the film for reasons that are not entirely clear. The most space is given to Rebecca Hall, who, however, lets herself be ruled by her emotions and spends most of the time just dumbly carrying out here husband’s orders. She starts to make decisions for herself only when pressured by other characters. Nolan’s mascots Freeman and Murphy then appear in and disappear from the narrative and their willingness to cooperate with anyone at any time is no less than surprising. Because of that, viewers who respect elementary moral laws don’t have anyone they can trust or root for, or anyone to guide them through the story (and at the end of the film, the same viewers may ask why the people who murdered many other people at the beginning have gone unpunished). ___ Perhaps it is possible to make someone or something other than a multidimensional character with clearly defined goals the driving force of the drama (Transcendence doesn’t have such a character), and the film plays with this alternative (interest in the protagonists is dampened by the fact that, thanks to the prologue, we already have a good idea of how the whole thing is going to turn out, who will die and who will survive), but Pfister does not offer a functional solution. ___ The underdevelopment of the drama corresponds to the screenplay’s contempt for logic and more sophisticated plot construction. Even if we accept a world in which there is such a thing as the internet personified, the degree of further denial required of us exceeds the tolerable limit. Why did the terrorists and the FBI let a potentially very dangerous project grow undisturbed for two years? Why is such a terribly gratuitous situation (which happens out of the blue solely for the purpose of pushing the story forward) used to introduce a new motif (treatment)? Why does Caster need rainwater to disseminate it, when he can use the internet, which is already in widespread use around the world? ___ If that’s not enough for you, you can add genre incoherence (the sci-fi and melodramatic storylines stumble over each other), visual unimaginativeness and a run-of-the-mill soundtrack to the amorality, illogic and contrivance of the screenplay. Wally should go back to cinematography before it’s too late. 40%
()
(less)
(more)
Ads