Review of Ex Machina (2015) by Drauchdoes2015 — 09 May 2015

Garland, a seasoned writer of such low-budget, high-concept sci-fi entries as 28 Days Later and Sunshine, has finally helmed his inaugural directorial work, Ex Machina. He has crafted an accomplished, minimal, futuristic yarn, plagued consistently by gaps of logic, resignation to Deus Ex Machinas (excuse the obvious pun), and a contrived theme that has been toyed with in numerous other (and better) films before it. However, he still delivers a head-scratching, seductive, and occasionally disturbing work worthy of his exceeding reputation in the genre.

One of Ex Machina's most unfettered strengths, in spite of it's focus on cerebral stimulation, is it's polished, gleaming aesthetic. DOP Rob Hardy juxtaposes synthetic shimmer and gloss with occasional detours into the fecund range outside the lab compound the majority of the film is set. Interspersing sensual hues upon the entrance of android Eva, Ex Machina pulses with a sheen of varied beauty at every turn. Production Designer Mark Digby deserves equal credit for his skeletal, cold composition and ingenious use of special effects in bringing the robots of Ex Machina to stunning life. I'm still baffled as to how the hollow, transparent Eva was accomplished, and her mold is (cough) not too bad either.

Though the icy final act asserted a rather bleak and predictable notion about humanity that left me cold, the central performances by Domhnall Gleeson, Oscar Isaac and breakout star Alicia Vikander prevent obstruction of it's emotional core. Isaac's mad scientist is an eccentric concoction, a muscular physical build and casual, vulgar vernacular juxtaposed with a lived-in inquisitive disposition. Vikander, though not tasked with a particularly distinct or subversive role (an A.I. that has a run-of-the-mill manipulative mentality) exudes an uncanny eroticism unmatched by any cinematic depiction of an android seductress I've ever seen (though the chick from Blade Runner could certainly give her a run for her money). Her allure is almost primal, but it's also poised and elegant.

Gleeson is easily the odd-man out here in terms of depth, complexity and overall magneticism. His performance is serviceable, in spite of his character, whose motivation teeters between questionable and ludicrous. Thrusting the scrawny, pale, anti-leading man center stage is a dicey move, one that extracts any relatable dramatic center.

Once the central narrative is established, the schizophrenic notion that no one is to be trusted dominates. Each interaction is tinged with doubt and deception, every development subtly shifted by latent ulterior motives from either party of the man vs. machine mental battleground. Though everyone's motivations reveal to be, sadly, mundane (the android wants to escape, the mad scientist wants to **** with everyone's head), hints of ambiguity still linger, rendering Ex Machina a film that beckons a closer examination.

However, as enticing as the cat and mouse setup is, the ENTIRE film is derailed by illogical plot developments, some too flagrant to forgive. I'll name a few:

*Why did the pilot allow Ava on board? Considering the drastic precautions taken to prevent anyone from uncovering the lab, he should've raised a red flag REGARDLESS of her vixen figure or possible false explanations of the situation.

*Why did Caleb even need to get Nathan drunk if he had already disabled security protocol? It would have made Ava's escape easier, surely, but she overpowers him regardless.

*WHY was Caleb willing to sabotage the scientific development of the century over an inhuman personality he had met less than a week prior? If the romantic feelings he had for Ava were truly to the degree that he'd be willing to risk the future of mankind, they were certainly not expressed with the gravity required to pull off the trick believably.

*Why hadn't Kyoko, certainly present when Nathan is at his most vulnerable, ever taken the chance to kill him until the end of the film, when Ava needed her to do so? She might not have understood any means of escape, but the urge must have persisted.

I could go on, but the subtler blemishes are some of the things about Ex Machina I enjoy most; yes, these irrational choices cheapen the impact of an otherwise cleverly designed framework, but the film at least prompted me to think hard enough to decipher areas that the film failed to think through.

The movie Garland (and most film critics) pitch you is a tragically less-inventive film than advertised. The dialogue is grandiloquent and often witty beyond it's obligatory psuedo-brainy countenance. The first watch is the most engaging, I'll admit that much. Once the ride is over, little comes to light to form new commentary about mankind's god complex. What was the point of it all, if the stakes were compromised from the get go? Well, I'll put it this way: the synthetic sheen was as sparkly as a new apple product, and just as disappointing.