Transcendence (I) (2014) User Reviews

Exceptionally good at many things, superb at nothing

[Joe_Chadowski · 6/10 · 19 April 2014]

Critics and wannabe critics alike really lashed into this one. And I guess I have them to thank for me liking (not loving) this movie, as they lowered my standards significantly before I walked into the theater. Like them, my expectations were sky-high. I figured since Wally Pfister has been Christopher Nolan's cinematographer since 2000's Memento, maybe some sort of slow-release genius-osmosis had taken place, and Transcendence would be a stellar thriller/head- scratcher like we've come to expect from Nolan. Well, the cold hard fact is that it's not. But it sure isn't terrible.

As scientists are on the verge of a new breakthrough in A.I. technology, a rouge terrorist group known as RIFT begins knocking off labs around the country. One of their antics is the assassination, by radioactive poisoning, of scientist Dr. Will Caster. As his body slowly deteriorates, his wife and his partner work frantically work on a way to upload his mind to a computer, thus allowing him to continue his research. And as anyone could've guessed, the plan goes completely to hell.

Transcendence is not excellent, but it's also not the travesty that reviews from people more reputable than me are calling it. The main problem is the script. An excellent script can make you buy into even the most ridiculous of plots, but first-time-writer Jack Paglen's script never finds a constant tone, is unevenly paced, has underdeveloped side plots, and keeps you at arm's length from any connection with the characters and the story. In other words, it doesn't raise up any concerns or ideas we haven't already seen, and the shallowness of the script gives you plenty of time to question the incongruence of the story.

Other than that, Transcendence is pretty good. Pfister's direction is expedient, and he avoids the jumpy camera syndrome that typically plagues these kinds of movies. In fact I was even getting trappings of Chris Nolan's directing style at times (is it just me?). The ensemble performance from the cast is solid. The cast list may look like Nolan's leftovers, but they do an excellent job, and they make better use of the paltry script than I thought possible. Even though Pfister was behind the camera and not the cinematographer, you think he was going to let his baby look mundane? While not as gorgeous as, say Inception, Jess Hall hits it home and makes Transcendence look properly futuristic while still squeezing in some contrasting elements of nature in almost every frame.

Does 6 stars seem too high? I don't think so. In my mind, 10=revolutionary, 9=excellent, 8=very good, 7=pretty good and 6=jusk OK. An airtight script that rises up to the challenge was all that was needed to make Transcendence truly, um, transcendent. But it doesn't, and the lackluster script affects every other technical aspect of this film like a virus, and makes Transcendence a pretty- to-look-at popcorn movie. I know this is Wally Pfister's first time in the director's chair, but I still feel he was capable of making a film more nuanced than this.

Interesting!

[namashi_1 · 6/10 · 22 July 2014]

Directed by Ace Cinematographer Wally Pfister in his directorial debut, 'Transcendence' is an interesting watch! No, its not perfect, but it has a terrific concept & to an extent, it leaves an impression.

'Transcendence' Synopsis: A scientist's drive for artificial intelligence, takes on dangerous implications when his consciousness is uploaded into one such program.

'Transcendence' has a marvelous first-hour, with the drama unfolding most impressively. The second-hour loses steam. The narrative becomes abstract & the film overstays its welcome by at least 15-minutes. Also, the culmination is half-baked. The desired impact is missing.

Jack Paglen's Screenplay is innovative & offers some truly well-written sequences, but the mostly low second-hour, plays a spoilsport. Wally Pfister's Direction is good. Cinematography is appropriate. Editing lacks sharpness. Art Design is super.

Performance-Wise: Johnny Depp, despite limited screen time, leaves a mark. Rebecca Hall is excellent. Paul Bettany is very sincere. Kate Mara is natural. Cillian Murphy & Morgan Freeman are okay.

On the whole, 'Transcendence' isn't amazing, but it holds some appeal nevertheless.

This seems like wasted potential

[trublu215 · 5/10 · 18 April 2014]

Transcendence, much like most of the latest sci-fi themed films to hit cinemas, is a wasted effort. It exhibits signature Pfister cinematography that we've come to love over the past decade. With Nolan's Batman trilogy and Inception, it was only a matter of time for Wally Pfister to take a stab at directing. Unfortunately, the only thing that seems well done in this film is the cinematography. The story, while seeming fresh and exciting on paper, devolves into a half baked idea with mediocre acting. Johnny Depp does the best he can while only being a mere voice during the latter half of the film. The rest of the cast seems wasted, this is especially true because we know how great Paul Bettany, Morgan Freeman and Rebecca Hall can be. Wally Pfister focuses more on capturing really fantastic shots but seems never truly devoted to the actual story. This comes as a major disappointment especially because of the hype that this film has been generating over the last year. When it boils down to it, Transcendence is just another exercise in style over substance, never matriculating to anything more than an average sci-fi thriller that has a criminally underused cast and phenomenal camera-work.

A Mind Is A Terrible Thing To Set Free.

[rmax304823 · 6/10 · 6 March 2015]

That Rebecca Hall is a paragon of pulchritude is unarguable. She has this endearing overbite that lends her sibilants a lisp, so that "space" comes out "thpathe". Love it.

The imagery -- that is, what is seen on the screen -- is magnificent. No kidding. Raindrops in slow motion. Sunflowers opening and closing. Dark laboratories (too dark) and splendid vistas of landscapes that go on to infinity. Crisp closeups of glistening teeth and watery eyes. Applause for the photographer, Jess Hall.

Sadly, much of the story makes no sense. It begins coherently enough. Johnny Depp is a scientist who has his brain uploaded just before he dies. Then, in a quest for more power to do what he thinks is good for the world, he demands that his electronic brain now be permitted to take over the internet, and once that's achieved, the rest of the electricity in the entire world. His image appears on monitors and TV screens. He performs miracle cures with nanotechnology. He's going to save the earth.

So far, so familiar. We've been in this territory before. There was HAL in "2001", the movie "Frankenstein," the runaway zero-toleance computer in "Collosus: The Forbin Project", and other examples. It's kind of interesting, although drawn out and inexplicable to the ordinary mortal.

Then it shifts gears and pits a gang of Luddites against the neurologically altered community that Depp has created for himself and his wife, Hall, in the middle of some desert wasteland. These myrmidons are without emotion and evidently immortal. You shoot them down but their wounds heal in a few seconds. This too is familiar. There are the pod people from "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," the zombies from "Night of the Living Dead," and countless others.

There is a big shoot out at the end. During this, the story leaves any familiarity behind and reaches for Terra Incognita, for the stars, for the galaxy.

It becomes utter nonsense with no explanation given for the events, not even the usual scientific-sounding mumbo jumbo you get in B movies: "Captain, we've activated the parabolic node of the epsilon warp indicator." "Some kind of nuclear power, I suppose." These little CGI wisps rise up from the ground and into the clouds and then pour down as nanotechnologically ripe drops that fall on everybody and everything. The nanocytes reproduce like a virus. But what the hell difference does it make? Nothing happens anyway.

There's a final scene in which the now dead Depp describes the earth of the future, "water so pure you can drink from any river," and we're treated to a cinematic tour of landscapes that have no freeways and no McDonalds. But what does this sequence MEAN? Depp is defunct, and the uploaded virus has killed all the programs, if that's the word, that he's created.

It looks like a thoughtful movie but I don't know what it's trying to say because it seems to be suffering from expressive aphasia or else I'm too dumb to understand it. Maybe it's a different language. Martian, maybe.

Uneven but full of bold interesting ideas.

[DarthVoorhees · 7/10 · 26 July 2014]

'Transcendence' could have been a great film. It has great ideas and as a film about philosophical questions it is fascinating. The problem with 'Transcendence' is that unfortunately it lacks a coherence between an actual plot and these great sci-fi concepts and the conundrums it proposes.

'Transcendence' is very much in the shadow of Christopher Nolan. Wally Pfister, Nolan's brilliant cinematographer, is making his directorial debut here and there are no complaints on what he does here from me. 'Transcendence' looks beautiful and has moments of great epic scope. Pfister does a great job in staging thematic progression in his film. The movie becomes much larger as our main character Dr.Will Caster loses his humanity. The finale in the lab is incredible to look at and compare with the smaller more intimate scenes when Caster is suffering from his fatal illness.

The acting is top notch too and that was my worry going into the film. Depp is particularly good. He does a very good job in engaging the audience. Of course the major question the audience has is "Is this being Will Caster? Or just a program?" Depp never lets you know and plays it very close to the chest. He can be extremely artificial and frightening but his initial warmness in the beginning of the film makes us want to believe that his character is still alive in there. Rebecca Hall is very good too. Her character is integral to the film and makes up for some of the shortcomings. Evelyn Caster's love for her husband is what makes the film a human story instead of just a philosophical allegory. Hall has a sincerity and warmth that a movie like this needs. These qualities in her performance make the tragedy of losing humanity all the more poignant

While Pfister's direction is brilliant even as I feel as though the script is pretty lackluster in actually creating a plot. Here is another Nolan comparison I feel is inevitable. I thought a lot about 'Inception' as I watched 'Transcendence'. Both are films about the human consciousness and both relay their ideas through the trappings of an action film. 'Inception' has momentum and the action comes from character and driving the plot forward. 'Transcendence' doesn't have that. The action sequences and thrills feel completely out of place. The grand finale consists of a battle between Caster's sentient being and anti-technology terrorists and I feel as though the film doesn't quite earn this. The movie could have done a great deal more in developing these antagonists. Their motivations are strong and certainly understandable but these terrorists aren't characters. They merely serve as a living breathing antagonistic idea serving as a character. One character I felt was particularly weak was Paul Bettany's Max Waters who sort of serves as the middle piece between Caster and the anti-technology line. He initially helps Caster plug himself into the computer but immediately regrets his actions. This character and his convictions could have been a catalyst in creating a meaningful final conflict. He's just too underdeveloped as a human being. Ideas aren't characters. 'Transcendence' has some very interesting ideas but the script doesn't quite create human beings who deliver them.

'Transcendence' is a very good movie. It could have been a great one. The characters and plot suffer from the same artificiality the characters in the film fear. The ideas though are interesting enough to sustain and make the film a worth while experience. Don't believe all the bad reviews.

A rational plot that is very realistic

[psy99999 · 26 April 2014]

No irony in the above. The irrational and immensely stupid human reactions are more than realistic, and paint a bleak future while also explaining why we are stuck here today. People are scared of human evolution and advancement, and do their utmost to prevent them from happening. Think of religion or populistic yet unreasonable laws that are based on religion or similarly unfounded assumptions.

This film is great, the possibilities outlined are very real, and those hurring it down have absolutely no knowledge of science and have no imagination as to what the future may realistically hold.

I would expect that Transcendence will do better in countries where there is more critical thinking, such as Japan or most of Europe.

A good film let down by an underused supporting cast.

[dollydiabolique · 7/10 · 9 July 2014]

Despite many flaws and missed potential, I did I find this to be an enjoyable film. It has a pleasing storyline and the character arcs of Will, Evelyn and Max were well done. Sadly, the film let itself down with the supporting cast. While well acted, the film does nothing with the supporting cast and their roles are diminished by this. They are interesting characters who should have added substance and story to the film and instead they are overlooked and under- utilised. There are far too few scenes away from the main three characters of the film, where there should have been more. The cinematography is lovely. Thankfully, the main cast are great actors so it's not a problem having to watch them for the majority of the film. The concept is good, and it isn't over-embellished. However, once it's finished I was just left with a real 'what was the point of everyone else, why didn't they build on that?' feeling, a waste of some very good actors.

Horrible

[ocargile · 1/10 · 4 July 2014]

Transcendence had so much potential. Johnny Depp. Morgan Freeman. Big budget sci-fi thriller commenting on the evolutionary struggle between man and machine. What could possibly go wrong?

Everything, apparently.

There is no way that a scientist (Paul Bettany), who's been off the grid in a cave somewhere for two years, could write a virus that would outsmart a self-aware supercomputer (Johnny Depp) so advanced over the same time period that it can literally build a human copy of itself from the sands of the earth. No way.

Even if the original source code was written by said cave scientist, the movie establishes that the supercomputer has been re-writing its code ever since it became self-aware. Paul's character wasn't even as smart as the human Johnny Depp, and we're expected to believe that Paul can outsmart Johnny as a supercomputer with unlimited resources? Sigh.

And to the subject of national defense. A lone FBI agent, who's not even a high ranking official, makes the decision to side with a known terrorist group to shut down all networks and electricity on the planet? Seriously? The United States government, or any other world government, would sooner take out the terrorist cell (and the FBI agent) and negotiate with the supercomputer before allowing all hospitals, communication, commerce, defense and refrigeration to shut down in a moment's notice.

And even if we take the premise that the supercomputer committed suicide to save the life of the scientist who wrote the virus, why would he do that? He could have easily saved the scientist, his wife (Rebecca Hall)and everyone else, by just taking the gun from the terrorist holding the scientist hostage. He can sprout nanotechnology from the ground (which is how he took everybody else's gun). Double sigh.

I was very disappointed, again because this movie had so much potential. Instead of being awesome, it's just another classic example of poor script writing and relying on big names and special effects to do the job. What's worse, the makers of this film should have known better.

Shame.

Normally, I'd give this movie a 4/10. However, for its audacity to advertise brilliance and be anything but, it gets a 1.

Beautifully made, serious Science Fiction. More subtle and deeper than you may think... Blu-ray: Excellent A:10 V:10

[lathe-of-heaven · 8/10 · 20 August 2014]

I'm glad that some of the reviews that I had read, even from fairly reputable and reliable sources like Bluray.com, were ultimately not accurate in their description of this film. For example, that site made it seem like this was a rather shallow movie that basically was about an Artificial Intelligence that typically goes amok. That is not true at all and completely misses the point.

Now that I've just seen it, I can understand why they named it as they did; this wasn't just some usual commercially catchy phrase to sell a film, but after all is said and done (and viewed) that SPECIFICALLY was actually the primary theme of the film. It will be a little difficult to 'talk' about this aspect of it without entering Spoiler territory, which I do not wish to do.

There are deeper themes running through this film than one may think at first. Without being specific, the final few scenes reveal that 'Transcendence' is indeed what is going on here. So, first and foremost, PLEASE do not be put off by those who say that this is just a shallow Sci Fi film about a machine taking over; if you like serious Science fiction that is done very well, then you should like this film.

One caution though... My impression is that this movie is the moral antithesis of a film like, say, 'CHILDREN OF MEN', which I also just watched recently before this one. That film too is very beautifully shot and technically well done; AND, it also would be considered very serious, adult Science Fiction. But, I personally ***ENJOYED*** this one quite a bit more; the themes and mood of it resonated a LOT more with me personally than the other film. I just mention these particular films as a comparison of two well done, modern Sci Fi films, but with almost TOTALLY opposite philosophies behind them. Whereas 'CoM' is what I would call much more gritty and 'Realistic' and even quite Nihilistic in it's tone, where basically just about bloody EVERYONE dies, Mankind is shown to be nasty, selfish, and brutal, and with the supposed exception of it's last minute ending, completely without any hope at all. This film though, in my lowly and wretched opinion, is MUCH more subtle and enlightened in the themes that it is emphasizing, and it may not be until the very end when you fully realize what the point actually is (I'll give you a hint... It has to do with one of the last things Rebecca Hall says) Don't get me wrong, BOTH films are very well done, but I just wanted to show the extreme contrast in tone, so that it might help you to choose whether you would want to watch this one.

Also, quite frankly, it is just a great film. It's a lot of fun, there is excellent suspense where you do NOT know what is going to happen next or whether what is going on is truly Good or Evil...

So, as I mention in a lot of my reviews: If you are a bit on the cynical side and are the kind of person who likes their entertainment, whatever the Genre, to be of the more brutally 'Realistic' type, and you don't care for more imaginative or Idealistic films, then this one may not do much for you. BUT... IF you do appreciate films where the underlying themes may cause you to question your own attitudes towards Hope and Faith (and I DON'T mean anything Religious at all - Just Faith or Hope in things or people in general) THEN you might, as I did, really find this film quite refreshing and entertaining.

A good film with awesome special effects.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 7/10 · 26 September 2017]

Transcendence is quite a difficult film to review, I left the cinema feeling rather underwhelmed, I suppose my expectations were so high, but having rewatched at home I feel I was too harsh. When you break down the film and start to see what they were trying to do, it makes more sense, the simple study of a human relationship, and the lengths people will go to for love. The special effects are dazzling, you can see a lot of bucks went into its production. Well performed, Johnny Depp is as always spot on, Rebecca Hall and Paul Bettany both perform well also. It does a good job in raising the question of human evolution, and playing on the fear people have over it. At times the script and it's delivery seem a bit clunky, very little to hate, but hard to love.

Underrated 7/10

This movie was illogical garbage, so here's a summary (SPOILERS!)

[radivel · 3/10 · 16 May 2014]

Alright, odds are you're going to hate this because I didn't really like this movie and I'm fairly blunt sometimes.

My extremely detailed summary:

This is what I get for finally going into a movie blind thinking it has Morgan Freeman and Depp and Paul Bettany in it so it has to be passable at least, right? Well, the director was very awful and the story was ridiculous. It's a movie about the singularity and dealing with it, and while there are some things in that I'd like to believe happen someday, it's not going to happen in this manner.

Here we go.

Basically, Depp is a brilliant weirdo and married to his soulmate wifeperson, they work in genetic computing. So Depp gets shot by a psycho and is going to die, so emotional wifeperson takes the next step and downloads Depps brain into the pc system he's been developing, AND IT WORKS. The psychos are attacking all over, it's calamity, Jim. What can we do?! We have to hide inside this totally undefended abandoned school from our childhood which happens to be housing this extra copy of the world's most advanced computer set up system we need, that anyone could have just walked up and used.

• Super Computer Depp needs to be connected to the internet, and does get connected for approximately 1 second and is now spreading himself over everything everywhere, but it took days to download his brain? - Super Computer Depp does shady stock works to make his wife rich, and so then he's going to work towards fixing humanity in some method that computers believe is best, so he needs a place to do this. He decides (and he's smarter than us so this has to be right) that this place should be underground under a desert in California right beside this piece of crap hopeless hick town. Wife will use newfound riches to build it. - This might be reasonable, except wife hires one redneck hick from the town to build it. - Redneck hick is successful in a few seconds, and *POOF* we have this insanely gigantic underground facility full of technical equipment never before seen to man. So it didn't actually take a few seconds, but in actual movie time it was more like a month. - Deppbot starts healing people with nanobots, and taking over their bodies making them super strong and super smart or restoring vision, this seems fine except they're now brainwashed into a nanozombie state - Deppbot decides this is better for everyone, starts recruiting more people for miracles - Bettany is aware things aren't good, and teams up with the original psychos (including a Daenerys clone) that shot Depp to try and bring him down, they hide under copper wire nets and eventually steal the original Redneck Hick, since nano-programmed into a superzombie. Deppbot can't see through copper wire, it blocks his wireless signal. - Bettany helped Live Depp program the original AI system, he's the only one that can stop this - In a few seconds, he comes up with a virus that can take down Deppbot, and injects it into the wife, she's going to die but it's going to be for the good of humanity - Attack Plan time! The psycho team mounts an assault on Depps field of solar energy panels to distract him while wifey goes and is like, "Oh save me lover Deppbot!" or something, and gets him all secretly. He'll never see it coming. - Using four guys, the fake Mother of Dragons, three guns, and a 1910 style mortar gun dragged around on by trailer hitch on an elderly Chevy van, they defeat the evil nanozombie townsfolk despite a large number of shading things happening. - Bettany's virus is uploaded to all the internets in the entire world, infecting everything and shutting the internet off and turning it back to a pre-stone age state, also known as 1986. After all, it's better than an army of Depp clones that use wireless internet to steal people. They're nanobots, you know. They're in EVERYTHING now. - Humanity is saved! YES!

***BIG REVEAL*** I won't reveal it, but what doesn't happen is Depp isn't like, "Screw your internet. I'm gonna make my own internet to run my life." He made his own new self out of synthetic flesh and whatnot, he reincarnated himself as a living breathing Deppbot, but he apparently can't defeat the lack of 801.11ac wireless. I can assure you that that did not happen, even though his nanobots are in EVERYTHING.

Moral of the story: This movie is impressive in it's illogical hilarity which is extremely difficult to describe or attempt to write down (I didn't include most of it), it might be worth it to watch and make fun of in a sort of "count the number of times the Wet Bandits die in Home Alone" sort of way, but otherwise don't. We got like, 5 minutes of Morgan Freeman in this one, apparently there's only so much Morgan Freeman to go around and some other movie needed an old black guy.

I hope you appreciated this summary, but odds are you're bugged now.

Intriguing storyline which goes to the heart of human existence

[Sjhm · 8/10 · 18 April 2014]

Truly the questions this film asks leave me wondering. So let's start with the film itself, as a scifi thriller, it's beautifully executed with some stunning visuals, to the extent that sometimes it has the feel of a travel advertisement. The story hangs together well, with strong central performances which keep you engaged. Some of the ethics are quite complex, and you have to ask if the machine's intent is really hostile, or is that just the interpretation characters are putting on it because they don't understand. And we fear what we do not understand. The intent here is clearly to tell a story in such a way that you walk away thinking about it. Job done. I came away thoroughly entertained, and thinking more about singularity and transcendence than I have in quite a while. If you are after a Saturday afternoon blockbuster with a lot of action, this might not be the film for you, but if you prefer your action with a little more intrigue, this is a great film.

Better than expected...

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 28 October 2016]

I wasn't expecting to like TRANSCENDENCE very much, and that was based on the plot summary alone. Johnny Depp as a computer genius whose mind is uploaded into a computer? It sounds like an old-fashioned and predictable kind of story, one of those ones that require a huge suspension of disbelief and test the acting performances of those involved. Having just finished, I was pleasantly surprised by the movie, which is no masterpiece but is pretty interesting and good in places.

I'm not a fan of Depp and never have been, but you're not supposed to like his character here so that doesn't matter too much. The computer stuff is more interesting and the film incorporates some CGI effects work that was later borrowed for the villain in TERMINATOR GENISYS. Of course it all gets over the top and rather unbelievable, and that old cliché of fixing things with a computer virus is wheeled out once more (remember INDEPENDENCE DAY?).

Still, I liked the direction and cinematography makes for a bright and colourful movie, better than the usual grey and dreary offerings. The supporting cast is excellent and includes Cillian Murphy, Morgan Freeman, Paul Bettany, Kate Mara, Cole Hauser, and Xander Berkeley. They're all fine if underutilised a bit. The one who stands out like a sore thumb is Rebecca Hall; nothing wrong with her acting, but her character is one of the dumbest ever which makes her a truly despicable protagonist. I don't mind characters acting ruthlessly or with moral ambiguity in films but when they act really dumb then I can't help but feel that it's the scriptwriter at fault.

Very Disappointing

[cadillac20 · 4/10 · 14 April 2014]

There's a lot to love about Transcendence. Unfortunately, almost all of it is killed by a very poor script. The film is so full of holes and leaps in logic that it's hard to take any of it seriously or truly enjoy it. Character's that should be villains turn into saviors and characters that we expect to be allies turn into pariahs. There's no one to really root for here and the story telling seems to exist only to push certain ideas about technology and it's capabilities.

The story is fairly simple and can pretty much be seen in the trailers. Doctor Will Caster is a brilliant scientist working to push A.I. technology drastically. When he is fatally wounded with a time clock on his life, his partner in life, Evelyn, has the brilliant idea of transplanting his consciousness into a massive super computer. From there, we have a rapidly pushed story that leads to a bunch of silly, almost cool ideas about what computers could become capable of.

The first problem is evident in the first frame. We are immediately aware of the ending, which left a bad taste in my mouth. The mystery of how it is all going to end is immediately spoiled. So, all that's left is the how. And the how is almost completely preposterous. We're led to believe that the advancement of this super A.I. manages to grow to unbelievable potential in only a matter of a couple of years. Somehow, we're simply supposed to accept that everything we see is possible. It's a massive leap of logic and one that is too hard to digest. There's very little to suggest how any of it is possible, only simply that it is and that very smart people are capable of making it all so. We're also supposed to believe that the government never gets involved and that the antagonists know what's going on, despite getting rid of any technology that ties them to the world at large. You're simply expected to go along with it. If you're able to, then more power to you. I wasn't.

Much of the rest of the film is well done. The cinematography is as good as you would expect. The acting varies. Paul Bettany, Johnny Depp, and Rebecca Hall are all sufficient here. Morgan Freeman feels wasted as he has very little to do but get led around. But again, the entire thing suffers from a poor script and story. It's hard to give praise to something so completely let down by it's core, but there are glimmers of brilliance here. This being Wally Pfister's first film, it's not too surprising it falters. But with Nolan having his name attached and surely having guided the cinematographer who worked on most of his films, it's hard to believe that this managed to go through with such a faulty script. There are far too many holes and leaps in logic to ignore, which makes this a huge disappointment in my eyes.

Transcendence Review by Melissa

[Allen_The-Shep_Shepherd · 16 April 2014]

My Thoughts: On the surface this film raises the usual questions of technology vs. humanity, but if you look deeper you will see that there is much more to this movie than meets the eye. Other more complex questions are raised, such as: What is self-awareness? What role do we as humans ultimately want technology to play in the bigger picture that is our future? How do we reconcile logic with emotion? Should we fear technology? Do we have a soul and if so, does that mean that when our bodies die we can still live on through other means? I really enjoyed this film and found myself thinking about the questions I posed above, as well as many others.

Johnny Depp as Will is not an obvious choice but he brought a likability to the character. Evelyn's (Rebecca Hall) struggle with her husband's demise and "reincarnation" are palpable but I think the audience will sympathize with her unwavering devotion. Paul Bettany is the movie's conscience so his character is cautious, if not underutilized.

All in all, I believe "Transcendence" to be a good film. Far from the usual car chases and predictable romantic comedies, this movie rises above and seeks to challenge audiences.

My Recommendation: Depends on what kind of movie you're looking for. If you want mindless entertainment, this is not the film for you and skip it. If you're the type of person who likes to think about a movie long after the credits roll, definitely see it.

Be sure to check out more reviews at www.shepfromtamp.com

When I'm Gone, Keep Moving Forward

[CowherPowerForever · 7/10 · 19 April 2014]

After 12 years working with the legendary Christoper Nolan over the course of seven films, renowned cinematographer Wally Pfister takes his first shot at directing. While the film is not on the level of quality his former boss is use to putting out, this film does provide a nice launching pad to what could be a nice career as a director.

The story was written by Jack Paglen, a virtual unknown, who hit it big when his script for this film landed on the The Black List for its amazing work. While I have not read that original script that Paglen wrote, the script in this film was not bad at all. Director Wally Pfister likely changed some aspects here and there as scripts do get molded when they are set out to be filmed. The final script for the film starts out strong, however it does leave you scratching your head in a few places. The final half hour or so of the film doesn't hold up as well as the first ninety minutes of the film either. Likely because we are rushed deep into the plot with soft development.

The directing, lead by Wally Pfister, is fantastic. As I was watching this film on the large IMAX screen I was amazed by the amazing shots and visuals he had filmed. He has had so much experience over the years working with an amazing director that his eye for detail really shows off here. However he was not the perfect director in this film. The acting department clearly proves that. While Paul Bettany, Rebecca Hall, and Morgan Freeman deliver great performances in the film, veteran actor Johnny Depp is completely depthless. Of course this is nothing new to followers of his career over the years. Depp's heart is not in his acting as it once was, and unless he is playing a certain character, we are left with average at best acting.

An aspect of the film I truly loved was the score. Composed by Mychael Danna, who has done a lot of great work over the course of his career, delivers an amazing score. As the film flows by you can feel his score bringing much needed depth. I would personally rank this score on the level with one of my other favorite composers, Hans Zimmer. If you are watching this film in IMAX, that is just another added bonus as you will really fall in love with the score with the amazing sound IMAX delivers.

Overall, newcomer to directing, Wally Pfister, has a solid start to his career. The film is not perfect as it does have some key problems, but these problems aren't major, and the story is very enjoyable overall. I would also recommend watching this film in IMAX. With so many IMAX movies these days, mostly in 3D, it is a breath of fresh air to see a normal IMAX movie without wearing glasses. The sound and images are amazing on the giant screen, and its truly worth the extra money. While some don't like to rush out to the theater on a weekly basis, for those of us who go regularly, this is a must see right away. The rest should have no problem waiting until it comes to rental.

7/10

Great Overall , but easily forgettable

[Drigo854 · 7/10 · 21 April 2014]

If this was the start (and explanation) for how The terminator begun, and had ended just before the *SPOILER* virus got uploaded i would give it a 10/10. However since it's not , i must say it has a good plot , a solid script and some fine acting by the much talented Johny Depp who manages to portray perfect the role of a genius engineer and afterwards that of a machine/network/computer powered A.I. Transcedence also has some interesting CGI (like the nano-technology that appears to have a will of its own). However it lacks depth and i must say i expected a little bit more from the creators of Inception. The ending too leaves some questions unanswered for the viewer who seeks more than just a superficial ending to wrap up the story. Overall i must say it's a great movie but easily forgettable. If you are looking for an excuse to go out with some friends or just wanna relax after a long day and enjoy a good film, than look no further . 7/10

Something to think about

[bob-rutzel-1 · 7/10 · 14 August 2014]

Will Caster (Johnny Depp) is a scientist who strives for artificial intelligence that also exhibits human qualities. His detractors want to stop him, and he is shot by them and is infected with Polonium and will die soon due to radioactive poisoning. To save his consciousness Evelyn (Rebecca Hall), his wife and his friend Max (Paul Bettany) upload his consciousness into Will's artificial intelligence program. Max sees the dangers when Will makes himself known on a monitor. He doesn't believe it is actually Will. Evelyn, on the other hand, believes it is Will and wants to go forward.

Hey, we all know this day may be coming and this movie may be a harbinger of that. But for now let's see where this takes us. Keep in mind, it's only a movie.

We see the dangers of Will becoming godlike and controlling the world's internet. However all we actually see is Will doing good healing the earth and people. But, the opposing forces see this as too controlling and fear it could get out of hand and doom everyone including the earth itself. There is that but what is forgotten - in this movie - is the love Will has for Evelyn for whom Will does everything. He constantly cites Evelyn's dream to her. The problem is that later on Evelyn also sees the dangers of a too powerful Will. The ending proves this point.

Some things were not brought into this scenario: no government including those worldwide, no religious groups demonstrating against Will and what he has become in their minds, and no worldwide denunciation by other nations. No, this stays with the small opposition group and the love story with Will doing everything he can to further Evelyn's dream although it may not be as evident as it could have been.

There is some excellent CGI in the works. A good supporting cast of Paul Bettany as Max and Morgan Freeman as Joseph were under used, but still good in this context. Kate Mara as Bree, a leader of the opposition is the only one who is animated and urges the end of Will and what he has become.

When a Johnny Depp character is on the screen or in a monitor on the screen, he is still a force to behold and performs in Oscar-worthy mode all the time. Kudos.

This movie provides us with something to think about. How far will we allow technology to go?

The pacing is slow, and we are never sure where this is leading us, but we are attentive and hope for the best. We like what Will is doing but we don't want him to become a god or godlike. How can he be stopped?

Yes, now only a movie, but one day…………………(7/10)

Violence: Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: No. Language: No,Very brief soft stuff.

Stupid, Boring and a Huge Embarrassment to all Involved.

[limoncella-641-42235 · 3/10 · 20 April 2014]

Dr Will Caster (Johnny Depp) develops a sentient computer device with unsurpassed processing power. When fatally poisoned by a radical techno-terrorist organisation he and his wife (Rebecca Hall) upload his consciousness into his invention to preserve his life, but the now unrestrained supercomputer soon develops a frightening ambition that blurs the line between humanity and technology.

It seems that every few years somebody in Hollywood tries to redo The Lawnmower Man, which is by no means a perfect movie (especially with its laughable, early generation CGI) but it harbours an interesting premise; what happens if we ignore our own judgement and let our technology get the better of us?. It's an old sci-fi trope going back decades that has definitely become a crutch of story telling to some extent, but any good idea is worth exploring again, and with such an impressive cast and a very promising production team behind it, hopes were high for Transcendence to be a good movie.

Unfortunately though, it isn't. Transcendence is a turgid, lifeless bore of a film that doesn't really offer anything insightful about its subject matter because it's so single mindedly stupid about it. All the parts about technology, philosophy and what it means to be human are all thrown to the wayside, and the movie instead grounds most of its logic on the relationship between two people like its the most important thing in this world. In a movie where technology is used to heal the sick, rebuild the forests and even cure death, all the movie wants us to care about is how Rebecca Hall cannot possibly go on living without her dead husband and how all that amazing wonderful miracle-making doesn't mean anything.

I'm not even sure who the main character is supposed to be. Depp is in the movie in the flesh only for about 15 minutes and after that he disappears mostly into the background of scenes as a computer program making it hard to relate to him. Hall acts so selfish, stupid and blunt throughout that it's impossible to like her as an audience member. It certainly isn't Paul Bettany either, he's a prisoner through most of the film and when he's not, the things that are happening are more or less out of his control.

Also the vagueness of the films antagonist is a real problem, we're led to believe that Computerised-Depp is the main antagonist, but he's not really, a computer operating by logic is hard to hate as a viewer, because it's just doing what's in its own nature, and many of the miracles its capable of are not, in and of themselves evil either (since when was healing the blind considered unjust?). It certainly isn't the Techno-Terrorist group R.I.F.T either, their motivations as terrorists isn't even particularly clear other than "Technology is Bad", Shooting Johnny Depp over a hypothesis seems more like stupidity than martyrdom. Also during the films climax they become good guys.

Johnny Depp was reportedly paid $20 million for his role in this movie, and in my opinion he didn't earn his salary. He is stiff, lifeless, bored (that's even before he gets uploaded into a computer) and obviously uninterested in the finished product. Rebecca Hall is trying very hard here, but the terrible writing of her character hamstring her efforts. Paul Bettany is good here and is probably the films strongest asset, but he's not in the film enough and pretty much useless by the time the conclusion comes. Morgan Freeman and Cillian Murphy are just there, they don't really have anything interesting to say or do. Kate Mara gives by far the worst performance, the bad writing of her character hurts her more than others, but she was impossible to buy as the stern, serious leader of an organised terrorist group.

There's also a huge lack of understanding of rudimentary film making skills at play. Wally Pfister is a gifted cinematographer and the film does look good generally speaking, but working cinematography on a movie and directing an entire movie are two completely different ball games. Many aspects of film-making are botched here: Framing, Blocking, Dynamics between Characters, Editing, Camera Movements but especially Pacing. This is one of the worst Paced movies in quite some time, nothing that happens in the story has any momentum, and this coupled with the poor direction over everything else makes the whole movie completely dull to watch (the biggest mistake is that film begins with the ending, spoiling any and all tension during the movie).

I'm not saying that every movie needs to have an action scene either, there isn't a car chase during 12 Angry Men, but Transcendence builds to a huge final engagement and when it comes it's over with way too quickly.

It's a combination of many elements that could go wrong with a movie, and it's easy to blame Wally Pfister for the poor direction, but I think this movie represents a far bigger concern. Johnny Depp is currently the highest paid actor in the world, but this and some of his last films "The Lone Ranger" and "Dark Shadows" both had disappointing box office takings, which leads me to believe that maybe Depp's day are numbered, and/or perhaps we're entering a new age of movies where it doesn't matter who you cast, a stinker's a stinker and people wont flock to see garbage.

The Line Between Humanity & Evolving into something More.

[jocean4 · 8/10 · 15 April 2014]

This film will most likely split down the middle because of it's religious tones of God and evolution. Some people will love it and some will hate it because it might go against their belief system.

For movie purposes, it has great acting, great story (though some may feel it's a little too far fetched, which I personally don't think is too far fetched when you see what the world was like 10 years ago before the mainstream web), and pretty good action scenes.

At the heart, it's a story about a woman, Evelyn, who loves her husband, Will, so much she tries to hold onto him by helping him save his consciousness. She begins to wrestle with whether this being is really Will or is something new. It's also about evolution and the line between humanity and evolving into something more. This movie might be a turn off for religious people but it does make you think of what humanity could become whether you're religious or not.

Overall, it's a great movie that's enjoyable, thought provoking, challenges some beliefs, and foreshadows some future realities we will all have to soon deal with.

I would say go see it!

A good, if standard, science fiction themed effort

[quinnox-1 · 7/10 · 14 April 2014]

Saw this at a free screening. It turned out to be better than I expected. Johnny Depp plays a brilliant and eccentric scientist who is a leading expert on artificial intelligence, and when he is mortally wounded by an anti-technology extremist/terrorist group, he and his small inner circle of fellow genius scientists embark on an ambitious experiment that will test a radical theory of his.

The plot and overall story is pretty standard fare for science fiction, but it still manages to keep things interesting, with various echoes of other classic sci fi movies like 2001: A space odyssey in there as well. The visuals can be really striking at times, with long, brightly lit white hallways that seem to go on forever in an advanced scientific lab, and neat-o computer-like visualizations of cities. The best part of the movie is the last segment, with some really good twists. No spoilers, but the ending is particularly interesting and well done. There is a nice ambiguity and there can be different interpretations of the overall message of the movie. My friend and I disagreed on what the movie was ultimately saying, for example. It's no masterpiece though, but science fiction fans will like it.

People Are Afraid of Things They do not Understand

[claudio_carvalho · 5/10 · 27 July 2014]

In New York, Dr. Will Caster (Johnny Depp) is one of the three most brilliant scientists in the research of Artificial Intelligence. He works with his beloved wife and also scientist Evelyn Caster (Rebecca Hall) and his best friend is Dr. Max Waters (Paul Bettany). Dr. Caster is forced to go to a lecture to raise funds for their research but a group of anti-technology terrorists attack him and the two other authorities in the field of AI. Dr. Caster is poisoned and has only one month of life. When Will is near to death, Evelyn discusses with Max the possibility of transferring his emotions to the AI and they decide to try. They seem to be well succeeded, but they are attacked by the terrorists commanded by Bree (Kate Mara) that destroy the facility and Evelyn releases Dr. Caster's "soul" in the Internet to save him. Soon Dr. Caster controls the worldwide system and with his increasing knowledge, he changes human biology and the environment becoming an omnipresent power. But people are afraid of things they do not understand and Dr. Caster is considered a threat to the world that shall be destroyed.

"Transcendence" is a sci-fi film with a promising premise, great cinematography, good performances and special effects but with a poorly written story with messy characters. Bree, for example, is a terrorist responsible for the death of Dr. Caster and his colleagues and for jump the gun and release Dr. Caster in the Internet by Evelyn to save him from her direct attack. In the end, she works with FBI Agent Buchanan (Cillian Murphy) and Joseph Tagger (Morgan Freeman). A subject of this magnitude should have been discussed by the Powers that Be, and not by a simple FBI agent, an outmoded scientist and a terrorist. I could write many other inconsistencies in the story, but better off let the viewer conclude by himself (or herself). My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): "Transcendence - A Revolução" ("Transcendence – The Revolution")

Transcendence: A Philosophical Counterpoint To The Terminator Franchise

[christopherbinder · 8/10 · 28 April 2014]

First time Director Wally Pfister, best known for his collaborative work as Christopher Nolan's Cinematographer, delivers a solid, gorgeous meditation on the potential benefits and dangers of melding man and machine together. When Will Caster (Johnney Depp) is shot with an irradiated bullet by a member of R.I.F.T., a radical anti tech group lead by Bree (Kate Mara), Will's wife Evelyn (Rebecca Hall) decides to try and save him by uploading his consciousness into a super computer. While Max (Paul Bettany) has his doubts and reservations about this, he helps his long time friends out. They ultimately do succeed in uploading Will before Max becomes too scared and leaves, getting abducted by Bree and her followers shortly after. Will then guides Evelyn to a rundown town in the middle of nowhere, where over the next 2 years Will becomes stronger while Evelyn helps him build an underground lab. I'll try not to divulge too much of what happens after all this but I do believe the film gets more right than wrong and is better than most people give it credit for.

I can think of several potential reasons why people either disliked or simply weren't interested in seeing it. Captain America was/is still in theaters, Trancendence was released on Good Friday and most people took the day off for religious reasons, the idea that a consciousness can be uploaded into a computer suggests that the body does not have a soul and is thus atheist, alienating several religious groups, the film was marketed as an action type thriller, the film was too slow, too many plot holes and/or leaps of logic, people just simply thought it wasn't a very good movie etc.

As I mentioned in the title of this piece, I think the film is a counterpoint to The Terminator, much in the same vein as M. Night Shyamalan's film Unbreakable, (still his best in my not so humble opinion) which could be viewed as a viable counterpoint to the comic book films of today. Instead of the machine becoming sentient and attempting to wipe out humanity because they have been deemed inferior, we get the machine with a, ahem, human soul who wants to help humanity out by bettering them and the world at large (ecologically speaking). The price for this of course is the potential to lose one's individuality and become part of a singular consciousness (like the Borg from Star Trek). Whether or not that's a better or worse alternative to being wiped out by a nuclear holocaust I'll leave open for debate. I will admit it did feel refreshing to not see one over the top action sequence piled on top of another, although I'm sure most people who went in to see the movie before me would heartily disagree.

Granted, the film does have its short comings. The fact that Will rewrote his source code after being uploaded would render the virus Max created later in the film ineffective would be the biggest (as pointed out by this film's Goof section). And the fact that virtually no press or news reporters were involved was rather vexing. But any of these could be comparable to any of the enormous plot holes/errors found in Christopher Nolan's Inception or the Fascist ideology that makes up his Dark Knight Trilogy. Unfortunately Mr. Pfister did not have Batman or the enormous, memorable action set pieces Mr. Nolan is best remembered by his audiences for to back him up and ensure box office glory. Transcendence is basically an art film with a Hollywood budget.

I'll only pause briefly at the end here to applaud Mr. Pfister's wonderful decision to shoot on anamorphic 35mm film with no digital intermediate. The results speak for themselves visually. Sometimes the old ways simply are the best. Technology should not replace that which has come before it until it has surpassed all previous limitations.

As for the ending of the film, it looks like Bree and R.I.F.T. got their wish when all the tech in the world got virtually (no pun intended) destroyed by Max's plot hole virus. But is that really a good thing? Mr. Pfister only pauses to show us the lights going off in one or two cities and no airplanes crashing into them, although I must say I've had more than my fill of those types of images in the past 12 or 13 years. We get the sense that things have descended into Martial Law and possibly chaos, but I wish there could have been some character resolution for Bree in this regard, given the part she played in helping bring it all about. I guess, since there won't be a sequel to this particular Spring/Summer film (remarkably) I'll just have to ponder what a future world without any tech (but with some of Will's water nanites) would be like. Or I could just start getting into NBC's Revolution TV show. But I think I'll pass.

Not Perfect, But Clever and Slick with an Emotional Core

[dariondanjou · 7/10 · 18 April 2014]

*** this review may contain spoilers ***

As I read a lot of the disappointed reviews, I can say there is merit to those arguments in that the film is certainly not perfect like a Nolan film, and the actors could have pushed for more chemistry.

But no one is talking about the brilliant coup de grace in this film which is that it's not actually a warning against technology at all; it's a warning against our own fear of technology, as more dangerous than the technology itself. This movie does such an excellent job of building a fear in us, along with all the other human characters, of impending doom as a result of the sheer power and lightning pace of advanced technology that is moving faster than we can comprehend. And yet the brilliant wool that pulled over our eyes so deftly by the storytelling, is that while we are caught up in the midst of fearing the worst, the AI that is made to be the bad guy is doing nothing but good. Every single thing the AI does in the movie is a good thing that we all wish we had the power to accomplish. Yet when the AI actually goes in a does it, our snap fear reaction against that which we do not understand and thus cannot control, we seek to destroy, even if it's every action proves it to be benevolent. The only people that ever die in the movie: will, evelyn, martin, all are killed by humans, not a single person is harmed by the AI.

On top of the superior execution of "villain" creation out of a character which is actually doing only good, the film is gorgeous and introduces us to some way cool technology ideas and effects, specifically nanotechnology conveyed in a palpable way, which is hard to do with a technically invisible technology.

The cast is stellar, but unfortunately they all seem to be just punching the clock except for Rebecca Hall, who invested a lot and deliver a career making turn proving she can hold her weight and then some, across from a series of heavyweight talent in Depp, Bettany, Freeman, Murphy along with top notchers Mara, Collins, and Hauser. The most unfortunate aspect is that almost all these heavy hitters are underused with scenes that never allow them to develop or even push the envelope of their characters. Too bad on that count, as this was seriously almost name for name the all star lineup i would choose if i could pick my own dream team of talent to put into one movie.

Great movie. Gorgeous to see. Entertained me with eye candy and stimulating conceptual ideas throughout, and made me think after it was done. Give me a movie in theaters like this one every week, and i'll go out to the movies every single week.

The ending crushes everything

[plummet_ru · 1/10 · 22 July 2014]

The film seemed amazing up until the last 20 minutes of it where logic just blew away and the worst possible ending appeared.

So, let me summarize: a handful of terrorists who killed a lot of people wins against a peaceful superb being that tries to heal the world. And they don't just destroy it, they try to deceive it using the wife who in 1 second decided to betray her husband. The deception fails and the final terrorist girl just waves her gun into the air, points to another friend who has betrayed Will and just commands: "kill your f___ng self and your wife too, just so I won't shoot your friend".

Why Will doesn't save his wife, while simulating death? Even better, why can't Will neutralize one small stupid terrorist girl? How is it he able to get over every other military unit, but not this one? Can't he use one of his minions to jump fast and furious? Can't he attack her from behind? Can't he, after all, just heal his friend?

So, one stupid terrorist girl makes the world healing machine commit suicide and basically murder his own wife for whom he was doing this all and who betrayed him in no time and without any doubts.

Terrorists win, planet loses. Basically this film is about that if you believe in something so hard that you will kill many people for it and just demand your enemies to kill themselves, you'll get what you want. It's about "go terrorists, go, if you think that you are doing good thing it's all good!"

The worst possible ending ever.