Marjorie Prime (2017) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
26 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Gets the cerebral mind thinking
coreyjdenford10 November 2017
This review of Marjorie Prime is spoiler free

**** (4/5)

WITH COMPUTERS ADVANCING, newer mobile devices being released at least three times a year and the chance of having a robot in our home quickly dawning. This brings the question; is the world of the sci-fi genre truly taking over the way people feel, with grief, love, humanity and memory? Well, with the latest instalments of sci-fi films such as Spike Jonze's 'Her', Alex Garland's 'Ex Machina' or perhaps as recent as this October with Denis Villeneuve's 'Blade Runner 2049' the possibility of a cerebral mind taking over the world could be sooner than once thought. Or it could even be happening right now - the fact is we just wouldn't know it.

Welcome Michael Almereyda's adaptation of Jordan Harrison's Pulitzer-nominated study of memory, grief and love Marjorie Prime. Set in a future when death doesn't have to be the end, an elderly woman named Marjorie (Lois Smith) spends her final, ailing days with a younger holographic projection of her late husband Walter (Jon Hamm), spending as much time as possible conversing about the complex structure of memory and how much it can affect us the older we get. On paper, the film's plot is simple weaving between the memories she had with her daughter (Geena Davis) who hates the holographic being of her father, her career as a violinist, to dealing with grief after the death of her husband. However, under the paper Almereyda keeps you thinking as he carefully constructs thought-provoking questions of memory, grief, family, humanity and loss. Much like 'Her', he spends his time delving deeper into the complexity of the human mind, digging it out piece by piece delivering every piece on a silver platter leaving you to think about the pieces he leaves behind.

Visual-wise, there's not much to look at aside from the holographic projection of Walter, it's not like 'Blade Runner 2049' where there's CG imagery popping out at every corner of the screen. Almereyda keeps it visually sparse keeping your eyes fixed on one special effect. And Sean Prince's stunningly serene airy cinematography is fluid and varied enough to enchant through minimalist yet stunning chamber rooms to prevent the stage bound feel. While Marjorie Prime is a slow-burning conversational piece and may not be to everyone's taste, it's an intelligent, powerfully quiet and soulful piece that will keep you asking in-depth questions about the fragile construction of the human mind playing on history, emotions and humanity it'll be almost too hard to forget.

VERDICT Hamm and Smith are stunning in an unforgettable quietly poignant sci-fi breathing in fresh thought-provoking questions about humanity and feelings.
24 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Intriguing if overly ambitious sci-fi about memory & loss
gortx28 August 2017
Warning: Spoilers
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.
14 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Holograms at Home
sfdphd9 April 2017
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.
38 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Brilliant theatre, inspiring drama about technology and about grief
CriticalEric15 December 2017
If you like great theatre, which is more about great dramatic performances than about special effects and soundtracks, you'll have to appreciate this film, as it features what may be the greatest dramatic performances by Geena Davis and Tim Robbins to date, and brilliant work by Lois Smith and Jon Hamm that does not deserve to go unnoticed.

The very original writing delves into the human experience, into aging, and into the role technology will likely increasingly play in the human experience.

I have a feeling that this is one of those films that will go under-noticed and under-appreciated, but will some day receive a lot of attention for it's prophetic technological implications.

For anyone who has ever suffered a profound loss, this film may have special meaning, beyond the introspective insight that it's likely to inspire in any human being. The story is at times funny, curious, and also sad, without relying on cheap underinvested plot devices or well-timed musical themes to trigger emotional responses.
15 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Solid sci-fi coming to terms with flawed memory.
jdesando20 September 2017
"The future will be here soon enough, you might as well be friendly with it." Marjorie (Lois Smith)

Of my many blessings, memory is not the precise gift of most of my friends. I do excel at giving my impressions rather than facts, a talent itself not always impressive. The slow-moving but serious sci-fi drama, Marjorie Prime, treats a time in the near future when holograms can be created to simulate the presence of loved ones who have died.

As in Spike Jonze's Her, technology is friend and foe at the same time. Such a hologram re-creation is fraught with problems, not the least of which is supplying the creation with accurate memories. Those are as imperfect as William James predicted in his repetitive-copying description, where memories leave accuracy behind with each re-recollection.

This film, an adaptation of Jordan Harrison's Pulitzer nominee, starring Lois Smith in the titular role of an 85 year old calling forth her former husband as a middle-aged man, gently makes that point with the hologram, Walter (Jon Hamm). It asks for information or clarification, moments that break the intimacy spell to remind the living that their loving creations are just that: "I'll remember that now," says stoic, affectless Walter.

Director/writer Michael Almereyda takes the Walter hologram into a static interpretation that belies the humanity and emphasizes the robotic nature of the creation. Emotion is missing, that ineffable element of loving so more important than the physical. In that regard the film succeeds in showing the second-rate nature of remembering facts when juxtaposed with emotion. As an imperfect memorist, I feel much better.

The placid sea-side setting, shot in muted color on Long Island, with the water as emblem of the fluid nature of memory, is effective for relaying the elusive nature of that faculty: "The stream of thought flows on; but most of its segments fall into the bottomless abyss of oblivion. Of some, no memory survives the instant of their passage. Of others, it is confined to a few moments, hours or days. Others, again, leave vestiges which are indestructible, and by means of which they may be recalled as long as life endures." William James

Although Marjorie interacts with more than one hologram (certainly most lives have layers of past loved ones to be recalled if needed), the film accomplishes making us aware of the complex business of remembering, its imperfection, and its reflection of our own uncertain place in the memory of humanity.
23 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Cerebral and Melancholy
evanston_dad27 January 2018
Warning: Spoilers
You might not want to watch "Marjorie Prime" if you're either sleepy or grumpy. It's a slow, cerebral, and very melancholy film. But it's also thought provoking and satisfying in the way that well told stories about death and loss can be.

Set in a near future, it tells the story of three family members -- a mother, her daughter, and the daughter's husband -- who deal with the grief of losing their loved ones by communing with virtual reality recreations of them. It's based on a play, and it shows; the film isn't especially cinematic, and it might test the patience of viewers who want more from a movie than a succession of lengthy mostly two-character dialogues. But it's superbly acted, and it raises questions about the nature of memory that are fun to ponder. The film suggests that our memories already manufacture virtual realities around the events we've already lived through, and that the idea of some day being able to have conversations with versions of those we've loved won't be that different from sifting through the memories of them that we have available to us now.

Lois Smith gives an award worthy performance as the matriarch who kicks off the film and who we see in the first scene chatting with her dead husband, played by Jon Hamm. Geena Davis plays her daughter, and Tim Robbins her son-in-law. All four actors are superb. A final scene, that finds the three virtual reality creations free from their owners and having a conversation between themselves, is especially haunting.

Grade: A-
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Great acting, weak direction
Alexander_Blanchett19 October 2017
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.
17 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A movie about processing grief
saodu1311 October 2017
The sci-fi context is irrelevant in this film. It's just an excuse to get people to talk, and see how they each process grief. How everyone deal with their own sadness and sorrow, and how they confront or do not confront them.

There is no plot, or big reveal, or secret that we uncover at the end. This is purely about human sentiment. It's as real as it gets. Simple, and painful.

I'm not sure if I was bored or fascinated during my viewing. The movie, if we pay attention to it and not to our phone, can strike a chord. I'd guess especially if you ever had to deal with life shattering grief at some point in your life.
17 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Great Science Fiction concept, but with all the great talent I thought it would be less boring.
subxerogravity20 September 2017
I'm think Black Mirror had an episode just like this (in fact I'm sure of it). If you have not seen Black Mirror you should see it before you watch  this film (or just watch Black Mirror instead)

So Basically,in the future, technology has gotten to the point that an old woman can own technology that can make a hologram that replicates her dead husband.

It's a lot like Black Mirror in two ways: Rather than create a hologram that reflected who her husband was when he died, she created one to reflect the man who asked her hand in marriage 30 years ago (played by Jon Hamm). Apparently her husband did not age well (Due to a large age gap between them) , so she picked the man she met in the turning of the century. It does not help that she is coming down with Alzheimer's so she might not (but more like chose not to) remember the older version, but those around her did, like her daughter,played by Gena Davis who hates the technology and how it allows her mother to live in a lie of her own fragile mind, and her husband, played by Tim Robbins, who sees the advantages of using the tech to make her feel better, to the point that he feeds information to the hologram to make it a better version of her late husband.

The other way it's like Black Mirror is how flawed the advance technology is. The more you talk to the hologram the more like the person it mimics it becomes. The Hologram hits a snag when you come across three different people who have different memories of the man being mimicked and it does not help when one is not a fan of the tech in the first place, and the other is feeding it info she's not even sure about. In this case, Marjorie Prime contemplate using tech to replace the void left by those who pass, but not much a fan of how it's done.

Marjorie Prime gives out good ideas in this slightly Sci-Fi concept based on a play, which they try to replicate on the big screen.

In reality, I wish that this was an episode of Black Mirror. It feels like a good attempt to mimic the show, but it's not the best. The large amount of well known actors does not do anything to make the movie give you any sort of feelings.
17 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Compelling and original premise at the outset. However, the actors are much better than the play they act in, after all. Not as thought provoking as one might assume
JvH488 February 2017
Saw this at the Rotterdam film festival 2017 (website: It all started as a compelling and original premise, but I got lost underway about what it all meant story-wise speaking. A lot of talking, but I still don't know what makes everyone tick.

On the other hand, we were made aware that manipulating the past is one of the prime issues at hand, once you are given the opportunity to re-make idealized versions of deceased relatives, and to even improve on them by planting memories that are not completely true to reality (every now and then we hear the words "I'll remember it now"). Could have been thought provoking, but I lost my interest halfway the running time.

All in all, the actors are much better than the play they act in. The festival visitors ranked this movie a bit better than halfway at the 57th (out of 172) place for the audience award, with score 4.009 (out of 5).
22 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Endless conversations and nothing else
Gordon-1112 October 2017
This film tells the story of a family who uses a technology to bring back their deceased relatives using an interactive holographic technology.

The first ten minutes of "Marjorie Prime" is interesting, especially when the nature of the man is revealed. However, the remainder of the film is just boring talks. They talk for a long time at length, and nothing comes out of the conversations. Nothing happens in the film, except an increasing number of holographic images. I don't get the point of the story.
24 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not that compelling
ianjaitken3 October 2017
There was a lot of posturing for this movie really got going.

It wasn't until an hour in before my imagination was twigged.

And then the movie was over.

So a painful run up that had me almost turn the film off, then a meander into a compelling story line.

It was painful the first hour, so dry and uninviting. There's not much to get into in the first half of the movie, but then the twist is shown and partially developed just to end suddenly.

Disappointing really, where there was potential, it seems as if this film never really got there.

A poor mans black mirror, which should have focused on the more compelling story line, that only really takes shape in the second half of the film.

They also referenced the film "her" in promotional materials, but this film doesn't really compare to the far more complete movie "her".

21 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Based on a play, play's like a play
Rob-O-Cop16 December 2017
Being based on a play shouldn't be a detrimental factor in a movie but when it's played like a play, it kinda defeats the purpose of making a film. This one really had the feel of a stage play, done by a small theatre group in a suburban small town theatre company. It did impact a very interesting idea negatively. The film making process added very little to it to help give the story impact. There were some very interesting ideas raised in the film but they were almost lost in the flat delivery. people talking on a stage. undermines the show don't tell aspect of film.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Slow, innovative, depressing, a look at memory and identity that needs you to be in the right mood
siderite21 January 2018
The film is clearly a play adaptation. There are only a few actors in static sets, mostly talking to each other, while other details are scarce. It wasn't a surprise when I saw at the end that it was based on a play that won a Pulitzer award, because I really liked it. However, you need to be in the right mood to feel it, and maybe understand a little bit the technology that it describes.

The subject of the film is a holographic AI technology that can bring the appearance of people into your house. They start empty at first, but as you tell them more and more about "themselves", they start behaving like the real people. This is described mostly in the context of grief for dead ones, but it's the same technology featured in the new Blade Runner. With its slow, dialogue based, pace, the film explores the nature of memory, the difference between how we are and how others see us and ultimately our own sense of identity. The crown of the movie is the end scene, where "Primes", holographic duplicates of people now long gone, converse with each other, showing how different the people they are emulating were from the way other described them.

It was a very refreshing film, even if the mood was so gray and timeless that my wife could not or would not let herself be drawn into it. After all, it is all character based, the sets and even the various details of people's life are completely irrelevant. The acting was top notch, with basically four or five people in total that mattered. The music is classical, almost requiem like, hinting at the moment when we are all passed and replaced by the memories others have of us.

I was torn between giving it top grade or not. I've decided that it was not a perfect movie. What bothered me most was the lack of communication between the different AIs, when that is specifically described in the beginning. In trying to make it a humanist story, they neglected the actual workings of the tech behind it. I understand why they did it, but it still bothered me. The acting was very good, but sometimes flickered. The pace was slow enough to fall into the illusion that the movie would go on forever, automatically generated by my TV. It very well could have.

What I liked about it was the solid intellectual stance on the subject. It doesn't try to be overly subtle, but it is unapologetically smart. It's not one of those "oh, you missed that scene and you are too stupid to get it" things, it is clear cut but intelligently made. I also liked the underlying theme that we are not our memories and clinging to them other than to build our present life on is pointless and potentially harmful.

I recommend this film to just about everybody smart, but have the time and leisure to watch it. A nice quiet evening alone or with people close to you, with a glass of something, sounds perfect to me.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
dromasca21 November 2017
'Marjorie Prime' can be considered a science fiction film of a particular kind. The director of the film is Michael Almereyda, is 58 years old and without being one of Hollywood's most celebrated names, he has a diverse and exciting cinematographic record that includes action and vampire movies' a 'Hamlet' placed in New York City today and a fairly successful romantic story happening in a New Orleans who is trying to get back to normal after the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina. This story is about a well-placed family that lives in the near future somewhere on the ocean, and uses hologram and avatars technology to bring a younger incarnation of the long-dead husband to an old and Alzheimer's disease affected mother, trying to bring back from past memories about events and experiences.

A lot and very little is known about this terrible neuro-degenerative disease. Diagnosis and symptoms are becoming better known in the smallest details. The population of the globe is aging, and with it the percentage of affected people has grown spectacularly over the last decades. The exact causes are unknown or not elucidated to the end. Heredity plays an important role in 70% of cases, but it is not the only source. Treatments do not yet exist, not even in the near future world imagined in 'Marjorie Prime'. What is proposed at the beginning of the main heroine film is not a healing treatment, but a slowing down of the advance of the disease and an attempt to temporarily remedy the situation by refreshing the memory. The appearance of seemingly real people, frozen in time at a certain age, does not, however, remain without impact on other members of the family. As time passes, other family members begin to need the avatars company. Biological mechanisms continue to do their job, while their virtual partners remain immune to disease or aging. But not in their capabilities. The screenwriters equipped the avatars in 'Marjorie Prime' with cognitive expansion. In other words, avatars learn, enrich their information about their own past (in fact, about the people they represent virtually), and thus improve their interaction and relationships with other people and with each other.

As the action progresses, the questions that we can ask multiply. In fact, what are we, people? body? thoughts? an entity that some call soul? Or are we just the memories we leave behind? I will not reveal more because I do not want to take the pleasure of watching those who decide to watch this movie. It can be interpreted as a parable. Perhaps it is about the perennial character of human beings, or of mankind itself. In a world where wealth is getting better and acquiring features that include learning and self-improvement, is there room for people? Because the robots have the potential to overcome the goals we have created, to help people and expand their physical and intellectual forces, and become competitors to the planet's limited resources. When is this threshold crossed? Perhaps it is actually about the perennial character of the human species in another form of incarnation? The film has an end that some will find pessimistic, but I'm not one of them. From the cinefil's point of view, I admired the clever writing story (adaptation of Jordan Harrison's play) and the exceptional play of Lois Smith, Tim Robbins, Geena Davis. Recommended!
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Is It Better To Be Human Or Humanoid?
gengar84312 May 2018
Warning: Spoilers
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.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
waynelwarren16 December 2017
This film took a novel concept and made it mundane.

What could have become interesting twists in the story just became a continuation of the mundane.

The last scene had the opportunity to be a big reveal - one that had been built up and anticipated - but it blew over like a gentle breeze.

This makes you think about what you would say to lost ones. That's about it.
6 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Fascinating, deeply felt, and sublimely acted
Red_Identity18 December 2017
What a fascinating premise. Despite the film being almost entirely composed of conversations, it's quite visually cinematic in its compositions and music, leading to my surprise when finding out it's based on a play. Although I can see why many people may not take to those conversations, and I can see many thinking it doesn't really fulfill the potential of its premise, I found it to be an emotionally and thematically rich experience. Both Jon Hamm and Lois Smith deliver some truly fine performances. The latter should especially be getting award nominations and wins left and right for her stunning work.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An 'Echo' of the future
shakercoola12 September 2018
A successful stage to screen production of the Pulitzer prize-nominated play: a thought-provoking sci-fi chamber drama that engages the audience from start to finish. With intimacy at its core it pulls the audience in to the world of a family and while it is melancholic it is also absorbing - 'love after life' is an interesting area to ruminate on. It is ambitious in scope and beautifully acted and poses thought-provoking questions about memory, humanity, and love.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
"Marjorie Prime" serves up a Prime Cut of Acting Prowess
jtncsmistad20 August 2018
Talk about your acting tour de force. The super strange sci-fi domestic drama "Marjorie Prime" practically redefines the term.

Veteran stalwarts Jon Hamm, Tim Robbins, Geena Davis and (the great and egregiously underappreciated) Lois Smith invest their considerable collective acumen into this freaky fable exploring the preservation of memory and the perception of identity. At times befuddling and stagy (the film is based on a play, after all), yet at once consistently compelling, "Marjorie Prime" is certainly not for everybody. That is, unless everybody happens to appreciate thoughtful, and thought-provoking, cinematic performance.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
fine cast keeps the topic of aging, identity and memories in the age of AI engaging and cathartic
TYContact114 August 2018
Similar to "Her" - a contemplative futuristic drama about identity and human relations in the age of AI. It also explores the concepts of aging and memory. Its pace is slower, and more melancholic. It requires patience and focus from viewers. I finally watched it (^__^) fine casting, mind opening and cathartic.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The weight of our memories
Prismark1011 June 2018
Marjorie Prime is adapted from a play. It involves a lot of talking and is never really opened out.

It is a film that involves a lot of words which reveals its various strands. The characters in front of us are imperfect holographic recreations of people who have died.

Set in the future, Marjorie (Lois Smith) is suffering from Alzheimer's. She listens to stories told to her by a holographic younger version of her late husband Walter (Jon Hamm) in order for her to remember and keep her memories going.

Yet Walter is not the only hologram in the family as their daughter Tess (Geena Davis) talks to Marjorie about the past and some event that affected the family. Tess's husband Jon (Tim Robbins) also needs to recall his relationship with Tess and how he first proposed to her.

The film should had been an interesting look at our memories and how we perceive our loved ones with the regrets of what was left unsaid. It is a shame the film told its story in such a lifeless way.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Don't understand high reviews or how it can even be considered to be true sci-fi film.
tabipha8 December 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I found this movie so boring that I kept falling asleep and had to keep rewinding until I finally saw it all. The ONLY reason I persevered is BECAUSE of the high reviews and the big name actors/actresses and I thought it just HAD TO get better to warrant the amount of high star reviews, but I was wrong! Just when you thought you might get some answers or the conversations would finally have more purpose, they would jump to some other time. For being set in the future, NOTHING seemed futuristic, except for the holograms of course, though in some cases they seemed like they were solid, but in another place Marjorie walks THROUGH Walter's foot! One thing that made NO sense to me is that IF the Walter hologram was there to help her remember things, then WHY was he not pre- programmed with memories from the people that knew Marjorie since the description for the movie said that HE was supposed to tell HER about her life, but how could he if he didn't even have the information?!? Also, one conversation between Jon and Walter sticks out in my mind because Jon asked him to explain something that Walter couldn't because he did NOT know hardly anything about Marjorie throughout the whole film! Just when you thought it might get interesting, like when you find out Damien killed Toni, then they just jump somewhere else. Maybe I'm just not able to understand these artsy-fartsy films they put out these days, but I did not think this was a good film at all! Some reviews talked about "her" which I've never seen but is supposed to be way better. I also should have not watched this movie given the fact that some reviewers compared it to Black Mirror which I had tried to watch months ago BEFORE i ever heard of this movie and I thought it was stupid. Anyway, unless you want to be completely bored or need something to put you to sleep, avoid this movie!
6 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
jimbo-53-1865115 July 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Marjorie Prime was a film that looked good on paper and I was honestly expecting this to be an interesting, thoughtful and with any luck an exciting film, but I sadly didn't find this film to be particularly good in any of these areas...

OK; the first problem I had with this film is the fact that no explanation is given on how the technology works; the start of the film begins with Marjorie engaging with a holographic recreation of her husband, but who created him and how did they create him? This extends further in that there is no real backstory to Marjorie's husband or their relationship - there is one small segment showing Marjorie proposing to her husband (when he was still alive) and I think there were odd occasions where the age gap between Marjorie and her late husband was presented as being an issue, but outside of these things I found no real reason to care about anything that happens; had the film played out more of a touching love story then it may have made the film slightly stronger (sure it would have been a bit sappy and manipulative, but at least it would have been more emotionally involving).

The second problem lies with the rather poor and underdeveloped narrative; OK I've already mentioned the lack of explanation regarding how the latest technology works, but I think what is worse than this is the entire manner in which the film is constructed; for example later in the film it shows other family members being alive and well in one scene then in the next scene they are dead and then they are having conversations with surviving family members... However, there's no build up to any of their deaths and the film just carelessly moves from them being alive to being dead and the film just moves along in this carefree and rather monotone manner. It really does beg the question of 'How do you become emotionally involved in such a dreary mess of a film where it is impossible to connect to anyone or anything?' and the simple truth here is that you can't....

As I've already said, the weak narrative is also a big problem; the old lady's Alzheimer's is there, but is never expanded upon. The technology is there and exists, but with no explanation of how it exists. Marjorie's daughter doesn't want anything to do with her deceased father when she is alive, but is quite happy to spend time with him in the afterlife - this could have been warm if any explanation could be afforded to their afterlife connection.

With Marjorie Prime what you're really left with for 90 odd minutes are a very basic concept that could have worked (even though it seems like a poor combination of Ghost and AI), but ultimately what you're left with here is a load of pretentious philosophising that is apparently supposed to pass off as dialogue and not much else.

To be fair I did like the idea behind the film; i.e technology existing to enable people to bring back a deceased family member and perhaps allow the living person a second chance at rebuilding a life with said deceased person, but the problem here is that a reasonable concept is taken here and tackled in one of the most laborious and dullest manners possible. It's boring, pretentious and rather pointless - avoid.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Slow and Boaring
sadrazam-2934018 February 2018
This movie can be sci-fi but they way is dialog and palces are so boaring. Onle 1-2 place take the movie and dont waste your time with this movie.
2 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed