Marjorie Prime (2017)

Truly Dreadful Film

Too many fans seem to be blown away

Charming and brutal

As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

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.

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.

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.

Saw this at the Rotterdam film festival 2017 (website: iffr.com). 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).