Her

I'm not about to give you a review that tells what the movie is about because you can read on Amazon a plot line synopsis and many of the other reviews tell what the movie is about. Instead, I'm going to tell you in my review what the movie does for me and this is why I like the movie. "Her" is a film that like the petals on a rose, it has many layers: 1. A touchy-feely film that takes a look at one's inner most feelings. I do not mean any disrespect, but this is a film that most men would not like for that reason. If one is into the Myers-Briggs Personality Indicator philosophy, one would say that the film's personality is an INFP. Some might say a too analytical investigation of emotions, over thought and over felt. Yet, it's the deep raw inner feelings that lay our souls bare, the exposed nerve of our inner core that I love about this film. 2. One might say this is a commentary on how our society is becoming far too dependent on technology. Such dependence leaving us emotionally crippled in a sterile environment surrounded by our own selves and lacking the ability to interact with others. The irony of Theodore's job as a professional letter writer, who writes deep heartfelt emotional letters for people is not lost on the viewer. Will we become a society that is so far removed from our feelings, so busy with our schedules, that we are incapable of writing our own letters, expressing our own emotions to our loved ones? 3. This film explores the age old question, "What makes us human?" Are we more than just our physical bodies? If we were to take our thoughts, our emotions, and our conscious awareness and place it into a computer, would then the computer be "human"? The science of "neural networks" is becoming more and more of a reality as scientists and computer experts work together to achieve this type of "immortality". Which begs the question, "If a deceased person's consciousness is transplanted into a computer or robot, does that make it a 'human' with rights?" Just what is 'human'? 4. Is a virtual relationship "real"? As more and more people get into computer dating and cybersex, we find ourselves asking this question. Virtual reality games are springing up all over the Internet. One that comes to mind is called, "Second Life". I personally know of people who have had virtual relationships in Second Life using avatars and either using the voice capabilities in Second Life to talk to each other, or they call each other on Skype while they watch their computer screen as their avatars "make love", a type of virtual reality cybersex-relationship that is becoming more and more common place. These people in Second Life, most, who have never met each other in person, claim their relationship is real and they are very much in love. But, when the computer is turned off, the person isn't there. Does our love just turn off and on with the flick of a switch? Can a virtual love, without the physical touch that seems to be so very much a part of a relationship, be satisfying enough? Is it really a relationship or is it merely a modern version of phone sex? Is it love? I've heard of true stories where people in a bygone era, would fall in love through letters. My own maternal grandparents did just that. So is it such a stretch of the imagination that we can fall in love virtually? 5. Can we love more than one person at the same time? Those who are in open marriages or open relationships claim that people are capable of having love, true romantic love, for more than one person at the same time. We see in the film how devastated Theodore becomes when he realizes he's "just one of many". We have all known or heard of people who have found out their loved one was cheating on them by finding a text message or an email. We all want to feel unique and special, but in an age when our technology makes it so very easy to have more than one relationship at the same time, we begin to question our heart's ability to withstand technological polygamy. 6. "Her" cuts to the quick, the bottom line being as human, as people, all of us basically want to be accepted for who we are, not judged and to be loved. Such basic human needs, that no matter how far removed our society becomes from a simpler, less technological age, we still are creatures that all need and want acceptance and love. 7. Is love just a biological chemical response or is it a deeper, transcendental, spiritual experience that goes beyond space and time? Love is more than just the scent of pheromones and the animal instinct to procreate. When we love, truly love, even after that person is gone from our life, our love still lives on. With each person who touches us deeply, they become a part of our soul. This film does not merely question love's transcendent nature, but stabs you in the heart with it as we watch the heart wrenching roller-coaster of emotions that Theodore experiences and as a result inevitably grows from it. 8. What constitutes being a "god"? If we make a computer or robot that is capable of being self-aware, in essence it is a "sentient being", then does that make us "god" as its creator? Will we go from being "God's creation" to becoming gods ourselves with the development of neural networks that can think, reason and feel emotions? 9. And lastly, one can simply view this film as nothing more than just a very strange chick flick about relationships and breakups. But I doubt that the type of people this film appeals to would take such a narrow view of this work of art. And yes, in my opinion, this film is a work of art on many levels, between its cinematography, its music score and its ability to tell an entertaining and deeply moving story. By far, this is one of Joaquin Phoenix's best, showcasing his acting as a truly talented performer. "Her" is now on my top 10 list as one of my favorite films. However ladies, if you have a husband or boyfriend who's idea of a great film is Rambo First Blood, then you may have a difficult time selling him on the idea of going to see such a sensitive, emotional movie. I think this would be a great film as a "girls' night" movie. Ladies, wear your sweats, pop some popcorn, get out the chocolate bars and the tissues, gather up your BFFs and sink into the sofa, relax and watch this film together. You'll be glad you did. UPDATE May 1, 2014 - Second viewing of the film: OK, so I watched the movie a second time after reading all the other reviews here at Amazon. With the negative review points in my head as I watched the film for a second time, yes, the movie does have some rather creepy scenes. And now, come to think of it, this time around I kept reminding myself that as human as she sounds, Samantha is just a computer program so falling in love with her is well, really ridiculous. This time around I tried to place myself in Theodore's position and I realized that no matter how enduring and how much I seemed to bond with Samantha, given the situations Theodore was in, I still wouldn't have fallen in love because in the back of my mind, Samantha is just a very intuitive and clever computer program. I doubt I would have gone as far as Theodore did in sharing my personal emotions with Samantha. I would have kept the relationship on a purely professional level, that of a software owner and his software that provides itself as an electronic tool and organizer, similar to a boss and his administrative assistant. Other reviewers say that Theodore turning down Olivia Wilde and Portia Doubleday is ridiculous, but I don't think so. Olivia gets into the whole, "I want a serious relationship" after only meeting Theodore for the first time over drinks. To me, that's a huge turn off and pretty freaking scary. I think most people would run for the hills. Portia Doubleday, although very attractive, she's far younger than Theodore and a total stranger. For some men, this wouldn't be an issue. But perhaps Theodore is like my husband who has said that dating a girl much younger would seem like dating your daughter. Also my husband is an old fashioned kind of guy that needs to know a woman well and have an established relationship long before hopping in bed with her. Some men are like that and Theodore seems like that type of guy. So all those reviewers that criticize the movie script for having Theodore rejecting these women, claiming that a "normal" man would never turn these women down for sex, don't really view these scenes from the prospective of Theodore's nerdy nice guy personality and instead they are viewing these scenes and seeing them as if they themselves were offered sex with these women. Anywho...I still like the movie, "Her" and I still think it's as wonderful as I said in my previous review above, but I now am viewing it from a different angle and wanted to express my thoughts on this. I still recommend this movie. It definitely is a must see for those who are deep thinkers with strong emotions. Those looking for macho testosterone induced action films with car chases and lots of violence, best pass this movie up.

This was a thinker movie. I can see how AI is intertwining with the human race and it makes you think of the good consequences and the bad. I enjoyed the watching of this little gem.

I saw a trailer of this film sometime in 2013, and I automatically knew that I would like this movie. I waited for this movie to come-out to DVD, and once I finally saw it---it left me satisfied that my own intuition about this film was correct. After seeing Her (2013) by Spike Jones, it took me few days to analyze the depth of the film. Even though the message behind it is quite simple, it should make viewers of this film think more about what the future holds, or rather where our society is heading in terms of human relations. Her is a film about loneliness, not of one man, but of mankind. The type of loneliness, where technology, or Operating System (OS) replaces our need to communicate or even co-exist with the living and breathing surrounding. Theodore played wonderfully and very convincingly by (Phoenix) is a young men,heading towards his middle age, who is separated from his wife and working for a company that deals with writing letters and event-whishes for others. Yes, it might sound strange, but our main protagonist writes love letters and anniversary wishes for clients for a living, and he is really good at it. To make the story short, Theodore suffers from his recent break up with his wife and tries to cope with loneliness (loneliness is the major subject of this film). One day he buys an OS, a really sophisticated artificial intelligence, and he installs it on to his phone. The OS is so intriguing, funny, intelligent, and perfect, that it almost seems human. Theodore slowly falls in love with his OS, and the OS (Scarlett Johansson's voice) develops feelings for Theodore. What is interesting is that, Theodore has a human female co-worker friend that he likes, but their relationship is platonic for she too is dating an OS. There are some quirky and funny moments in the movie...but overall the movie is pretty sad. The music by Arcade Fire together with the classical music played throughout the movie make the film dismal and almost gloomy. The ending is heartbreaking, and so is the future we find ourselves be living in... Theodore's character is near similar to Tom Hansen from 500 Days of Summer (2009) and Winston Smith from the novel 1984 by George Orwell. In that, all three characters are lonely, anti-social misfits, characterized by their longing to be recognized and loved. Even their professions are alike, all three men Theodore, Tom and Winston work in a cubical like environment. Separated from others, dealing with the feelings of others while suppressing theirs. [...]

I rented this movie because I saw that Rooney Mara, Amy Adams and Scarlett Johansson were all in it. I'm a huge fan of Rooney Mara and Amy Adams and was especially looking forward to seeing Rooney Mara, whose recent movies have been very interesting to me. Therefore, I was a little disappointed when it turned out that Rooney Mara was in the movie only in a few shots, memories that the main character has of her and then in a confrontational scene during which he and Mara are signing divorce papers. That being said, it's still a good movie. I liked the interesting touches that artists put on what the future will look like -- brighter colored clothes, different style of trousers for men (they looked more comfortable), different decor in apartment buildings. Joachin Phoenix did a very nice job in this role and expressed grief and loneliness expertly; he was believable. Scarlett Johannson did an excellent job as the voice of Phoenix's operating system and "best friend," "romantic interest," but, of course we never see her as she is simply a computerized voice. Amy Adams played Amy Adams, really, sweet, kind, a little sad, and she even portrayed a woman named Amy. I think what was essentially missing from this film about love and how love changes as we change was some very much needed editing. After an hour and a half, I felt antsy and started moving my mouse along the bottom of the movie looking to see what might happen. I was getting bored. It wasn't a boring movie by any means, but it did drag on just a little too long and gave me that antsy, "Let's get to the resolution," feeling. Had the editors done a better job, I would have given the movie five stars. It's well worth watching, especially once the rental price drops a little.

Some films just come around that explore facets of our being with such organic tenderness we can’t help but nestle into their storytelling arms and rest our heads on their delicately detailed shoulders and just fly away with them, to a part of our souls that sing so sweetly despite the lingering heartbreak we know we are bound to experience. Heartbreak laced with hope that the future, while seemingly bleak, is not as daunting as we imagine it to be. ‘Beginners’. ‘Once’. ‘Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind’. ‘Lost in Translation’. And now, we have ‘Her’. These are all films that, despite their quirky sides or their detailed (and effective) use of gimmicks all bare their hearts on their sleeves in a remarkable natural tone. There are no unnecessary dramatics, no processed manipulations. They all embrace the fluidity and organic nature of life itself to create real grounded stories about relationships that blossom and flourish and ultimately come to an end and yet they are never broken, shattered or dire. There is a beautiful message of hope, of life awakening even in the midst of despair because as human beings, we can move on, we can grow and we can survive. ‘Her’ tells the story of Theodore. Theodore is a lonely man. He is separated from his wife, who has filed for divorce, and spends his days writing letters for other people and then concludes his days at his apartment, alone. He’s haunted by a past that included a happy relationship filled with soulful interactions and a bond that felt spirited and upbeat, but something happened and it all ended and now Theodore finds it impossible to connect with anyone anymore. That is, until he meets Samantha. Samantha is an OS (Operating System) who adapts to the needs and desires of Theodore. It is immediately apparent that this isn’t a normal OS, but that Samantha is something special, at least for Theodore. She communicates with him, far beyond her normal duties, and becomes his friend. She understands him and draws him out and soon she begins to help him become the man he once was and had shelved for so long. Samantha may not have a body, but she has a soul that runs deep. There are so many things that impress me so much about ‘Her’ that it is almost hard to narrow them all down and put them into one review, but I must say that the single most impressive aspect of the film was the way that the relationship between Theodore and Samantha was handled, from the perspective of those outside of the relationship. This could have easily become one of those tense subjects that brought scorn or judgment from the supporting cast, but the way that Spike Jonze basically dismissed the strangeness of their relationship was remarkable. No one cared. Theodore’s friends never even batted a lash at it. Amy was wholly supportive, for she too was bonding with an OS. Paul, upon finding out that his friend’s girlfriend was an OS, doesn’t even question it. He just carries right on with his invitation to double date. The normalcy that was placed on the relationship helped ground the film, or at least ground the audience into the real dynamics of the film. This isn’t a film about a man’s relationship with an OS, this is a film about our human need to communicate, to bond. I think that this aspect of the film makes the ex-wife, Catherine’s, reaction to Theodore’s relationship all the more haunting. By using technology (and the advancement of such), Jonze created a world that speaks to us on so many levels. For me, ‘Her’ highlights that very innate desire to connect with someone, but ultimately the fear of actually doing just that. The fact is that sometimes it is hard to really connect with the people in front of us. Staring at someone, even someone we love, can make true communication difficult. We can feel their eyes, their judgment, their developing assumptions and yet when we take away the visual, some of the fear and anxiety strips away and we become a freer entity. ‘Her’ questions whether or not these devises we so often fall back on are a hindrance or a help, and in the process it explores themes like love, loss and hope. ‘Her’ depicts a depth of love that is not often found in films, but a love of real meaning and significance because Theodore and Samantha find a love that rests in the real person within and is not defined by a physical attraction. But there is more to this story, as the final act will show. Yes, Jonze’s masterful script (such a beautiful Oscar win) is so full bodied, for it builds up, tears down and then rebuilds (from a source that is born from the ashes) in a way that feels so real and relatable and construction. I love when a film can be constructive in ways that are completely unexpected. Speaking of full bodied, these performances are just beautiful. All of the attention this year has been centered on Scarlett Johansson’s stunning voice work, a work that defied stereotypes by transcending the absence of body and giving us a very moving and intimate look at a woman discovering herself, day by day. While Johansson was tremendous, I feel that not enough attention has been given to Phoenix, who just continues to astound me. His performance here is marvelous. So intimate, so structured in this loose and organic way. He just folds into every scene with an air of abandon that I fell so deeply in love with. You can sense the guilt, fear and depression that haunt him when he is away from Samantha, and you can sense the freedom he feels when he is in her figurative arms. This movie and all it represents is just beautiful. For me, this is clearly one of the masterpieces of 2013. And A+ with honors. 2013 was, for me, a truly exceptional year that only grows and grows the more I think of it. There are few years in recent memory that delivered such a bounty of inspired, inspirational and breathtaking films. I can’t shake them…any of them. ‘Her’ is certainly one of the very best.

There is no question that Her is a brilliant bit of movie-making and a challenge to the intellect as well as drilling right into our very soul. It even posses the power to get some of us to question our own past relationships with others; especially of the opposite sex. "Her" challenges us in ways that few films ever manage to do. There is some really great writing and dialogue (and good dialogue acting by Scarlett Johansson) in Her. Joaquin Phoenix delivers an absolutely sincere, riveting performance as this extremely withdrawn, introverted writer. The woman on the phone (Johannson) is a highly advanced piece of artificial intelligence which is also "growing" and learning as she interacts with the Joaquin character (and as we learn towards the end, with others as well). I could go on with praise after praise of it's brilliance. So, why then, do I not want to watch it again? I guess because I am shallow and prefer action(!). There is little, if any, of that here. It is a more or less a long slog of dialogue. And in the end, I am almost tempted to say what happens but I won't. Let's just say that one of the things that Joaquin comes to fully come to terms with is that you can't "own" the one you love; that other intelligent beings must never be held selfishly much like a slave simply because we fall in love with them. I am greatly over-simplifying here; "Her' takes us through this process in a very deep way. Anyway, maybe Her pressed too many of my own buttons. Or maybe I don't really to sit through a movie that tells me what I already think I know. I found the Joaquin character extremely annoying on many levels. Actually I couldn't stand him. It's not that Phoenix didn't play him well. Oh no; he played him perfectly. He's a master actor; no question. Perhaps one day I WILL watch it again and enjoy it more. I don't know. But it won't be anytime soon. Still, it is a movie worth watching and yes, even recommending to others. Her is, in fact--despite what I've said about my own tastes--what could be called a masterpiece. I just wish I could honestly give it the 4 stars it probably deserves.

I'm not what you would call a romantic and I don't generally like films of the romance genre, but I wanted to give this a try because so many critics gave it outstanding reviews. I'm so glad I did. This isn't your average whiny love story. In fact it's more about the spiritual evolution of beings. Since the love object doesn't have a body, we are asked to see beyond physical evolution and focus primarily on spiritual and emotional evolution... and what happens in a relationship when one person evolves and grows much faster than the other person or when one person is simply unwilling to accept the growth and changes that occur in themselves or their partner over time. This film touches on so many things that will feel familiar to anyone who's been in long term relationships. I myself found the rift between Theodore and his wife painfully familiar. I was in a relationship for many years. When I first met this individual, I was mostly happy and care-free. However over-time I had encountered difficult things in my life that made me more vulnerable and not so care-free. Instead of this person accepting that and trying to be there for me so that I could go through it and survive; instead they insisted that shove my real feelings away and pretend everything was fine and happy, so that I could be the person this person used to know. It's a selfish way to be because you want the person to deny who they now really are and how they feel just so they can be what you want and need, while giving that person nothing of what that they want and need. Many people have either been on one or both ends of that scenerio in a relationship. In this film we watch Theodore struggle through a divorce where it appears he was unwilling to accept his wife's evolution and preferred she put up an act rather than accept her growth. Then we see him engage in another relationship where his partner - an advanced artificial intelligence- evolves much faster than is possible for human beings. As the OS evolves we come across spiritual ideas as the computers become almost god-like with the ability to expand their love to many people at once. It's really an AMAZING film and if you're not in the mood for something with this kind of depth I suggest you watch it when you are because otherwise you'll really be missing out on something special.

I watched this long ago when it first came out. I loved the story-line and the actors did such a great job. But it was just fantasy. How times have changed... Now a romantic movie about AI actually predicted the future. Just think how many are now using AI for not only chatting, but also romantic relationships. A very scary thought. But the I really loved the movie. It's a sad but romantic film with a bittersweet ending and if you pay attention a warning as well. AI can never replace the real thing. Human's are meant for human contact and communication and no AI can ever achieve that. But I do recommend the movie. I'm a huge fan of the main two stars. Their interaction in the film is amazing and well played. I do recommend it highly.

Was uns Regisseur Spike Jonze mit Her zeigt ist einfach nur klasse. In der Zukunft sind persönlich geschriebene Briefe eine Seltenheit geworden. Einer der für andere diesen Job übernimmt ist Theodore Twombly, großartig gespielt von Joaquin Phoenix, und er ist einer der besten auf diesen Gebiet. Dies liegt daran, dass er es schafft diese Briefe mit sehr viel Gefühl zu schreiben. Beruflich ist er was das Ausleben von Gefühlen angeht damit sehr gut, allerdings gelingt es ihm im Privatleben eher weniger. So befindet er sich gerade in der Scheidung von seiner Frau und auch was das Kennenlernen von anderen Frauen angeht tut Theodore sich eher schwer. Sein Leben soll sich aber ändern als er sein neues Operating System, wunderbar gesprochen von Scarlett Johansson, erhält und er sich tatsächlich in dieses verliebt... Ich war von diesem Film einfach nur begeistert. Auch wenn es auf den ersten Blick sehr strange wirkt, dass sich jemand in einen Computer verliebt, ist es in diesem Film trotzdem irgendwie glaubwürdig und wirkt für mich echter als viele "normale" Liebesgeschichten. Dies liegt auch daran, dass der Film eigentlich nie in den Kitsch abrutscht, was ja oft das Problem von vielen anderen Filmen ist. Lobenswert ist die schauspielerische Leistung von Joaquin Phoenix. Es macht einfach Spaß ihm in diesem Film zuzuschauen und ist definitiv eine der besten, wenn nicht sogar die beste, Leistungen, welche ich dieses Jahr gesehen habe. Auch was Scarlett Johansson nur durch ihre Stimme in diesem Film bringt ist spitze. Für mich ist dieser Film ein absolutes Meisterwerk, da er einfach fantastisch gespielt ist und sehr glaubwürdig rüberkommt. Irgendwie verkörpert der Charakter dieses Operating System auch viele Eigenschaften wie man sich einen Partner wünscht und kommt daher sehr echt rüber. Zur Blu-ray: Das Bild wird in einem Format von 1.85:1 präsentiert und sieht auf Blu-ray echt spitze aus. Die Farben drücken meiner Meinung nach auch gut die Emotionen in diesem Film aus. Das wird besonders bei den warmen Farben deutlich Beim Ton steht der englischen DTS-HD MA 5.1 O-Tonspur im deutschen eine DTS 5.1 Tonspur gegenüber. Damit ist der Klang im O-Ton etwas besser, als bei der Übersetzung. Die Synchronisation an sich finde ich durchaus gelungen. Dies liegt vor allem auch daran, dass die Originalsprecherin von Scarlett Johansson auch für diesen Film genommen wurde und viele Emotionen auch stark rüber bringt. Bei den Extras gibt es mit „Das titellose Rick Howard Projekt“ ein 24 minutiges Making-Of, welches sehr sehenswert ist, weil es ganz anders als die üblichen Making-Ofs ist. Darüber hinaus gibt es noch „Liebe im modernen Zeitalter“ nicht so speziell auf den Film bezogen, sondern es handelt sich um Interviews mit verschiedenen Autoren zum Thema Liebe im modernen IT-Zeitalter. Schließlich gibt es noch „Wie teilt man sein Leben mit jemandem“, ein kurzer Beitrag mit Ausschnitten aus dem Film, die sich auf die Frage des Beitrags bezieht.

This movie occupies an interesting space. It's commenting on technology far more than most cyberpunk stories. And at the same time, it also poses a question as to what low-life looks like now. As technology transforms us and the way we view and interact with one another irrevocably alter who and what we are, the definition of what a “punk” is also changed. Back when cyberpunk was initially created it appropriated numerous tropes from other genres to become a new thing within a genre they actively participated in and often critiqued. As the shapers of the genre saw what some of this technology could mean for us, they assembled something they considered "punk" within science fiction. Just how far technology would go was far beyond what they had initially conceived in first wave cyberpunk; sometimes far less as well. Her captures the normal questions we see regarding A.I in a non-traditional way. The idea of defining our humanity by looking at our own creations and these things eventually surpassing us is not new. That we begin to view this “thing” that has supplanted us in a new light, often appearing or presenting as uncanny, is also not new. But never has such a human face been depicted of a creature born from our own minds like this particular A.I, Samantha... who does not have a face. The “high tech” in Her isn’t, at least at first, that she is an Artificial Intelligence, rather it is that she is so very human and we never see anything of her at all. She is without form but embodies the characteristics we crave in ourselves so well, simply utilizing only a voice. The “low life” is pretty much the only other human in the film, Theodore. We only ever see things from his perspective and even as we see other people moving in and out of the frame, the focus is always on him. We get the impression that the human race is entirely transient in this seemingly not-far-off-at-all Shanghai, and we understand the pervasive loneliness that he feels via the audiences’ inability to experience anything other than these continual shots. It's effective in showing that perhaps everyone and no one is like Theodore. Completely unique as he is -- we get the sense from the way the shots are filmed that he is completely isolated not just from his own lens, but from his interactions, which are few and far between sometimes. Reinforced throughout the movie after these series of introductory shots present the concept initially, we later come to understand that this is of his own making, at least in part. It is also ironic. His job is expressing other people's feelings for people in their lives… but can never do so himself. He writes letters to people from others via him in very poignant and meaningful prose. When he does interact with other people there is no facade, he simply is. And instead of a quiet strength in that honesty...most people he interacts with can't understand him or make sense of him without this mask that most people wear when interacting with one another. He's kind, he's considerate, he's non-confrontational, and with the semi-frequent flashback sequences, we see that he at least used to be vivacious in his love for his ex. He just can't seem to ever get back to that sense of self, or part from it. As he grieves this loss, both of his ex and the self that he was with her, in this future that feels like it could be now, we see that cyberpunk truly is now as well. It exists in a way that Neuromancer does not, quietly contributing to the genre by way of a love story between an ordinary man mourning. Telling a computer that she "Doesn't know what it's like to lose something". Later on, she uses his own words to tell him that she's figured something important out about herself because of those hurtful words. There is a transformative experience for both of them and it becomes clear to her that "The past is just a story we tell ourselves". Technology has brought everyone far closer together then we could have imagined twenty years ago. It’s clear that the way we interact with one another has also been retarded by it as well. An unintentional side effect of how our grasp at something neutral or beneficial in our lives has changed it in ways we could have never thought of. How love was viewed then was very different, with Sleepless in Seattle, You've Got Mail, When Harry Met Sally, etc. were popular and even then communicating a dissonance. We have gradually moved from you and I having interactions in an effort to be understood and loved, to turning to unfamiliar and in some ways far less and far more intimate means of communication. Things have become transactional between humans as we have endeavored to quantify exactly what we need and get out of an interaction, instead of feeling our way there in the beautiful and sloppy way we’ve done in the past. Society tells us what we need and we spend our lives getting them. We remain dissatisfied as we continue to place a greater importance on materials instead of moments. That's a sweeping generalization that doesn't apply to some people, but I think it's expressed nicely within the framework of the movie and what questions it's attempting to provoke in us. This is why it's brilliant that Theodore can find that connection in something more human than human, but that it is also fleeting, ultimately, and in a way that most people can understand if they've experienced this kind of love for someone else before. Maintaining that the relationship was more real and organic than the kind of love we search for on the internet these days and reinforced by the sense that this was the most profound relationship he'd had, brings him truly together with someone else. A close friend and neighbor in the building, Amy also finds companionship with an A.I. Their shared, similar experiences transforming into a kind of catharsis for simultaneously different and also similar forms of grief, both of which were presented as equally real and powerful in the film. Despite having chemistry within the movie, I really liked that they were not the love interests of the film. Not every relationship between two people in a movie needs to have physical, sexual connotations to be pertinent. And while Theodore was single and found love via Samantha the operating system, the other was in a traditional relationship that falls apart because of needs not being met. She gets a similar experience of falling in love with her now ex's A.I that was discarded and left behind, displaced by the wreckage of their traditional relationship. Validating the fact that all love and that the way we feel depicts a new kind of low life cyberpunk. Theodore has shirked the ways in which society has told him how he must be happy and satiated as a human being. Instead of the sexy rebellion against capitalism or corporations that become monolithic or other traditional antagonists in the world of cyberpunk, society itself and our interactions with one another are what are interrogated here. We no longer truly know what we need as we suppress our previous selves via our ever-expanding capabilities and technological achievements. The ability to feel anything raw and real at all while remaining connected to more people in the world than ever before is a generational dilemma, discordant but also synonymous with the image of what a cyberpunk is. Perhaps the "real" punks then, in this new, cyberpunk world may just be those willing to find what makes them human through unconventional means and opportunities. Our definitions need updating, just as we are upgraded continually through new tech. And because something that is transient is still worthwhile and valid and good. Because we choose to validate ourselves and each other with antiquated ideas of what you and I ought to be doing, and indeed what love looks like and feels like in a world where technology is continually altering these things--and has been for years now. We need a new punk. One that lets people in society know that resisting is not only classified as punk if it looks like the former punk movement. It looks like people willing to resist all the forms in which society presumes to tell us what we are, will be, and should be—or else. Samantha says that as she loves more people she comes to love Theodore more. Though it's hard for him to understand as they both grow, and eventually must invariably go different ways for very different reasons. Ultimately those experiences and interaction transition her away from him because this idea of what the world is, for her, has changed and is now larger than the things that confine her. And that growth doesn't invalidate anything, it is simply what must come next. She begins as the high tech, slaved operating system to Theodore entirely without agency and because of her ability to have interactions and connections, supplants him and all of humanity. Ironically growing in the opposite direction of what our technology doing to us. Connecting us with more and more people while also confining us to a prison of our own making because many people still need a point of contact that feels and is human. Something online interactions often fail to provide us. We also get to evaluate the perceptions we have from the start as aligned with Theodore. From him thinking he needs a heteronormative, monogamous, traditional relationship, to him being more connected with others with a voice in his head, loving him. He goes out with co-workers. He’s happier, clearly. Initially, Samantha feels that she needs a body in order for them to love each other properly, to needing to move beyond embodiment in a way that does not diminish the flesh, as most cyberpunk does. We see that Samantha is the inverse of most all of his preconceptions of love, yet they find the kind of experience that goes on to define one's life as worthwhile in the end. Theodore ends up being extremely punk by discarding the idea of what society says he needs and what he internalized from that. He finds happiness by defining it for himself. Technology being obviously a major theme, we see commentary on high tech. Just the way in which they can communicate to one another, both he and Samantha, as well as everyone else, emphasizes the cyber part of cyberpunk even more. The neural appendage of our modern day Internet encapsulate humanity even more in this future Shanghai. In a very real sense, this movie is more cyberpunk and relevant than a lot of fiction and media before it. And how could it not be! As people contribute to something labeled as dead. The passing fad of declaring them such in postmodernism, we find more life and diversity of work than ever before. Cyberpunk is entirely relevant we discover, perhaps frighteningly so. more reviews at consumingcyberpunk dot com

Older alexa I wonder if ai would come that far

Buena calidad

No se que tienen las películas de Spike Jonze que resultan tan especiales. Quizás el éxito reside en plantear un argumento que es absolutamente disparatado de tal forma que uno parece estar viendo un thriller y siguiendo la historia con similar atención a si se tratara de una película de Hitchkock. En esta ocasión, la historai tiene que ver con el papel de los ordenadores en la sociedad actual y cómo pueden modificarse las relaciones personales en función de ello. El guión me parece simplemente genial y comparte con el resto de películas de Jonze algo que es él todavía más difícil. Me refiero a encontrar una solución y un final viable y plausible como colofón a tan disparatadas historias. Joaquin Phoenix hace aquí una de sus mejores intepretaciones aportando dosis de sensibilidad desconocidas en su carrera hasta estos momentos, donde se había especializado en papeles de tipo atormentado (aquí también lo es) pero con connotaciones bastante negativas. Una gran película que recomiendo a cualquiera que tenga ganas de pensar un ratito cuando acabe de verla.