TheExpatriate700 Conceiving Ada is an odd, but ultimately somewhat rewarding film. I had picked it up largely based on the presence of Tilda Swinton, not expecting much from it beyond her performance. I was pleasantly surprised.The film has a somewhat awkward framing device of a modern computer scientist who discovers a means of communicating with the past. Through the eyes of the modern scientist, we see the life of Ada Lovelace, the world's first computer programmer.At times, the approach gives a feeling of nothing so much as a PBS or BBC low budget documentary on Lovelace's life, particularly the way in which it is divided up into snippets. Furthermore, the science behind the communication with the past is preposterous, and requires a serious suspension of disbelief. This is not hard science fiction, folks, despite the real world elements. The cameos by Timothy Leary are equally distracting, adding nothing to the plot.However, both the woman who plays the modern scientist and Tilda Swinton manage to be engaging. The film is definitely worth a look.

tedg Spoilers herein.One can fault the dreary focus on women's victimization, as if something like that can be imposed on any past. And one can be annoyed at the very low production values, and goofy acting by all but Swinton. Also, everyone involved seems to have had multiple, profound misunderstandings about what constitutes software, concepts, coding and virtuality. Among the howlers are clicking as programming and photography as somehow capturing avatars. And code as resembling greek symbols. This is even worse than `Pi' in its pseudoscience.But if you can see through all those indications of ignorance, there is the kernel of something intelligent here. Some have criticized the modern story as a clumsy framing device. But I see it as a class of folding, something along the lines of `French Lieutenant's Woman,' as transformed by popular versions like `Possession.'At least I want to think so because Tilda is such an intelligent actress and the Ada story is so fascinating. What this petty filmmaker thinks is interesting is that a brilliant, energetic mind was exploited and ruined by the accident of gender – sort of an Alan Turing with breasts.What is more interesting in the story is how Ada conflated adventures in mental exploration in narrative with mathematics and extreme promiscuity. In fact, the story is much like John Nash's but without the bisexuality.Math as orgasmic, code as music, virtual projection as invented history, redheads as having the power to use lust to bend reality. Some clever ideas wrapped in stupid expression. Well, at least there's something.Ted's evaluation: 2 of 3 – Has some interesting elements.

musiclovers11 Yes, In 35 years of film going I have finally viewed the stinker that surpasses all other ghastly movies I have seen. Beating 'Good Will Hunting' Baise Moi' and 'Flirt' for sheer awfulness. This is pretentious blige of the first order... not even entertaining pretentious bilge. The effects are cheap, and worse - pointless.The script seems to have been written by a first year film student who doesn't get out much but wants to appear full of portent! The acting is simply undescribably bad - Tilda Swinton caps a career filled with vacuous woodeness with a performance which veers neurotically between comotose and laughable 'intensity'. Apparently, some fool out there has allowed the director of this film to make another one... be warned

Marty Houser Encompassing virtual reality, the potential of computers, communication with the past, the ongoing struggle to express your identity in a constraining society, and the fascinating Ada Byron Lovelace portrayed by the fascinating Tilda Swinton, this film should have been great. But it is lousy, terrible if you consider the potential! The acting - aside from Tilda Swinton and Karen Black - veers from tolerable to atrocious. The plot construction is awkward to say the least - the modern day programmer is a dull one-note character, but half the movie is spent setting up her character, and then when Ada finally appears, it is to narrate the events of her life, not to present an engaging story (Swinton almost pulls this off, though). You never fully get to know her as a real person, just an icon from a grad student's history paper.The digital effects, such as a digital dog and bird, are lousy and distracting, considering it was 1997 and not 1985. And, finally, the script is just bad. Bad, often pretentious dialog - especially the fights between the programmer and her boyfriend, which made me squirm - cold and distant characters, and zero attempt to create a sense of wonder. The programmer successfully contacts a person in the past! Astonishing! But it hardly seems to surprise anyone, and her boyfriend says, "Well, be careful." (Although we're given no clue then or later why it might be dangerous, and it never seems to actually be dangerous.)Also, despite being about computers and Ada Lovelace and her love of mathematics, it is clear no one involved with the script had any knowledge of mathematics OR computers - any references to these subjects come across as complete mumbo jumbo that defies any suspension of disbelief.One scene, towards the end of the movie, is quite good, a monolog by Tilda Swinton expressing her sadness at the fragility of life but her joy in that life. Poignant, passionate, and insightful, it seems to be dropped in from another movie.So I am disappointed in this movie, because it is a missed opportunity for a fascinating little cult film. If you find the subject matter interesting, you might want to rent it, but be forewarned. See Orlando for another, much much better examination of gender roles in history with a great Tilda Swinton performance.***spoiler/question: * *At the end of the movie, Ada asks that her memories not be preserved (in what I thought was the best scene in the movie). But then the modern day programmer seems to do it anyway, transferring the memories into her little girl (hence the title of the movie). Am I correct, that the programmer violated Ada's wishes without even struggling over it? Or is this another confusing plot point that I'm misinterpreting?