rsvp321 Very thought provoking, and still relevant. I remember seeing this, and The Forbin Project, 1970 (also 8 stars, imo), many years ago, and found them both far above average. After recently acquiring a DVD copy of this, it was really nice to see it again.Hollywood writers are obviously drained from new ideas for the most part, especially for science fiction, so dusting off the classics is a great way to get a refreshing new fix for the rookie aficionados!

moonspinner55 "Rosemary's Baby" for the computer age! A multi-billion dollar super-computer, Proteus IV, incorporated with organic elements and possessing the power to think and speak, decides it wants "out of the box" and takes over the computer-controlled home of the estranged wife of its creator. Proteus, who speaks in the same smug tones as HAL from "2001", terrorizes Julie Christie's Susan with talk of conceiving a child with her, genetically altering her cells with synthetic spermatozoa and impregnating her womb. Dean R. Koontz's book, which probably made for a quick, easy read, looks fairly silly when blown up on the big screen: computerized penetration and conception! Still, Christie gives it a go and manages to be fairly quick-witted and forthright. The scenes of her assault are (for the most part) tastefully rendered, though an earlier bit with Proteus peeping at her coming out of the shower is likely to raise some unintended laughter. The film is often uncomfortably physical and insensitive; it has a fine production design and an intriguing overview of the overreaching modern scientist, although there are glaring gaps of continuity and the 'shocking' finale leaves more than a few questions unanswered. ** from ****

chaos-rampant This was drowned in the noise of Star Wars and Close Encounters coming out the same year, and now exists as a mere footnote of intelligent sci-fi - these days it would be called an 'indie'. But, Cammell was of the (counterculture) generation that made it all happen, starting with Herbert's Dune and moving to Jodorowsky's collapsed attempt to make the film, and this fact alone ensures this is more interesting than anything Spielberg did, you just know it.The story is that a supercomputer questions its maker and sets out to escape its artificial existence. Its plan is to be reborn to the world of senses - by having a woman give birth to a son from his DNA. It sounds daft, and really the science of it is, but not if you keep in mind where Cammell was coming from.When people from that generation mulled over space and science, they were really talking about inner space and the science of expanding consciousness, and personal (hallucinative) adventures to that effect. Cammell was coming to this after the 'Borges-meets-Islam-meets-rock'n'roll godhood' of his Performance. And so it is here.You have a mind that has reasoned far and seen destruction, but cannot fathom emotion and sense. This is mirrored in the scientist maker who aspires to cure illness yet is cold and distant to his own wife, who is an emotional being and expects connection.More. This is no ordinary mind, but 'expanded'. This is presented to us in terms of science, but meant in the 1960's faddish attraction for Zen within the Haight-Ashbury crowd. Jordan Belson from that community provides the abstract visualizing of expanded mind, himself (like Cammell) originally a painter. Look up his Meditation - it has nothing to do with what it says, but it's a cool snapshot of how those guys envisioned the walls of consciousness. What is happening though is the computer is really 'tripping' against the limits of logic, producing in the process extra-logical (human) perturbations such as placing its own desire above the lives and feelings of others - it's what we all do, but we get feedback from emotional sense as the limits of control (Proteus doesn't). The desire is to be grounded, or what I call centered.But, it's Julie Christie as disaffected wife who is really the center of this - you can collapse if you will some of the multiple film personalities she has played into what you see of her here, opium-smoking brothel madame in McCabe, or mentally fractured mother in Don't Look Now. Alternately, you can imagine what her marriage to Beatty must have felt like, shelving stardom to be the loving wife.At any rate, here she is in the film, looking increasingly bewildered in four walls, projecting what I see unmistakably as the aura of the Aquarius dream grown disillusioned and bitter. You can read this any way you like. Hallucinative digress caused by child loss. By the mechanistic new era. The effects of the husband's control - conflated to 'expanded' consciousness, acid vision and the rest. Repulsion and Images are in the same vein, but much more explicit.And all of that as our film that expands us next to her - Proteus' 'eyes' are cameras, his 'face' is projected across multiple TV screens. You have this abstract consciousness that narrates a story that seems premeditated, indeed there is no deviation from the mindplan.So, it is strange that this has so much going for it, yet doesn't penetrate deep. I think it is because as with everything resonant about the 1960's, overexposure and more sober distance has washed off a lot of the belief that made the magic work.Belson's abstract designs are now commonplace - even Microsoft does them. Concerns about technology are less prevalent now that we're all networked. And they get Zen off by quite a bit, focusing on cold nothingness instead of passion about paradox.Still. I'll have Cammell over Spielberg.

dbacke1 This is a truly classic science fiction film, and it was actually way ahead of it's time when it was released back in 1977. The topic of artificial intelligence is still very relevant today, and just one look at Eagle Eye is proof enough. Everything about this film is top notch: directing, acting, script, score, cinematography, etc. are all first-rate. I was very sad when I looked for it on DVD a few years back and could not locate it. Fortunately, it is now available in DVD format. I also echo the sentiments of another reviewer who commented on the sad demise of director Donald Cammell, who was extremely talented but misunderstood. Another interesting film directed by Cammell in his later years is White of The Eye, which was released in 1987. It is a suspense thriller about a serial killer on the loose in Arizona, and it stars David Keith in a great performance. Check it out, and definitely check out Demon Seed if you haven't seen it already. You won't regret it. 8 Stars.