jimbo-53-186511 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.

gengar843 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.

adonis98-743-186503 A service that provides holographic recreations of deceased loved ones allows a woman to come face-to-face with the younger version of her late husband. Marjorie Prime has some pretty good actors in it like Jon Hamm, Tim Robbins and Geena Davis but the movie's weak storyline and direction alongside with the slow and boring pacing make for a movie that will easily be forgotten in a few days and except the good perfomances from it's fine cast it doesn't give viewers anything more than that. It tries to be smart and intelligent as a whole but it's missing things and the sci-fi element doesn't quite live to expectations now does it? (4/10)

Alexander_Blanchett 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.