超验骇客
Regie:
Wally PfisterDrehbuch:
Jack PaglenKamera:
Jess HallMusik:
Mychael DannaBesetzung:
Johnny Depp, Rebecca Hall, Paul Bettany, Morgan Freeman, Cillian Murphy, Kate Mara, Cole Hauser, Cory Hardrict, Olivia Dudley, Clifton Collins Jr. (mehr)Inhalte(1)
Dr. Will Caster (Johnny Depp), anerkannter Experte auf dem Gebiet der Künstlichen Intelligenz, und seine Frau Evelyn (Rebecca Hall) stehen kurz davor, ein vollkommen neuartiges Computersystem zu erschaffen – ein Elektronengehirn, das über menschliche Emotionen verfügt und selbstständig reflektieren kann. Eine Gruppe technikfeindlicher Extremisten will den Superrechner um jeden Preis verhindern und verübt ein Attentat auf Dr. Caster. Doch anstatt den Wissenschaftler zu stoppen, verhilft sie ihm damit erst zum Erfolg. Denn Evelyn vollendet das Experiment. Sie verbindet das Gehirn des schwer verletzten Will mit dem Computer und lässt seinen Geist mit der Maschine verschmelzen. So entsteht ein hochintelligentes Wesen, das sich bald seiner ungeheuren Macht bewusst wird... (Tobis)
(mehr)Kritiken (14)
So etwas gab es lange nicht mehr :) Diesen Film konnte nur eine Sache retten: wenn das Bild im Finale schwarzweiß geworden wäre und Depp vor Rebecca im Hasenfell erscheinen würde. Nach der Premiere unterhielten sich im Lift drei etwa achtjährige Mädchen darüber, dass sie ins Internet schreiben werden, sie hätten einen neuen Film mit Johnny Depp gesehen und er sei absolut super. Also lassen Sie den Kopf nicht hängen und ab ins Kino. Es ist doch executively produced by Christopher Nolan!
()
SPOILERS AHEAD. I wouldn’t want to be in the shoes of those who go to the cinema for the new blockbuster starring Johnny Depp and then wind up watching a wordy low-key sci-fi flick in which their favourite actor is more heard than scene (and turns in a significantly less convincing voice performance than Scarlett Johansson in Her). To be very lenient, I will describe Transcendence as a mainstream variation on early Cronenberg films that also thematise the media as an extension of the human senses. However, this film isn’t clear on the position from which it wants to approach the intertwining of the virtual and real spaces, whether to reject it (because it turns people into robots) or celebrate it (because it aids the fulfilment of a romantic relationship). ___ During the exposition, the originator of the idea of an all-encompassing artificial intelligence is presented as a generally likable scientist and respected colleague who is loved by his wife and admired by the lay public. Basically an acceptable protagonist. Except that when his ideas start to come to fruition, he stops acting “right” and the film starts to show him in a less than favourable light – among other things, by using sinister music like that found in noir films (just one indication of the work’s inveterate lack of humour). Should we thus start rooting for the technophobic opposition? However, that opposition is represented by people who are rightfully branded as terrorists. The only connecting link between these two extreme positions, the rationally thinking character played by Paul Bettany, joins the terrorists in the second third of the film for reasons that are not entirely clear. The most space is given to Rebecca Hall, who, however, lets herself be ruled by her emotions and spends most of the time just dumbly carrying out here husband’s orders. She starts to make decisions for herself only when pressured by other characters. Nolan’s mascots Freeman and Murphy then appear in and disappear from the narrative and their willingness to cooperate with anyone at any time is no less than surprising. Because of that, viewers who respect elementary moral laws don’t have anyone they can trust or root for, or anyone to guide them through the story (and at the end of the film, the same viewers may ask why the people who murdered many other people at the beginning have gone unpunished). ___ Perhaps it is possible to make someone or something other than a multidimensional character with clearly defined goals the driving force of the drama (Transcendence doesn’t have such a character), and the film plays with this alternative (interest in the protagonists is dampened by the fact that, thanks to the prologue, we already have a good idea of how the whole thing is going to turn out, who will die and who will survive), but Pfister does not offer a functional solution. ___ The underdevelopment of the drama corresponds to the screenplay’s contempt for logic and more sophisticated plot construction. Even if we accept a world in which there is such a thing as the internet personified, the degree of further denial required of us exceeds the tolerable limit. Why did the terrorists and the FBI let a potentially very dangerous project grow undisturbed for two years? Why is such a terribly gratuitous situation (which happens out of the blue solely for the purpose of pushing the story forward) used to introduce a new motif (treatment)? Why does Caster need rainwater to disseminate it, when he can use the internet, which is already in widespread use around the world? ___ If that’s not enough for you, you can add genre incoherence (the sci-fi and melodramatic storylines stumble over each other), visual unimaginativeness and a run-of-the-mill soundtrack to the amorality, illogic and contrivance of the screenplay. Wally should go back to cinematography before it’s too late. 40%
()
(weniger)
(mehr)
At its most basic, Transcendence is not as stupid as some people who in their joy at having discovered a couple of holes in the logic have claimed. At its core, it’s a pretty decent sci-fi premise that greatly suffers from the behaviour of the main characters, which at times feels really weird and stupid. The actors are good, the technical aspect is fine, too, but I have a problem with its hysterical technophobic tone. Yet, in spite of all the issues (mostly in the script) that Transcendence has, it is still a pretty watchable movie. But somewhere deep inside there is potential for a lot more, that much is clear.
()
Disclaimer: I will spoil a lot in this review. I went to see Transcendence in a cinema and had absolutely no idea what to expect. The critics were pretty rough about it. But when do I actually listen to the critics, right? Plus, it seems as if the journalists were conducting some kind of a witch-hunt for Johnny Depp. They say his movies are not so good anymore, they say his characters are not that interesting and that this movie is overcomplicated… I don’t know what they watched, but I think they left during the first ten minutes, because if they watched the whole movie, these alleged movie fans could never say such bullshit about Transcendence. True, the first half an hour was pretty demanding, I was almost thinking that I’ll take a nap in the cinema, but as soon as the first discussion about God began, the movie got quite interesting. Wally Pfister created perfect philosophical grounds for a nice thriller. What if somebody found God, what if that God materialized into a human shape and what if he tried to rule? Would he try to rule in a good way, or a bad way? Hard to say as people would still not understand it. And as the movie repeats several times, people fear what they cannot understand. And that’s what turns it into an absolutely amazing sci-fi in the second half, something the director immediately won me over with. The finale ended in the best way it could. It contemplated over feelings, good and evil and I really liked that. I especially liked the scene where Johnny is deciding whether to help his beloved or not. I will say nothing more on purpose. You simply have to watch it and either the finale will really please you…or not. And I think that causes the overall rating of the film as well.
()
Meiner Ansicht nach handelt es sich hier um eine kritische Abbildung der geringen sozialen Intelligenz von Wissenschaftlern, die selbst im Falle, sofern sie unbegrenzte Ressourcen erhalten, um ihre Visionen zu verwirklichen, wegen einer miserablen PR-Arbeit untergehen. Aber vielleicht hab ich das ja auch nur falsch verstanden. Jedenfalls ist´s schon lange her, dass ich mich im Kino derart anstrengen musste, um nicht in die Welt der schlafenden Menschen zu transzendieren. Wally, mach doch keine Hornochsen aus uns. [40%]
()
Technology is a good servant, but a bad master that will steal your soul, ok? It gives the impression that Pfister is a senile old man (while he’s so young) who would "ban all those internets!". And he decided to share this attitude with the world through this would-be “techno"-thriller where the attitude to everyday technologies is like that your great-great grand-father would have if you went back in time and tried to explain to him what the Internet, cloud computing, uploading/downloading is. This is all very unintentionally funny, little seen method, but this is paradoxically the most minor problem that Transcendence suffers from. Much worse it that in the second half, Pfister gains a thirst for pontification and so he starts preaching about the state of society, the world, the contents of your fridge, the heavens... Simply anything that happened to occur to him or bug him during filming. The only thing is that he’s really dumb in what he says and how he says it. If onto this “quasi-Malick-like" concept, you graft scenes like IT guys cum FBI agents jumping out of a tunnel in the middle of the desert, armed to the teeth to do a bit of ratatatat in the direction of some nano-zombies while spouting wisdom such as “don’t go near them or they will infect you with a virus and upload your mind to their cloud" (meant of course absolutely seriously), then there remains nothing else to do but shake your head in disbelief or beat the table with it or else just make cruel fun out of the creators. And that is the only level where Pfister’s debut works outstandingly well.
()
I get the feeling that Wally Pfister bit off more than he could chew and couldn't transform his ambitions into a form that would allow us to speak about Transcendence as a powerful experience. The position of a director is simply more demanding than that of a cinematographer. Pfister evidently tried to shoot not only an entertaining genre film but above all a film with a deeper meaning. The result is a strange mishmash that neither entertains nor gives the impression of an artistic work. What good is it to engage a significant personality and acting chameleon Johnny Depp when the director tries to suppress him and he doesn't really fit into such a role typologically? He is simply wasted in it, and I can think of a dozen better candidates who would have been much more effective. The prevailing feeling in the end is disappointment and the impression that I have in front of me a grandiose but pathetic-looking B-movie. Overall impression: 40%.
()
At very least, a strange screenplay kills a promising idea about a human Skynet. Pfister gives us beautiful, polished images, but he should have paid more attention during Nolan’s directing lessons. The storyline doesn’t hold together as it should, too episodic and the characters’ behavior is pretty chaotic. For the first time in a long time, Depp acts quite pleasantly and the cool music raises the mood a little.
()
Trotz der relativ guten Besetzung ist es ein seltsamer Genrefilm, der nicht viel Sinn ergibt. Eine Zeitverschwendung.
()
This is what a film would look like if Christopher Nolan got high, drunk, and filmed a philosophical sci-fi in a cheerful mood with a lot of unanswered questions about saving the world. It’s hard to understand how so many renowned names and relatively solid actors could agree to such a screenplay travesty, because I can't remember a worse job by a screenwriter in a blockbuster in recent memory. Nothing works, neither the emotions, nor the logic of the plot, nor the chemistry of the characters. Incredibly poorly directed flop.
()
Ein Film mit einer großartigen Idee, einfach, aber wirkungsvoll. Ich gehe jede Wette ein, dass die Bewertung sicherlich anders aussehen würde, wenn (der Produzent) Christopher Nolan den Film genauso wie (sein Kameramann) Wally Pfister gedreht hätte und wenn er die Hauptrolle mit jemandem anderen besetzt hätte, der momentan populärer als "dieser abgeschriebene Narr Depp“ ist. Roter. Schade, aber man kann damit nichts machen. Transcendence habe ich viel mehr als z. B. Interstellar genossen. Die Handlung ist vom Anfang bis zum Ende interessant, hervorragende Schauspieler*innen stellen glaubwürdige Figuren dar, es gibt keine komplizierten und detaillierten Erklärungen… Und dazu diese schöne Unsicherheit, wer gut und wer böse ist (wenn es überhaupt jemand ist). Kurzum, ein Film nach meinem Geschmack. Viereinhalb Sterne runde ich absichtlich auf.
()
I will be nasty. If it weren't for a man as respected as Pfister behind the camera and a large cast of otherwise shining acting stars parading in front of it, perhaps I would have rated it better. However, when such an ambitious and grandiose story voluntarily and repeatedly mocks my limited intelligence while saying “You'll catch up anyway, I'm made in Hollywood”, I really have no problem stomping on it and flushing it down the drain. It's not so bad, of course, that I would walk away annoyed halfway through, and if you can get past some heavy story nonsense, the first two acts can be considered pretty decent conversational sci-fi with an uninspired plot. However, what happens at the end is an insult to everyone who’s not watching the film just because Johnny looks so dashing even in his 50s. And I’m really surprised that Depp went for it given his experience; he has never portrayed such a poor character, one who, despite being the most important and mysterious in the story, doesn't know what he wants to achieve. And so is the rest of the film, it doesn't look bad and it looks professional, but inside it's completely empty and severely uninteresting. Like a paradox, right Mr Nolan? 50%
()
This movie has flaws in its logic, it doesn't work perfectly, and the ending is not exactly one worth waiting for, but there is still an idea presented here that is worth it. It is true, although a bit worn out, at least in terms of "Terminator". Nevertheless, I think it is quite an interesting topic that was not processed so badly, just very Hollywood-like. It is a pity they didn't focus more on the psychological aspect and less on the action, which doesn't stand out much anyway, it would have been excellent.
()
We have a clear candidate for the worst blockbuster of this year. Transcendence is a movie which is very serious and acts even more serious, but its overall execution is rather pathetic. I don't want to discourage anyone from watching this movie but get ready to be utterly bored from the first to the last minute. The story is entirely predictable, as it makes it obvious from the outset who will survive and who won’t be so lucky. The script is completely lacking in logic, and even though the movie is desperate to look intriguing and original, the story ends up being perplexing, illogical, sketchy and eventually falls flat. Some characters are completely pointless (Mara), some do incomprehensible things (Murphy) and others don't seem to be even there (Freeman). To conclude, the idea was definitely interesting and with the right direction and a good script it could have been a hit. Unfortunately, Pfister probably didn't take notes when Nolan was directing Inception and the result is diametrically opposite.
()