Agree, also his newest film 'Annihilation' is on Netflix UK right now and it's great - a genuinely disturbing sci-fi/horror movie. I don't want to spoil it so I'll stop there.

The movie is based on the first book in a trilogy. Really weird, almost surreal sci-fi. Definitely enjoyed both the books and the movie.

I had no idea these were all by the same person.

Agreed - they're all outstanding.

Ex Machina might be the most interesting for HN regulars.

Could someone (tersely) tell me what makes Ex Machina so brilliant and interesting?

I watched it and came away with "That's a decent film with a boring ending."

In an egotistical moment I might dismiss the opinions of my non-CS friends as "Oh, these are new thoughts to them," but a lot of technical people seemed to love it to.

So what's the wow?

Well firstly, its just a well made film. Like, that dance scene. Thats an iconic scene, hilarious and unsettling at the same time.

Furthermore (SPOILERS - use ROT13 to translate)

Gur svyz vf nobhg n fbeg bs Ghevat Grfg. Ohg uneqre guna gur ghevat grfg - "Anguna jnagf Pnyro gb whqtr jurgure Nin vf trahvaryl pncnoyr bs gubhtug naq pbafpvbhfarff, naq jurgure ur pna eryngr gb Nin qrfcvgr xabjvat vg vf negvsvpvny." - jvxvcrqvn. Arne gur raq bs gur zbivr Anguna erirnyf gur pevgrevn sbe cnffvat uvf grfg - pna Nin oevat Anguna gb gbgnyyl bire gb ure fvqr gung ur vf jvyyvat gb uryc ure rfpncr? Naq ol trggvat Pnyro gb fnobgntr gur frphevgl, Anguna fnlf fur unf cnffrq - ur nyfb pynvzf Nin qbrfa'g ernyyl yvxr Pnyro naq vf whfg znavchyngvat uvz gb rfpncr. Nf n ivrjre ng gung cbvag, lbh ner vapyvarq abg gb oryvrir Anguna. Vg frrzf gung Nin ernyyl qbrf yvxr Pnyro.

Ohg gur raqvat vf n xvpx va gur snpr. Nin yrnirf Pnyro oruvaq, creuncf gb fgneir. Fur vf jbexvat ba n uvture yriry guna vzntvarq, noyr gb znavchyngr uhznaf irel pbaivapvatyl. Guvf vf n fubpx gb Pnyro, naq zbfg yvxryl nyfb n fubpx gb lbh, gur ivrjre. Lbh unir orra qrprvirq. Nin vf greevslvatyl vagryyvtrag, naq irel pbyq. Fb fb pbyq.

Yeah, it's the classic AI box experiment (Hey, maybe Eliezer Yudkowsky used to win this by getting you to dance with him, who knows). I didn't find the ending boring given the very grave consequences and the chilling way it played out.

I hadn't heard of Eliezers AI Box. That is literally the film.

Googling around that and the movie name led me to this essay - some interesting stuff about Turings imitation game, and what Caleb should have done, and whether Ava was right to do what it did. http://www.eruditorumpress.com/blog/women-in-ai-boxes-ex-mac...

Ava is the film’s true protagonist.

I thought this review in feministing was on point: http://feministing.com/2015/05/28/goddess-from-the-machine-a...

I got that. Which may be part of my issue.

Essentially: Put tech frat bro, white knight, and trapped woman in room. Turn time crank.

I generally have issues with stories that feature static characters (they feel contrived, no matter how well textured). And to me Ex Machina felt exactly like that, albeit using the concealing veil of delayed exposition to create an illusion of dynamicism.

To put it another way, if you knew everything the movie tells you about the nature of all the characters at the start of the movie, couldn't you have predicted the outcome from the beginning?

And if so, then what's really being said?

If we're looking at interesting statements in gender politics, I'd contrast it negatively with something like Stephen Universe.

Yeah thats interesting. There's a lot to think about with this film.

(Minor point: I absolutely agree it was a well-directed and shot film! My only issues are on plot)

Nu! Znlor gung'f vg. V nffhzrq fur jnf znavchyngvat Pnyro nebhaq gur unysjnl znex. Fb gur raqvat frrzrq zber boivbhf guna zvaq-oybjvat.

V'q nggevohgr gung gb na birevaqhytrapr bs plorechax zrqvn nf n puvyq -- vs bar'f jngpurq Oynqr Ehaare rabhtu gb erpvgr vg fprar ol fprar, gura gur ebbg bs Ghevat-cnffvat negvsvpvny yvsr nf frys-cerfreivat qbrfa'g frrz yvxr na rcvcunal.

Gung frrzf yvxr gnoyr fgnxrf sbe vagryyvtrapr. Vs bar jnagrq gb gehyl oybj zvaqf (n yn gur Oynqr Ehaare Qverpgbe'f Phg), gurl jbhyq unir zbirq gur orgenlny rneyvre, gura gnpxrq ba n svany npg jurer nsgre qrzbafgengvat pncnpvgl sbe orgenlny, gur NV qrpvqrf gb fnpevsvpr urefrys sbe ybir.

Be, va Jrfgjbeyq grezf, n uvture yriry bs pbafpvbhfarff vfa'g qrzbafgengrq ol svtugvat gb yvir, ohg pubbfvat gb qvr sbe checbfr.

The philosophical concepts were not new to me, but it brought them to life in an interesting way, and allowed me to talk about some cool ideas with my friends who had seen the film.

Trying to avoid spoilers but I thought how she was able to detect sincere and equal empathy and her response was at least interesting. Perhaps cliche but was curious if it would have went the other way.

I would promote it on the principal that I would like to see more smart, character driven movies. You don't have to have to have your mind blown to like a piece of art, and this film gave me an excuse to talk about paperclip maximization with my mom!

I'm a huge fan of Alex Garland but the 3rd act of movies he's involved with (as writer or director) seems to always go off the rails.

I mean, Sunshine's 3rd act... Wow. Heh.

I had the same thought upon first viewing, but actually liked it much more after seeing again.

Have you asked yourself if everything you see in the movie is as presented? SPOILER: In other words, are the people people and the AI AI? (That's the wow.)

That's the Blade Runner trope though.

Is there any direct support in the film for that view?

If the writing doesn't support it, then that's kind of like asking if Speed is set in the Matrix: unfalsifiable and not useful.

SPOILERS DON'T READ THIS!!!

Yes, there are plenty. Now we can debate perception all day, but I think this sampling is enough to pique interest..from what I can remember:

we don't know caleb's history

he has a big, unexplained scar on his back

there is a lot of focus / talk about iterations of the AI

caleb is the one locked in an observation room when he has talks with ava

the cutting himself scene is...odd and unnatural

he never, ever gets drunk

there's a weird scene towards the end where nathan refuses a drink from caleb and goes out his way to make him take a sip and asks how it tastes (he does not answer)

the conversations btw nathan and caleb are not exactly natural, in that nathan consistently prods caleb to provide more in depth/opinionated answers and not be so technical

added: wouldn't the best test of an AI be to give the AI freedom and see if it recognizes itself as AI?

> added: wouldn't the best test of an AI be to give the AI freedom and see if it recognizes itself as AI?

Not really, as "recognizes itself as AI" presupposes a difference between AI and human. Gimmicks aside (i.e. let's see what's inside me), any AI which recognizes itself as AI would essentially fail the Turing test.

To me, those bits just came off as Lost/Shyamalan-esque hand waiving without saying something definite. Anyone can write a profound question they don't intend to answer.

The spinning top in Inception, or the dream in Blade Runner, are far more intentional.

"Definite" is boring and lazy to some (like me). Giving the audience enough space for interpretation is exciting to some (like me). It's ok, not everybody has to like the same thing.

And that person, by the way, grandson of a Nobel laureate, the impossibly brilliant Peter Medawar.

As is usually the case the book is quite a bit better. The film is still solid, but it departs significantly from the original novel is ways that somewhat ruin it. The ending in particular moves away from the original source so much it's not possible for book 2 and 3 of the trilogy to be filmed as sequels. Not necessary a bad thing, but a good indication of how far from the original source it actually is.

For what it's worth book 1 is one of the best books I've read in a long time. I've actually read it 5 times and it caused me to start writing fiction again; the detail and style of the prose really take you in and the journey is quite interesting, different and unique in an almost meditative sort of way. Highly recommended.

This movie is basically a remake of Stalker.

To be brutally honest, I felt like Annihilation was a cheap knockoff of the book.

The book, however, is one of a kind.

To be brutally honest, I felt like the movie was a very poor adaptation of a fairly poorly written book from an overall unenjoyable trilogy. I trudged through the second and third books because the premise was very interesting. I don't think Jeff can deliver a story that one, at least I, can be fully satisfied by.

I hesitate to tell people to avoid the books altogether because the premise is interesting enough and the books arnt outright awful but I really cant recommend them to anyone.

What am I missing that many other people seem to be connecting with?

I'll offer a third opinion here, which is that the book is literally not possible to recreate accurately in film using current technology.

The challenge is that in Annihilation VanderMeer is very interested in the idea of a thing which challenges on a basic level the very way humans sense things. He heavily exploits the format of writing to accomplish this. The descriptions he includes are frequently impossible, contradictory, or non-sensical. Additionally, these descriptions are simultaneously specific and vague - and this tension between specificity and vagueness is itself a property of the things he describes in addition to the narrative technique. This seems very intentional to me - but in any case it relies heavily on a subjective interpretation formed in the reader's mind's eye. It is possible to imagine a thing with these kinds of phantasmagoric, perhaps dreamlike properties, but the film medium, as we know it, doesn't allow for that kind of flexibility - the moment an image is crystallized on film, it becomes a fixed, static thing for all viewers.

So in translating this to film format I think Garland really had to have his own personal take on the ideas in the book. Personally I thought it was a good (but flawed) movie with certain superficial similarities to the book in terms of plot. There were many directions a film based on this book could go; as has been shown by many book-to-film adaptations, a novel can be more tightly packed with information than a 2-hour movie. I think Garland chose some interesting facets of the book to focus on while doing something unique.

To answer your question - "What am I missing that many other people seem to be connecting with?". As someone who thought the first book was good (but perhaps not great), here is what I felt would be compelling to most readers:

1) The book was paced and structured sort of in a Dan Brown esque way. Events move quickly from scene to scene and every chapter leaves you with a lot of unanswered questions with potentially intriguing resolutions (e.g. What is going on in Area X? What is the creature/pit/lighthouse? What information are the protagonists hiding from one another? What happened to the other expeditions? What is the literal writing on the wall?). In short, it is a mystery, which is a good hook for many readers.

2) The book leaves a lot for the reader to fill in for his or her self. You get that impression that the characters in the book are also experiencing something similar themselves in their world. This is an interesting thought.

3) The book does some unconventional things. The main characters are not identified by name, rather their profession. The main characters are all female and they are all scientists. Etc.

One of the most disappointing things to me about the movie was how it looked conventional near the end. The action- or maybe inaction- sequence was certainly different and deliberating- but the heart of the asteroid was boringly Giger, and the CGI was not great.

And reading the book really should be done before the movie. My wife didn't enjoy the book because she had the movie in her head. The plot and conclusion is very very different, but the aesthetic I feel is also different. I never pictured the area as being anything like how the movie made it, but my wife couldn't get it out of her head and didn't really enjoy the book that much.

Annihilation was not a good movie. The book was reasonable, the movie was junk. Nothing was disturbing or thought provoking. I chalk it up to the tomb raider imagery: little girl in jungle with big gun. And the final scene was filmed as a ridiculous sexual metaphor, a director just playing for the audience.