Transcendence (I) (2014) User Reviews

Exceptionally good at many things, superb at nothing

[Joe_Chadowski · 6/10 · 19 April 2014]

Critics and wannabe critics alike really lashed into this one. And I guess I have them to thank for me liking (not loving) this movie, as they lowered my standards significantly before I walked into the theater. Like them, my expectations were sky-high. I figured since Wally Pfister has been Christopher Nolan's cinematographer since 2000's Memento, maybe some sort of slow-release genius-osmosis had taken place, and Transcendence would be a stellar thriller/head- scratcher like we've come to expect from Nolan. Well, the cold hard fact is that it's not. But it sure isn't terrible.

As scientists are on the verge of a new breakthrough in A.I. technology, a rouge terrorist group known as RIFT begins knocking off labs around the country. One of their antics is the assassination, by radioactive poisoning, of scientist Dr. Will Caster. As his body slowly deteriorates, his wife and his partner work frantically work on a way to upload his mind to a computer, thus allowing him to continue his research. And as anyone could've guessed, the plan goes completely to hell.

Transcendence is not excellent, but it's also not the travesty that reviews from people more reputable than me are calling it. The main problem is the script. An excellent script can make you buy into even the most ridiculous of plots, but first-time-writer Jack Paglen's script never finds a constant tone, is unevenly paced, has underdeveloped side plots, and keeps you at arm's length from any connection with the characters and the story. In other words, it doesn't raise up any concerns or ideas we haven't already seen, and the shallowness of the script gives you plenty of time to question the incongruence of the story.

Other than that, Transcendence is pretty good. Pfister's direction is expedient, and he avoids the jumpy camera syndrome that typically plagues these kinds of movies. In fact I was even getting trappings of Chris Nolan's directing style at times (is it just me?). The ensemble performance from the cast is solid. The cast list may look like Nolan's leftovers, but they do an excellent job, and they make better use of the paltry script than I thought possible. Even though Pfister was behind the camera and not the cinematographer, you think he was going to let his baby look mundane? While not as gorgeous as, say Inception, Jess Hall hits it home and makes Transcendence look properly futuristic while still squeezing in some contrasting elements of nature in almost every frame.

Does 6 stars seem too high? I don't think so. In my mind, 10=revolutionary, 9=excellent, 8=very good, 7=pretty good and 6=jusk OK. An airtight script that rises up to the challenge was all that was needed to make Transcendence truly, um, transcendent. But it doesn't, and the lackluster script affects every other technical aspect of this film like a virus, and makes Transcendence a pretty- to-look-at popcorn movie. I know this is Wally Pfister's first time in the director's chair, but I still feel he was capable of making a film more nuanced than this.

Interesting!

[namashi_1 · 6/10 · 22 July 2014]

Directed by Ace Cinematographer Wally Pfister in his directorial debut, 'Transcendence' is an interesting watch! No, its not perfect, but it has a terrific concept & to an extent, it leaves an impression.

'Transcendence' Synopsis: A scientist's drive for artificial intelligence, takes on dangerous implications when his consciousness is uploaded into one such program.

'Transcendence' has a marvelous first-hour, with the drama unfolding most impressively. The second-hour loses steam. The narrative becomes abstract & the film overstays its welcome by at least 15-minutes. Also, the culmination is half-baked. The desired impact is missing.

Jack Paglen's Screenplay is innovative & offers some truly well-written sequences, but the mostly low second-hour, plays a spoilsport. Wally Pfister's Direction is good. Cinematography is appropriate. Editing lacks sharpness. Art Design is super.

Performance-Wise: Johnny Depp, despite limited screen time, leaves a mark. Rebecca Hall is excellent. Paul Bettany is very sincere. Kate Mara is natural. Cillian Murphy & Morgan Freeman are okay.

On the whole, 'Transcendence' isn't amazing, but it holds some appeal nevertheless.

This seems like wasted potential

[trublu215 · 5/10 · 18 April 2014]

Transcendence, much like most of the latest sci-fi themed films to hit cinemas, is a wasted effort. It exhibits signature Pfister cinematography that we've come to love over the past decade. With Nolan's Batman trilogy and Inception, it was only a matter of time for Wally Pfister to take a stab at directing. Unfortunately, the only thing that seems well done in this film is the cinematography. The story, while seeming fresh and exciting on paper, devolves into a half baked idea with mediocre acting. Johnny Depp does the best he can while only being a mere voice during the latter half of the film. The rest of the cast seems wasted, this is especially true because we know how great Paul Bettany, Morgan Freeman and Rebecca Hall can be. Wally Pfister focuses more on capturing really fantastic shots but seems never truly devoted to the actual story. This comes as a major disappointment especially because of the hype that this film has been generating over the last year. When it boils down to it, Transcendence is just another exercise in style over substance, never matriculating to anything more than an average sci-fi thriller that has a criminally underused cast and phenomenal camera-work.

A rational plot that is very realistic

[psy99999 · 26 April 2014]

No irony in the above. The irrational and immensely stupid human reactions are more than realistic, and paint a bleak future while also explaining why we are stuck here today. People are scared of human evolution and advancement, and do their utmost to prevent them from happening. Think of religion or populistic yet unreasonable laws that are based on religion or similarly unfounded assumptions.

This film is great, the possibilities outlined are very real, and those hurring it down have absolutely no knowledge of science and have no imagination as to what the future may realistically hold.

I would expect that Transcendence will do better in countries where there is more critical thinking, such as Japan or most of Europe.

A good film let down by an underused supporting cast.

[dollydiabolique · 7/10 · 9 July 2014]

Despite many flaws and missed potential, I did I find this to be an enjoyable film. It has a pleasing storyline and the character arcs of Will, Evelyn and Max were well done. Sadly, the film let itself down with the supporting cast. While well acted, the film does nothing with the supporting cast and their roles are diminished by this. They are interesting characters who should have added substance and story to the film and instead they are overlooked and under- utilised. There are far too few scenes away from the main three characters of the film, where there should have been more. The cinematography is lovely. Thankfully, the main cast are great actors so it's not a problem having to watch them for the majority of the film. The concept is good, and it isn't over-embellished. However, once it's finished I was just left with a real 'what was the point of everyone else, why didn't they build on that?' feeling, a waste of some very good actors.

Beautifully made, serious Science Fiction. More subtle and deeper than you may think... Blu-ray: Excellent A:10 V:10

[lathe-of-heaven · 8/10 · 20 August 2014]

I'm glad that some of the reviews that I had read, even from fairly reputable and reliable sources like Bluray.com, were ultimately not accurate in their description of this film. For example, that site made it seem like this was a rather shallow movie that basically was about an Artificial Intelligence that typically goes amok. That is not true at all and completely misses the point.

Now that I've just seen it, I can understand why they named it as they did; this wasn't just some usual commercially catchy phrase to sell a film, but after all is said and done (and viewed) that SPECIFICALLY was actually the primary theme of the film. It will be a little difficult to 'talk' about this aspect of it without entering Spoiler territory, which I do not wish to do.

There are deeper themes running through this film than one may think at first. Without being specific, the final few scenes reveal that 'Transcendence' is indeed what is going on here. So, first and foremost, PLEASE do not be put off by those who say that this is just a shallow Sci Fi film about a machine taking over; if you like serious Science fiction that is done very well, then you should like this film.

One caution though... My impression is that this movie is the moral antithesis of a film like, say, 'CHILDREN OF MEN', which I also just watched recently before this one. That film too is very beautifully shot and technically well done; AND, it also would be considered very serious, adult Science Fiction. But, I personally ***ENJOYED*** this one quite a bit more; the themes and mood of it resonated a LOT more with me personally than the other film. I just mention these particular films as a comparison of two well done, modern Sci Fi films, but with almost TOTALLY opposite philosophies behind them. Whereas 'CoM' is what I would call much more gritty and 'Realistic' and even quite Nihilistic in it's tone, where basically just about bloody EVERYONE dies, Mankind is shown to be nasty, selfish, and brutal, and with the supposed exception of it's last minute ending, completely without any hope at all. This film though, in my lowly and wretched opinion, is MUCH more subtle and enlightened in the themes that it is emphasizing, and it may not be until the very end when you fully realize what the point actually is (I'll give you a hint... It has to do with one of the last things Rebecca Hall says) Don't get me wrong, BOTH films are very well done, but I just wanted to show the extreme contrast in tone, so that it might help you to choose whether you would want to watch this one.

Also, quite frankly, it is just a great film. It's a lot of fun, there is excellent suspense where you do NOT know what is going to happen next or whether what is going on is truly Good or Evil...

So, as I mention in a lot of my reviews: If you are a bit on the cynical side and are the kind of person who likes their entertainment, whatever the Genre, to be of the more brutally 'Realistic' type, and you don't care for more imaginative or Idealistic films, then this one may not do much for you. BUT... IF you do appreciate films where the underlying themes may cause you to question your own attitudes towards Hope and Faith (and I DON'T mean anything Religious at all - Just Faith or Hope in things or people in general) THEN you might, as I did, really find this film quite refreshing and entertaining.

Intriguing storyline which goes to the heart of human existence

[Sjhm · 8/10 · 18 April 2014]

Truly the questions this film asks leave me wondering. So let's start with the film itself, as a scifi thriller, it's beautifully executed with some stunning visuals, to the extent that sometimes it has the feel of a travel advertisement. The story hangs together well, with strong central performances which keep you engaged. Some of the ethics are quite complex, and you have to ask if the machine's intent is really hostile, or is that just the interpretation characters are putting on it because they don't understand. And we fear what we do not understand. The intent here is clearly to tell a story in such a way that you walk away thinking about it. Job done. I came away thoroughly entertained, and thinking more about singularity and transcendence than I have in quite a while. If you are after a Saturday afternoon blockbuster with a lot of action, this might not be the film for you, but if you prefer your action with a little more intrigue, this is a great film.

When I'm Gone, Keep Moving Forward

[CowherPowerForever · 7/10 · 19 April 2014]

After 12 years working with the legendary Christoper Nolan over the course of seven films, renowned cinematographer Wally Pfister takes his first shot at directing. While the film is not on the level of quality his former boss is use to putting out, this film does provide a nice launching pad to what could be a nice career as a director.

The story was written by Jack Paglen, a virtual unknown, who hit it big when his script for this film landed on the The Black List for its amazing work. While I have not read that original script that Paglen wrote, the script in this film was not bad at all. Director Wally Pfister likely changed some aspects here and there as scripts do get molded when they are set out to be filmed. The final script for the film starts out strong, however it does leave you scratching your head in a few places. The final half hour or so of the film doesn't hold up as well as the first ninety minutes of the film either. Likely because we are rushed deep into the plot with soft development.

The directing, lead by Wally Pfister, is fantastic. As I was watching this film on the large IMAX screen I was amazed by the amazing shots and visuals he had filmed. He has had so much experience over the years working with an amazing director that his eye for detail really shows off here. However he was not the perfect director in this film. The acting department clearly proves that. While Paul Bettany, Rebecca Hall, and Morgan Freeman deliver great performances in the film, veteran actor Johnny Depp is completely depthless. Of course this is nothing new to followers of his career over the years. Depp's heart is not in his acting as it once was, and unless he is playing a certain character, we are left with average at best acting.

An aspect of the film I truly loved was the score. Composed by Mychael Danna, who has done a lot of great work over the course of his career, delivers an amazing score. As the film flows by you can feel his score bringing much needed depth. I would personally rank this score on the level with one of my other favorite composers, Hans Zimmer. If you are watching this film in IMAX, that is just another added bonus as you will really fall in love with the score with the amazing sound IMAX delivers.

Overall, newcomer to directing, Wally Pfister, has a solid start to his career. The film is not perfect as it does have some key problems, but these problems aren't major, and the story is very enjoyable overall. I would also recommend watching this film in IMAX. With so many IMAX movies these days, mostly in 3D, it is a breath of fresh air to see a normal IMAX movie without wearing glasses. The sound and images are amazing on the giant screen, and its truly worth the extra money. While some don't like to rush out to the theater on a weekly basis, for those of us who go regularly, this is a must see right away. The rest should have no problem waiting until it comes to rental.

7/10

Something to think about

[bob-rutzel-1 · 7/10 · 14 August 2014]

Will Caster (Johnny Depp) is a scientist who strives for artificial intelligence that also exhibits human qualities. His detractors want to stop him, and he is shot by them and is infected with Polonium and will die soon due to radioactive poisoning. To save his consciousness Evelyn (Rebecca Hall), his wife and his friend Max (Paul Bettany) upload his consciousness into Will's artificial intelligence program. Max sees the dangers when Will makes himself known on a monitor. He doesn't believe it is actually Will. Evelyn, on the other hand, believes it is Will and wants to go forward.

Hey, we all know this day may be coming and this movie may be a harbinger of that. But for now let's see where this takes us. Keep in mind, it's only a movie.

We see the dangers of Will becoming godlike and controlling the world's internet. However all we actually see is Will doing good healing the earth and people. But, the opposing forces see this as too controlling and fear it could get out of hand and doom everyone including the earth itself. There is that but what is forgotten - in this movie - is the love Will has for Evelyn for whom Will does everything. He constantly cites Evelyn's dream to her. The problem is that later on Evelyn also sees the dangers of a too powerful Will. The ending proves this point.

Some things were not brought into this scenario: no government including those worldwide, no religious groups demonstrating against Will and what he has become in their minds, and no worldwide denunciation by other nations. No, this stays with the small opposition group and the love story with Will doing everything he can to further Evelyn's dream although it may not be as evident as it could have been.

There is some excellent CGI in the works. A good supporting cast of Paul Bettany as Max and Morgan Freeman as Joseph were under used, but still good in this context. Kate Mara as Bree, a leader of the opposition is the only one who is animated and urges the end of Will and what he has become.

When a Johnny Depp character is on the screen or in a monitor on the screen, he is still a force to behold and performs in Oscar-worthy mode all the time. Kudos.

This movie provides us with something to think about. How far will we allow technology to go?

The pacing is slow, and we are never sure where this is leading us, but we are attentive and hope for the best. We like what Will is doing but we don't want him to become a god or godlike. How can he be stopped?

Yes, now only a movie, but one day…………………(7/10)

Violence: Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: No. Language: No,Very brief soft stuff.

Stupid, Boring and a Huge Embarrassment to all Involved.

[limoncella-641-42235 · 3/10 · 20 April 2014]

Dr Will Caster (Johnny Depp) develops a sentient computer device with unsurpassed processing power. When fatally poisoned by a radical techno-terrorist organisation he and his wife (Rebecca Hall) upload his consciousness into his invention to preserve his life, but the now unrestrained supercomputer soon develops a frightening ambition that blurs the line between humanity and technology.

It seems that every few years somebody in Hollywood tries to redo The Lawnmower Man, which is by no means a perfect movie (especially with its laughable, early generation CGI) but it harbours an interesting premise; what happens if we ignore our own judgement and let our technology get the better of us?. It's an old sci-fi trope going back decades that has definitely become a crutch of story telling to some extent, but any good idea is worth exploring again, and with such an impressive cast and a very promising production team behind it, hopes were high for Transcendence to be a good movie.

Unfortunately though, it isn't. Transcendence is a turgid, lifeless bore of a film that doesn't really offer anything insightful about its subject matter because it's so single mindedly stupid about it. All the parts about technology, philosophy and what it means to be human are all thrown to the wayside, and the movie instead grounds most of its logic on the relationship between two people like its the most important thing in this world. In a movie where technology is used to heal the sick, rebuild the forests and even cure death, all the movie wants us to care about is how Rebecca Hall cannot possibly go on living without her dead husband and how all that amazing wonderful miracle-making doesn't mean anything.

I'm not even sure who the main character is supposed to be. Depp is in the movie in the flesh only for about 15 minutes and after that he disappears mostly into the background of scenes as a computer program making it hard to relate to him. Hall acts so selfish, stupid and blunt throughout that it's impossible to like her as an audience member. It certainly isn't Paul Bettany either, he's a prisoner through most of the film and when he's not, the things that are happening are more or less out of his control.

Also the vagueness of the films antagonist is a real problem, we're led to believe that Computerised-Depp is the main antagonist, but he's not really, a computer operating by logic is hard to hate as a viewer, because it's just doing what's in its own nature, and many of the miracles its capable of are not, in and of themselves evil either (since when was healing the blind considered unjust?). It certainly isn't the Techno-Terrorist group R.I.F.T either, their motivations as terrorists isn't even particularly clear other than "Technology is Bad", Shooting Johnny Depp over a hypothesis seems more like stupidity than martyrdom. Also during the films climax they become good guys.

Johnny Depp was reportedly paid $20 million for his role in this movie, and in my opinion he didn't earn his salary. He is stiff, lifeless, bored (that's even before he gets uploaded into a computer) and obviously uninterested in the finished product. Rebecca Hall is trying very hard here, but the terrible writing of her character hamstring her efforts. Paul Bettany is good here and is probably the films strongest asset, but he's not in the film enough and pretty much useless by the time the conclusion comes. Morgan Freeman and Cillian Murphy are just there, they don't really have anything interesting to say or do. Kate Mara gives by far the worst performance, the bad writing of her character hurts her more than others, but she was impossible to buy as the stern, serious leader of an organised terrorist group.

There's also a huge lack of understanding of rudimentary film making skills at play. Wally Pfister is a gifted cinematographer and the film does look good generally speaking, but working cinematography on a movie and directing an entire movie are two completely different ball games. Many aspects of film-making are botched here: Framing, Blocking, Dynamics between Characters, Editing, Camera Movements but especially Pacing. This is one of the worst Paced movies in quite some time, nothing that happens in the story has any momentum, and this coupled with the poor direction over everything else makes the whole movie completely dull to watch (the biggest mistake is that film begins with the ending, spoiling any and all tension during the movie).

I'm not saying that every movie needs to have an action scene either, there isn't a car chase during 12 Angry Men, but Transcendence builds to a huge final engagement and when it comes it's over with way too quickly.

It's a combination of many elements that could go wrong with a movie, and it's easy to blame Wally Pfister for the poor direction, but I think this movie represents a far bigger concern. Johnny Depp is currently the highest paid actor in the world, but this and some of his last films "The Lone Ranger" and "Dark Shadows" both had disappointing box office takings, which leads me to believe that maybe Depp's day are numbered, and/or perhaps we're entering a new age of movies where it doesn't matter who you cast, a stinker's a stinker and people wont flock to see garbage.

The Line Between Humanity & Evolving into something More.

[jocean4 · 8/10 · 15 April 2014]

This film will most likely split down the middle because of it's religious tones of God and evolution. Some people will love it and some will hate it because it might go against their belief system.

For movie purposes, it has great acting, great story (though some may feel it's a little too far fetched, which I personally don't think is too far fetched when you see what the world was like 10 years ago before the mainstream web), and pretty good action scenes.

At the heart, it's a story about a woman, Evelyn, who loves her husband, Will, so much she tries to hold onto him by helping him save his consciousness. She begins to wrestle with whether this being is really Will or is something new. It's also about evolution and the line between humanity and evolving into something more. This movie might be a turn off for religious people but it does make you think of what humanity could become whether you're religious or not.

Overall, it's a great movie that's enjoyable, thought provoking, challenges some beliefs, and foreshadows some future realities we will all have to soon deal with.

I would say go see it!

A good, if standard, science fiction themed effort

[quinnox-1 · 7/10 · 14 April 2014]

Saw this at a free screening. It turned out to be better than I expected. Johnny Depp plays a brilliant and eccentric scientist who is a leading expert on artificial intelligence, and when he is mortally wounded by an anti-technology extremist/terrorist group, he and his small inner circle of fellow genius scientists embark on an ambitious experiment that will test a radical theory of his.

The plot and overall story is pretty standard fare for science fiction, but it still manages to keep things interesting, with various echoes of other classic sci fi movies like 2001: A space odyssey in there as well. The visuals can be really striking at times, with long, brightly lit white hallways that seem to go on forever in an advanced scientific lab, and neat-o computer-like visualizations of cities. The best part of the movie is the last segment, with some really good twists. No spoilers, but the ending is particularly interesting and well done. There is a nice ambiguity and there can be different interpretations of the overall message of the movie. My friend and I disagreed on what the movie was ultimately saying, for example. It's no masterpiece though, but science fiction fans will like it.

People Are Afraid of Things They do not Understand

[claudio_carvalho · 5/10 · 27 July 2014]

In New York, Dr. Will Caster (Johnny Depp) is one of the three most brilliant scientists in the research of Artificial Intelligence. He works with his beloved wife and also scientist Evelyn Caster (Rebecca Hall) and his best friend is Dr. Max Waters (Paul Bettany). Dr. Caster is forced to go to a lecture to raise funds for their research but a group of anti-technology terrorists attack him and the two other authorities in the field of AI. Dr. Caster is poisoned and has only one month of life. When Will is near to death, Evelyn discusses with Max the possibility of transferring his emotions to the AI and they decide to try. They seem to be well succeeded, but they are attacked by the terrorists commanded by Bree (Kate Mara) that destroy the facility and Evelyn releases Dr. Caster's "soul" in the Internet to save him. Soon Dr. Caster controls the worldwide system and with his increasing knowledge, he changes human biology and the environment becoming an omnipresent power. But people are afraid of things they do not understand and Dr. Caster is considered a threat to the world that shall be destroyed.

"Transcendence" is a sci-fi film with a promising premise, great cinematography, good performances and special effects but with a poorly written story with messy characters. Bree, for example, is a terrorist responsible for the death of Dr. Caster and his colleagues and for jump the gun and release Dr. Caster in the Internet by Evelyn to save him from her direct attack. In the end, she works with FBI Agent Buchanan (Cillian Murphy) and Joseph Tagger (Morgan Freeman). A subject of this magnitude should have been discussed by the Powers that Be, and not by a simple FBI agent, an outmoded scientist and a terrorist. I could write many other inconsistencies in the story, but better off let the viewer conclude by himself (or herself). My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): "Transcendence - A Revolução" ("Transcendence – The Revolution")

Wow, more than what I hoped for!

[dmitriseo · 9/10 · 29 July 2014]

I absolutely enjoyed this movie. Yes, it does leave a few unanswered questions and perhaps we would do things a bit different in their shoes,BUT if we take our own ideas away and watch a story in front of us, there's a great message about humanity and what is is like to be human. I have a feeling we may have to be dealing with humanoid-machines in the next 30-40 years. There are already computers who can do a lot of things and make decisions. It was a good opportunity to look into the future and see how it may happen. Again, great movies for those who enjoy some thinking during screening.

9/10 -1 for ending that I'd rewrite a bit.

an interesting idea

[Kirpianuscus · 2 January 2018]

...and nothing more. this is the basic virtue and the fundamental sin of this good intentioned film. something missing, something becomes just an improvisation and the basic idea is sacrifide for good looking images, tricks with technology, mix of science and emotions and Jonny Depp reduced at his presence. and, after its end, the only good thing remains the idea of the first part. so, difficult to say a bad film, less for good intentions, and only a film like many others, ambitious as intentions, not brilliant as result.

Slow but intriguing

[masonsaul · 6/10 · 10 March 2019]

Transendence is slow paced and the majority of the great cast lack depth but it's still an intriguing film with good performances from Rebecca Hall and Johnny Depp as well as nice visuals and cg.

Not a bad movie at all like its being portrayed

[eyeintrees · 6/10 · 11 October 2014]

A great cast, a great premise, good direction and not a bad script. Not nearly as horrible as all the naysayers are saying.

However, what let this down for me is the limited, yet again, romance angle, when it could have been a story that stretched its wings to fly much, much further.

The movie kept me intrigued until the last half hour when it began to display a formulaic nothingness that sort of went nowhere. I suppose if you're big into undying love of a perverted kind you might sigh in distorted illusions about what love should be. If the last half hour had pulled something really intelligent and interesting out of the hat it would have been 9 out of 10, but it didn't.

And seriously, in some ways this is closer to the concept of The Matrix than many viewers will realise... something to think about.

I liked a lot of things about the movie. Worth watching if you're a sci fi buff.

Must We Accept the Science?

[Hitchcoc · 6/10 · 24 September 2014]

This is certainly a provocative movie. It deals with the idea of human emotion being combined with "infallible" scientific production. As soon as Johnny Depp's character gets inside the cyber-world, all that he is, his strengths, his weakness, his passions, his unending lust for knowledge become off the grid. How is it possible to have so much knowledge and not see yourself as the arbiter? As will possibly be the case--if we don't destroy ourselves some other way--there will be overseers who must view things from the fringe. It is not terribly different from the way we look at military or terrorist threats right now. The kicker here is the the Depp character is so far ahead of everyone, that it's as if his opponents are throwing sticks. What must ultimately happen is to appeal to the human side of Depp's Will Caster, because once the machine becomes too powerful and Caster loses his human connection, it is curtains for us poor idiots. This theme is handled reasonably well, but I just felt empty. I'm not doing spoilers, but the beginning of the movie pretty much derailed my interest.

No Substance meets No Sense

[Russellcooley-402-44843 · 1/10 · 28 April 2014]

What can I say about this film, the hype was there, very topical, a director with an amazing eye, all start cast. The film should have been very good all round, but, sadly, it is far from it. The plot is weak, acting poor and the dumbing down of the science has actually led to a film which makes little or no sense. Who is the audience suppose to connect with? maybe the annoying wife, the dead scientist in a computer, the annoying friend or the terrible cast of sub characters who all have no substance or any kind of interesting back story.

If your doing science fiction based around such an interesting and REAL concept. Please show some respect to the intelligence of your target audience.

UTTER RUBBISH!

Subtle look into the future(?)

[kosmasp · 9/10 · 15 September 2014]

The movie is obviously not everyones cup of tea. It's very subtle and its very understated performances leave room for speculation most of the time, which when resolved might disappoint some viewers. It doesn't make this less appealing for those who like to have food for thought, rather than just some flashy action scenes and thrilling set pieces/scenes with no substance.

There is a thrilling aspect here and things do happen. But it might not be what people expect and therefor the result will probably disappoint. Nevertheless, the movie itself is more than a great ride. It's an experience, which asks and answers question. Not all of them, but enough to make you think (if you want to) and wonder how you'd react in a similar situation ... and would that be the "right" choice?

Like watching a 'magic eye' picture

[bowmanblue · 7/10 · 2 September 2014]

Have you ever looked at one of those 'magic eye' pictures? They're those pictures made entirely of coloured spot and *supposedly* if you stare at them and relax your eyes in just the right way then you'll see some magical sort of picture contained within. Well… Transcendence is a bit like one of those.

I stared at the film for nearly its two-hour runtime and I'm pretty sure there was something magical contained in there somewhere. I just wasn't sure of what I'd seen.

For a start (in case you didn't know) Transcendence wasn't a commercial success. Despite it's a-list cast (think Johnny Depp and Morgan Freeman), it wasn't that well-received. One reason – that anyone thinking of watching it should know – is that Johnny Depp's face was used heavily in the film's marketing. Therefore, his legions of fans naturally assumed that this was a 'Johnny Depp film.' It isn't. Not really. I don't think it's too much of a spoiler to mention that he dies about twenty minutes into the film. That's integral to the plot. For he plays a computer genius who is experimenting with artificial intelligence and, after his death, has his consciousness transferred into a machine. And, as the saying goes… with disastrous consequences.

So, what little we see (and hear) of Depp is largely his face on a computer screen throughout most of the film. And that didn't go down too well with those people who had gone to see the film just because he was in it.

Without wishing to give too much away about the story, I thought it was quite an original idea overall. It was just executed in a bit of an odd way. You're never really sure what sort of film you're watching. Yes, it's heavily sci-fi and there's a fair amount of 'romance' thrown in there between the computerised Johnny Depp and the lady he 'left behind' when he died. Then you have various sub-plots surrounding those who don't trust this new 'human-machine-intelligence' hybrid and have set about bringing it down. Those scenes are reminiscent of an action movie. Then there's the overall 'dystopian-future disaster movie' feel to it. All of this makes it a bit uneven.

If you've heard it's a 'bad' movie, then you've heard wrong. It's not bad. It's just not what most people want because it never really settles on one type of genre for long enough to establish itself. Sci-fi fans will probably get the most out of this as it doesn't have enough 'Johnny Depp' in it to be considered a Johnny Depp movie. It doesn't have enough action in it to be considered an 'action movie' and it doesn't have enough romance in it to be considered a 'romance movie.' However, no matter what the ingredients are, it's still quite an interesting, thoughtful movie. It's probably not actually as 'mainstream' as most people think it's going to be, so you'll need your quiet, contemplative head on when you sit down to spend a couple of hours with Johnny Depp's virtual incarnation.

http://thewrongtreemoviereviews.blogspot.co.uk/

Just good.

[mauroartista · 6/10 · 30 January 2018]

I don't exactly know why but I feel like the movie was kind of predictable, not in the scence that it was boring but in the scence that it felt like I'd already seen the same film a couple of times.

Saying this movie had potential is an understatenebt, just by reading the synopsis I knew I'd love this film, but I didn't. Maybe they played it too safe and ended up with an Okey film, I mean there is nothing really bad about the movie, but it feels so average, specially after watching the trailer.

Better than a lot of other movies

[hao1712 · 10/10 · 20 April 2014]

Don't know why all the negative review about this movie, but reading their negative comment it seems to me that they expected something else and it is not delivered hence they are throwing a tantrum and choose not to enjoy the movie.

While its cons might be the lack of characters development this doesn't change the fact that the story line and concept is better than a lot of other movies and it is presented well. The story might feel a bit stretched but it give us more time to think and enjoy the development of the movie.

It doesn't show too much of the potential of an AI, nor it have a lot of actions scenes, but it does show us a lot of perspective and views on a single ideas, and what misunderstanding and doubt could do. The movie doesn't show you what is right or wrong, or which is the best solution, it only show us the thinking of each characters and the consequences from their actions.

If you love thoughts provoking movie which leave you with a lot of thinking, you will definitely like this movie.

A build up and a let down

[jackgdemoss · 7/10 · 25 November 2018]

Transcendence built a great background for its story to take place. It molded relatable and likeable characters to be in that place. It charted an interesting course for the characters to follow in the first 2 acts of the film. After all of this, however, Transcendence is never able to come to fruition. The entirety of Act 3 feels like a series of what ifs.

A terrible film that truly believes it is a great one

[DexX · 1/10 · 30 August 2017]

A man uses advanced technology to connect people, heal the injured, and grant people superhuman abilities that make their lives easier. He is the villain.

A group that hates this man and wants to destroy his work shoot him with a poisoned bullet, kill dozens of researchers, torture and kill innocent people, and generally act like technophobic terrorists. They are the heroes.

With such an idiotic mix-up in the film's basic premise, it was never going to be great, but it's compounded with rubbish action, stupid science, completely illogical plotting, and nonsensical character motivations.

This film is a waste of a big budget and a great cast. I hate it more than words can express.