User reviews

The film's title is appropriate, since that is the feeling you are getting from the movie. Somehow, something is wrong with it, but you can't put your finger on it. The twist at the end was pretty predictable as well, but somehow they botched it up with the very last scenes. If they change the ending - not in its idea, but its handling - the movie gains an instant extra rating point.

However the biggest harm that anything can do to this film is that it was released soon after Ex Machina when they are approaching similar subjects. It is not the same thing, but close enough, and clearly not as good. I have to think, would I have liked the film in 2014, let's say? And the answer is probably yes. Change the ending scenes, make the pace a little more alert, maybe remove some of the slow scenes or some of the bad ones (because there are some that are just stupid) and you get an instant winner.

Bottom line: interesting concept, not bad yet mediocre implementation, badly written ending scenes. Uncannily close to a good movie.

P.S. Why do movies try to seem smart with chess analogies, and then really botch them completely? Even the weakest chess player in the world would instantly see that the people doing the scenes had no idea how the game is played.

Reporter Joy Andrews (Lucy Griffiths) does an in-depth week-long interview with tech scientist David Kressen (Mark Webber). He introduces her to Adam (David Clayton Rogers) and later reveals that Adam is actually an AI robot. His wealthy boss Castle (Rainn Wilson) monitors the situation from afar.

Coming out around the same time, this was being overshadowed by the indie hit Ex Machina. There is an obvious visual CGI wow factor about Ex Machina that this does not have. Leaving that aside, they are both traveling on similar and well-worn sci-fi lanes. The acting for both male leads is limited to the stiff robotic nerd persona or an actual robot. Griffiths has an easy presence. I'm always taken by her brilliant blue eyes. This is an extended Twilight Zone episode or Black Mirror for the modern audience. It's a perfectly capable film that stays compelling to the end.

The movie is drawn out, and while it is a low budget, the whole movie is paced like the prologue to a story that never shows anything new. To make an AI story boring and standard is sad because there is so much interesting potential but the movie never dives deep into any of the concepts and fails to ignite the audiences attention.

The actors in this movie are fine, with a few moments that are good or very good. I have no serious complaints about any of the characters or actors as such. However, the story somehow never lets them do anything interesting, every part of their story unfolds at a steady pace without bringing anything interesting to the mix.

The movie needed more intrigue and a faster pace, and the twist the movie tries to throw is extremely unremarkable. There are 100 more interesting things that could have been done that would have thrown the audience for a loop in a satisfying way.

"This kid the next big thing? Some Asperger's cousin of yours ready to get all Good Will Hunting on coding and change the world?"

Was "Ex Machina" according to you the epitome of future technology and a demonstration of potential consequences of it, "Uncanny" is for sure a level higher. Not because of the shown interior design or the futuristic technologies, but because of the surprising denouement. Despite the austere imagery and decidedly lower budget, this film managed to captivate me pleasantly. Especially because of the interactions between the characters. Ditto as in "Ex Machina", the number of protagonists is limited, so the focus is on the dialogs. Eventually they didn't end up in a tangle of irrelevant side issues. And despite the limited display of high-end technologies, the intellectual level was boosted by a series of (for me anyway) incomprehensible, technological gibberish such as aerated titanium, convert a hemispheric image into a planar representation, chambered baths of synthetic hymotrips, proloanaprotiese that demolishes gluten, pesinium vibo receptors en proprioceptive information. I'm not an engineer. That became clear after a while, because it went over my head at certain times.

It seems that artificial intelligence and robotics are the new, sexy hype. During the last year we were bombarded with films which had this as a central theme. Besides "Ex Machina" we were also treated to "Automata", "Chappie", "Transcendence", "The Machine" and "Her". Every movie demonstrated the dangers that lie in the further development of A.I. Should we worry about these self-developing machines getting a self-consciousness? And what about certain ethical issues? How will these highly intelligent beings operate in our society? And how will these artificial individuals react and act towards humans? This latter aspect was subtly elaborated in this rather excellent, low-budget film. A complex interplay between human individuals and an artificial,eerily human-looking robot. What takes place before your eyes, is a complicated love triangle with an android whose feelings resemble those of humans. With jealousy playing a major role.

The most striking is obviously the acting performance of David Clayton Rogers as Adam, the autonomously operating robot designed by David Kressen (Mark Webber). The way he plays Adam is sublime throughout the film. He acts in such a way that you're convinced that he's truly an artificially intelligent being. That puzzled look and the astonishment about the way David and Joy respond to him. That lost look while he's scanning all possible feedbacks in his mind, after which a stream of words follow as if he's quoting from a Wikipedia page. His designer sometimes exhibits the same characteristics. So you start to wonder if he isn't an android as well. The way he formulated his response whether or not joy is pretty for example: Her hair is nice. Good facial symmetry. Delicate features. Nice fashion sense. Yes, I do. I think she's pretty.

And finally there's Joy (Lucy Griffiths), an intelligent journalist who studied robotics (but as far as I understood she didn't graduate) and someone who worked on or designed a game called "Aquaria 3". Apparently this game was so successful, it wasn't necessary for her to continue her studies. This was the only thing that bothered me. Why was she chosen to be the person to write a report about such a highly technological issue? Or was there an additional plan specially created for her? Anyway, her performance were convincing enough.

I'm sure many will say this film is as slow as a snail and there's an absence of action and excitement. But the gradual build up, brilliant dialogs and subtle interplay of the characters is necessary so that the denouement will come as a surprise. Although I had two specific outcomes in mind, it still was an intriguing film with a disturbing result. Let me end with a slightly humorous remark: I'm sure that Adam is the ultimate dream for a woman ... a sophisticated home-garden-kitchen robot with "Tarzan" -like features ... Well, I guess the vision of the future will look appetizing for some.

More reviews here : http://bit.ly/1KIdQMT

Probably this is the breakthrough the director was looking for. A limited cast low budget science fiction drama. All the faces were fresh, I liked them, but should have been a little better. I won't deny that I enjoyed watching it, but I can't say it is a very clever screenplay. Because it was slightly comparable to 'Ex Machina', though the story derives when we had a conception like 'what if'. Just like 'Big Stan' and 'Get Hard', though this film was planned before 'Ex Machina' and sadly released after it.

The story of a journalist who interviews a scientist who developed an advanced AI. A week long interaction and when the final day arrives something terrible happens, that's going to flip the story you had seen so far. The whole film was shot inside a large house, there is no outside world, except in one scene which takes us to the terrace. I did not figure it out the secret, but I kind thought of it, so when it happened at the end I was not surprised.

For a B movie, it is a great quality. If you want to check it out a second string films, this is not a bad one to consider. There is no major, any impactable graphics to the narration, but in most of the crucial section was managed well. So the production quality is much better than I expected and so the overall film. Nowadays it is a very common for filmmakers to choose the robot theme in drama, but how good their film would be is our question and this one passed the test.

6/10

Although well traversed, especially more so since the turn of the century, artificial intelligence and its impact on humanity remains one of the main Sci-Fi tropes. Android certainly fits into this category, well written and well acted for the most part it does however ultimately let itself down at the final hurdle, with an ending that seems more fitting of a lesser film With shadows of Ex Machina and the excellent Westworld TV series, Android tackles the concepts of human vs created awareness, with some expected and unexpected consequences. With only 4 characters on screen the script is effective and the performances are engaging Certainly worth watching and without giving anything away, expect to be stimulated cerebrally rather than adrenergically!

That Matthew Leutwyler's sci-fi chamber piece "Uncanny" was made 3 years before Alex Garland's "Ex Machina" is interesting. That Leutwyler made his film for a fraction of Garland's budget is admirable. That Leutwyler's plot doesn't make a lick of sense is a shame.

Seriously, what was the point?

"Uncanny" and "Ex Machina" share similar story lines: an outsider is invited into the high-security lair of a reclusive genius in order to interact with and evaluate a new form of artificial intelligence. In each case, the outsider and the AI are of different genders and the reclusive genius has an agenda. Predictable consequences ensue. But where "Ex Machina" follows these events to their logical conclusion, "Uncanny" gives up on logic entirely for the sake of a surprise ending that a) isn't much of a surprise and b) negates almost everything that happened over the preceding 80 minutes.

On paper, the movie was probably conceived to be an insightful meditation on what makes humans humane and robots less so. Thrown in for good measure are some thoughts on what can and can't be controlled in sentient beings and whether we as a race are innovating and engineering ourselves right into obsolescence. There's also a bit about masters and servants and which are which. All big, important ideas that Garland's film handles with much more style and intelligence.

Still, it wasn't "Ex Machina" I thought about as I watched the film. What came to mind more was "Frankenstein." The book, not the movie. In the book, there's a relationship between the creator and his creation. They're in this together in the name of science and discovery. But that relationship sours when Dr. Frankenstein rejects the monster to be with his fiancée. I'm paraphrasing here, but that's the gist. "Uncanny" seemed to be moving in a similar direction. Actually, the movie was moving in exactly that direction. There was even the interesting possibility that roles were being reversed.

Then came the final cryptic ten minutes and it all turned out to be a huge waste of time. Adding insult to injury, there's an end-credits scene so nonsensical it's laugh-out-loud funny. Not, I'm guessing, what the filmmakers intended.

"Uncanny" isn't a bad movie, it's a bad story. The cinematography is fine (though the lingering shots of Shiva, the Destroyer, are a bit overly), the acting is adequate (if you don't mind watching Rainn Wilson, in a mercifully short cameo, chew scenery), and events move along at a fairly brisk pace.

It's just that those events simply don't add up when you get to the end.

Note: One question bothered me as I watched both "Uncanny" and "Ex Machina". Why, why, why—if you're going to build a creature and make it both smarter and stronger than yourself—why wouldn't you include an "off" switch?

Uncanny is one of those very rare movies that quickly and effectively engages the viewer.

This is a slow burn sci fi, there is not an abundance of special effects or action. What you get instead is a mostly well written, very clever story with a message about deception and surveillance. Technology may be amazing but, in the wrong hands, it is not necessarily our friend.

The acting is of a very high standard. Its hard to fault the cast in any way. That said, the story which is almost excellent lets the film down somewhat in the last five to ten minutes. Its conclusion is a little clumsy, whilst the rest of the film is carried with an airy, almost effortless, deftness. A more subtle conclusion, would still have carried the films message and I suspect, left a more indelible impression on the viewer.

So is Uncanny worth your time? Yes it is. It may be a little flawed but this is still a very good film with a very relevant message. Eight out of ten from me.

I can't add much more than the other reviews said - I'll just say it is an interesting sci-fi story and worth a viewing. BUT, if you haven't seen the final scene buried in the credits, it is a MUST SEE CLIP!

I gave this movie a 4, only because the acting is horrible. I loved the story, loved the effects, but the acting was a total distraction. What kept me watching was curiosity, and Lucy Griffiths. She is totally adorable in this movie. I would LOVE to see the movie re-made with a higher budget and proved actors. They could even keep Lucy as the main character because if she were surrounded by true talent, she would be able to raise her game. Mark Webber didn't need to be a male model, but they definitely needed to make his character more attractive to make the story more believable. It is still worth watching since it is only an hour and 25 minutes. But watch it to appreciate the story, not the presentation.

This wasn't actually a bad movie, which is why I am giving it a 5, I'd even give it a 6 or 7 if I was able to finish the whole thing, but I had to stop it 10 minutes short because it became too intense and disturbing at the end for me to be able to sit through, and up until then it had been super slow and not very eventful. I love slow powerful movies, and I love intense movies and can handle some disturbing events for shock value. But this movie was definitely over the line of what was just a bit too slow, and too disturbing. And I actually sat through almost the entire thing because it wasn't doing anything artistically wrong or bad throughout the entire film. It seemed like it was going to end up being a good movie if I just sat through the whole thing and saw how it ended. Unfortunately at the very end i had to bail because something sick was happening that just came out of nowhere and it was very hard to watch. So maybe it is worth you watching but do so at your own risk.

Comparisons with 'EX MACHINA' is inevitable, the set up is almost identical; 1 scientist has created a shockingly human-like robot and 1 person is sent to investigate just how life-life the robot actually is.

But let it be known that in no way is this a rip-off of said movie as it was released just 9 days after 'EX MACHINA' was... Hardly enough time to write a script of this magnitude and cast it as well as this was cast etc etc.

The acting is great (Mark Webber is just one hit-movie away from becoming an a-lister I believe, if you've seen him in other things you know that this performance is very unlike his usual performances, if he even has such a thing) and the atmosphere as well.

The writing is very good for the more part, I was slightly let down by the ending though I must admit but I still enjoyed the movie as a whole and will most likely watch again sometime.

If you like low-key up close and personal sci-fi's then this will most certainly do.

Perhaps in a world without "Ex Machina," this subdued, claustrophobic, cautionary tale about the boundaries (moral, practical, etc.) of artificial intelligence and experiments with the meanings of life might have had more impact. Then again, the characters, whether human or ostensibly human, just aren't interesting enough to sustain the running time, mainly because the screenplay by Shabin Chandrasoma overloads them with exposition and stilted dialogue. The actors do their best to overcome this but are ultimately defeated by it. There are some good robotics on display and the antiseptic set design and cool, stylish cinematography do a good job of setting an appropriately chilly, slightly menacing tone. However, it seems like director Matthew Leutwyler studied hard at the J. J. Abrams Academy of Lens Flares -- a little less of that distraction might have helped make this story more compelling. The two concluding twists -- one of which most people will see coming a mile off, the other of which was a surprise to me at a point where I was beyond caring -- left me thinking that this is something of a latter-day "Twilight Zone" or "Outer Limits" story that would have been better as a one-hour television show. With a little more thought and substantially more drama, this might have made a decent episode of "Black Mirror." As a movie, it doesn't add much to any conversation.

This film is probably going to be compared to ex machina because of the similar theme. It is a completely different story so do not fear repetition if you have seen ex machina.

I will not reveal any of the story line - I have seen one of the reviews on here that does actually indicate part of the storyline. The story is quite slow so it is not really a popcorn flick. I do not remember ever feeling bored. The story unfolds at a fairly casual rate.

The acting is good. The characters are intriguing and quite varied. I though the lady was actually quite unpleasant and childish (even for her age group) but she was not necessarily unbelievable. I am sure certain people will empathize with her.

Just remember that it is a low budget movie with very few actors. Take it for what it is but bear in mind that it is probably better than many films that had a far higher budget.

Couldn't get through it, the story just didn't flow nor did thing add up.

This is seriously one of the most boring movies I've ever seen. If I had even an ounce of self respect I would have turned it off half-way through, but I kind of wanted to see how bad it actually was. My fears were confirmed.

I'm not joking when I say this...for approximately one full hour, nothing happens that furthers the plot. It just keeps saying the same thing over and over, and you got it in the first two minutes.

I guessed the "twist" about five minutes into the film. The rest of the time was redeemable only for the hotness of the girl, which is where the two stars come from.

If you get sucked in by the trailer, I don't blame you. If you watch it all the way to the end, I salute you.

Im surprised this movie has only one review, so I thought Id better chip in. Its not often one sees a movie and is so moved by it, as to submit a review, but this one did it for me.

Its quite a cerebral movie, with preference to dialogue over special effects. The film is well directed and the script well written, the character arcs are well formed and detailed. I wish more big budget movies would be made like this, but I suspect they wouldn't attract too many viewers sadly.

Anyway if you're a thinking person and like sci fi / especially anything to do with AI, this is a real gem of a find. The story line is gripping from start to finish and the attention to detail is just superb. All the actors did a great job, and its refreshing to see people putting real effort into their craft. The creator of the AI entity in this movie is believable and authentic unlike that drunken character in Ex Machina - which was that particular movies real weakness.

The twist at the end was shocking and not something I saw coming. A real treat and thoroughly enjoyable experience.

They suck on each other's D***s the whole time. I hate it.

The plot was intriguing in this small flick, and the acting was quite good. It took me about 30 min into the movie to start to suspect what going on, but I was not trying to figure out the movie. This was a cool little sci-fi flick. Nothing earth shattering but well done and entertaining. I am glad I watched it. I like the theme of Robots and humans. I love the show Real Humans (2012– ) "Äkta människor" from Sweden. In that show they called the Robots, Hubots- best name ever. Now it has been remade for the UK/US version, (not nearly as good as the Swedish version). Still good. Those shows take the theme of Uncanny further.

I really tried to watch this movie.

But after half hour this movie didn't lead to anything.

Yeah the story is great, since it is copied from existing movie EX MACHINA.

But rather than that, there is nothing else to it. Directing is monotone. Like there where not anymore people than actors and director. Had high hopes for this movie, to develop story different from previously mentioned movie. But was disappointed very at poor story development.

I'm not movie director or any good of a movie critic. But I think i could made up some better story to it.

Joy Andrews (Lucy Griffiths) is a reporter who is given the opportunity to spend 7 days with a robotics expert David Kressan (Mark Webber) and his creation Adam (David Clayton Rogers) whom is the most believable and realistic AI that has ever been created - he's an AI that David has lived in isolation with for the last 7 years. Things start to take a turn for the worse when Adam starts to exhibit abnormal and disturbing behaviour towards Joy when it seems that both the AI and its creator begin to develop feelings for the same woman...

There are two words that sprung to mind when I was watching this film 'EX MACHINA' and it seems fairly obvious that ANDROID borrows quite heavily from this film. Both films cover the same theme of developing an AI that is capable of fooling humans and with an AI that is more self-aware than its creator imagines or believes.

The problems with Android begin at a very early stage with the initial story set-up; the dialogue that is exchanged between the characters is mind-boggling and contains words that only scientists or members of MENSA are likely to be able to understand. I got the feeling that this was included at the start of the film to try and make it seem clever (which in retrospect becomes laughable when you learn of the simplistic plotting). The poor dialogue and lack of much happening in the first half makes for a fairly slow opener (although those for a penchant for Chess will be well catered for here).

The second half is better if only because it has some life to it and has more going for it; there is a battle between the AI and its creator and the power struggle between the two is interesting, but whilst it is interesting it's never really a story that grips or involves (mainly because it offers nothing that we haven't seen before). It's difficult to critique performances in a film focusing on AI as naturally some performers are going to be 'cough cough' slightly robotic; this is the case for Webber and Rogers for the most part although Rogers fares best out of the two men (but in fairness this is because he is given more to work with). Griffiths is given the role of the most 'normal' person, but she works the role well giving a rather natural performance, but she's able to flex her acting chops later in the film.

The end result of all this is a rather poor film with little in the way of originality or surprises and with its rather dull and dialogue-heavy first half it makes for an uneven film which sadly, for the most part, is fairly uninvolving. It's very similar to Ex Machina and even though I thought that film was overrated and had its fair share of problems I would still pick that film over this one.

Uncanny is an underrated science fiction movie. This movie tells one a lot about artificial intelligence and what artificial intelligence can actually do . Through this movie one gets to know how little the difference between an ai and a human being is . I'd say is a must watch and has a good twist in the end!