Marjorie Prime

This review of Marjorie Prime is spoiler free

**** (4/5)

WITH COMPUTERS ADVANCING, newer mobile devices being released at least three times a year and the chance of having a robot in our home quickly dawning. This brings the question; is the world of the sci-fi genre truly taking over the way people feel, with grief, love, humanity and memory? Well, with the latest instalments of sci-fi films such as Spike Jonze's 'Her', Alex Garland's 'Ex Machina' or perhaps as recent as this October with Denis Villeneuve's 'Blade Runner 2049' the possibility of a cerebral mind taking over the world could be sooner than once thought. Or it could even be happening right now - the fact is we just wouldn't know it.

Welcome Michael Almereyda's adaptation of Jordan Harrison's Pulitzer-nominated study of memory, grief and love Marjorie Prime. Set in a future when death doesn't have to be the end, an elderly woman named Marjorie (Lois Smith) spends her final, ailing days with a younger holographic projection of her late husband Walter (Jon Hamm), spending as much time as possible conversing about the complex structure of memory and how much it can affect us the older we get. On paper, the film's plot is simple weaving between the memories she had with her daughter (Geena Davis) who hates the holographic being of her father, her career as a violinist, to dealing with grief after the death of her husband. However, under the paper Almereyda keeps you thinking as he carefully constructs thought-provoking questions of memory, grief, family, humanity and loss. Much like 'Her', he spends his time delving deeper into the complexity of the human mind, digging it out piece by piece delivering every piece on a silver platter leaving you to think about the pieces he leaves behind.

Visual-wise, there's not much to look at aside from the holographic projection of Walter, it's not like 'Blade Runner 2049' where there's CG imagery popping out at every corner of the screen. Almereyda keeps it visually sparse keeping your eyes fixed on one special effect. And Sean Prince's stunningly serene airy cinematography is fluid and varied enough to enchant through minimalist yet stunning chamber rooms to prevent the stage bound feel. While Marjorie Prime is a slow-burning conversational piece and may not be to everyone's taste, it's an intelligent, powerfully quiet and soulful piece that will keep you asking in-depth questions about the fragile construction of the human mind playing on history, emotions and humanity it'll be almost too hard to forget.

VERDICT Hamm and Smith are stunning in an unforgettable quietly poignant sci-fi breathing in fresh thought-provoking questions about humanity and feelings.

The sci-fi context is irrelevant in this film. It's just an excuse to get people to talk, and see how they each process grief. How everyone deal with their own sadness and sorrow, and how they confront or do not confront them.

There is no plot, or big reveal, or secret that we uncover at the end. This is purely about human sentiment. It's as real as it gets. Simple, and painful.

I'm not sure if I was bored or fascinated during my viewing. The movie, if we pay attention to it and not to our phone, can strike a chord. I'd guess especially if you ever had to deal with life shattering grief at some point in your life.

This film tells the story of a family who uses a technology to bring back their deceased relatives using an interactive holographic technology.

The first ten minutes of "Marjorie Prime" is interesting, especially when the nature of the man is revealed. However, the remainder of the film is just boring talks. They talk for a long time at length, and nothing comes out of the conversations. Nothing happens in the film, except an increasing number of holographic images. I don't get the point of the story.

Saw this at the Rotterdam film festival 2017 (website: iffr.com). It all started as a compelling and original premise, but I got lost underway about what it all meant story-wise speaking. A lot of talking, but I still don't know what makes everyone tick.

On the other hand, we were made aware that manipulating the past is one of the prime issues at hand, once you are given the opportunity to re-make idealized versions of deceased relatives, and to even improve on them by planting memories that are not completely true to reality (every now and then we hear the words "I'll remember it now"). Could have been thought provoking, but I lost my interest halfway the running time.

All in all, the actors are much better than the play they act in. The festival visitors ranked this movie a bit better than halfway at the 57th (out of 172) place for the audience award, with score 4.009 (out of 5).

If you like great theatre, which is more about great dramatic performances than about special effects and soundtracks, you'll have to appreciate this film, as it features what may be the greatest dramatic performances by Geena Davis and Tim Robbins to date, and brilliant work by Lois Smith and Jon Hamm that does not deserve to go unnoticed.

The very original writing delves into the human experience, into aging, and into the role technology will likely increasingly play in the human experience.

I have a feeling that this is one of those films that will go under-noticed and under-appreciated, but will some day receive a lot of attention for it's prophetic technological implications.

For anyone who has ever suffered a profound loss, this film may have special meaning, beyond the introspective insight that it's likely to inspire in any human being. The story is at times funny, curious, and also sad, without relying on cheap underinvested plot devices or well-timed musical themes to trigger emotional responses.