S1m0ne (2002)

I don't see the problem with this, it has everything a movie should need to be a hit.I mean, Al Pacino is in it. Sure you feel sort of robbed if you sit through a Pacino movie and he hasn't screamed and yelled by the end of it. Something about snakes on a...wait, that's Sam Jackson, but it was an easy mistake, we go to see their films for largely the same reason.But even if he didn't scream and yell and threaten to take a flame-thrower to this place...it's still Al Pacino, so you have to see it. He DID give us the hands-down best documentary on Shakespeare ever made.And it had Winona Ryder in it, and she's not only a great actress but, if you are my age, you had a crush on her growing up.Jay Mohr, the man who was in EVERY 90s movie ever made.So the movie is worth seeing for the cast, there is talent there.But wait there is more, Andrew Niccol wrote it...you know Gattaca, The Terminal, Lord of War, The Truman Show...the dude has a seriously sharp pen and S1m0ne is no exception.The script is tight, it went places, it had points and plot lines seldom made in this era of plot less pointless popcorn munching entertainment.Not only that, but the directing was solid too.It should have been a force to be reckoned with in the box office...and yet no one has seen it.Check it out, it's a good film and one that is going to be rediscovered and praised, in the future, when critics and audiences learn how to think again.Once society starts using that lump that's three-feet above their...well, if it came out in the 70s, the 80s, the 90s, you's have heard about it and seen it on EW's Movies to See Before you Die list.Unfortunately for everyone involved, it came out at the birth of the re-make era where originality is shunned.

This is a very smart, funny, and observant film about Hollywood, the media in general, and the public, and how they manipulate each other. The film pokes good natured fun at Hollywood and the media, and also makes some good points about the manner in which some stars become almost gods, worshipped by millions of fans, and how people are inclined to make very favorable assumptions about those who they adore. Pacino - superb as the down-trodden producer. Looks younger at the beginning of the film, and as Simone (his computer generated protégé played by Rachel Roberts), wins the film world, his appearance ages as the stress of maintaining the facade takes its toll. There is a poignant moment in the film, when Pacino is creating Simone's voice in a taped interview. In that moment, he makes you realize he loves his creation, and at the same time, becomes aware of his own underlying Hollywood narcissism as Simone is as an extention of his own personality and creativity. It explores the dark side of human with light humour and is disturbing as a social commentary on the adverse effects on computer proliferation. This comedy is smart, screechingly funny and unpretentious fun that comes as real and into-your-face as it can be.Overall rating: 8 out of 10.

First off, it was nice to see Al Pacino a different type of character for a change. Between that and the fact that I found myself laughing out loud at numerous points during this film, it was difficult to decide whether I'd rate this film a 7 or an 8. In my rating system, 7 is a solid film and 8 is an exceptional film. I rarely give out 9s. 10s are cases where the film is pretty much flawless while offering massive replay value. That said, a seven is a respectable rating. Now for the topic that this film addresses. The possibility of virtual actors and the very real obsessive behavior of a lot of fans out there. The cult of celebrity is something that is encouraged by the studios. One could say that it's at the expense of the actors. Or course, people could counter that by saying that actors are well compensated. Well.... I suppose some are. Still though, it's sad to watch celebrities unravel under the pressure of fame. As for virtual reality actors, I've done my time in the field of visual effects, so I can say that what's presented in this film is pretty much possible today. We're so very close and the YouTube video "Ed" by Chris Jones is the most recent confirmation that reality can be simulated very effectively using today's software and hardware. Now does that mean that I think virtual actors will take over the industry and displace real actors? The answer is no. People who haven't tried making virtual characters generally don't realize the sheer amount of humanity that goes into making those characters looks and act real. There's a person (or a group of people) working their asses off. And the sheer amount of real human reference that's required is massive. It's painstaking and there's a point where the law of diminishing returns begins to kick in. Yes, it's possible to convince people for short scenes or shots. However, the technical effort required to totally convince people that a virtual character is real for a two-hour motion picture is astronomical. One slip. One tiny flaw in the shading, lighting, texturing, or animation and the illusion is broken. This is a reason why all-CGI films that do attempt to simulate reality are very careful to select only the most convincing scenes for their trailers. Last but not least, there's something vacant in most virtual characters. Again, it may be possible to simulate emotion in the eyes for short a short duration. However, I've yet to see one that can do this consistently. The problem becomes even more of a challenge when you introduce code to create an 'automated' artificial intelligence version of the character. Movies love to present virtual characters that 'run on their own' and present them as something that's supposed to be convincing. Something that sophisticated that actually fools both the eyes and the heart is something I'd certainly have to see to believe. So it is that this sort of technology will likely remain in the realm of background scenes and for stand-ins for shots that are too dangerous (or just too cumbersome) for a real actor to play. And that's likely for the best. As mentioned in the behind-the-scenes footage for this film, many CG animators are themselves frustrated actors. I know a number of them and it's interesting to watch them look into the mirror... making faces to themselves for reference for their digital counterparts.As a movie that has something to say, I think this succeeded. It too holds a mirror up to the state of Hollywood today (and many of the uber-fans that flock to its films and chase after celebrities). There's some very sharp and funny satire in this film. Much of it is very true. Anyone who has worked in the film and television industry will have a tough time not laughing at how spot-on the jokes are. And to that I applaud the actors. They did a great job. I don't think they need worry about being replaced by machines.

Al Pacino plays a movie director with integrity who gets kicked by a movie studio, inherits a hard drive (!) through which he creates "Simone", a virtual human being, and from there films. Things do get tricky as he has to do stuff to make people think the virtual reality really is real. I cannot even begin to properly allow you to read how much I hate this film; it's like taking Philosophy 101, reading Descartes saying "I think, therefore I am" and then formulating your own theories thinking you're God, unknowing to the fact that somebody already did this before you, and that the plot and story are so wafer-thin that you just want to kill someone. Not to mention there are logical holes as big as our galaxy in this piece of crap, I want to kill everybody included in this film, and the end was so bad I wanted to Patrick Bateman myself. So why do I give it 2/10? I'm sleep deprived today, and this is the type of film I usually see when I can't think. This film made me realise it was horrible and stupid, and I shouldn't be able to do that. F-ing trash piece of garbage ill. AAAYEIAYEIYYEIYI!