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.
Agreed - they're all outstanding.
Ex Machina might be the most interesting for HN regulars.
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?
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.
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...
I thought this review in feministing was on point: http://feministing.com/2015/05/28/goddess-from-the-machine-a...
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
I mean, Sunshine's 3rd act... Wow. Heh.
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.
The book, however, is one of a kind.
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?
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.