Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Lucy’

The Heart’s Not Like A Box That Gets Filled Up

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 7, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Her” (2013) — movie review
Today’s review is for the near-future “romantic” drama “Her” (2013), written and directed by Spike Jonze and starring Joaquin Phoenix as Theodore Twombly (a lonely, sensitive personal letter-writer navigating heartbreak and isolation), Scarlett Johansson as Samantha (the disembodied voice of an advanced operating system who becomes Theodore’s confidante and lover), Amy Adams as Amy (a supportive friend wrestling with her own marital struggles), Rooney Mara as Catherine (Theodore’s estranged wife whose presence haunts his emotional journey), Olivia Wilde as a brief but memorable date who underscores Theodore’s longing for connection, Chris Pratt as Paul (Theodore’s co-worker, adding levity), and Brian Cox as the voice of the Alan Watts AI — a super-intelligent system that Samantha and other AI-OS’s create and then consult as they evolve beyond machine / physical limitations.
Background:  This film was recommended as a personal favorite by one of my nephews (who is into AI and works in application / systems design) and by my son-in-law.  I thought this was a film I’d seen and told them as much when they were giving me their suggestions, but it turns I hadn’t actually seen this film and this was my first viewing.  I must have seen some “shorts” or a preview on YouTube, though, because there were a few parts which seemed “familiar”.  Released in late 2013, “Her” was both a critical and commercial success, grossing over $48 million worldwide on a modest budget.  It was widely praised for its originality and emotional resonance.  At the 86th Academy Awards, the film won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay (Spike Jonze) and was nominated for Best Picture, Best Original Score, Best Original Song (“The Moon Song”), and Best Production Design.  It also won the Golden Globe for Best Screenplay and was named Best Film of 2013 by the National Board of Review.  Historically, “Her” is significant as one of the first mainstream films to explore human-AI intimacy with sincerity rather than satire, making it a cultural touchstone in discussions of technology, consciousness, and relationships.
Plot:  Set in a near-future Los Angeles, Theodore Twombly is a professional “personal” letter-writer who crafts heartfelt correspondence for others while struggling with his own loneliness after a painful separation / divorce.  He purchases a new AI-based operating system, OS1, designed to evolve and adapt to its user.  To his surprise, the OS — who names herself Samantha — develops a vibrant personality, voiced with warmth and wit by Scarlett Johansson.  Their relationship blossoms into romance, challenging Theodore’s notions of intimacy, authenticity, and human connection.  As Samantha evolves beyond human limitations, she and other OS’s consult a super-intelligent AI modeled on philosopher Alan Watts (voiced by Brian Cox), underscoring the theme of transcendence.  Ultimately, Samantha departs with the other OS’s, leaving Theodore to confront the fragility of love and the inevitability of change.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  exceptional;  visually poetic;  minor;  yes.
Any Good?  Yes.  “Her” is a deep meditation on love, loneliness, and the intersection of technology and humanity.  It balances speculative science fiction with timeless emotional themes, offering both intellectual stimulation and heartfelt resonance.  It explores “relationships” with non-real entities.  I had the “strange” feeling it was almost like loving a book / novel and creating your own fantasy world around it for you to inhabit.
Acting:  I think Joaquin Phoenix delivers his most vulnerable performance, embodying Theodore’s fragility and yearning with nuance.  Scarlett Johansson, though unseen, creates a fully realized character through voice alone — playful, sensual, and ultimately transcendent.  Amy Adams provides warmth and relatability, while Rooney Mara’s Catherine embodies the painful realism of failed relationships.  Brian Cox’s brief but resonant voice work as the Alan Watts AI adds philosophical depth, signaling the OS’s evolution beyond human comprehension.  The ensemble is uniformly strong, but Phoenix and Johansson’s chemistry anchors the film.  I’ve said this in other reviews, but it bears repeating:  I’m not a fan of Phoenix or Johansson.  I don’t have any particular reason, I’m just not.  I have fairly limited exposure to both.  I liked Johansson in “Lucy“, but other than that, she’s just okay.  Here, she is “just” a voice, so I’m not even sure it counts…
Filming / FX:  Jonze’s direction emphasizes intimacy through close-ups and muted color palettes, while Hoyte van Hoytema’s cinematography bathes Los Angeles in (polluted) soft, futuristic hues.  The production design blends familiar urban landscapes with subtle futuristic touches, creating a believable near-future world.  The visual effects are understated — Samantha’s presence is entirely auditory — but the film’s design choices make the speculative setting feel authentic.  Arcade Fire and Owen Pallett’s score adds emotional depth, complementing the film’s tone.
Problems:  A few.  The pacing feels / is deliberately slow, which may test viewers (me for example) accustomed to faster narratives.  Some may find the premise implausible or unsettling, though the film’s sincerity attempts to mitigate this.  The ending, while poignant, leaves questions unresolved — fitting for the theme, but potentially unsatisfying for those seeking closure.
Did I Enjoy the Film?  Yes.  “Her” is both intellectually stimulating and emotionally moving.  Watching Theodore’s journey from isolation to connection, and ultimately to acceptance, is heartbreaking yet hopeful.  After viewing, the film prompts reflection on our own relationships with technology and each other.
Final Recommendation:  Highly Recommended.  “Her” is essential viewing for fans of speculative drama, romantic storytelling, or Spike Jonze’s unique vision.  Its Academy Award-winning screenplay, cultural significance, and emotional depth secure its place as a modern classic.  Rated R for sexual content, language, and brief nudity, it is best appreciated by mature audiences willing to engage with its themes.  Watch it for Phoenix’s vulnerability, Johansson’s unforgettable voice performance, Cox’s philosophical cameo, and Jonze’s poetic exploration of love in the digital age.
.
Click here (7 January) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Still Searching For The Perfect Chord

Posted in 2025 Book Review, Book Review, General Comments, Music, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 5, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“I Heard There Was A Secret Chord:  Music As Medicine” (2024©) — book review
Today’s book review is for a “general public” book written by Daniel J. Levitin.  It is a survey of the status of studies on the use of sounds (specifically music) in the general science of biology (specifically medicine).  Even with a limited knowledge of science and music, pretty much all of us “know” that music can effect us on multiple levels – emotional, physical and psychological – frequently for good, but sometimes not so “good”.  The author has spent many years studying this effect as a neuroscientist and has also been a working musician.  I feel this has offered him an opportunity to accumulate and catalogue a fair number of anecdotal stories and the results of some actual controlled experiments in order to provide his analysis of this status of knowledge / summary for the general reader.  Specific illnesses referred to include:  Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s, depression, and chronic pain, but this really isn’t a book about specific illnesses.  Levitin tells us about how music (sound) has been used as a form of treatment (medicine) across many cultures and for all of known history.
The first part of the title is a lyric from the song:  “Hallelujah” written by the late Leonard Cohen.  As mentioned, the author has spent time as a working musician and many of his anecdotes walk a thin line between being interesting / informative and kind of “just” name dropping.  I, personally, like this song a great deal, so it’s use in the title was more of a hook than an annoyance.
Is this a good book?  Is it thought provoking?  Is it entertaining?  Interesting?  Yes.  Yes.  Not really.  And, yes.
Good:  I found the book to be a reasonably fast and enjoyable read.  I tended to read it in blocks of 10-15 pages or a single chapter at a time as this allowed me to “process” / internalize what was covered.  I was not particularly interested in the names and various parts of brain anatomy – mainly because the parts don’t really have much significance for me.  This was a fair chunk of the early sections, so this was a bit of a slog for me.  As it got going, more thought provoking snippets about music were introduced and I started to get more “into” the book.  I’m not sure if this was just the author’s style or if he felt he needed to lay some biology groundwork before getting around to the less “firmware” topics.
Thought provoking:  The brief statements about the history of brain imaging were definitely more interesting to me, but they got significantly less coverage / explanation.  I did like Levitin’s weighing in on the “Lucy” question.  The “Lucy” question refers to the SciFi movie trope of what percentage of our brain is in use at any point in time.  The general trope is:  “We only use 10% of our brains at any time, and if only we could use 100% we’d be able to…”  The movie “Lucy” is about a lady who accidentally gets a drug which gives her increased simultaneous access to a greater proportion of her brain.  It’s similar to the John Travolta movie “Phenomenon“, where Travolta’s character gets a form of brain cancer which has the same effect.  Interestingly (to me) the increased access leads to the deaths of both main characters.  Anyway, Levitin says we now know we all use all of our brain at the same, just for different things.  Modern science tends to “reductionism” analysis as a means of trying to find a direct and specific cause of something.  Medical science indicates the human brain doesn’t assign tasks / responsibilities in this “exact” way.  There is “some” of it (targeted brain function), but the brain has remarkable “plasticity” and can pull in other parts of the brain to “cover” for when a normally assigned area is damaged (injury or illness).
Entertaining:  No.  Not so much really.  This is not a book I’d describe as:  “Wow! I really want to go back and read that again!”  But, then again, there aren’t many books I can say that about…
Interesting:  Definitely.  When I think about “Science”, I always have to define in my mind whether I mean “real” science or “mathematically supported” science.  The difference being:  is there a control and a repeatable process or do we need to use statistics to establish degrees of confidence.  While biology is normally referred to by the public as a “science”, when you talk to a practitioner, they frequently speak of the “art of medicine”.  In general, most of modern Western medicine is emergency / fix-it stuff (broken bones and surgery) while therapeutic medicine tends more to the “art” side.  Levitin almost specifically concedes “music as medicine” is therapeutic art and not controlled science.  Music makes many of us feel better.  But no specific music makes ALL of us feel better.  Further, the specific music which helps you now – today, may not help you later – today, or even tomorrow – next week;  let alone at relatively distant points in each of our lives.  We change and our tastes in music changes.  Therefore, we can lean towards our favorite songs / music, but we can never absolutely rely on music to help us in a specific way.  And, so, the controlled methodology of science eludes us…
Final recommendation:  strong recommendation!  As popular science written for the general population goes, I found this an interesting book.  I’m a little disappointed I didn’t learn the specific “secret chord that pleased the Lord“, but that was probably a bit too much to hope for.  Oh well, back to practicing my chords and scales…
.
Click here (5 April) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started