Ex Machina (2015) * * *

Directed by:  Alex Garland

Starring:  Domnhall Gleeson, Alicia Vikander, Oscar Isaac

Ex Machina is the type of film Stanley Kubrick would have been proud of.    It takes place on an isolated research facility owned by a brilliant, but strange scientist/billionaire named Nathan (Isaac) in the middle of lush forests and cool waterfalls.     The only way back to civilization is a helicopter.    When a character asks when they will be reaching Nathan's property, the pilot answers, "We have been flying over it for the last two hours."  

Nathan and his facility exude ominous vibes.    Research is ostensibly conducted, but is there something more sinister going on?    A visitor named Caleb (Gleeson) , who works for Nathan's company as a top-notch analyst, is about to find out.    Nathan brought him to the facility to test out how closely his latest artificial intelligence robot named Ava (Vikander) can pass for human.    Caleb conducts the Turing test, which was featured in The Imitation Game (2014) and is used to study how "human" robots or computers can be.    Ava is part robot and certainly part computer, but is she human?    Or can she pass for human?    Caleb attempts to find out, while Nathan eerily observes via cameras.   

Things are clearly not as they seem, or are they?    What is the extent of Nathan's research?   Who can be trusted?    These are questions that are at the heart of Ex Machina.     The facility itself is cold and sterile, as are the living quarters.    Ava not surprisingly comes across as more human than her human counterparts.    Is she simply an intelligent robot?    Can she feel or even fall in love?    Her interactions with Caleb suggest that she can.    Can she manipulate or is she the manipulator?   Both are possibilities.   

Thank goodness Ex Machina does not devolve into a simple love story in which a human falls for a robot or vice-versa.    It is a movie that depends on its atmosphere and those eerie feelings that the humans project.    We think we know that Caleb is a manipulated bystander and that Nathan is a mad scientist looking to dominate the world.     The movie alters reality several times, so we question our own feelings about the characters.

Oscar Isaac plays Nathan as a fitness-obsessed, lonely near-alcoholic who may or may not be up to something more.    This is another brilliant performance by Isaac, whose roles lately have specialized in controlled rage and wit.    He doesn't seem like the type of actor who can play dumb.   Isaac's Nathan is scary not because of anything he does, but because of what he may be capable of doing.   Gleeson's Caleb is not totally naive about his situation.    He senses something is off, but can't put a finger on it.    Gleeson doesn't show us all of the cards, which allows for some growth.     Vikander is a benevelant presence with a sweet face that we believe instantly.    She is in a sense a prisoner of her creator.    Her love angle with Gleeson doesn't quite work, but then we discover that their relationship may not be as it seems.  

The review of the plot and characters may seem vague, but it also underlines the film's strength.    In a movie in which one character conducts a Turing test on another, we are left to figure out who is human and who is truly the robot.   

The Gambler (2014) * *

Directed by:  Rupert Wyatt

Starring:  Mark Wahlberg, John Goodman, Brie Larson, Michael K. Williams, Jessica Lange, Alvin Ing

Jim Bennett (Wahlberg) is a gambling addict who may not be lucky at gambling, but he sure is fortunate to owe money to guys who are this reasonable.    What is Jim's plan to pay back Mr. Lee (Ing), to whom he owes 250 large?    Demand that Mr. Lee stake him for another $100,000.    I'm reminded of John Cusack's line in High Fidelity, "This is like being turned down for one dollar and then asking for $50,000".     The drama is sucked out of The Gambler because we kinda sorta know that Jim would be ok.    Why should we care then that Jim continues to get in deeper?   

Wahlberg's Jim is seen at the beginning blowing a whole lot of money on bad beats in blackjack and roulette.    He is trying to win $200,000 to pay off the aforementioned Mr. Lee.    He asks another gangster named Neville Baraka (Williams) to stake him for $50,000, which he promptly blows also.    Now he's in deep with two gangsters who have flunkies that like to beat up people.     At first he asks his rich mother (Lange) for the $250,000, which she gives him after some minor fuss.    Instead of paying off the gangster, he shows his girlfriend around a casino and blows that too.   

Jim has a day job.    He's an associate professor at a local college.    He wrote one book that was ever published and has spent recent years trying to reclaim that lost glory.    His classes are a sight to behold.    He spends a great deal of time making long, self-aggrandizing speeches full of expletives and putdowns.    His class should be one that students drop in the first week.    Maybe they do.  

Jim's girlfriend is a pretty female student who moonlights as a waitress at Mr. Lee's establishment.    She knows of Jim's other life as a degenerate gambler and is intrigued by this moody guy with a death wish.    Despite Larson's attractiveness, her character isn't developed past more than an obligatory girlfriend our hero must spend time with in between casino visits.

Wahlberg spends a lot of the movie looking sloppy, disheveled, and gaunt.    He certainly has a self-destructive streak which is evident.    Why else would he gamble away $250,000 that he could have paid off his creditors with?     Unlike Owning Mahony (2003), in which Philip Seymour Hoffman played a gambling addict, The Gambler sees its hero not as sick or even an addict, but just a guy with very bad luck.     Jim is supremely cocky and is never allowed to be seen as fearful for his life or controlled by something that is bigger than he is.    Dan Mahony, the gambler in the 2003 film, is someone who lives and dies by the thrill of the action.    Jim Bennett isn't seen as someone who even likes the action.  

The gangsters Jim owes are much more fun to watch than Jim.    Michael K. Williams was great on Boardwalk Empire as loyal bootlegger Chalky White.    He exhibits depth here as a gangster who has ulterior motives in trying to persuade a college basketball sensation to point shave.     Alvin Ing and Goodman are consummate pros who may feel a bit of pity for Jim.     These gangsters are certainly not run-of-the-mill, but as depicted in this screenplay are far too reasonable to be a threat to our hero.    If you consider the amount of leeway they seem to give Jim, it is amazing these guys ever get paid back by anyone.    With that evident, we realize Jim is not in danger and thus the tension is gone.    What is the point then?