S1m0ne (2002)

You won't be disappointed!

The Worst Film Ever

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

This movie doesn't begin well, quickly goes downhill and the less said about the ending the better. Terrible.This is possibly Pacino's worst film. The production values are off, the script is amateurish and the delivery could have been phoned in. It's as though everyone working on this was about to go on vacation and had to get this stinker in the can before they left. There's an overwhelming sense the whole crew had lost interest before they even started shooting.Pacino is not a comedian nor a comic actor. He can do comic relief in a serious movie really well such as in Scent of a Woman. But he is so poorly cast in this movie that there is never even a grain of mild amusement created by what is supposed to be his humorous banter. Instead, depressing and violence inducing tedium is the result.Avoid this movie at all costs. You'll find more entertainment cleaning the gunk out of your dishwasher sump drain.

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.

a modern fairy-tale. about importance of image, lies as food of entertainment, domination of technique and rating. about a fake world. a nice, amusing film. and one of not real brilliant roles of Al Pacino. and it is not his guilty. the script desires explore all possibilities of a clever idea. so, the role of poor Viktor becomes more and more little. or insignificant. so, the best remains beginning. than it seems be too much and the all story may have few fake stripes. it is a satire. and this is motif for who must be viewed not very frequent. because its magic is fragile. because the seductive image can be more than real. a nice movie. and one of Al Pacino gray roles.

I was interested in seeing this film, because I was intrigued by the concept, I saw that the director Andrew Niccol also wrote for The Truman Show and I love that film and I like Al Pacino. On paper this should have been a great film, instead it is uneven but worth seeing.I agree the romance is dull, that the script has its weak spots, the direction is lacking in places and that the story is unevenly paced. However, I loved the concept and the satire worked as it was very sharp and thought-provoking. Al Pacino handles his role well, and Rachel Roberts is intriguing as S1m0ne, while Catherine Keener, Winona Ryder Jason Schwartzman and Jay Mohr are solid.Overall, it was a decent film but could have been more. 6/10 Bethany Cox