Really terrific movie and the director thanked me for my review

[Onkel Neal]

I'm not much of a fanboy for much, but I have to admit, it was definitely a thrill when my Tweet was liked and replied to by the writer/director of The Artifice Girl.

[Moonlight]

I haven't seen it myself and I don't think I ever will but, I took a timeout from my heavy schedule to find two opposing views on this film to give the members a better understanding of just what type of film this actually is, I'm sure someone will appreciate this.

15min in and my hairs were already standing up. A lot of information to take in but the dialogue in this is premium interaction.👌🏾

I dont know how they did it but it didn’t take much convincing for me to glue myself in and invested. I overlooked the foreshadowing in the opening conversation with Siri until my 2nd watch, I was in no condition to finish it in one sitting, so I had to revisit it while starting from the beginning.

Remember how I mentioned a whole bunch of information in my intro? Turns out that's them dumping exposition. Given the short runtime and how they've layered their set it makes all the sense.That first scene actually turns out to be the 1st Act, 2nd Act being the following scene, and so forth onto the 3rd Act. Was completely blown away on how they made such a low budget Sci-fi film work so easy. This just shows how vital good writing is in any film.🤷🏾‍♂️ That's a difference worth noting. Makes all the difference, really. The screenplay does most of the job to keep you engaged, and it's fireworks, I tell you. We also have the actors to thank for that.

Sinda Nichols was truly exceptional, like, where did this lady come from? Where she been throughout the recent years in film? She sure plays a strict character, though. So intense. This whole movie is rather intense.🤔

The approach into this Sci-fi film leans more towards your emotions than you'd normally find in your modern take of Sci-fi films with the plot generally steered by visuals and subpar storytelling. This leaves a morally Grey tone for how we encounter the plot, because shii does get a little dark, especially when you have to put yourself in the events of the movie, such as what would you do in that situation, given the tools? Really plays on the emotion. It's deep, fierce, dark, introspective, heated, eye-opening and ambiguous.

This lands a 9/10 because it got me thinking and challenging my own moral compass. Cause ccrew it, I woulda done the same.😒 I think this is a topic we should often talk about.

Special agents Deena (Sinda Nichols) and Amos (David Girard) interrogate Garreth (Franklin Ritch), a computer programmer, about the fact that he uses Cherry (Tatum Matthews), an 11-year-old girl, to lure and bait child preditors online before ratting on them to the police. Garreth claims that Cherry is actually and AI program that he designed, so Deena and Amos hire him to join their team.

The screenplay by writer/director Franklin Ritch begins as a gripping thriller before morphing into a provocative sci-fi drama and a timely cautionary tale about the long-term consequences of using AI. Ritch separates the film into three chapters. The first takes place in the room where the special agents interrogate Garreth, so it's pretty much a lengthy expositional scene. The second chapter takes place a few years later when Garreth has already joined their team while continuing to use Cherry as bait. Cherry has become more advanced and intelligent throughout the years. The third and final chapter takes place decades later when Garreth (now played by Lance Henriksen) is an old man and Cherry has become so advanced that she exhibits signs of self-consciousness as looks back at her career. The Artifice Girl doesn't really flesh out Cherry or Garreth as characters enough for you to care about them or their bond. He's been using her for many years, so it's unclear what kind of emotional attachment, if any, he has for her. What kind of life has he lead throughout the years? Is she like his surrogate daughter? The screenplay explores many thought-provoking issues about the ethical and moral consequences of using artificial intelligence, but it's only mildly engaging as a narrative. Writer/director Franklin Ritch includes a lot of dialogue, which is fine, but there's very little wit and comic relief, so it feels somewhat dry, tedious and pedestrian. As Truffaut had wisely stated, a truly great film has the right balance of Truth and Spectacle. The Artifice Girl has plenty of Truth, but not nearly enough Spectacle because it rarely finds the Spectacle within the Truth. There are shades of Isaac Asimov throughout the film, so if you're a fan of Asimov's cerebral stories, that's a plus. Bicentennial Man, based on Asimov's novelette, is a more entertaining and cinematic sci-fi movie that explores similar themes with more emotional depth, warmth, wit and humor.

Despite being a sci-fi movie, The Artifice Girl doesn't boast any visual style when it comes to its cinematography, lighting, set design or anything else that would make it more cinematic. Writer/director Franklin Ritch keeps the film's settings looking simple without much that stands out for the eyes or, when it comes to the music, for the ears. He relies heavily on the dialogue to carry the film's weight and trusts the audience's patience as well as their imagination albeit a little too much. Each chapter overstays its welcome by at least 10 or 15 minutes. The performances are decent, and Lance Henriksen is well-cast as the older version of Garrett while adding some gravitas to the film. At a running time of 1 hour and 33 minutes, The Artifice Girl is provocative and timely, but concurrently exhausting and monotonous.

Good or bad Onkel Neal, this is how you do it, perhaps if you'd done this the director would have offered you a daytrip around Hollywood so you could hobnob it with the A list celebrities of the day.
Oh, by the way Onkel, stick with it and don't give up the day job just yet.

[Jimbuna]

I'll certainly give it a viewing Neal.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Moonlight

I haven't seen it myself and I don't think I ever will but, I took a timeout from my heavy schedule to find two opposing views on this film to give the members a better understanding of just what type of film this actually is, I'm sure someone will appreciate this.

Yes, thank you for the reviews, the first one appears highly accurate. The reviewer notes "The screenplay does most of the job to keep you engaged, and it's fireworks, I tell you." Yeah, this film had really good writing, any literate viewer would call that out immediately.


The second one, alas, he would be much better watching Indiana Jones and dial of destiny or some Disney crap. "The Artifice Girl has plenty of Truth, but not nearly enough Spectacle because it rarely finds the Spectacle within the Truth." What the hell does that mean? And was it Necessary to Capitalize each of the Feature Words? What kind of spectacle was he expecting in a thought-provoking examination of the rights of children and AI. Guess the director should have shoehorned a car chase in there somewhere.

Good or bad Onkel Neal, this is how you do it, perhaps if you'd done this the director would have offered you a daytrip around Hollywood so you could hobnob it with the A list celebrities of the day.
Oh, by the way Onkel, stick with it and don't give up the day job just yet.

Haha, you don't really know me, do you, Moonlight? I am not interested in reviewing movies, I would suck at it. I am self-aware enough to know that I don't have the necessary literary and intellectual horsepower to analyze good cinema effectively. And I never have been any interest in "hobnobbing" with celebrities. I've had plenty of opportunities, believe me. I've been invited to a ton of press events and parties at E3 and other media gatherings. But if I am not interviewing them, then I don't need to waste their time fawning over them. My interest in this case is not the personalities but the art, the work that the creative team produced. At my age, I've read so many books and seen so many movies, when something actually good comes around -- that's what I am interested in.

[Jeff-Groves]

Why didn't you have Wendy do a review for you?

[ET2SN]

Originally Posted by Jeff-Groves

Why didn't you have Wendy do a review for you?

Who said he didn't?

[em2nought]

Funny timing, I just got "hearted" by

Carl Gottlieb was hired as an actor to appear as Harry Meadows, the editor of the local newspaper, in Jaws. He was hired by his friend, Steven Spielberg, to redraft the script, adding more dimensions to the characters, particularly humor.

for a comment recognizing the total authenticity of the opening scene in JAWS after seeing video of the Russian tourist "swimming" with the tiger shark in Egypt.

[Moonlight]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

Haha, you don't really know me, do you, Moonlight? I am not interested in reviewing movies, I would suck at it. I am self-aware enough to know that I don't have the necessary literary and intellectual horsepower to analyze good cinema effectively. And I never have been any interest in "hobnobbing" with celebrities. I've had plenty of opportunities, believe me. I've been invited to a ton of press events and parties at E3 and other media gatherings. But if I am not interviewing them, then I don't need to waste their time fawning over them. My interest in this case is not the personalities but the art, the work that the creative team produced. At my age, I've read so many books and seen so many movies, when something actually good comes around -- that's what I am interested in.

Point taken, I don't know what I'm doing in the Movie thread either, I just say what I see, I don't give profound insights into any characters as it probably isn't needed or even wanted. have a nice day. :