Transcendence

Hmmmmm....

It looks kind of like Nolan's work...

It sounds kind of like Nolan's work...

It even feels (at times) like Nolan's work...

So it must be a movie from Christopher Nolan then, right?

Wrong. Transcendence comes from his long time, award winning cinematographer, Wally Pfister who decides to tread in his mentor's HUGE footsteps. Here, as a first time director, he attempts to tackle an original idea, which are hard to come by in Hollywood these days if you hadn't noticed, and make it a compelling and unique Nolan look alike.

From initial trailers I really thought that Pfister might be able to pull it off and give us this year's Looper or Inception, or at least something close. To be honest, I was really more excited for the cinematography more than anything because Pfister's work on Inception and The Dark Knight trilogy was phenomenal and despite the fact that he was in the chair this time I was eager to see his keen eye for shots come through.

Unfortunately however, Transcendence certainly doesn't overcome the competition as its title may suggest. But I give it some darn strong kudos points for originality and big ideas that will have you thinking for a while after the credits roll.

Johnny Depp freaking out because he is playing a somewhat
normal character for once. Inside he wants to scream,
"Why's the rum gone?!"

"Huh! Well...the rum isn't in here!"

In my opening dialogue I stated that the film looked, sounded, and felt like a Christopher Nolan film. Being an extremely big fan of his work, I've come to notice, as I'm sure most movie fans have, that Nolan has a very distinct feel to his films. They are always moving, with stirring scores, and come with an epic scope coupled with urgency. Transcendence has those qualities but they all come off kind of like the B- versions of what Nolan is capable of. There is just that can't-put-your-finger-on-it spark that eludes Transcendence for most of its runtime that other "original" film classics share. For me personally, I am usually blown away by the entirety of the film's ideas and how it lays them out. I felt that way with Elysium and Pacific Rim last year (they won the Rath Award for Most Original), I definitely felt that way with Looper the year before, and as I'm sure you know by now, I ALWAYS feel that way with Inception. About halfway through the film I noticed this...this...gut feeling's absence and I took note of it. But writing this now I also must remind myself and my readers that this is Pfister's directorial debut. And in that sense I'd say it's mightily impressive.


Someday, when I get an IMAX theater in my house (life goal
of mine), I imagine this is how much natural power I will need to
offset my electric bill.

Might as well be a scene from The Dark Knight
trilogy. If Cillian Murphy wasn't clinically insane
that is...

Transcendence excels in its underlying ideas which are: what if technology became more powerful than us? It's certainly not the first time the question has ever been posed, but I would say its the first time its been framed in this fashion. What if technology could heal everything? Would we want to stop it still? An outlandish idea, yes, but still a fun one to ponder and it will probably have you questioning your dependence on things with electricity for at least a few hours. But just because the ideas are grand and sophisticated doesn't mean the execution is. Most original films take the time to explain their world, their ideas, and at least get us to suspend our disbelief because they bulls***ted us so well. Transcendence has a terrible, terrible case of buzz-worditis. Trying to explain something about computers?  (Aka almost the whole movie) Just toss in any combination of these buzzwords: source code, upload, information, consciousness, replicate, online, nanotechnology, hard drive, wiping, offline, self awareness, etc., etc., etc. The list is longer than that but those are the ones off the top of my head. Transcendence uses them so loosely I'm not even sure if the writers actually knew what they were saying half the time. Most of the "wow" original material I pieced together on my own, or asked my own "What if" questions, rather than relying on the "source code" of the film to "upload" the "information" to my "self aware" "hard drive".

I realize I've spent most of this review comparing Transcendence to Nolan films and talking about its big ideas. But that's because that's all you're really going to come away from it with. The plot is murky and forgettable by the end, the performances are all phoned in (but with this group of actors that means they are good), and in its entirety, Transcendence is not a film you will remember after the summer has come and gone with its blockbusters and superhero films.

But, if you're like me and you enjoy original ideas and films that make you think outside of the box on your own a little bit, then Transcendence is a worthwhile trip to the theaters. It may not be on Nolan's level, but his protégé, Pfister sure gives it a valiant effort on his first try. There are kinks to be worked out, but Transcendence will be what your mind wants to make and think of it.

Which, in retrospect, is kind of what the film is all about...

CONS:

• Everything that you would expect from a Nolan film is here: mood, cinematography, original score, originality, etc. It's just that none of it is on its A game. The mood tries too hard to be epic, the cinematography is underwhelming, the score is certainly no Hans Zimmer, and the originality is smart but presented poorly
• The love story just didn't work for me. The performances were fine but the chemistry wasn't there and it wasn't delved into as deep as it should have been for the emotional reaction that they were going for
• Stop with the buzzwords already!!!
• I didn't find plot holes as much as I found budget restraint holes. I won't give too much away but the final showdown, which is essentially for the survival of the Internet, is awfully low key for such stakes. Additionally, there are a lot of time lapse issues where events either take a long time to happen or they happen very quick. A few times I was jarred
• At the end of the day, it's disappointing. The pieces were all here (except for maybe the screenplay) but they just didn't come together in the package we [read: I] hoped for

PROS:

• Some really awesome, original, "Big Ideas" that, if you let your mind wander, are pretty fun to play around with and see where they go
• There are several instances where the film pulls everything together and gets it right
• Fantastic ensemble. Even if they are all just reading their lines they are still some of the best in the game
• Strong visuals
• Gotta give kudos to two aspects of the film: its a strong film for Pfister's first try and I do love to see originality in Hollywood now and again. Transcendence earns some bonus points in those regards
• Some people take my "one-time view" stance as a Con, but if I say it's a strong one-time view I usually see that as a Pro. Sure I wouldn't watch it again, but Transcendence was an interesting and worthwhile one-time view in my eyes

Rath's Review Score: 7/10