A service that provides holographic recreations of deceased loved ones allows a woman to come face-to-face with the younger version of her late husband. Marjorie Prime has some pretty good actors in it like Jon Hamm, Tim Robbins and Geena Davis but the movie's weak storyline and direction alongside with the slow and boring pacing make for a movie that will easily be forgotten in a few days and except the good perfomances from it's fine cast it doesn't give viewers anything more than that. It tries to be smart and intelligent as a whole but it's missing things and the sci-fi element doesn't quite live to expectations now does it? (4/10)

The film is clearly a play adaptation. There are only a few actors in static sets, mostly talking to each other, while other details are scarce. It wasn't a surprise when I saw at the end that it was based on a play that won a Pulitzer award, because I really liked it. However, you need to be in the right mood to feel it, and maybe understand a little bit the technology that it describes. The subject of the film is a holographic AI technology that can bring the appearance of people into your house. They start empty at first, but as you tell them more and more about "themselves", they start behaving like the real people. This is described mostly in the context of grief for dead ones, but it's the same technology featured in the new Blade Runner. With its slow, dialogue based, pace, the film explores the nature of memory, the difference between how we are and how others see us and ultimately our own sense of identity. The crown of the movie is the end scene, where "Primes", holographic duplicates of people now long gone, converse with each other, showing how different the people they are emulating were from the way other described them. It was a very refreshing film, even if the mood was so gray and timeless that my wife could not or would not let herself be drawn into it. After all, it is all character based, the sets and even the various details of people's life are completely irrelevant. The acting was top notch, with basically four or five people in total that mattered. The music is classical, almost requiem like, hinting at the moment when we are all passed and replaced by the memories others have of us. I was torn between giving it top grade or not. I've decided that it was not a perfect movie. What bothered me most was the lack of communication between the different AIs, when that is specifically described in the beginning. In trying to make it a humanist story, they neglected the actual workings of the tech behind it. I understand why they did it, but it still bothered me. The acting was very good, but sometimes flickered. The pace was slow enough to fall into the illusion that the movie would go on forever, automatically generated by my TV. It very well could have. What I liked about it was the solid intellectual stance on the subject. It doesn't try to be overly subtle, but it is unapologetically smart. It's not one of those "oh, you missed that scene and you are too stupid to get it" things, it is clear cut but intelligently made. I also liked the underlying theme that we are not our memories and clinging to them other than to build our present life on is pointless and potentially harmful. I recommend this film to just about everybody smart, but have the time and leisure to watch it. A nice quiet evening alone or with people close to you, with a glass of something, sounds perfect to me.

'Marjorie Prime' can be considered a science fiction film of a particular kind. The director of the film is Michael Almereyda, is 58 years old and without being one of Hollywood's most celebrated names, he has a diverse and exciting cinematographic record that includes action and vampire movies' a 'Hamlet' placed in New York City today and a fairly successful romantic story happening in a New Orleans who is trying to get back to normal after the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina. This story is about a well-placed family that lives in the near future somewhere on the ocean, and uses hologram and avatars technology to bring a younger incarnation of the long-dead husband to an old and Alzheimer's disease affected mother, trying to bring back from past memories about events and experiences.A lot and very little is known about this terrible neuro-degenerative disease. Diagnosis and symptoms are becoming better known in the smallest details. The population of the globe is aging, and with it the percentage of affected people has grown spectacularly over the last decades. The exact causes are unknown or not elucidated to the end. Heredity plays an important role in 70% of cases, but it is not the only source. Treatments do not yet exist, not even in the near future world imagined in 'Marjorie Prime'. What is proposed at the beginning of the main heroine film is not a healing treatment, but a slowing down of the advance of the disease and an attempt to temporarily remedy the situation by refreshing the memory. The appearance of seemingly real people, frozen in time at a certain age, does not, however, remain without impact on other members of the family. As time passes, other family members begin to need the avatars company. Biological mechanisms continue to do their job, while their virtual partners remain immune to disease or aging. But not in their capabilities. The screenwriters equipped the avatars in 'Marjorie Prime' with cognitive expansion. In other words, avatars learn, enrich their information about their own past (in fact, about the people they represent virtually), and thus improve their interaction and relationships with other people and with each other.As the action progresses, the questions that we can ask multiply. In fact, what are we, people? body? thoughts? an entity that some call soul? Or are we just the memories we leave behind? I will not reveal more because I do not want to take the pleasure of watching those who decide to watch this movie. It can be interpreted as a parable. Perhaps it is about the perennial character of human beings, or of mankind itself. In a world where wealth is getting better and acquiring features that include learning and self-improvement, is there room for people? Because the robots have the potential to overcome the goals we have created, to help people and expand their physical and intellectual forces, and become competitors to the planet's limited resources. When is this threshold crossed? Perhaps it is actually about the perennial character of the human species in another form of incarnation? The film has an end that some will find pessimistic, but I'm not one of them. From the cinefil's point of view, I admired the clever writing story (adaptation of Jordan Harrison's play) and the exceptional play of Lois Smith, Tim Robbins, Geena Davis. Recommended!

The sci-fi context is irrelevant in this film. It's just an excuse to get people to talk, and see how they each process grief. How everyone deal with their own sadness and sorrow, and how they confront or do not confront them.There is no plot, or big reveal, or secret that we uncover at the end. This is purely about human sentiment. It's as real as it gets. Simple, and painful.I'm not sure if I was bored or fascinated during my viewing. The movie, if we pay attention to it and not to our phone, can strike a chord. I'd guess especially if you ever had to deal with life shattering grief at some point in your life.