Crappy film

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

At the time I write this review, the average rating is 5.6, which makes my rating of 9 a bit of a reversal for my reviews (I'm demanding in my story-telling and tend to rate films lower than the average audience).This is a highly unusual rating situation for me. On the one hand there is almost nothing truly exceptional about this film. On the other... I almost gave it 10 stars for sheer excellence in presentation.* This movie is slow-moving, intricate, and asks some very difficult questions. I will not spoil any of the plot by discussing precisely why I found this story so engrossing, but there are several elements that make it applaud-worthy: 1. Sensible discussion of the concept of God and contrary opinions to such without overt blasphemy. It simply presents both sides of the viewpoint... quite well in my opinion.2. It discusses the "soul" without becoming dogmatic.3. It addresses ethical issues in regard to reproducing humans in a non-standard manner (again, no spoilers by discussing how. All that I am going to discuss here is what's presented in the summary and trailers.) 4. It really hits the emotions of every single role and does so very well. This is some of the best directing, acting and character portrayal I have seen in a long time.5. It presents a couple of unexpected twists that really tie the story line together very well.This film presents the questions, the arguments, the positions and personal issues of the subject matter in a surprisingly short period of time. This could have been a lengthy mini-series and held together well. That they accomplished what they did within the time allotment of a single film is pretty awesome.In short, this film accomplished what I see so very few films accomplish these days: it told a story and told it very well. It didn't rely on heavy CGI, had almost no "action", and focused almost exclusively on the lives and roles of the people involved. There were no sharks jumped here, no absurdities (which is admirable in itself), no great big plot loopholes where there could have been many. They did surprisingly well in almost every aspect. It came very close to getting 10 stars, which I've given to fewer films than I have fingers. It may be a bit slow and uneventful for the adrenaline junkies of today's generation-- but for those who still appreciate the art of story telling and the morality play, this is a rare gem.* I dropped my rating to a 9 for a single F-bomb which was out of context with the entire rest of the film and unnecessary to the plot. Consequences for directorial stupidity. It would be nice just once to see someone make an entire movie based purely on great story-telling rather than resorting to shock schlock. This movie *almost* made it. Still, worth every bit of the 9 stars I give it.

This was a movie made on a low budget, and I feel they did a fantastic job. I feel the strongest acting came from the supporting roles, but overall, great acting. Some people classify this as a science fiction movie, which it is, however, I feel the underlying message of love and existence and morality is what is meant to be delivered through the science fiction setting. It really does inspire you to think about which side of the issue you stand on. In my case, I changed my viewpoint a few different times throughout the movie. I felt the sound design could have use a little more support and a little slow-going in the first 10 minutes or so of the movie, but I would watch this movie again, and recommend it to my friends. Hats off to everyone involved in making this film. You all did a fantastic job.

Not having the critical acuity of Roger Ebert, I judge movies entirely by how much money I want back on the way out of the theatre. Watching Amelia 2.0 was delightful entertainment throughout and I didn't want any money back (though I found the popcorn overpriced). I am not a sci-fi fan. In 1977 I demanded and got my $4 back after a screening of Star Wars (but am still awaiting the public apology). Amelia 2.0 did not put me in mind of Star Wars and all that cgi gimcrackery, but did put me in mind of the 1978 movie Coma, after which I did not want any money back. All I remember about Coma - except Genevieve Bujold - is that it had something to do with malevolent forces and futuristic genetic manipulations and that I was satisfied with it. That's how I feel about Amelia 2.0. Enjoy the movie.

Though set in a science fiction format, this movie centers on a deeply loving newlywed couple overcome by tragedy and how the husband deals with this issue. In his grief, he agrees to the plans of a corporate giant in the remote hope of "curing" his wife's terminal condition.Technically, the film is state of the art with some obvious exceptions. Note the aerial view of the corporate campus looking quite cartoonish, like an architectural drawing or SimCity home computer creation.The flow of action was quite uneven, spending long moments in philosophical discussions while skimming over the scientific elements of the story (the "how it was done" aspects). The ending was quite disturbing to me and didn't seem possible, given modern corporate security methods. It appeared that the film was running out of time (or money) and ended quite abruptly in poetry and bucolic bliss.