fisherrose-10290 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.

Chris Ellis 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.

screechy_jim This one left me with mixed feelings. I had some misgivings with the way it was portrayed but other things just niggled me to the extent I was unable to enjoy the story. The corporation, the scientists, technical aspects are not done well. For such a significant project they seemed to be running around doing everything on the fly. No plans, expectations, procedures and steps to determine progress; no path to map events with actions or considerations... nothing. Even more perplexing was the fact that the project was in relative infancy. The android was not even a working prototype. Half the issues it experienced (glitches meltdowns etc) were new to the technical team, and the notion they would be able to solve them in such a haphazard manner is ridiculous.Most films I've seen with this or similar themes tackle the above issues far more competently than this on does. I think a little technical advice from a consultant would have gone a long way here, but in truth I don't think that was ever really the main aim of the movie, which leads me to my second point.The film doesn't seem certain just what story it wants to tell. It seems to be trying tackle the moral, ethical, and sociopolitical issues associated with creating artificial life, or at least transposing human life onto an artificial construct, but also dealing with the scientific and technological challenges in building a synthetic host for humans and transferring consciousness successfully to that host. As I said, it doesn't do either well, but that may well be because of a lack of focus. At any rate the story definitely suffers, and there isn't really anything compelling from either perspective to reel you in and anchor you to the story.The script, screenplay, and story in its current form just don't work and the result is a rather boring attempt to create a story around what would otherwise be a very interesting subject. Also the fact that nothing of significance ever really happens to move the story forward doesn't help either. Notions on existentialism aren't tackled credibly, and actually most aspects of the film seem premature. This another Sci-Fi tale that should have had a serious re-write before production and as it stands has very little to offer.The quality of production is reasonable. The special effects relative to the plot have been done competently enough but this isn't an expensive production so it really needed to deliver on some significant areas, which of course it doesn't. Everything else is OK, nothing to write home about, but adequate. I doubt this this will be remembered either well or badly. Its just another passing film, realised and forgotten.I don't recommend it, for the most part its just a boring rendition on the theme of extended life through technology.

Luiz Felipe Another approach for the Theseus's paradox, what makes us "us"? Is it our bodies? Our conscience? Our memories? If we maintain our conscience, but change the body, are we the same? If our memories are implemented in another being, do we "die" and, at the same time, reborn in another body? The film uses this complex discussion and distillate it - a lot - for the viewer, it is so watered down that we can't even consider it with a philosophical concept anymore.(here I start nitpicking, if you don't like that skip the next paragraph)Maybe it happened like this for plot reasons, but some things didn't make sense, for instance: when Amelia (android) had her first contact with Amelia's (the deceased wife) memories, everything was fine until her system conflicts with the fact that the deceased wife is dead. The android believes that she is still that Amelia, but how come can she be that Amelia if she shouldn't be awake? So her system enters in a breakdown and so does she. For me, understandable, the android would have access to an early memory that is triggered by two events: in school when a little girl approaches her and at home when she faints; fast forward to the android getting better acquainted with her body, and here starts the "plot-holes", Amelia known she is married, but doesn't know who the person she is married with, which doesn't make sense, a huge event such as a wedding isn't something that she should understand and even request for "my wedding ring". She must know what a wedding and a wedding ring represent, thus knowing that she has to be married with someone, being married implies that she has spent sometime with the other person - cue the memory she has of someone she can't remember her face, but makes her happy. It is highly unlikely that she only had one memory of that person, she must have done several other connections to connect someone as her husband, otherwise she wouldn't be able to recognise herself as a married woman, nor the value of her wedding ring.Story wise I believe the script seemed rush, they tried to use a lot of different characters and it felt over-saturated, for instance the political part was rushed in some moments and wasn't used in its full potential. The characters development, considering those that have, is limited, some are out of nowhere as Max in love, others are expected as Paul being a greedy (companies and money vs. Science and patience). Some of the acting is distasteful, even though I didn't have my hopes high for some actors and actresses.It is a 90 minutes film that will pass and you will feel like nothing changed in your life, as I said before the philosophical idea that could have been a mark of the film on the viewer was watered down, thus a plain film that will be forgettable for most.