andreaswae This could have been a very good movie. The plot is good and the acting is good, but being bombarded by "emotional" music (some even with lyrics) again and again and again, really cancels out the emotion it was supposed to evoke (in me at least).

perrodstrom The movie is brilliant. It is investigating a realistic future there humans chooses love from AI robots and drugs instead of the messy and complicated love in real life.

Zen-2-Zen I've opened this flick with trepidation since mixing genres with Sci-Fi is by and large means disaster or pretense (huge number of westerns, masquerading as SciFi - a piece with shooting and singing - you know hat I mean :-)But this one is not just totally real, it's superior. Asimov and his "I Robot" are little kids compared to this and yes supreme philosophical dilemmas do need the "romance" aspect to drive the point. "What is human" can't be answered without answering "what is love for a human". Forget "3 laws". Loving a woman is our biological prime directive - the only way to continue our species. Can you transcend it ?Sci-Fi is the genre of ideas, not "action", horror (the porn of the gore), "characters" etc. - ideas. And this flick is the quintessential ideas movie. It manages to drive the timeless "what is human" on the ultimate personal level. Remember the Diogenes mocking Plato by bringing a plucked chicken and yelling first "Ecce Homo" (before the term was invented :-) because the bozo defined human as a "featherless biped"? Well both would go "beeeee" in front of dilemma this film manages to pose in so concrete, human form. So romance movies do have a purpose - occasionally :-)Now if only "distinguished members" of "the Academy" could stop sniffing anuses and jerking off on LGBT crap and start growing some brains they just might realize how much shame will they bring on themselves buy not even seeing, let alone understanding this film. And the core of this philosophical debate will be very real and burning in about 100 years.On the down side, this flick lacks the budget and much better casting. Yes I do know why, in theory, plain looking female lead "worked for the story" in order to "create bigger surprise" but it really didn't. This is a philosophical flick, it doesn't live by "surprises" (which get spent in an instant anyway) and lead actress has to be able to capture the audience in the first frame - or she's not the lead.Proverbial "Jane Eyre" fixations are self-destructive. I still remember how crazy "book fans" disparaged Ruth Wilson for not being "plain by the book" while delivering the best Jane Eyre - ever.It's called "knowing your trade". So OK, you can't have "Mia", but "Humans" didn't get Mia from Santa Claus either. They worked hard to find an unknown actress who does capture the audience from the first frame. That would have easily made enough difference to get at least an art-house release after Tribeca. Salute to Amazon for supporting it but this has to go to actual, physical, theaters, and if they really, really don't know "why", they are in the wrong business.

Henry7227 This is my first review. I just had to say how poor the editing was. The sound goes from a whisper that needs the volume turned up to hear and right to a loud honking horn or screaming that cold be close to blowing your speakers out. That is just in the first half hour. Sound needed to be adjusted a dozen times.It could have been a good movie. I rarely give up once I start watching a movie but this is just unwatchable.