Rememory (2017) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
52 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Last Thoughts
kirbylee70-599-5261797 December 2017
Warning: Spoilers
It's great when a movie comes out and you hear about it, go see it and it lives up to your expectations. What's even better is when you discover a movie that no one else has talked about that exceeds any expectations you might have had. Those movies are far too often under promoted and tossed aside while less well made films are pushed hard. So I was stunned at just how good REMEMORY was.

Peter Dinklage stars as Sam Bloom. In the beginning of the film he's celebrating with his brother Dash (Matt Ellis) who's landed a recording contract and is on his way to stardom. That night results in a car crash that kills Dash and leaving Sam with a fading memory of what his last words were.

Fast forward a few years later and we see that Sam is a professional figurine maker. He goes to listen to a speaker named Gordon Dunn (Martin Donovan), a scientist who has created a machine that allows people to record and then watch their memories. The goal is to help people with diseases like Alzheimer's or brain damage that removed memories. Before he can speak to Dunn Sam watches several interaction he has with various people.

That night Sam goes to Dunn's office to speak with him but before he can get out of his car he witnesses several people enter and leave the office. The last is carrying a case with her, the prototype of the machine Dunn has created. She returns it to Dunn's home and Sam then enters and takes it with him. The following day word gets out that Dunn has died under mysterious circumstances.

Sam's original intent was to speak to Dunn to get help with that lost memory of his brother's last words. Instead he now finds himself with the machine and the memories of the test group that Dunn was working with as he perfected the machine. Realizing that one of them could be the killer, Sam goes through their memories and becomes an amateur sleuth as he tried to figure out if and who may have killed Gordon Dunn.

Along the way Sam also grows nearer to the solution to his own issue, those long lost last words. In his journey he'll talk to those members of the group as well as Dunn's wife, Carolyn (Julia Ormond). He'll reveal to her that he'd met Dunn once, in a hotel bar and that Dunn saved his life while telling him about the tragedy that he had in his own, one he shared with Carolyn. That meeting is what left Sam with the feeling that he owes it to Dunn to solve his death.

As all of this is transpiring Lawton (Henry Ian Cusik), the head of Cortex Dunn's business, is searching for the machine. Contracts have been made and need honored and without the prototype it cannot be manufactured. This puts Lawton in among the group of suspects in the death of Dunn.

The movie is a fantastic combination of science fiction and mystery thriller with the emphasis on the latter. This is not sci fi as laser beams and spaceships but a journey into the mind, research into the brain and what it holds. The glimpses of others memories recorded on bits of glass storage chips that Sam views help him to gain information that leads him to each person in the group. And with each one he moves on to the next as he discovers the pluses and minuses of the machine.

Dinklage is amazing to watch here. The character of Sam is a troubled one searching for the truth, a truth that may do him more damage than good. The other actors involved all do a commendable job as well, fleshing out the story that centers around Sam. The production values are perfection with great cinematography, effects, direction and writing. This is an involving story that holds you from start to finish.

As I said at the start, it's great when a blockbuster meets your expectations. It's better when a movie you were unaware of comes off better than a number of major releases that are out there. It's a movie that involves a story surrounded by the decorations placed upon it to flesh it out. Most movies work the other way round these days with little or no story at their core. That's what makes this movie one to seek out and watch.
15 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Peter Dinklage is worth the watch.
subxerogravity12 September 2017
I don't know if this is the first time Peter Dinklage leads his own movie, but hopefully it will not be his last, cause he really made this film. He just had me so into what was going on all the way to the big revealed in this murder mystery.

In it, Dinklage plays a man who lost his brother in a car accident, and can't remember the last words he said before dying. It messes him up badly, until he discovers a man who invented a machine that can recall and playback your memories and while he attempts to get a hold of this machine, the inventor mysteriously dies and he gets caught up in trying to find out how he died.

The movie is a little above average. It was an interesting mystery, mostly because of the cleaver plot device that centers around it (The machine that can record your memories, giving it a bit of a Sci-Fi appeal) but the real reason to see the movie is Dinklage who gives a fine performance to focus on rather than any loop holes you might find.

I think this movie took so long to get into theaters because of Anton Yelchin's death. They may have had to do some reediting or reshoots to accommodate his passing. It does not seem to effect the movie any, but who knows how good the film could have been if his passing actually did delay it's release. Plus, he's the other reason I went to see the movie.

I also enjoined Julia Ormond in the film, who played the inventor's widow. The parts she shared with Dinklage especially really pop out at you. I did not go into this to see her, but it was an extra added surprise.

Definitely something great to watch. A decent murder mystery with a cool plot point made really better with the help of Dinklage, Ormond and Anton Yelchin (RIP).
38 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
"A good movie, Peter Dinklage at his best"
vishnu-dileep0831 October 2017
Summary (no spoilers)

This movie is about a widow of a wise professor who trips upon one of his inventions that's able to record and play a person's memory.

My Review (no spoilers)

The plot of this movie was a perfect mixture of Mystery and Sci-Fi. When you watch this movie it had a perfect start but towards the end you're going to feel like this is leading nowhere but I would say to keep watching as its going to be enchanting. It had the perfect and unpredictable ending. Peter Dinklage the GOT star did some exceptional acting. Overall a good movie with the perfect ending.

My Recommendation

Yes why not give it a shot.

My Rating

16 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Well done and unique Sci-Fi Thriller
stephenw-3018025 August 2017
Let me first start out by saying I believe Peter Dinklage is one of the most underrated American actors of our day. I believe that will change as time passes. He is as strong n stage as he is in film. His performance in Rememory is not different.

As I typically do in my reviews, I avoid telling the story of a films narrative or plot. I try to stick to my opinion and what I feel is good or bad about a film on its merits or shortcomings.

Rememory is a unique journey about the concept of capturing memories, good and bad, all the way back to early childhood, and being able to view them in real time on a machine built by a brilliant Psychologist.

This concept may be very "out there" for people to believe but the film tells the story I. A very believable way. It's not hokey in any manner and the story moves at an interesting pace. I felt it started a bit slow but picks up rather quickly about 20 minutes in and is a good ride from that point on.

Acting is terrific and special effects and concept were far above average. The sub-ploy intertwined well with the main story and gives a feel of unease which is a big reason the film works IMO.

Again, Dinklage carries the film on his shoulders and delivers another fine performance as the protagonist on a journey seeking the truth, at his own peril, against a big corporation nipping on his heels once he starts making inquiries into the death of the designer and builder of the "machine".

No spoilers here....I am not a big fan of Sci-Fi but have to say this film felt more like a Thriller and is in fact, and is done very well for a concept that seems highly unlikely despite the advances in modern technology.

Any fan of unique thrillers lead by great acting and original screenplay with an added terrific soundtrack, this is time well spent.
43 out of 69 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
This is great drama movie with thriller and mystery elements - it NOT Inception.
redanimalwar23 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
The overall bad reviews (in the press, rotten tomatoes lists this as totally rotten with almost every critic trashing it) really surprised me on this one.

I have this feeling that people expected this movie to me some science fiction action or something with a super twisted story ...

The science fiction in this movie is "just" the base of the story, everything else plays out like a Drama/Thriller/Mystery. And for me it really delivered that. Especially the conclusion about the accident was something I did not expect at all. Although the part that the machine should never go into production was very predictable from early on and that memories should probably kept as they are. The ending kind of expects the audience to assume this is what happened after, at least this is how I saw it. I expected that Lawton would be confronted, some great reveal of the truth to the public ... but it was OK without that.

Its a really sad movie and I have read reviews complaining about that. I mean what do you expect when the first listed genre says Drama.

I get there was potential for something else with that machine story, but it was not needed for a good movie in my opinion. In the end we see Gordon delete a memory and do also do some settings on the machine never seen before. It was always just about recording and playing basically. Based on that it could be a entire different movie, memory alternation, deletion. Making people think memories of others were their own forgotten ones ... its probably thought like this that made critics not like this movie.
19 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Scifi drama, not scifi action
Crystal_Dive27 August 2017
There are many ways how scifi is played out on screen, from mega-budgeted science action fantasy with the likes of Star Wars, Guardians of the Galaxy and the rebooted Star Trek, all the way to scifi of which science-fiction is but a frame around matters of the human heart. This film is of the later, a precautionary tale about why the malleable and fading nature of memories shouldn't be altered.

If you come in with the right expectations , then you will not be disappointed by this film of stellar acting, and direction.

Other films of the same vein, of which you should watch: 1. Eternal sunshine of the Spotless mind (Jim Carey, 2004) 2. The Final Cut (Robin Williams, 2004) 3. an episode of Black Mirror (The Entire History of You , Season 1 Episode 3)
31 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Worth the asking price
ReelLifeReviews31 August 2017
Rememory - A sci-fi thriller with borrowed plot points and an unsatisfying conclusion. It's definitely worth the price of admission, however, being that it's free on Google Play before it comes out in theaters.

The movie centers around an invention that allows people to view memories from any point in their life. It doesn't get bogged down in the science behind it, allowing the story to unfold. The problem is, it's not a very good story.

Although the memories of these characters are on full display, I never felt like I got to know any of them. The main character, played by Peter Dinklage, is a figurine maker, but is seemingly Sherlock Holmes as well. I don't know how much PTO comes with a job like that, but he spends all his time investigating a murder on his own volition. It never feels like he's truly given a challenge at any point, and the movie is too busy trying to throw you off the scent that it doesn't seem to care.

One thing that jumps out, however, is that the movie makes zero reference to the fact that Peter Dinklage is a little person. His stature is often the main focus of his character on Game of Thrones, but any actor could have gotten this role. Given what he lays out on screen here, the overall movie notwithstanding, it's clear why he earned the part.

Another positive performance is offered by the late Anton Yelchin. He plays a troubled young man on the brink of total mental collapse. He put all he had into his small role, showing that his untimely death robbed us of decades of potential in the world of cinema.

If you want to see a better execution of the technology featured in this movie, I would direct you to the BBC (now Netflix) anthology series, Black Mirror. Each episode is its own independent story, so you can jump in at any point. The one entitled 'The Entire History of You' delves deeper into the topic, and also happens to be my favorite of the entire series. Yes, Rememory is currently free, but you already have Netflix on every device you own. Queue it up. 5.25/10
28 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
intruiging concept, but boring
phenomynouss30 June 2018
I am an easy sucker for any sort of film involving memories (Memento, Rashomon, etcetera) and this one had a plot synopsis that just begged me to take it in. It also made me think of the movie "The Discovery" about a scientist who supposedly finds proof of the afterlife, and while many people are committing suicide, he develops a machine that lets him apparently view a recently deceased person's memories.

I would have liked to see some manner of mystery or even a bit of incoherence done with the memories that are played back in this film. They all look too perfect; perfect vision, perfect audio, camera angles that would require the person to be behaving very oddly (such as an extreme closeup of someone's fingers playing the piano would've meant the viewer would've had their head resting on the piano). The intro video the scientist Gordon Dunn shows at a presentation looks absolutely nothing like recorded memories, and completely like something you'd see in a GoPro promo or some other HD digital camera technology.

The thing about memories, even fresh and recent ones (at least in my experience) is that they can often be an incoherent mess. Sometimes I won't remember large portions of conversations, but manage to somehow understand the conversation that was unfolding. I can "feel" certain attitudes and concepts and sensations rather than hear them. Sometimes the memories are completely wrong, as well; sometimes it's foggy and blue on a summer day, and sometimes just by the act of trying to remember something, I don't so much "remember" as create a fantastical re-construction of the memory.

Nothing of that sort is explored in this movie, and it's quite a shame, because the story that they did go for is very plain and straight-forward. The memories just become a sidepiece and a means of confirming people's stories in a murder investigation being conducted by one incredibly lucky and bold man.

Peter Dinklage is that man, playing Samuel Bloom, some guy whose brother dies in a car accident and who now he is obsessed with getting into contact with Gordon Dunn to use his machine so he can view his own memories, obsessed with remembering what his brother's last words were as he was dying.

In the process, he takes it upon himself to pretend to be various people, question people involved in Dunn's memory experimentation, use the machine to confirm their stories, and so on. He is perfectly at ease using a fake name and taking advantage of having watched people's memories before meeting them so as to better pass himself off as someone who may have worked for Dunn or with one of the subjects.

But this also makes for another thing that the movie just passes over, to its detriment. Peter Dinklage is a little person. There's no mistaking it when you see him. This never comes up in a derogatory or limiting way for him or his character; his character could just as easily be played by any other actor of any other size and nothing at all would change about the film or the character.

But while that's a good thing for him as an actor, it leads to some really odd moments in the movie, as well as a plothole or two, where Peter Dinklage's height would either be a liability for his character, or a benefit for certain characters who are trying to track him down. Knowing that he is a little person would make finding him significantly easier, especially when he thrusts himself into the middle of the murder investigation by stealing the memory recording machine.

It feels like the film was more focused on its plot, blissfully unaware of how predictable it was, rather than filling out the details that could have made the movie much more intriguing and fun to watch. The desire for Sam to revisit his brother's death just to remember his last words loses a significant amount of impact when those words are actually revealed, and it turns out you already figured it out right at the start of the movie when the death happened. It hardly feels fair to label it as a spoiler because of how predictable and ultimately insignificant it was.

It also feels like the filmmaker at some point realized this was a very insipid line to follow, and rather than commit to it in some mildly nihilistic way, they tack on a pointless twist, one which not only plays little to no role in the ending, but one for which, due to them ignoring Peter Dinklage's height, becomes a rather significant plothole.

Overall, this was a movie that had a fun and novel concept to play with, toyed with us with the potential of this concept (the idea of a world in which anyone's memories could be viewed on the spot by others in perfect HD) and proceeded to do very very little with it, more focused on its boring and predictable story than with running wild with its imagination and doing something really memorable.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Man of the moment
chasburnsesq24 September 2017
Man of the moment Peter Dinklage takes main role in this little beauty. I've never been keen on his acting (tortured soul type) - but hey it obviously works. I've been watching him for a long time (check The Station Agent 2003 which is when his career really kicked off) "Space Pants" aside - which is probably the reason for his tortured soul - Rememory is a nice little detective /mystery / Sly-fi (my new term for sci - fi films that aren't that futuristic, you have my permission to use it, the entire new series I'm working on at the moment is Sly-fi.. But I digress..) Finally a film that doesn't concentrate on his size.. although you might still.. He really appears to be spear-heading the small person in a film without prejudice. 7.4/10
14 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Life represents the sum of our memories, indeed
mihai_alexandru_chindris14 September 2017
First, I thought that it wouldn't be much to see about this movie, but after I was digging through the story I noticed where it was headed and what it wanted to communicate. Yes, the message of it is simple and straightforward, but the facts that got me fascinated were not only the scenes, but the manner by which they were filmed and how all was put so well together to form something so beautiful. The staff that made this has my appreciation. You created a piece of art.
11 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not a good sci-fi film. Maybe a good murder mystery
tomvs-3139126 August 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I went into this thinking I would get at least an average sci-fi film. Boy, was I wrong. I ended up feeling that this was a low-budget made-for-TV drama.

This is definitely a murder mystery drama. The one sci-fi bit included (the memory machine) is poorly executed and only serves as device for gathering evidence. From a sci-fi fan standpoint, it's not believable.

All acting, especially the main actor is good. Though it was a little odd that no one in the movie mentioned his size (he's a little person). That was just one bit of the movie that made it seem more like a movie and less like reality.

As for the rest of it, it made absolutely no sense. Character motivations were silly. They appeared to act in a certain way to throw you off on figuring out the identity of the killer, but the way they acted made no sense in hindsight.

The characters in this film frequently don't do things in accordance with how most intelligent people would do things. I was frequently asking myself "Why did he do that?" , "Why didn't he do that an hour ago?" , and "why didn't character X just tell the truth since he/she wasn't guilty?!?!" And the big plot twist at the end of the movie was done poorly. I knew what would happen about 30 minutes before it happened (because of a poorly-place spoiler/piece of evidence), and the reasoning behind it was very poorly explained. If we had only a few more bits of better-placed background information about that ending revelation, it would have been at least an average movie for me.

But as it stands, it's bad. If you absolutely need a murder mystery and aren't too critical of them, or you really like the actors in this one, maybe give it a try. Sci-fi fans looking for an intelligent story: stay clear.
21 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Inane dialogue
drakborg4 March 2019
The dialogue is filled with questions such as "Why are you doing this?" and declarations of supposed truths, such as "We don't know the true value of a moment until it becomes a memory". The platitudes are at best annoying and at times infuriating. The writers are in desperate need to sound deep ("We're all remains of unfilled dreams"). Now I'm stuck with the memories of this film.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Nothing here.
bombersflyup2 March 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Rememory is an unmemorable film, for one about capturing memories.

I have no idea what the purpose of this the film is. It's quite empty and unevoking, a person going through other people's histories and nothing much happening in the present. Sure there are memories you would like to be able to see again in detail, but there are also painful moments and wasted opportunities you never want to think about again. You'd only want it if you could decide what to see and what not to see and there would have to be a security code, so only you can access it.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Okay but not great
ian-mcintyre-360741 August 2018
This film is worth watching but wasn't what I was expecting. It is more of a "who done it" rather than a sci fi. I found that whilst the acting was solid the pace was a bit slow for my liking.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
"Memories Light the Corners of My Mind; Misty Water-Colored Memories..."
lavatch5 July 2018
Warning: Spoilers
You can get the gist of this entire film merely by listening to Miss Barbra Streisand's rendition of the song "The Way We Were." The Streisand song lasts three minutes. "Rememory" lasts one-hundred-eleven minutes. Take your pick.

The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche wrote about the phenomenon of eternal recurrence, which is a fancy way of explaining why the characters in this film can't seem to let go of their memories. There is a list of emotions given at the end of this film that serves as a reference point for eternal recurrence, not of the memories themselves, but of how the past can remain with us and haunt us forever: "regret," "hope," "grief," "anger," "passion," and so on. Those emotions are the residue of memories.

This film does a good job in raising some questions about the power of memory. On the other hand, it is gimmicky and tends to promote the view that we are all monsters. With the exception of Mrs. Dunn (Julia Ormond), it was difficult to feel empathy for the various "clients" who had bought in to the science of retrieving memories.

"Rememory" tends to miss the point that our subjective experience of a past event may conflict with how others have experienced the same moments from a different perspective. There was a flaw in the premise that memory is an entity that may be synonymous with truth.

The film is worth watching for Dinklage's compassionate interpretation of his character Sam Bloom from Pequod Road, a modern Ishmael reconstructing his variation on the memory of Captain Ahab and Moby Dick. There was also a clever device with Sam's stick figures which our protagonist assembles to try to get back to the scene of the crime. It was fascinating to watch him track down the strange clients of Gordon Dunn, inventor of the memory machine. But the most interesting strand of the narrative is the trail that leads back to Sam himself and the memories that he repressed.

Overall, this was a MEMORABLE film.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Boring and Deceptive
claudio_carvalho31 August 2017
Warning: Spoilers
After losing his brother Dash Bloom (Matt Ellis) in a car accident, the modelist Sam Bloom (Peter Dinklage) unsuccessfully tries to move his life on. Sam misses Dash's last words to him. One day, he watches the lecture of the psychologist Gordon Dunn (Martin Donovan), who has developed the prototype of a machine that records, erases and plays the memories of his subjects. Sam becomes obsessed with the scientist and stalks him at his hotel. However Gordon is murdered in his room and Sam has many suspects. He meets Gordon ex-wife Carolyn Dunn (Julia Ormond) and uses the device to help him to investigate each suspect. Will Sam find the truth and who killed Gordon?

The dramatic "Rememory" is not a sci-fi film, but a boring and deceptive mystery movie. Peter Dinklage, Martin Donovan, Julia Ormond and the rest of the cast try to save this film with good performances but the screenplay is awfully written and does not help them. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): Not Available
16 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Recording and playing back memories.
janmarju28 August 2017
When the movie started, I thought it was going to be very similar to The Final Cut with Robin Williams. It was similar in one sense, but very different as you will see if you give The Final Cut a watch. I enjoyed both movies. This movie also reminded me of an episode in the Black Mirror series, The entire history of you. Season 1, Episode 3. All three goes to show that memories are nothing to play around with.
16 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Well executed for a poorly written screenplay
TheTopDawgCritic25 August 2017
Warning: Spoilers
This film had great potential with a such a great cast, good directing and interesting story, but fell short of that potential with a dragged out screenplay full of unnecessary scenes and plot holes that could have been easily omitted. This 2+ hour film should have been just over 1 hour, and then it would have held my attention much better, and I would have enjoyed it much more.

The directing and cinematography were on point for this film. The acting was also good, but would have come across much better had the pace not been dragged out so slow. Each time you begin to sympathize with each character, you get bored and just want to move on to the next scene. Why and what was the point of Peter Dinklage's character to have time so set up and paint small statues (and use a label maker) to set up his crime timeline model?

My biggest problem with this film are the major plot holes and that from the start, you can't help being annoyed at how easy it was for anyone to break into a home (how did it even up up there from the crime scene anyway?) and steal such an integral one of a kind machine - and all of his classified patients memories. You would expect the best security measures in the world to be in place to protect such an asset - including the headquarters where just anyone can walk into the scientists main office with a gun, fire it, and no one notices it.

Then top it off with a corporation that fails to do anything drastic (and expected) to get their prized possession back. Add the fact that Peter Dinklage's character just wanted to know what his brother said before his last breath, and it takes him until the end of the film to play out that memory.

Let's not forget the absence of normal policing in an investigation where shots are fired. One would think the police would have been the first to get their hands on the machine to play back Gordon Dunn's memory to find out how he died.

For such a poor screenplay, it was executed as good as possible, and for that it's a 6/10 from me.
18 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The Reason I Watch For Movies I Never Heard Of
ed_bardo22 December 2017
OK, so I travel on long haul flights all the time and decided to load up my tablet with movies I had never heard of on release, particularly science fiction. I watched films funded by fund-me sites to new, made-for-streaming movies. Of all that I have seen, this one made my shortlist of treasures I would never have found if it wasn't for this "take a chance" approach.

Without any spoilers, or details on the plot (as those are supplied in abundance here), let me just say this is a quality piece of film making that deserves exposure. It reminded me a bit of Brainstorm, Douglas Trumbull's great film. Please take the time to watch this movie and share it with your friends if you like it. I am going to do the same.

If you are interested in seeing my list or review of small time, sci-fi films you probably wouldn't watch or have heard of unless you looked, contact me and I will post those titles in list form.

Enjoy this film!
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A great script that goes too slow; too long...
because-of-him24 August 2017
Warning: Spoilers
It could have been a great 60 minutes or less movie. The actors are very good. The memories throughout the movie are broad enough to touch nearly every viewer. Personally, I was touched by the memory of the dog at the vet. The problem is that, like a soap opera, there is way too much dialog. Some scenes feel like you are watching an ad for respiratory medication. The side affects are boredom and a desire to go to the rest room. The other problem is the political push. One character paints the hunting of small, wild creatures as very bad. Then, the same character is painted as doing good when he pollutes a river or bay area. Also, the viewer is indoctrinated more than once with the theme of the movie that, "We are nothing more than the memories we keep." Personally, I am tons more than my memories. So, who is right? Apart from the soapy feel, the hypocrisy, and the moral ineptitude, this movie is really very good in presenting a Sherlock Holmes type of inquiry, and some surprises. It certainly is not a waste of time.
22 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I honestly think they called the machine "The Machine"
EatMyWords6 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
When not attempting at depth with its ramblings on memories--They shape our entire lives! We repress our memories over time! We escape the grief they bring and the true meaning they hold!--"Rememory" sports a decent mystery plot supervised by a quality actor desperately trying to maintain the interest of an already repressing audience. Marketed as a sci-fi-movie, fans of the genre will rightfully mock the film for using its sci-fi-apparatus (the memory-recorder) simply to highlight its themes with the gentleness of a sledge hammer to the forehead.

The film is interesting in one regard though: Contemporary society is obsessed with the concept of recording events, essentially creating visual and auditory memories for the future. People go to concerts and snaps away at it with their cameras rather than looking at it with their own eyes, accident scenes are rife with bystanders whipping out their phones to capture moments of shock, sorrow, carnage etc and even criminals stop themselves in their track to document their unlawful conduct. Dealing with similar themes by introducing a device recording perfect, actual memories is therefore an interesting concept. The problem is that this particular offering and its creators are obviously not the ones to tackle them. Its conventional investigation-plot, slogging pacing and sensationalist script makes it hard to engage with the thematic material.

That said, the aforementioned mystery that quality actor Peter Dinklage lords over is passable as entertainment. The plot revolves around dead psychologist Gordon Dunn (Martin Donovan). He is the creator of "the Machine." Sam Bloom (Dinklage) is an acquaintance of him from the past and someone who nurses some dark memories. Bloom takes it upon himself to solve this murder that happened during mysterious circumstance. With the help of the machine (acquired in contrived fashion) he proceeds to sample through recorded memories from test subjects, looking for clues as to who could've had a hand in the murder. Besides the subjects there's also Dunn's company, desperately wanting the machine returned so they can release it on the market (how they lost their incredibly valuable product and their ineptness at getting it back grates). So who did it? From here its a familiar stew of red herrings (some good ones, others not so much), final act explanations (some helpful, others completely needless) and a web of narrative possibilities (nicely visualized by scale models built by Bloom to assist him in his investigation).

In terms of style there is not much to be impressed about either. Shot in traditionally saturnine thriller/mystery-fashion with the occasionally injected pretty imagery of "important" memories. Mood-wise it's not much better: Hallucinations appear before our main character but rather than alarming us they annoy and the horrid score by Gregory Tripi is of no assistance. When entering the memories there also seems to be a contradiction: Entering memories sometimes gives the appearance of watching it from the audience perspective (you see subjects as well as the watcher interacting with an environment) while at other times providing the first-person perspective of the watcher. Perhaps a stylistic choice by the director bearing significance at the moment evading me, but perhaps just as likely pure indifference.

----All in all, not terrible but certainly stupid, pretentious and slow. Watch it for Bloom's investigation and the excellent acting from Dinklage, especially the scenes with Julia Ormond (Dunn's widowed wife Carolyn) whom play off of each other well despite the forced screenplay----
9 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Reflection of a time gone by
bootoir25 August 2017
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is not for the action loving, sci-fi addicted and fast paced viewer. But it is for the thoughtful, reflective and pondering viewer. Plot: Sam Bloom (Peter Dinklage) lost his brother in a tragic accident and desperately wants to know what happened during the last moments of his brother's life. His search leads him to a scientist, Gordon Dunn (Martin Donovan) who invented a machine that can unlock every single memory that a person has lived through. His theory is that our brain stores every moment of our lives; we just do not know how to unlock those memories. He invented the machine to do just that-unlock, extract and save those memories on the device. Gordon Dunn died suddenly through mysterious circumstances. Sam becomes obsessed with his death, but more so his journey of unlocking his own memories. He embarks on a quest of piecing together the people involved in Gordon's life and around Gordon's death, stealing the device to accomplish his task. He meets Gordon's wife whom he develops a special relationship with, helping her as well throughout his journey. He is able to give her peace, understanding, closure. The movie is close to 2 hours long, for some folks it may be a tad too long, I however did not feel this way at all. The depth and development of the characters involved is well thought out and meaningful. Peter Dinklage takes you on a journey of self-discovery and leaves you pondering if you would want to use the device yourself given the chance. He portrays Sam Bloom wonderfully and people can identify pieces of themselves within him, excellent work on his part. The music is haunting, sometimes daunting, a nice fit to the movie. Would you be willing to use such a device, finding long forgotten memories, joy, pain, fun, anger, good and sad times....would you be willing to take that risk and accept it's possible side effects of not being able to turn those hidden memories off that are hidden for a reason?
11 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
What if "God" really does "See All" and could play it back instantly?
XweAponX29 August 2017
The idea of using a "Memory Machine" to dig out truth may not really be an original idea, there was a "Golden Age" classic science fiction story by "Lewis Padgett" (Catherine L. Moore and Henry Kuttner) called "Private Eye" that I have in an "Astounding Science Fiction" Pulp magazine from 1949, which expounds a similar future gadget that records all memories to be used in various murder trials, in fact in that story it became a representation of "God's ever seeing Eye" like we have on the back of a Dollar Bill, and the literary gadget is used simply as the means of exploring the paranoia such a device would engender, if in fact we knew ALL of our memories were being recorded. This happens a bit in this film, but used they way it was here, it was less of that, because this machine was just being introduced and it was the single Prototype in existence- So not many people had experienced it yet, and it was being introduced as a Psychotherapy tool rather than a Truth-telling tool. Which made it more interesting as Dinklage/"Sam" uses it to connect the dots rather than expose anyone outright as a possible murderer. If in fact a murder has occurred.

Not to mention, this machine only records from One person's POV at a time, so it requires cross referencing to other people who had experienced the same thing at the same time to get a clear idea of the truth, and this happens in the Climax of the story. Memories from 2 people paint a picture for one of Sam's forgotten memories.

Ergo, there are several suspects, several people acting guilty, one of them a woman who is suspiciously paranoid about having her memories shown on an Imax screen to the World. This makes her the obvious prime suspect for most of this film, barely edging out Anton Yelchin's "Todd" who was acting very finicky and crazy in this, his possible final role.

The End credits names Sarah-Jane Redmond (Lucy Butler/Legion of Chris Carter's "MillenniuM" fame) as the woman "Allison", whom Dinklage tries to meet, but we don't get to see her, only her arm getting a Tattoo. But since all I saw was a sneak peak of this film, perhaps an extended version will show her face.

Other than that, I disagree that this film is not memorable, it is very well made, well directed and well photographed. How do we judge a film's memorability? Because we are thinking about it for the next 24 hours or more. Like "That was a nice little kick in the Arse", and it was.

Try to find the Lewis Padgett story "Private Eye" to see the similarities, and the differences, to Rememory.

RIP Anton.
17 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Too simplistic and plodding to be worth paying to see
omendata28 September 2017
This is more of a murder mystery with a bit of scifi thrown into the bargain and it never seems to know what it is or how the story should proceed or unfold.

Don't get me wrong all the acting was superb and i didn't figure out the crash significance but i did figure out how the murder/death happened within 10 mins of the scene unfolding - I guess when you have watched films like "Forbidden Planet" and other movie scenes where humans try to over-reach their capability you would also have surmised what happened to the inventor chap! Yip its all been done before and in a much more interesting way - the actual box itself looks really cheap and the special effects are woeful - there is even a scene where the plastic visor screen opens up and instead of gliding like it would if it had a proper electronic motor it moves like it is stuck - i actually started to laugh at that point it was really very poor effects!

The movie itself was plodding and nothing groundbreaking as some reviewers are suggesting - its very sad how there are so many shills on IMDb trying to sway the votes and getting people to view movies that really aren't what they are expecting.

I guess we are all still waiting for another Matrix, Saw or Oblivion movie with a great idea but this isn't it sadly.
12 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Free movie From Google Play - worth every penny
eeclarkjr29 August 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Good movie. Not great but good. Yelchin has a supporting role and he is really good. Good drama and not too sci-if. I opened my Google Play account and it was free. Just waiting to accept the offer from Google. Dinklage puts in a believable performance as usual. Spoiler: not sure how he could reach the pedals in the station wagon. Seriously. That's not a jab at his height.
8 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed