Morgan

I don't understand why this movie garnered so much hate from some of the reviewers here. I can only assume it is as a reviewer by the name of BB mentioned, they simply don't understand it.

I'm not going to draw lengthy comparisons between Morgan and Ex Machina, or reminisce about the director's credentials. (Seriously, just go count how many butt hurt Ex Machina reviewers you can spot here. It's annoying, guys.)

I'll simply say this:

1. It's a decent movie, on it's own, and deserves a watch.

2. It's listed as a Horror movie. It is not a horror movie.

3. I guess some of the acting could be better. Overall, it's really not that bad.

4. It has elements that Ex Machina lacked. It's fast-paced and there are actual action scenes. It's not as drawn out either.

5. I am disappointed that Paul Giamatti only appears in one scene. Also, Taylor-Joy was an interesting choice for Morgan. I look forward to seeing her in the upcoming Split.

After reading many of the reviews (good and bad), I have decided that until IMDb offers the service to select favourite reviewers, that this will be the last review I write. I do this because there are reviewers who wouldn't know a phone was up their rear end, even if it rang. But I retire mainly because there are reviewers who just don't have my tastes in movies, and there are those that do. I only want to read the reviews of those that like most of the films I like. Then if the majority of them say a movie is OK, it is likely I will agree. And vica versa. Therefore I am wasting my time writing reviews for people who don't have my tastes in movies.

This is a very good film - period. By all and any measures. The direction is exactly what needed to be done for this movie - the acting is very good - and the sound is also right. This is not a movie for a star to grace the stage with their brilliance (or several) - it is a solid example of the craft of 'old school' suspense/action movies.

It is clear from watching this movie after reading many reviews, that this is far too 'intelligent' a movie for many reviewers. There is a level of understanding that requires the viewer to think. I guess too many Marvel action movies have dumbed them down, and made them demand clear and concise sequencing and plot development.

Over and out - until I can read the reviews of my favourite reviewers.

This is a very good movie. The bad reviews focus on expectations. Morgan is not a blockbuster by any stretch but it is clearly above average fair for sci-fi flick. It deserves better than the 5.8 on IMBD's scale and much better than the bad reviews listed here.

"Morgan" is the name of an android, a piece of artificial intelligence, created in all secrecy by a team of devout scientists, in a lab somewhere hidden in a remote and forestry region. Before you start praising the downright magnificent make-up effects on the girl, bear in mind it's actress Anya Taylor-Joy's real face. She's a really good and talented young actress, but admittedly she has a bit of a weird face, which - luckily for her - helps to obtain interesting roles as the "outcast-girl" (also in "Split"). Anyways, Morgan is only five years old, but she already looks like an adolescent and she behaves like a spoiled teenager. Lately, there have been serious issues with Morgan, and she even stabbed one of her creators in the eye. Corporate headquarters sends out emotionally numb but highly professional risk-manager Lee Weathers to assess if "Project Morgan" should be terminated or not. Needless to say, Morgan's makers grew to love her as if she were a real child, and they will not accept that's she killed based on an evaluation by an outsider. Director Luke Scott (son of Ridley who made the Sci-Fi landmarks "Alien" and "Blade Runner") initially tries hard to make "Morgan" is a very ambitious, existential and emotionally challenging Sci-Fi/thriller, but he can't prevent that it turns into a rather ordinary 'stalk & slash' type of B-horror. There are a handful of terrific sequences, notably the scene with Paul Giamatti as the obnoxious auditor, but it's ultimately too lightweight to be considered a significant genre effort. Scott Jr. managed to gather an impressive cast (including Brian Cox, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Toby Jones, Paul Giamatti) and the special effects are more than adequate, but I doubt anyone will remember "Morgan" in ten years' time.

Morgan starts with a simple premise of the moral and ethical implications of genetically crafting a biological being from scratch. Even if such a being looks and acts human, is it? Is the being a "she" or an "it"–and does the being have rights or autonomy, or can it be owned like a pet, or an iPhone?

Based on nothing more than the trailers, the movie struck me as a sort of biological / genetic mirror of Ex Machina. That turns out to be true to an extent, but Morgan doesn't do as good a job of exploring the philosophical question or examining the humanity of the being. The question is sort of posed, and then quickly falls aside as Morgan turns into more of a blood and guts action flick.

There is a twist at the end that I actually didn't see coming. My son says it was obvious early on, but the first hint I got was only moments before the truth of the twist was revealed.

I enjoyed the movie–and I recommend you go see it. I just feel like there was much more potential there to really dig into the philosophical issues and ethical debates of creating a genetic hybrid.

I had a chance to speak to director Luke Scott after seeing Morgan, and we dove into those issues a bit further. Scott told me that in his opinion the basic premise of Morgan is entirely plausible. "A lot of the background science–of course it's a fantasy that we made–but a lot of the background science is rooted in truth."

We talked some about the similarities and differences between the premise of Ex Machina and the premise of Morgan–a cybernetic android being versus a genetic hybrid biological being. Scott shared his belief that the technical possibility of creating something as advanced as the android in Ex Machina is far beyond our abilities, but Morgan, and the ability to create a biological being, is within our reach.

"The science is there," explained Scott. "The only thing holding us back is a moral question."

It is a valid and important moral question, too. If a company like Monsanto can create genetically modified seeds to produce healthier or more bountiful crops and own a patent on that seed, would we allow a genetic engineering company to craft healthier or more capable gene pools and own a patent on those genes? Could we create a society where those with the financial resources are able to purchase superior genetics–thereby artificially widening the gap and creating a population of genetic "Haves" and "Have Nots"? Or, would we deem a genetically modified or engineered being to be less than human–a thing or creature that can be owned, rather than a sentient being with rights?

Those are all great questions to explore, but Morgan really just scratches the surface of them.

I asked Luke Scott what's next on his horizon, and he let me know he's working on a project that also comes with a moral and ethical dilemma, but this one is based on a true story. Scott told me he is working on a script based on a book describing the story of the Donner Party–a group of homesteading pioneers that got caught in bad weather and stranded on a glacier and had to resort to cannibalism to survive.