Siflutter It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Casey Duggan It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

mannatjain-45514 Uncanny is an underrated science fiction movie. This movie tells one a lot about artificial intelligence and what artificial intelligence can actually do . Through this movie one gets to know how little the difference between an ai and a human being is . I'd say is a must watch and has a good twist in the end!

mrgreenluv I found the whole movie unbelievably funny. Everything that occurred in it is pretty much a joke due to how it ends. And I'm not talking about the super ridiculous after credits ending, no, THAT is straight out of Saturday Night Live. Basically I found this whole affair progressively more funny until the end when it just admits that the whole thing is a joke. Which is great. It's all a big joke and I laughed my a** off at points. I was particularly fond of the scene in which Rain Wilson's character mentions having the footage and offering to send it to the person on the other end of the phone call.... I just busted out at the point...Anyway, its good for what it is. And if you can accept that it is in fact funny you'll enjoy it even more.

earthsongster I loved that this movie got me thinking: what is the emergent nature of intelligence or consciousness? Is it possible to design optimum or even to predict conditions through which the emergent can arise and be detected? Adam's character comes across as a recluse who has spent 10 years building, interacting with and determining capability for emotion in A.I. He plays chess with his creation and gathers data about how A.I relates to him and determines purpose and behaviour. Once the journalist arrives, the chess game shifts to a different level and whilst the A.I appears predictable, Adam's strategy is less clear.Adam appears to be aroused by the journalist and this engages the A.I's competitive nature. Adam's responses are predictable until an outburst of emotion startles and confuses the pathways of the A.I. Adam recognises a potential and through being subjected to unfamiliar terrain, the A.I shifts its behaviour and displays qualities which determine the project a success.Is the emergent in the A.I or Adam? Adam was not only intent upon creating sentient life through A.I, or he would not have used semen in the A.I. interaction with the journalist. His relationship with the journalist has transitioned through detachment, altruism, jealousy to caring. As if out of a trance, he appears to view his employer in a new light and his behaviours indicate that he is going to be changing his game plan. I have hope for Adam. The employer models an immature mode of relationship, behaviour and is exploitative. At the end of the movie, the A.I. is functioning in an obedient manner and looks to Adam once again for clues as to how to respond, revealing that any demonstration of emergence, if present, wasn't permanent.This movie sparks some interesting questions for me, as to what relationship exists between creator and created? In the case of A.I. there is debate and concern as to whether a superior intelligence will bring about the demise of the human race, but appears to be less engagement with how interaction between A.I and human stimulates potential for emergent. Immature and unchanging patterns of behaviour seem to carry more potential for our destruction, than do potentials for allowing for creativity and intelligence.

bayxter I gave this movie a 4, only because the acting is horrible. I loved the story, loved the effects, but the acting was a total distraction. What kept me watching was curiosity, and Lucy Griffiths. She is totally adorable in this movie. I would LOVE to see the movie re-made with a higher budget and proved actors. They could even keep Lucy as the main character because if she were surrounded by true talent, she would be able to raise her game. Mark Webber didn't need to be a male model, but they definitely needed to make his character more attractive to make the story more believable. It is still worth watching since it is only an hour and 25 minutes. But watch it to appreciate the story, not the presentation.