Featured Audience Ratings

• Universal D

  
  Its all Al Pacino's show in this Twilight Zone cousin wherein a toymaker's creation seems to come to life. I wished they'd've gone a few more steps than they only suggested (for instance, giving Simulation One some recognizable traits from some actresses to… More
  Its all Al Pacino's show in this Twilight Zone cousin wherein a toymaker's creation seems to come to life. I wished they'd've gone a few more steps than they only suggested (for instance, giving Simulation One some recognizable traits from some actresses to complete the illusion instead of the vacuous automaton we get), but Al still gives us a fun enough ride for the money.

• Lady D

  
  Unusual for Al Pacino tot take on such a role of a slightly Comedic fashion, in a film that wasn't really really great. I like the concept of the film and it's obviously not an out of reach techology to perform, but I guess it sums up a lot metaphorically about celebrity… More
  Unusual for Al Pacino tot take on such a role of a slightly Comedic fashion, in a film that wasn't really really great. I like the concept of the film and it's obviously not an out of reach techology to perform, but I guess it sums up a lot metaphorically about celebrity and their followers too.

• Ginny  

  
  Pacino, film making & computer geekiness. LOOOL at the 5 inch floppy disk used! Havent seen this one in a long time

• Anthony L

  
  Interesting idea, I thought it was much better than everyone seemed to think at the time.

• Cassandra M

  
  have always enjoyed the movies that satirise the movie industry to such a startling degree. Two such films that come to mind are Robert Altman's all-star outing, `The Player' and Peter Weir's tour-de-force of directorial skills, `The Truman Show'. `Simone' is… More
  have always enjoyed the movies that satirise the movie industry to such a startling degree. Two such films that come to mind are Robert Altman's all-star outing, `The Player' and Peter Weir's tour-de-force of directorial skills, `The Truman Show'. `Simone' is the next one in line and matches up to the levels of the former, vaguely similar movies. It is strange how `Simone' is simultaneously highly original and occasionally unoriginal. It recycles elements from those two mentioned films along with the surrealness of movies like `Being John Malkovich'. Luckily, it copies the best elements so the result is a very good one. Of course the concept of digitally creating an actress has never been attempted before (hence the poster quote- `a star is. created'). It may sound highly implausible at first, but it isn't surprising that everyone in the world would believe that `Simone' is real. It skates over the surface of Hollywood hypocrisy but never cuts quite deep enough. Much like `The Truman Show', it is done in the delightfully bizarre style that Australian director Peter Weir created in that picture. The director of this film shows great potential for the future if he follows this up well. The cinematography is top-notch and it is appropriate that Hollywood has an orange glare while a blue-ish shroud of mist surrounds the indoor areas and studios. The script is brilliant, sharp and witty in some parts, but in others, it seems a little patchy to say the least. The predicted interest curve greatly soars in the first 2 parts, but the surrealness sets in towards the third part, and the comedy becomes increasingly sporadic. While it may seem slightly sour in its offbeat way, it leaves a satisfying taste when the credits roll. No one could have done the Viktor Taransky part better than la Pacino himself. He is simply tremendous as the Hollywood producer, and has finally dumped the `hoo-haa' image. It's ironic how Rachel Roberts had to pretend to be digitally created, while her digitised character had to pretend to be a human actress. This is one of the most daring roles in cinematic history and she handles it superbly. Supporting performances deserved some more of the limelight, and it's a shame that they don't get much screen-time. Catherine Keener, Jay Mohr, Jason Schartzmann, Elias Koteas and Winona Ryder (brilliantly parodying herself) do well in their small roles, but still needed a bit more conviction. The movie's greatest powers and occasional flaws lie in the close attention to detail. The visual effects on the computer-generated character are a pleasure to watch and real candy for the eyes. The references to other stars (Sophia Loren, Jodie Foster etc.) are always funny, as is Simone's acceptance speech at the Oscars. It's just a shame that they used fake actresses for the other nominations. The oddest PG movie you will probably ever see, `Simone' is a memorable, exuberant movie experience. I am puzzled by the `hit and miss' reviews it received and how it was ignored at the box-office. This is a great satire on Hollywood.

• Ken S

  
  meh

• Nate Z

  
  [font=Arial][color=darkred]Director Viktor Taransky (Al Pachino) needs a hit like a crack addict (my apologies to Chris Rock). His new movie is in the can but his temperamental star (Wynona Ryder in a juicy cameo) pulls out and demands all footage of her be left on the cutting room… More
  [font=Arial][color=darkred]Director Viktor Taransky (Al Pachino) needs a hit like a crack addict (my apologies to Chris Rock). His new movie is in the can but his temperamental star (Wynona Ryder in a juicy cameo) pulls out and demands all footage of her be left on the cutting room floor. The studio is close to dropping Taransky?s film deal, and the studio head just happens to be Taransky?s ex-wife (Catherine Keener).[/color][/font] [font=Arial][color=darkred]Under this intense pressure Taransky retreats to mourn his failed potential, until an eccentric one-eyed computer engineer gives him the key to his solution. It seems that instead of interacting with actors and their egos and trailer demands, Taransky has found a new movie star -- one completely made up of ones and zeroes named Simone.[/color][/font] [font=Arial][color=darkred]Taransky edits Simone into his film and soon after the nation is in love with the digital blonde. Simone mania sweeps the nation and soon her smiling image graces all sorts of memorabilia. The public can?t get enough of the mysterious Simone who never goes to public functions and only seems to speak or appear for Taransky.[/color][/font] [font=Arial][color=darkred]Writer/director Andrew Niccol (?Gattaca?) has some fun with the premise but tries to have his cake and eat it too when it comes to his satire. ?S1mone? starts out satirizing egomaniacal stars, then the Hollywood system, then the press, then the public as star worshippers. The movie zigzags all over the place trying to have something witty to say about all these different topics but is too busy to settle down on one for a while. The satire ?S1mone? embodies feels deflated from all the work it?s trying to do. It?s over indulgence.[/color][/font] [font=Arial][color=darkred]Pachino has always been able to do comedy but seems wearier than ever. He indulges in his comic like over-the-top aggression he?s been doing since ?Dick Tracy?. Keener plays another of her icy businesswomen roles although she thaws quite easily and quickly in the film.[/color][/font] [font=Arial][color=darkred]There?s a rather funny subplot involving Pruitt Taylor Vince and Jason Schwartzman as tabloid reporters on the prowl of the elusive Simone that deserves much more attention than it gets. The bulk of the movie could have been these two entertaining characters.[/color][/font] [font=Arial][color=darkred]When Taransky finds that his creation has become more than he can handle he tries to discredit her through a series of very funny public appearances and avante garde film choices. But then ?S1mone? sadly goes back to its more mediocre roots. Taransky tries to get rid of Simone but it all horribly backfires.[/color][/font] [font=Arial][color=darkred]As the film progresses you start to realize all the gaping holes that come up ? like how can Taransky, a self-described computer illiterate, handle the most technical computer program of all time? How come no one would find out that Simone lacks a birth certificate, social security number or even tax records for her studio work? And why does the audience have to sit through the disgustingly cute daughter of Taransky and Keener, who just happens to be a computer whiz-kid, besides the fact she?ll have a late fourth quarter save of dad?[/color][/font] [font=Arial][color=darkred]It?s not that ?S1mone? is necessarily a bad film; it just has this missing piece to it when you watch it. Some scenes are funny, many drag, and the whole thing needed to be tighter and punchier. And to clear up any confusion, it is indeed an ACTRESS who plays Simone. Her name is Rachel Roberts.[/color][/font] [font=Arial][color=darkred]Nate's Grade: C+[/color][/font]

• Dann M

  
  S1m0ne is a lighthearted, satirical comedy that's a lot of fun. The story follows a failing director who creates a completely CGI actress that becomes a superstar when she's mistaken for a real person. Al Pacino leads the cast and gives a wonderfully charming performance,… More
  S1m0ne is a lighthearted, satirical comedy that's a lot of fun. The story follows a failing director who creates a completely CGI actress that becomes a superstar when she's mistaken for a real person. Al Pacino leads the cast and gives a wonderfully charming performance, and is joined by a strong supporting cast that includes Catherine Keener, Jay Mohr, and Evan Rachel Wood. However, there is a problem with the title character, Simone. The character comes off as too mechanical and artificial. Additionally, the film takes the premise a little too far. But all in all, S1mOne is an enjoyable film that's full of laughs.

• Mouhannad S

  
  Good movie - not a good comedy, not a good sci-fi movie, not a particularly deep social commentary - but the parts fit together in such a way to make a very entertaining, somewhat thought-provoking, occasionally funny movie I'd recommend to just about anyone. The quality that… More
  Good movie - not a good comedy, not a good sci-fi movie, not a particularly deep social commentary - but the parts fit together in such a way to make a very entertaining, somewhat thought-provoking, occasionally funny movie I'd recommend to just about anyone. The quality that really made this movie seem smart to me was that I was constantly reminded that it couldn't have worked without Al Pacino in the lead role. Change nothing else, but cast Brendan Frasier in Pacino's role, I bet it would have got a 5 from me. It could have so easily been derailed - and almost was towards the end, I got the sense a re-write was done to artificially add some dramatic conflict - but Pacino's unique charisma, perfect for his role, held it together.

• Cameron J

  
  Wow, this is not what I was expecting out of a biopic on Nina Simone. Okay, now, I'm not even gonna jokingly pull that "Oh wait, my mistake" bull, because that was a super huge stretch, because a pretty big dead giveaway that this is not about Nina Simone is the fact… More
  Wow, this is not what I was expecting out of a biopic on Nina Simone. Okay, now, I'm not even gonna jokingly pull that "Oh wait, my mistake" bull, because that was a super huge stretch, because a pretty big dead giveaway that this is not about Nina Simone is the fact that the titular name is really hip-hop stylized, and Simone came along way before hip-hop hit the scene and effectively killed the quality black music industry and, by extension, the general music industry on its feet. Of course, even if Simone's era was that of hip-hop, she still wouldn't have a stage name that hip-hop (Granted, Nina Simone was actually a stage name, but at least it sounded real), because she was never really all that black. Granted, she was a deep-voiced jazz, blues, folk, R&B and gospel singer from North Carolina who was deeply involved in the civil rights movement, but she ended up living in France, and what kind of southern black person do you know who wants to live in France? It's actually more far-fetched than this film, and this film gets to be pretty far-fetched, though, really, I don't know what the critics were expecting, because this is directed, produced and written by a guy whose breakout writing work dealt with some guy who goes his entire life not knowing that he's part of an all-day-every-day reality show that never seemed to have any glaring production faults in its 30 years of activity on a budget that would undoubtedly be astronomical beyond belief, so I wouldn't go in expect a huge amount of subtlty. Of course, Andrew Niccol's entire career seems to be centered around satire, which is almost by definition subtle, so still expect some subtlty, though not too much, especially from this, one of Niccol's less buyable projects. Well, it still makes for a pretty enjoyable film, though hardly a spotless one, with the lack of subtlty in its satire being just one of its missteps. I haven't seen too much of Andrew Niccol's work, but based on what I have seen, he seems to be a very talented writer, though still quite flawed, with a common fault I'm noticing in his work being some lapses in believability, and while this film isn't as far-fetched as I jokingly implied earlier, it still falls into those lapses in total believability a tad too often, with the film's whole central idea going riddled with holes and exaggerations that leave it far-fetched to the point of having your investment, not so much crushed, but decidedly shaken. Still, this film's concept is no more exaggerated than, well, some guy who goes his entire life not knowing that he's part of an all-day-every-day reality show that never seemed to have any glaring production faults in its 30 years of activity on a budget that would undoubtedly be astronomical beyond belief, and the concept is almost just as original, yet where Peter Weir embraced the originality of "The Truman Show" in his direction to create a film so wildly inventive that it drowns out the unbelievability, Niccol, as director, emphasizes the not so original aspects in this film's script in an overly cheesy manner, leaving it to go riddled with some corny cliches that drown out the should-be prevalent originality of the film. The conventions' drowning out the originality certainly taints the satirical effectiveness, something that this film can't afford to have tainted. Sure, the satire, as I'll get into later, still hits to a certain degree, but the point is that it doesn't quite bite (Ha-ha, I rhymed) as deeply as it should, and I think that the primary reason why might not so much be because Niccol has written such a spotty script, but because Niccol's not quite as good of a director as he is a writer. Now, I'm not saying that Niccol isn't that good of a director, it's just that he is a very good writer, through all of his missteps, so much so that he's constructed a concept that goes over his own head, leaving him to pump out some cheesiness and conventions that overemphasize his satire, and with not enough subtlety to drown that out, the final result comes out as a promising and wildly inventive concept that just doesn't bite as deeply as it should as both satire and an original vision. The concept is a promising one, but the final product, however, is rendered too faulty to not be rather underwhelming, as Niccol is on too very different levels as a director and writer. However, again, it's not like he's a bad director, because what he does get right in this film, he really delivers on, and while that's not quite enough for the film to fulfill its high promise, it's certainly enough for the film to come out hitting more than missing, particularly when it comes to style. Edward Lachman delivers on utterly handsome cinematography, emphasizing the environment with a neatly broad scope, which gives you a very nice view at all of the things for Lachman to colorfully pronounce in a very attractive, occasionally even stunning fashion. The film has a very lively look to it, and Andrew Niccol is faithful to that, both as writer and director, because although he doesn't handle his work as well as a better director would have, this is still his work, so of course there is inspiration in script translation (Rhyme), and that is palpable, as he drenches the film in an intense charm to reflect its livliness and give it consistent entertainment value, as well as quite a few comedic points that really do hit your funny bone. That, alone, could have made this a genuinely good, deeply rewarding film, were it not so tainted by potential-squandering unsubtleties and originality-destroying cliches, yet the fact of the matter is that the film has points where it really delivers on some promises, with one of the promises being eventually delivered upon being, well, some of the satire. True, more often than not, the satire, which is so essential to this film's impact, falls flat, being held back by the lack of compensation, yet there are occasions, here and there, in which the satire cuts through, maybe not too deeply, but enough to where you will be walking away genuinely pondering on what Niccol is trying to say about celebrity publicity and the prominence of overbearing filmmaking technology. The film is consistently enjoyable and charming, but during those occasions in which it does bleed through, it's almost golden, yet Niccol isn't the only one to sell you on his concepts on those occasions, as his performers, both tangible and virtual (Niccol's got a pretty hot wife, looking as "meh" as he does; maybe he really did digitize her), a buyable in their roles, even the roles themselves aren't written or directed in a terribly buyable fashion. Al Pacino, in particular, is sparklingly charismatic as the very arty, kind of sleazy visionary of a director, with a controversial concept he's got to keep under wraps from the public... for some reason. It's a central role written with enough holes (Wow, that's a slant, I'm on a rhyme streak) to help in making the general storyline so far-fetched, yet whether you buy into the Viktor Taransky character or not, Al Pacino makes our leading a memorable and charming one, standing as one of the many strengths that may not be enough to pull this film to genuinely good, but is more than enough to make it a thoroughly entertaining, rather memorable watch. To wrap things up, Andrew Niccol writes a flawed, but wildly original and potentially piercing concept, and he, as director, doesn't quite fit the bill, overemphasizing the unoriginal aspects to create corny cliches, thus landing a blow to the film's subtlety and leaving the unbelievability of the story to be brought more to attention, which of course leaves the film's satire and messages to unfortunately miss more than hit, yet there are still occasions in which Niccol does, in fact, bite with his rather provocative satire, and getting to the point is hardly a difficult task, as the film keeps you engaged by thorough entertainment value and static charm, made all the more intense by Edward Lachman's lively cinematography and a slew of surprisingly relatively grounded performances, with Al Pacino particularly stepping up and leading with sparkling, memorable charisma that helps in ultimately making "S1m0ne" an unfortunately somewhat underwhelming, yet still thoroughly enjoyable and occasionally affecting satirical portrait on the public's obession with celebrity and how much celebrity is affected by technology. 2.5/5 - Fair

• Sylvester K

  
  How can anyone not find this film interesting. The film satires the popular culture and stardom, makes the viewers wondering if the celebrities are real or not. It's definitely one of my favourite films of all time. Combining all of my favourite things: Celebrities, comedy,… More
  How can anyone not find this film interesting. The film satires the popular culture and stardom, makes the viewers wondering if the celebrities are real or not. It's definitely one of my favourite films of all time. Combining all of my favourite things: Celebrities, comedy, science fiction and art house films. It's an underrated little gem.

• Marcus W

  
  Pacino (in one of his best roles) is a passionate director who becomes tired of prima-donna actresses and "creates" a digital actress to ensure his latest film survives. Trouble is he makes her too perfect and suddenly everyone across the world becomes infatuated with this… More
  Pacino (in one of his best roles) is a passionate director who becomes tired of prima-donna actresses and "creates" a digital actress to ensure his latest film survives. Trouble is he makes her too perfect and suddenly everyone across the world becomes infatuated with this amazing actress. He then has to give everyone what they want while trying to keep her hidden, and I really, really enjoyed this film. It had some really funny moments (Simone's directorial debut), a really good cast, and a strong plot that kept the movie going. I would write more but I'd be ruining it, let's just say you'll never look at Jar Jar Binks the same way again.

Read all 12 featured audience ratings