I can agree that Her is the better of the two movies on most levels, it's one of the best movies I've seen over the past couple of years. But I think there's still quite a bit of content to be had in Ex Machina. Not as much as Her, but enough to raise some interesting questions.
Yeah, comparing it to Her isn't really apt, plus that isn't really a criticism just to toss "its not as a good as (blank)". I just, like, something about this movie really bugged me. It just fell so utterly flat even though it had all the trappings of a " good movie". The characters were horribly one-dimensional, the dialogue oscillated between god-awful and somewhat decent, and, since this movie was so focused on a pragmatic take on AI, and not really a "film" film, that really hurt it. I do like it from a feminist perspective, however. It does a lot better of a job of being about women by not being about women at all, but more so about patriarchal worldviews. I just don't think the beautiful shots did anything but sit there and look pretty (which was the most annoying part for me), the story was meh, the take on AI, well, was probably readily covered in a single episode of Star Trek, and thats about it. It just didn't strike any chords at all for me but seemed so desperate to do so.
I sincerely disagree about comparing it to Her, considering both movies are about AI and the interpersonal problems of trying to be emotionally invested in a superior being. Personally, I thought the movie in general was absolutely abysmal, and I agree with the idea of aesthetic trappings vs. content, but the movie fell flat on its face when trying to present itself as deeper than a puddle. Why would there be sexual tension between AI, of all things? Why would an AI "love"? These are human emotions, and the idea of projecting them onto something that cannot physically experience the effects of neurochemicals is silly. In addition, I sincerely dislike the feminist focus of the movie. This has zero place in a movie about AI. It isn't men vs. women, it's supposed to be about the development of artificial intelligence.
I think that's kind of a central theme of both movies, and sort of the reason the relationships didn't work in any representative manner. You'd probably find both directors and writers agreeing with you. As to your last paragraph, it's supposed to be about whatever the director wants it to be about. You could disagree with how they went about it or their thesis or themactic elements, but to say that " this isn't how this should go " isn't really a criticism, and not a good way to approach art. The parts relating to feminism weren't inappropriate at all. I think they were a reflection of the idea that technology can only change us so much, and that our inner beliefs and biases ring out, even if we try to create a more "ideal" (or whatever) life form. The relationship the inventor had to his AI was encapsulated in his choice to make it feminine (with accompanying simulated sex organs, apparently). Its not about "woman empowerment" persay, but both of these films do touch on ways in which we alter a life form we can't begin to empathize with in the same fashion we do our fellow humans into a form more recognizable, and how it breaks from the conceptions we have about these identities. Its more so a lens to look through, instead it attempting to be the most "factually correct". Even assuming you could show AI in a film as being more "correct" is kinda farcicle in and of itself. Inner dialogue has always been a quarrelsome concept in artistic expression, but to then assume the underlying motives of a separate life form that doesn't even exist is a rigorous excerise in anthropomorphization
itself. I think both of these films kind of come to that conclusion and deal with perception and identity, but Her does it waaaaaay better. why would an AI "love"? These are human emotions, and the idea of projecting them onto something that cannot physically experience the effects of neurochemicals is silly.