User reviews

Ever since I first saw Gattaca, I've been looking for other films directed by Andrew Niccol. This being one of them, and so far, one of the only ones(but I certainly hope he makes more films in the future... he has some very interesting ideas), I simply had to watch. I was not disappointed. Like Gattaca, this is science fiction; however, Gattaca is more of a all-out sci-fi film, and S1m0ne only has some elements of science fiction. Before I comment on the sci-fi, I must comment on the great humor in the film. This is the first of Niccol's films(Truman Show, Gattaca and then this) I've seen that has comedy(in the form of satire, that is). Truly great comedy, as well. You know why? Because it's real. It's stuff that we can recognize, stuff that we know from ourselves, from the people around us. The comedy mostly revolves around how easily everyone is tricked, how quick they are to believe in something without any proof. I believe it was Voltaire who said: "If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent one". We want to be deceived, we want to be tricked, we want to have something to hope for and believe in. I mean, let's be honest; that is the very basis for why religion exists, and why people claim to spot UFOs. People need to believe in something... and they believe in Simone. Despite what her maker has her do, despite no one ever having met her in person, people love her. They need to. They need someone, something to believe in. The many scenes of Viktor covering up Simone not being real, creating the illusion of her in various forms to satisfy other people's urge to see her, meet her, talk to her may be somewhat slapstick in their nature, but they only emphasize how ludicrous and easily bought the everyday man is. They want to believe it so badly, they simply can't accept anything else. This seems to be what most critics of this film are missing. Their refusal to accept it is simply them denying human nature. As Pacino's character realizes near the end: "She's indestructible". It is not possible to remove her, because the public won't accept it. She must exist. I noticed a lot of references to the story of Frankenstein in this film. It is basically the 21st century's version of Frankenstein, with some computer-based science fiction elements and set in Hollywood. I have never seen a film that so openly mocks the superficiality of Hollywood, and for that reason alone, anyone should see it. The plot is very good, though it develops at a somewhat uneven pace... in fact, the pacing seems a tad off. The acting is mostly very good. The special effects are top-notch... they were in 2002, and they still are. This could have been better, but it was still very good. I recommend this to anyone who is interested from reading the plot outline, people who enjoyed Gattaca and fans of science fiction as commentary on real issues. 7/10

The cult of celebrity is brilliantly examined in Andrew Niccol's `Simone.' Al Pacino plays a washed-up `art film' director who is fed up with the spoiled leading ladies with whom he has to work. After his latest leading lady (Winona Ryder in an excellent performance) walks out before the end of production, Pacino is left with an unreleasable film. He is approached by an adoring fan, a `computer geek' dying from cancer, who offers him a solution to his difficulties. Pacino rejects the offer, but the geek sends him a computer disk containing `Simulation One.' When Pacino activates the disk, up pops a stunningly beautiful female,' who is a programmable simulation. Pacino adds personality ingredients from famous actresses of the past, and, viola, `Simone' is created.

Inserting Simone's image and voice into Ryder's footage, Pacino completes his film. However, Pacino's work is overshadowed by his creation. Simone becomes a world famous celebrity, a cult goddess.

Combining the cult celebrity of Garbo, Princess Di, Farrah Fawcett and Pamela Anderson, with maybe a little Britney Spears thrown in, Andrew Niccol has created a sharp satire of hero worship. Lacking an ego, Simone is the projection of everyone's desires; men want her and women want to be like her. Even more fascinating is Pacino's revelation that he is jealous of his creation, even when he has no need to be. Niccol sustains his sharp satire of celebrity until the very end of the movie.

Where `Simone' stumbles is its flat romance between Pacino and his former wife, Christine Keener. I'm sorry, but for me Keener lacks anything resembling sex appeal. Had this role been given to Kim Basinger, Rita Wilson, Cybil Shepherd, Ellen Barkin or Lauren Hutton, the `younger beauty/aging beauty pathos could have been examined. As it stands, `Simone' lacks the kind of conflict which could have given it real spark. Nonetheless, `Simone' is a fun, funny movie and is definitely worth seeing. I give `Simone' a `7'.

Very good satire on the cult of celebrity, in which the whole world falls all over itself in praise of a non-existent actress.

The movie also deals, to a much lesser extent, with the conflict between wanting to create a perfect artistic vision and wanting to create art that is in the world. It's not the most pointed or savage of satires, but it is quite a funny one.

Some people here have criticized it for being predictable, which really misses the point of satire. Satire is based to a great extent on the frightening predictability of people, and it must follow a logical train of escalating events or what's the point. The biggest failing in the movie is near the end where it jumps track from a logical train of events to a dumb plot device, which while not a fatal error is lazy and takes away from the overall effect of the film.

But mainly it's just funny. Consistently so from beginning to end. And also notable as about the only good performance I've seen from Winona Ryder since Mermaids.

By Greg Ursic

Many people bemoan the loss of the Hollywood mystique, when contract actors were essentially owned by the studios and lived glamorous, carefully tailored lives, and were surrounded by an air of mystery. The public however is just as much to blame for this - our insatiable need to know everything - how much the stars earn, who they're dating, what they're addicted to ... - has left them then without any semblance of privacy. It's amazing that today's superstars don't immolate under the spotlight's glare. While the days of discovering the next screen legend in ice cream parlours may be over, they may soon be created over a banana split...

For Viktor Taransky bad things do indeed come in threes, in his case, movies: a former Oscar nominated director, his last three films have been box office dogs. His comeback attempt is apparently dashed when the star ("A supermodel with a SAG card") of his latest film walks out on him citing creative differences. Replacing her seems impossible - as an agent eloquently notes "[For my client] having no credits is better than having a Taransky credit." He also learns that rock bottom can always be adjusted when the studio chief - who also happens to be his ex-wife - lets him know that he's being fired. Distraught and demoralized, Viktor's salvation appears in the guise a seemingly deranged genius who offers him the ultimate software for the director who can't find a star - who says you can't make em like you used to?

For those accustomed to Al Pacino's typical cast of characters -serious, dark and brooding, with an intensity level that never drops below 10, Viktor Taranksy is a refreshing change. As the real (read: flesh and blood) star of the film, Viktor is a man with a quandary - a director with integrity and vision, who actually sees beyond the box office, he must perpetrate a hoax, to get his film made and salvage his career. Pacino is appropriately low key and morose- even when Viktor should be bathing in the glow of success there is a palpable manic undercurrent and sense of foreboding. The supporting cast is a mixed blessing.

Catherine Keener, who plays Elaine, Viktor's ex-wife (her second role as a Hollywood executive in as many months), has suprisingly little presence in the film - her dialogue is light and her character is relatively inconsequential. I can only assume that this was done so as not to detract from the other adult female lead (see below). Evan Rachel Wood, delivers a solid performance as the daughter, supplying maturity and offering sage advice to her self-involved immature parents. Of course the real star is Simone.

As a synthespian, (or as the designer of S1MøNE software notes "The pc term is "vactor") Simone is happy with every script she receives, never complains about her perks and will never age - a director's dream. Though sultry and seductive, she projects a soothing screen presence, and you feel the symbiosis between her and Viktor. It wasn't until the credits started rolling that I realized Simone really was a computer generated image (this is confirmed by both the press kit and everything I've been able to find on the internet) and is a composite of Hollywood leading ladies from the past (drawn from the "Legends Library").

Although marketed as a comedy, "Simone" highlights the growing impact of technology on how we perceive reality. While moviegoers have come to expect special effects in their films, most don't realize the extent to which they are actually utilized - it is not uncommon for actors to be made thinner, or taller, with the click of a mouse. Several films have already employed synthespians to perform difficult stunts and last year's Final Fantasy showed how far the technology had come (bankrupting a movie company in the process). Simone demonstrates that actors themselves may soon be in jeopardy. Of course there are other issues lurking in the background: will we be faced with the spectre of Jimmy Stewart in Scary Movie 6 or Grace Kelly hawking feminine hygiene products? More disturbing is the possibility that in the near future the news reports we're watching could be wholly fictional and we would have no way of knowing? But that's more than enough paranoia for one review.

The first half of Simone is both fun and engaging as the public's thirst for knowledge about Simone grows: co-stars brag about partying with her, people say that she speaks to something in them because she is so real (irony at its best), and Simone reaches virtual demigoddess status. Unfortunately, the manic pace and almost giddy feel of the film begins to wane in the second half, meandering between different plot elements, and winding up in a too perfect conclusion.

Go for the matinee and stay for the popcorn.

If we analyze the role of this movie under today's influencers power and upcoming AI changes, we can be seeing a movie that was many years into the future. This one is aging really good.

Today's influencers are these empty shells that amass millions of followers and views but no one really know what or who is behind them, everything can be faked, can be simulated and is there only for the screen. I really recommend this movie as an exercise of futurism around marketing concepts. It is well acted and becomes quit interesting. Robert de niro role is top quality and the beauty of simone is superb. Recommend watching it.

This wasn't a bad comedy starring a famous actor who is known more for his dramatic roles: Al Pacino.

For a one-joke storyline, I thought the film was pretty good, and certainly better than the critics would have you believe. The story moved well, only getting a little preposterous in the final 15-25 minutes, although the whole film is a tongue-and-cheek look at Hollywood fame.

It's a nice-looking DVD and Rachel Roberts falls in that category, too, as the beautiful computer-generated new movie star who isn't what people think.

This turned out to be an "okay" but not one that people raved about or added to their collections. Maybe it was the weak ending.

I'm no computer whiz myself, and I can see a lot of errors and implausibilities in this movie. But at the same time, am amazed how easier it is now to edit, animate, have a speech synthesizer all aboard a modest laptop and be able to put something up on YouTube in a very short time. And though Al Pacino and all are great, the stars of the movie are the everyday people that fall for this 'Simone'. Nothing against Madonna, but there was a point where she was almost a global goddess. And were we to find out she wasn't real - who knows what would've happened? The movie simplifies things to such an extent on how easy it is to manipulate this moving image of Simone into movies, TV, and on stage. Yet there is some subtle special effects that do make it believable. The movie moves at such a fast pace, it expects the audience to keep up with it. And if you blink, you may not know why there's another movie all of a sudden, or why she's in 3rd world countries doing charity work all of a sudden. But again, not too far different from the schedules of Madonna or Brittany Spears et al. And much like Wag The Dog, I think it's the ending of this movie that has the strongest impact. Whether right or wrong, how far could it go? So if one's willing to let go and accept what this movies trying to convey in it's short time frame, I think they'll be impressed. If ones looking for Ex Machina or Terminator 2 et al. They'll be throwing popcorn at the screen in the first 10min.

S1mOne has a strong satirical sci-fi concept, but largely suffers from its large budget and the period in which it was produced... While watching it I couldn't stop pondering how great this concept could've worked in a classic Twilight Zone episode. While I wouldn't call it a bad movie, it ultimately misses the mark. Watching it now in 2019, the CGI for Simone looks silly and easily dates it. As a satire and for standing the test of time better, they should've ditched the computer graphics entirely and just featured the real actress all the time even on the computer screen. It's supposed to be lifelike groundbreaking technology right? This also would've made the interacting scenes much more heartfelt and not like he's talking to a paused Playstation screen. The actress who plays Simone did such a great job not acting real so the CGI is just a massive unnecessary negative.

The whole story of Viktor's ex wife running the studio is so bad and unnecessary. The rekindled 'romance' between them is even worse, would've been much better without all of this. I like Al Pacino in this but I think they could've utilized him much better. He comes across a bit clownish and bum-like for much of it. Stylistically the movie shows glimpses of good direction like the use of vintage automobiles but mostly falls short. It would've been really cool if they went in a 50's sci-fi camp throwback direction possibly with classic noir mixed in for drama. I'm a big stickler for style and there's a lot of fun things they could've done with this particular vehicle. Making Simone a Jessica Simpson-esque pop-star was dumb and doesn't add anything to the movie.

Overall, movies iike S1mOne ultimately leave me frustrated because it could've been a real classic.

"S1m0ne" is a different kind of movie, with an original, different and very interesting idea. But, despite this clever premise, it was a disappointment.

The plot is brilliant in fact: Viktor Taransky, a producer with his career in danger, desperately needs a success. He decides to create a virtual actress named "Simone". "Simone" is perfect, gorgeous, beautiful and sexy. She's not real, but nobody knows that and she becomes a major hit.

However, this intelligent and amazing idea is ruined as Simone's fame grows to the extreme. Viktor Taransky, not to reveal the truth, is forced to "hide" her from the public and this ends up becoming too much for him. That's when the movie becomes ridiculous: he decides to ruin Simone's image in all ways, but the more he tries to do it, the more the public likes her. From this part on, the rest is pointless and pathetic. The ending is probably the worst and most ridiculous ending I've ever seen in a movie.

Al Pacino, as usual, is great and this role of Viktor Taransky is one of his best roles. The beautiful Rachel Roberts is great as "S1m0ne".

In conclusion: it's truly a pity how such a genial idea was ruined by rubbish humor. The movie had potential to be much better than this. After all, the plot was so good... a wasted opportunity. If this movie was made more carefully, it could have something special like "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" and "The Mask".

Andrew Niccole's relishing and original take on modern celeb worship is a unique cinematic experience. The basic plot is very interesting and the screenplay is awesome. Some of the scenes (like "I am pig" or the second TV interview) carry the actual message of the film quite strongly but the film never denies the fact that it's meant primarily to be a comedy film. It has got a brilliant cast from Al Pacino, Katherine Keener to even Evan Rachel Wood. Winona Ryder is also excellent in her cameo. But what really fascinated me is its ending. One can never predict how it turns out in the end. Highly recommended for everyone who's seeking new concepts in the recent movies.

S1m0ne has an interesting plot, well at least for 2002, as for now in 2021, when I watched the movie, it just doesn't look very futuristic but more realistic and not surprising. The good thing about this movie is that it keeps you entertained for the entire duration, and that's due to the good acting from the whole cast, and because the story has some funny moments, mild but funny anyway. Al Pacino is for once not a gangster and proves he can play anything. I had fun watching this movie and I'm sure a lot of other people will like it as well as there's nothing really bad to write about S1m0ne.

It's quite obvious that somebody at a studio was think about his\her new film and decided that it would be much easier if they could just magic up a new star rather than pay an existing one.

This must have been the thought that brought this utter crap of a film to our screens. A wafer thin concept on which was hung one of the worst movies ever. It was overly sentimental; it was full of poor technology and barely qualifies as a satire because frankly it would be an insult to satirist to consider it one.

Pacino spends the whole time running around looking dishevelled holding his head (probably wondering how he got there and what sort of damage this is going to do to his reputation). Somehow we are supposed to accept that people love this person that he has created (with half a hard disk and no computer knowledge whatsoever) so much that they ignore the quite obvious fact that she is not real. It's infuriatingly bad. Oh and naturally, the pre-pubescent teen daughter can recover the work of genius of whom it took years to create. With a couple of keystrokes. How do we know this? Because virtually every time we see here she is using a laptop. Oh of course! It's so obvious.

Jason Schwartzman was wasted. Rachael Richards (or Anna Green or whatever she is calling herself now) on the other hand, is perfect as S1m0ne a vacuous mannequin with no talent without somebody to operate her. Life imitating art can be so spooky.

This is a truly an awful movie and urge everybody to avoid this like the plague.

The premise of "Simone" is extremely original and quite masterful. The screenplay is by Andrew Niccol who wrote "The Truman Show" and seems fascinated by the thin line between fantasy and reality, and what happens when we cross that line. It is possible that synthetic actresses, created on one's computer, can replace real actresses (as shown in an early scene in the movie, Hollywood actresses can be a huge pain in the behind, in the case of Winona Ryder's character who begged for a huge trailer and all the cherry Mike and Ikes to be taken out of her candy bowl), but hopefully that won't one day happen. They'll never be able to replace the authenticity of human actresses, but then again we use computers a lot (CGI) to gloss over many elements of film outside of an actor's performance.

The idea of a director being able to use a synthetic actress in his movies without his other cast members noticing a glitch gives the audience much disbelief to suspend, but since the premise is so darn interesting and nifty I was willing to go along with it. But Niccol could've at least done something about the plot holes. For example, Al Pacino's character reveals early in the film that he knows nothing about computers. So what makes us believe that in 9 months a computer illiterate man will be able to construct every maneuver of this synthetic actress with the greatest of ease? Also, it appears that Simone can only speak when Pacino speaks. Then how was Simone able to speak to the actors during the read-through even before Pacino drove over to the headquarters?

There's even a wimpy subplot involving Pacino being divorced from his wife, who works with him as a producer and he has a precocious little daughter who sees him now and then. It didn't hinder the plot too much, but at the same time it wasn't really needed. Pacino's almost always brilliant, so it was fun watching him in this movie. Catherine Keener is also an engaging actor, as well as being very attractive. Jason Schwartzman, who's a talented actor with fine potential and unfortunately got stuck in two cruddy movies ("Rushmore" and "Slackers"), is given an extremely thankless role which could've been played by a robot. Hopefully, one day he'll star in a movie that's both good and makes great use of his talent. The actress who plays Simone is perfectly cast, as she's the stereotype of beauty (blonde hair, slim figure, radiant smile, etc.).

The movie isn't as much of a comedy as it appears in the trailers. It isn't too much a drama either, but don't expect to be laughing your head off. I also expected that Simone would go haywire and start to take on a life of her own, which would later cause Pacino's character to blow up. At least that's what I gathered from the trailers. I think the plot would've more interesting if that were to happen.

"Simone" turned out to be a massive failure at the box office, but don't take its minute box office numbers too seriously, because it really isn't a bad film at all. I expected more out of it, but altogether it was a fun experience.

My score: 7 (out of 10)

I was interested in seeing this film, because I was intrigued by the concept, I saw that the director Andrew Niccol also wrote for The Truman Show and I love that film and I like Al Pacino. On paper this should have been a great film, instead it is uneven but worth seeing.

I agree the romance is dull, that the script has its weak spots, the direction is lacking in places and that the story is unevenly paced. However, I loved the concept and the satire worked as it was very sharp and thought-provoking. Al Pacino handles his role well, and Rachel Roberts is intriguing as S1m0ne, while Catherine Keener, Winona Ryder Jason Schwartzman and Jay Mohr are solid.

Overall, it was a decent film but could have been more. 6/10 Bethany Cox

Are movie stars an endangered species? Will they someday become obsolete? In the past several decades, as filmmakers have come to rely more and more heavily on computer technology to bring their visions to life on screen, there's been a growing suspicion in the film industry that actors might one day become superfluous to the whole moviemaking process. There might even be some financial incentive for studios to explore this particular option. After all, why pay actors exorbitant salaries or put up with their temperamental tantrums when all a director need do is push a button and have a computer-simulated person deliver the perfect performance for him? Could `actors' become, in essence, nothing more than `special effects' to be inserted into the moviemaker's final product? Already today, a number of filmmakers, when confronted with having to film scenes involving massive crowds, have opted to forego hiring oodles of expensive extras, relying instead on the computer to supply all the requisite people for them. Now what would happen if some filmmaker suddenly had the technology necessary to do that with his main characters? Enter Simone – and all Hollywood gives a collective shudder.

`Simone' is another high concept fantasy by Andrew Niccol, the writer/director who made `The Truman Show' a few years back. Like that earlier film, `Simone' is concerned with the issue of reality vs. illusion as it is played out in the modern world of our mass media culture. `Simone' tells the story of a down-on-his-luck film director, Viktor Taransky (Al Pacino) who, fed up with the rampant egotism of the stars he is forced to work with, finds a way to circumvent the problem when a `madman' scientist shows him how to create a cybernetic actress named Simone. Even though she is nothing more than a computer simulation, Simone ends up taking the deluded world by storm, achieving instant celebrity status and rescuing Taransky's faltering career in the process.

`Simone' sounds great on paper, and I am sure that Niccol felt he was really making an incisive satire on both the moviemaking process and the shallowness of American pop culture. The problem is that `Simone' never achieves the level of sophistication in its execution that the premise – and the film's pedigree – would lead us to expect. We know what we are SUPPOSED to be thinking while watching `Simone' – that Hollywood is filled with rampant egotists and phonies, that moviemaking is based on manipulative illusions and that modern audiences are only too willing to fall for and even worship hollow and empty glamour at the expense of the really important things in life – but the heavy handed, humorless way in which the message is delivered robs the film of most of its incisiveness and point. In fact, there is really not one genuine laugh in the course of the film. The Hollywood insider stuff is obvious and overdone and much of the humor is of the harried-deceiver-running-around-trying-not-to-get-caught variety. We even have Viktor setting up a speakerphone `meeting' between Simone and her fellow actors, jumping into a golf cart and racing to his computer terminal in a nearby sound stage so that he can `speak' for Simone. The problem is that, apart from the corny slapstick nature of the whole setup, the scene doesn't make any sense anyway since Viktor - as Simone - never interacts conversationally with the actors, but simply delivers a speech to them which could have been prerecorded just as easily as the one he did for Simone to start the meeting with. Thus, all the madcap running around turns out to be for naught in the final analysis, since it is never even exploited for its own comic effectiveness. Despite the veneer of originality, almost everything about the film feels conventional and obvious, including the bit about how Victor is desperately trying to win back his ex-wife who just so happens to be one of the heads of the studio for which he works. (I wonder if Niccol and Woody Allen shared notes on this script, for I could swear that this was the very same storyline for `Hollywood Ending,' yet another unsuccessful fantasy about the moviemaking process). In many ways, Niccol, as a writer, is as tied to phoniness and conventionality as the industry he is attempting to deride. And the ending, though `clever,' completely violates the theme - of the importance of truth and integrity - that the filmmaker has been working towards all along.

Pacino, despite the fact that he is often required to look a bit foolish as the madly racing around, harried director, ends up delivering a generally warm and sympathetic performance, managing to keep the character life-sized in the face of all the larger-than-life nonsense that is going on around him. Catherine Keener, one of the most compelling actresses working in films today, makes of his ex-wife a woman of wit, intelligence and compassion.

Thanks to cinematographers Derek Grover and Edward Lachman, Niccol brings a sharp, burnished look to the film. The movie seems to be bathed in a kind of warm golden light, enhancing the slightly otherworldly quality Niccol's fantasy scenario demands.

Yet, it is that scenario itself that, ultimately, spells defeat for `Simone.' One appreciates the attempt to try something a little `different,' but Niccol is simply not able to bring it all together in this particular instance. Yes, `Simone' fails at a higher level than the average Hollywood movie, but it is still, alas, a failure. Given a more sophisticated treatment, this `high concept' effort could have been a real knockout.

Viktor Taransky (Al Pacino) is a decadent filmmaker, who has just lost the star of his last movie before its end. Due to this loss, he is fired by his ex-wife Elaine (Catherine Keener), a powerful executive in the studio. When leaving the facilities, Viktor is visited by his great fan Hank (Elias Koteas), a crazy software engineer having an eye tumor having with a few days of life. After his death, Viktor inherits Hank's software and creates Simone (Rachael Roberts), a fantastic virtual star, who becomes an icon and brings Viktor to the spotlight. Viktor decides to vanish Simone, but the creation becomes bigger than the creator, making Viktor powerless. This movie is one of the most acid critic to Hollywood behavior ever. Unfortunately, the end of the story is corny. Having a better end, it would be outstanding. Anyway, it is a worthwhile entertainment. The deleted scenes on DVD are also very funny and most of them should be in the movie. For example, pay attention in the names of the cast of Viktor's film in the deleted scenes: it is simply hilarious! My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): `Simone'

This film is so utterly naive in its conception, and so dismally executed I'm actually in shock that it classifies as a film at all. Never before have i witnessed such a cringe-inducing 'plot' performed so half-heartedly. Al Pacino aught to know better - I guess he was simply trying to avoid being typecast. Well watch out Al, you'll get typecast as someone with poor taste in scripts. Seriously, WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?

Simone herself is even more soulless and bland that a real computer graphic. In fact Pixars animated characters manage to have 1000% more life that there is in this drone-like performance. The computer effects - where they show Pacino 'editing' Simone - are laughable too - they bely a director who has never used a computer and makes no attempt to make any part of this film even vaguely conceivable.

The plot is dire, the dialogue is coma-inducing, and the twist is so predictable as to surprise only the very feeblest of minds. This is genuinely one of the worst, most flaccid films I have ever seen. I was actually looking around the audience in disbelief to see if they were as flabbergasted at its rubbishness as I was.

Seriously, save yourself some money - wait till it comes out on TV (probably within 6 months).

Then smash your TV.

It went from mediocre to ludicrous and took almost two full hours to do it. A mildly interesting concept was doomed by too many unbelievable situations. After this much time, surely Hollywood can get computers right, can't they? Why did Al Pacino's character, who confessed he knew nothing about computers, suddenly acquire the ability to develop a CGI alter-ego? Also, where did he get a keyboard that had keys for "tears" and "mimic"? And would it really have a 5.25" floppy drive? Don't insult me. An incredible waste of talent, money, and my time...Could this really be the same writer and director who brought us Gattaca?

SIMONE written and directed by Andrew McNichol who also wrote THE TRUMAN SHOW, which in the opinion of this writer was one of the best films of 1998, opened this week starring incomparable Al Pacino.

THE TRUMAN SHOW was a brilliant send up of television and those of us who will watch whatever is on. SIMONE does the same for movies and Hollywood. It will certainly make my list of the Ten Best Films of 2002. Put quiet simply McNichol has once again hit one out of the park.

SIMONE is a beautiful actress that is made up of pixels. A series ones and zeros put together in a computer and placed into the film. Even her name is an abbreviation for the computer program that has made her possible: Simulation One.

When Hollywood diva Wynona Ryder walks off director Viktor Taransky's (Pacino) film unfinished for nothing but silly reasons, his career is finally in the dumpster. He is offered salvation when a computer whiz, played in a fabulous cameo turn by Elias Koteas, offers him the solution.

Taransky with the aid of the computer creates SIMONE the perfect actress. She doesn't talk back, does what she's told and doesn't make trouble. Made up from parts of the very best that Hollywood has to offer she is breathtakingly beautiful. She becomes bigger than life itself which McNicholl cleverly shows by placing Simone's picture on the sides of three story buildings and has Pacino or other mortals walk by in front the portraits. As an actress Simone is less than brilliant, but no one seems to notice. In fact, that is the point, nothing this woman does is wrong. The public as McNicholl's character Christoff in the TRUMAN SHOW says `accepts whatever Universe that is presented to them as real.'

McNichol tell us in both SIMONE and TRUMAN SHOW that people believe what they want to believe; what they feel comfortable believing. SIMONE says that your eyes will lie to you. That what you see is only true if that is what you want it to be. It is a warning to a complacent society to be on guard. The media is capable of creating their reality, one that will make us happy, warm and fuzzy, in order to control what we see, think and feel. That they in fact all ready do this through advertisement and slanted, controlled news. It warns us not to blindly trust what we are shown by the media. SIMONE reminds us of elements in WAG THE DOG where a fictious war is created and since it is shown on TV we will believe it.

SIMONE is both hilarious and thought provoking. Pacino's performance as the washed up film director takes on a rather Dr. Frankenstein feel when his creation becomes uncontrollable, not for what she does but for the way that the public reacts to her. After she becomes big he can't admit to the fraud because no believes him and he can't kill her off because the public refuses to let her die. Pacino is brilliant. You cannot go wrong with this one, it's a winner.

Throughout this entire film I saw this film as a dark drama, that critiqued the materialism that has become our society and the film industry. I think the movie wanted to make people think and question whatever they are seeing or hearing, don't just take it for granted that things are real and you are getting the whole story.

In the beginning the movie comes out and critiques the industry. Saying, movies have become all about the dollars and cents - investors, pampered movie stars, box office revenues - not the art form we call motion pictures. I think many people will agree with this and I give kudos for the fact that it was brought up in a major motion picture.

I felt that as the film progressed it implicated people in today's society as being very unfulfilled, impressionable and exploitable. People never questioned the reality surrounding Simone, even without a single physical appearance or encounter. Simone was even rewarded without ever being seen in the flesh. (Hey, we did give Grammy Awards to Milli Vanilli).

I think the end of the movie was intended to make people think about what's going on around them. Do not just believe the first thing you hear and see. Think outside of the box and don't just categorically deny something because its not what you wanted to hear.