Significant award buzz back in 2013. Positioned as progressive, emotionally profound and achingly relevant. But was it? Or was it just soft-spoken science fiction, wrapped in a muted aesthetic, coasting on the novelty of its premise?​ You see where this film review is heading.

Joaquin Phoenix plays Theodore, a lonely man who falls in love with his AI assistant, Samantha, voiced by Scarlett Johansson. her aims to explore the evolution of connection and the blurred lines between human and artificial intimacy. The concept is solid; the execution, less so.​

There are moments of intrigue. Scarlett Johansson’s voice work is effective – warm, playful, alluring. She brings more depth to Samantha than the script probably deserves. But Phoenix? I’ve never been a fan of his performances aside from his roles in Gladiator and Signs. Here, he embraces his usual detached and introspective awkwardness. This choice, instead of inviting empathy, makes the experience feel muted. It also feels lifeless. Joaquin Phoenix is essentially a second-rate Daniel Day-Lewis – dull DDL – consistently choosing monotonous roles.

“This script isn’t slow enough,” he tells his agent often, “This is too thrilling. Where is the melancholia?”

The romance is only as compelling as its participants. If one side isn’t engaging, the entire premise struggles to take hold.​

The majority of this film consists of telephone scenes, which are notoriously weak from a cinematic perspective. Phoenix didn’t interact directly with Johansson during filming; her lines were recorded separately in post-production. This approach emphasizes the detached artificiality of Phoenix’s performance. If Johansson had recorded her lines live, it could have represented inspired filmmaking. It would have elevated inherently dull phone scenes. Instead, we watch Phoenix act alone, delivering lines into a void. It’s the easiest, laziest form of acting.

Danny, my film-watching counterpart, adored her from the outset. He entered the screening pre-loaded with enthusiasm – having read early reactions and aware of the awards chatter. That matters. It’s easier to embrace a film’s strengths when you’re primed to like it. I didn’t have that luxury. I walked in clean. And what I found was something mostly unremarkable, dull and simplistic.​

Was her an independent film? With a $23 million budget, that’s $3 million above the typical indie threshold for 2013. It grossed $48.3 million – a return roughly fair on a cosmic level. But a film doesn’t become great just because it predicts something correctly. her takes its ideas with such unwavering sincerity that it forgets to challenge them. The film assumes its premise is profound enough to carry it, but does it ever dig beneath the surface?​

I’ve reconsidered her in recent years, particularly in light of my own conversations with AI. But my stance hasn’t changed much. AI can be engaging, even meaningful, but it will never replace human connection.

And a film about AI love can be interesting without being great. That’s where her lands for me – an idea ahead of its time, wrapped in a film that never quite justifies its existence.

For peak Scarlett check out Under the Skin.

★★ ★★

This review is briefer on IMDb and Letterboxd.

Click Colossus for a slightly older AI film.