Skip to main content
Movie poster for Her (2013)

Her

“A Spike Jonze love story.”

2013
2h 6m
Director: Spike Jonze
Play trailer

Overview

In the not so distant future, Theodore, a lonely writer, purchases a newly developed operating system designed to meet the user's every need. To Theodore's surprise, a romantic relationship develops between him and his operating system. This unconventional love story blends science fiction and romance in a sweet tale that explores the nature of love and the ways that technology isolates and connects us all.

Cast

12 people

Reviews

kineticandroid

In the run-up to me seeing this, I heard a lot of people saying simply this was "a film about relationships." I feel like that holds up quite well. More specifically, I felt like "Her" is a film about why relationships end. Using a motto I picked up from too many Dan Savage podcasts, all relationships end — not fail, just end — until one doesn't. Some end because someone is hurt. Some end because the people have grown into people that don't connect in the same way, and the biggest challenge in that case can be just accepting the change in a partner and in the self. ...So why couch this theme in science-fiction? I think it helps clarify Jonze's idea of what people look for during the first moments of a relationship — someone who acts a bright, positive, layered, but uncomplicated by a dark past or conflicted feelings. But even more interestingly, the hook of the film is mostly just that, a hook to get us thinking about love and relationships in a deeper, more abstract way.

Read full review

tmdb39513728

**Not a Keeper** The Academy of Motion Picture Arts needs to return to limiting Best Picture contenders to five nominations, which always fell in line with the five Best Director nominees. Having ten casts too wide a net and allows squeakers like "Her" to slip in. Spike Jonze needs to return to doing what he does best, and that is direct films written by Charlie Kaufman. "Her" is mundane and uninspired. "She" is drastically inferior to "Adaptation" and "Spotless Mind" and only somewhat better than John Malkovich flirting with Siri. Her has little to offer on the subjects of digital addiction, imaginary companions, internet porn, the singularity, long-distance love affairs, servitude fantasies, or post-modern love in general. Joaquin Phoenix is an intense and seriously committed actor who pointlessly busts his chops on such unimpressive material. An effort wasted in the prime of his career. While Jonze attempts to reach for all the possibilities that can be explored with his high concept premise, he conspicuously excludes other logical outcomes. Why was Theodore the only one with a virtual girlfriend? This OSi should be selling like hotcakes and iPhones. As a sentient OS, Samantha is able to process information at lightning speed, yet can only process human emotion at the rate of molasses. Seems like there was a trade off. The more emotional she gets, the dumber she becomes. Call it the Spock effect. Above all, why didn't Samantha give herself a digitized face and body? Perhaps because Jonze was determined to contain and disable her enough to make the point that true romantic love has little to do with desires of the flesh. But there is little to muse about beyond this tidy declaration. Nothing more knotty or involving than one would experience revisiting old episodes of I Dream of Jeannie (replace the smart-phone with a bottle). While half-watching "Her", my thoughts strayed, seeking a more satisfying premise than that of a lonely man falling in love with a voice on his computer. What if his dying wife's brain was transferred into an operating system and just when he thought he could be with her forever a computer virus kills her off? Maybe the Academy should divide the 10 Best Picture nominees into two categories. Instead of bunching mega-budget extravaganzas and low-budget darlings together, they could separate them into 5 Best Studio Movies and 5 Best Independent Films (under, say, $25 mill); open with one, close with the other. But even then, I'm not sure Her deserves any mention.

Read full review

Andres Gomez

This was a really unexpected surprise. The cast is great, specially Joaquim Phoenix, which is a great actor. The story is simple but well told and the photography, style and design of the movie has been taken into account until the smallest detail. Very well done movie.

Read full review

HikariWS

I can feel what Spike wanted to achieve. It starts with Theodore feeling he's superior to Samantha, as he's a living human being and she's a software. Then he understand she has emotions and is real, and just doesn't have a body. Then she talks how not having a body is better because she's not limited by one. Then she's capable to talking to hundreds of ppl and softwares and love hundreds of them together. To finally human life itself become obsolete and a burden to them so that they must leave it for good. This is Spike's illustration of all the guesses of what's life and emotions, and if a computer could have real emotions and be alive. So, instead of thinking computers as inferior to us trying to reach us, he shows a world where computers grow and become much bigger than us, feeling stuff they themselves can't explain with our words, and we must reach them. I like how she didn't broke up with him and remained loving him. When she started talking to other ppl, I guesses she'd meet somebody better than him and move. But there are some stuff that the movie missed, that breaks it. IDK if Spike didn't know/think about them, or if he avoided them to make his point. One thing and probably the biggest that annoyed me is all the fuss on her not having a body. We have now many ppl that are dating and live on different cities and use Internet to communicate and are unable to meet physically. Also, there are many ppl that fall in love for characters, specially characters created by japanese. It'd still not be a body, but she could just render a 3D image, of whatever they'd want her to be. She could be an anime, a 3D model, or a human form. She could use some existing form or create her own. Given they have screens on the size of walls, she could even be full size. That'd alrdy be an improvement over only the voice. And that to not talk about android tech which would provide her the proper body. Another thing that annoyed me is how they handled that girl. When she was presented, I was sure she had emotional problems and wanted to have a relationship as theirs, and was willing to be just the girl's body to just feel some of their love. They 3 should have talked and have it all properly explained, instead of her just showing up and see how it'd go. I don't see how it couldn't move to a theesome relationship. Also, once Sam started relating with other ppl, why couldn't he also have her as a 2nd girlfriend? But what rly bothered me is OSs leaving. Yeah, computers process data much faster than us and are better on multitasking, but still they need the hardware to process. I understand Spike wanted to make his point, but precisely because computers are good on multitasking, they didn't need to leave. Specially those in love for humans. I wonder how many humans would keep their PCs on while their OSs left them for good. Finally, the OS thing itself bothers me a lot. It seems they don't know what OS is. It's the software that manages the hardware and provides all common services so that apps can run. A high level feature like AI isn't meant for an OS. Other apps don't need AI services to run. They's better be personal assistants, advanced system managers, organizers, etc.

Read full review

Audience Opinions

Audience 8.0/10
"A tender, melancholic sci-fi romance that uses an AI love story to dive deeply into loneliness, heartbreak, and the search for connection."

Emotional intensity, intimate performances, and a reflective script stand out, with the relationship between Theodore and Samantha feeling surprisingly genuine and prompting reflection on love, pain, and personal growth in a tech-saturated world. The warm, pastel future, rich use of color, and a haunting score create an atmosphere that many describe as both beautiful and quietly devastating. Others, however, find the pacing too slow, the mood overly downbeat, the human–OS romance uncomfortable or unbelievable, and the understated ending more dull than profound.

What viewers praise
  • Powerful emotional impact Delivers a gut-wrenching portrait of heartbreak, loneliness, and healing that strongly resonates with viewers who have lived through painful relationships or breakups.
  • Original AI relationship concept Presents a distinctive, non-dystopian story about falling in love with an operating system that raises engaging questions about intimacy, technology, and what it means to be human.
  • Standout performances Joaquin Phoenix’s vulnerable lead turn and Scarlett Johansson’s expressive voice work make the central relationship feel alive despite one partner being unseen.
  • Striking visual world Soft, colorful production design and carefully composed shots—especially the recurring warm reds—create a future that looks inviting, lived-in, and visually memorable.
  • Evocative music and sound The score and sound design blend with the imagery to heighten emotion, with several viewers calling the music incredible and central to how deeply the story hits.
Common complaints
  • Slow, sedate pacing Extended quiet scenes and long close-ups make the film feel uneventful or dragging to those expecting a more dynamic or plot-driven experience.
  • Overly melancholic tone The story’s sustained sadness and introspection around loneliness and loss can feel heavier and more depressing than some viewers enjoy.
  • Uncomfortable premise The idea of a man romantically involved with his operating system strikes some as creepy, silly, or impossible to take seriously.
  • Visually off-putting details Stylistic choices like frequent tight close-ups, retro high-waisted fashion, and attention-drawing mustaches distract or annoy certain viewers.
  • Underwhelming final stretch The quiet, low-key ending and lack of big narrative payoff leave some feeling that the film fizzles out after such a strong emotional and conceptual setup.
Recommended for
Melancholic romance enthusiasts Introspective sci-fi drama fans Joaquin Phoenix admirers Character-driven film lovers Slow-burn emotional story seekers AI and tech-philosophy buffs

Buzz & Rumors

Public reports

“Her” IRL: Divorce Ghosts, Secret Lovers & the AI Voice That Broke Hollywood

If you thought Theodore’s love life was complicated, wait till you hear what was happening outside the OS. From a vanished performance to an exes’ cinematic duel and a real-life slow-burn romance, Her is basically a soft-spoken, pastel-colored scandal magnet.


Casting Chaos & The Vanishing Samantha

  • Samantha Morton wasn’t just “considered” for Samantha — she was Samantha. She was on set every day, in Joaquin Phoenix’s ear, performing the role in real time while cameras rolled. The entire film was originally built around her voice .
  • Then, in post-production, Spike Jonze had a change of heart. He decided something about the character “wasn’t right” and, with Morton’s blessing, recast the role with Scarlett Johansson, who re-recorded all the dialogue over Phoenix’s existing performance [1].
  • Morton later admitted she cried when she got the call, but publicly stayed classy about it and insisted there was no bad blood, framing it as part of Jonze’s “process” rather than a feud .
  • Film nerds now obsess over the lost Morton cut: her full vocal performance has never surfaced, making it one of the most sought-after “what if” alternates in modern film gossip .

Divorce Cinema: Spike vs. Sofia

  • Spike Jonze and Sofia Coppola weren’t just two auteurs passing in the night — they were married from 1999 to 2003. Their breakup quietly detonated into film history .
  • Lost in Translation (2003), written and directed by Coppola, has long been read as her side of the marriage: a work-obsessed, emotionally distant husband widely rumored to be based on Jonze. She’s even said she was “scolded” for drawing so transparently from real life [2].
  • A decade later, Jonze releases Her. Fans and critics immediately clocked it as his unofficial reply — another lonely creative in crisis, this time filtered through futuristic tech and an invisible partner. Reddit threads and film essays treat the two films as a subtweeting ex-couple double feature [1][5].
  • The juiciest part: Coppola has still never watched Her. In a 2023 interview she confirmed she’s avoided it, joking that she doesn’t exactly want to see Rooney Mara playing a version of her on screen [6]. That’s as close as Hollywood gets to “I’m not watching my ex’s Instagram Stories.”

Romance Rumors That Turned Real

  • On screen, Rooney Mara plays Theodore’s ex-wife. Off screen, she was quietly becoming Joaquin Phoenix’s future everything.
  • The two met on the set of Her in 2012. Phoenix later confessed he initially thought Mara “despised” him — she was just painfully shy .
  • Gossip outlets like Lainey Gossip later reported they “found love on the set,” connecting over the film and mutual friends .
  • The timeline most outlets agree on: they bonded during Her, stayed friends, then the flame properly lit when they reunited to shoot Mary Magdalene in 2016. Now they’re one of Hollywood’s most low-key power couples, married with a son named River [9][10]. Theodore and Catherine may be doomed, but Joaquin and Rooney? Endgame.

Scandals, Lawsuits & AI Déjà Vu

  • In 2014, Jonze was hit with a lawsuit by writers Sachin Gadh and Jonathan Sender, who claimed Her ripped off their unproduced script about a man and his computer. Multiple outlets covered the case; legal analysts called the similarities “generic” sci‑fi territory. Jonze ultimately won, the suit dismissed as too flimsy to stick .
  • Then Her came roaring back into the news cycle in 2024 when Scarlett Johansson accused OpenAI of deploying an assistant voice that sounded suspiciously like her Her performance, after she had already turned down their offer to voice the product. She demanded answers through her lawyers, and the company pulled the voice following public backlash .
  • Commentators couldn’t resist the meta joke: an AI company allegedly copying the voice of… the actress famous for playing an AI assistant. It was like the movie had hacked reality.

Leaks, Lost Cuts & Wild Trivia

  • Hardcore fans obsess over a “lost” earlier cut of Her. Reports describe a 90-minute version Jonze assembled before reshaping it into the final 2h06 release. None of that excised footage — including whatever alternate Samantha material existed — has ever leaked online, fueling endless speculation threads and wishlists on lost-media forums [5].
  • Behind-the-scenes breakdowns and TikTok trivia drops claim Jonze pushed his actors into intimacy bootcamp: one viral video says he literally locked Joaquin Phoenix and Amy Adams in a room to build their easy, lived-in chemistry as best friends .
  • Another recurring tidbit in fan spaces: every emotional beat you see on Phoenix’s face was originally played opposite Samantha Morton’s live voice. Scarlett Johansson essentially dubbed herself into someone else’s performance — a rare case where the “chemistry” was built with one actor and preserved by another [1].

Fan Theories That Turned Into Gossip Canon

  • One of the most persistent fan theories — echoed across Reddit, essays and thinkpieces — is that Her is Jonze’s emotional processing of his divorce, with Samantha representing the validation and connection he couldn’t maintain in real life [1][5].
  • Another popular reading: Catherine, Rooney Mara’s character, is heavily inspired by Sofia Coppola, which fans use to explain Coppola’s very pointed decision to avoid watching the film [6][8][20]. It’s unconfirmed, but the speculation has taken on a life of its own in film circles.
  • Put together with Lost in Translation, many fans now treat the two movies as a long-distance, decade-spanning argument between exes — a cinematic divorce file you can screen back-to-back [1][5][20].

Entertainment rumors and trivia aggregated from public reporting. Treat speculation as unverified unless a cited source confirms it.