Creep Box

I originally got to see this film during its festival run (at the Philip K Dick Film Festival, where it won best feature) and am happy to see it out in the world finally. It's gorgeously shot, well-acted, and strongly directed. And all on a micro-budget, too, from what I understand. Yes, it's a challenging sci-fi that doesn't offer to answer questions but rather gets you thinking about its central themes. Mostly our relationship with technology... now and possibly more so in the future. It's meditative for sure, and the slow-burning nature of it is going to turn off a lot of people. It's not a foolproof film, but I'm sure it'll find its audience.

Creep Box kept me engaged from the very first frame until the ending credits and that's what a well-directed, good quality movie is supposed to do. It's an unsettling and thought-provoking story that takes artificial intelligence and (to me), crosses over into an other-worldly /spiritual-dimension (people are speaking to simulated voices of deceased loved ones via an AI controlled box) which, at first, seems to be beneficial to humanity, you can observe how it might help people who are grieving, but as the film progresses, and you get deeper into the characters, their stories and motivations, and the danger of the device ending up in unethical/ profit-minded hands, it can all go horribly wrong. There's also the disturbing element of the device taking a life of its own and therefore, being uncontrollable by humans. It's a chilling thought.

There are other narratives that can easily emerge or evolve out of this film and take on a new direction while maintaining the core of its purpose/theme, which leads me to think it would make a great adaptation for a television series or at the least, a sequel that expands the narrative.

The music and cinematography blend extremely well together. It has an authentic quality that feels haunting, eerie and very tense (as I said, it kept me engaged and alert from beginning to end).

Geoffrey Cantor gives an excellent performance as do the other actors as well. They all match perfectly with the mood and atmosphere of this film. My only complaint is that I didn't want it to end.

Within the first few minutes we are told that the simulation technology around which the story revolves derives from "personal experiences, not algorithms," and then, immediately after that, we are told that this same simulation is "nothing but a feedback loop of ones and zeros."

This raises the question, what kind of philosophical depth can a writer bring to a film that is about the mystery of the nature of consciousness, when he clearly doesn't care about coherence in relation to comparatively simple things like the definition of what an algorithm is? What does that lack of concern for coherence say about the degree of the writer's own consciousness?

Watch "Creep Box" to find out, I guess.

Im surprise this film hasn't been talked about more. I thought it was very well crafted, a bit slow at times but good.

I was scrolling through Amazon one day, read the plot line and decided to give it a try and I was pleasantly surprised.

I'm a huge fan of indie films and I enjoy films sometimes that don't give us a direct answer and they leave it up to the viewer.

I was sold from the opening moments and Geoffrey Cantor's great performance as his character wrestles with the central question of the movie. Adam David Thompson was also fantastic.

I hate spoilers, so I try my best to explain how I feel without spoiling. Just know it will leave you thinking.

The film begins well, but after 20 minutes, it repeats the same topics, behaviours, and events.

The environment is gloomy, sunless, bleak, depressing, and dull.

The characters are caricatures; one is solely concerned in marketing the product, the other in mourning his loss; you see them without concern, and the grieving anyones have no individuality at all.

For minutes, one character sits at a table, takes numerous tablets, and walks slowly, depressed, down the stairs.

The scenarios in which they present their idea to concerned parties or prospective clients are extremely repetitive without any climax.

Is the slow, monotonous, colourless portrayal of this daily existence of inventors, scientists and investors intentional? For what purpose?

The invention isn't really comprehensible; how technical is it beyond biologically transferring neurons and synapses?

They communicate through a simulation of the deceased, but a lot of substance is missing.

What do the simulated individuals see? Do they live in their own world? Or are they just lying bodyless and without eyes? What are they doing when they are not speaking out of the simulator?

It merely presents an interpretation of Freud's theory of human consciousness. Three levels of awareness, conscious, preconscious, and unconscious, intersect with his concepts of the id, ego, and superego.

But the researcher in the film describes the simulation as combining three voices in our heads: the morality of the superego, the reality of the ego, and the instant of the Id.

What is the moment of the id? What a bad, ambiguous, and inaccurate interpretation of the pleasure principle, which is the source of drive in all humans... What a squandered opportunity to base murders and suicides around this principle. What about the id of the simulated, what if the scientist pulls the plug. Void.

They mention moral questions rising, to seek the brain of the deads, but none are mentioned in detail, or in their effects. It does not even raise the issue of of the legal aspects of confidentiality, of a habeus corpus.

It is so devoid in content!

The movie repeats: Saying everything is OK is the biggest lie.

Saying this film is good would be my greatest dishonesty. I am truly generous to give it four stars.

It demonstrates how a wonderful idea dies when it falls into the hands of uninspired, uncreative individuals.

Rewatchabilty index : zero!

I urge you watch the Minority Report instead or again...