The Creator

The Creator is an original sci-fi movie written, produced and directed by Gareth Edwards (commonly known as director of Rogue One: A Star Wars Story).

Lets start with the positives first. The Creator looks visually superb. They have really imagined a interesting future earth and used the production budget wisely, not over extending what is possible, and creating a curious mix of retro and future looking technology. The cinematography and location shots featuring the spaceships and battle scenes are really well done.

On the negative side, the script is not very strong and we are not fully invested in what is going on or the characters involved. We neither see the bigger picture of this post nuclear reality, nor are we given significant smaller details and depth regarding the people and what they are fighting for.

It is a bit of a mish-mash of seeing robots caring for children and animals and dressed as buddhist monks and US style imperialism (think post cold war foreign policy), with marines massacring indiscriminately while looking for 'the weapon'. We are given a nugget of thought when the Human / Neanderthal analogy is dropped in but it is never followed up with any real substance to carry the idea forward. Therefore we don't know who to root for and the viewer is left hanging.

The acting is average and not great, perhaps reflecting the reality of the budget more than the excellent effects do. John David Washington feels out of his depth with the emotional range he is asked to give, and is eclipsed by the child actor playing 'Alfie'.

Overall, it's not awful, it's a bit disappointing as the potential was there and perhaps another draft of the script could have taken it to another level.

6/10.

Right away, this is a must watch film. If you love cinematic imagery, this is po*n.

The production is incredible. All the visual creative departments went ham on this, and it's incredibly beautiful, intricate and interesting.

However, the writing was, at times, terrible; even some of the acting, mainly the character named Josh wasn't good enough (the kid was great tho)

It felt like some of the scenes were "forcefully" inserted just for the sake of illustrating something, even though they had no logic or necessity (a robot bomb that's running? Really? Why not just shoot the bomb like you've already done dozens of time?)

And also let's not get into the philosophical opportunity that's missed here. I wished they would tangentially hit more some of the existential issues about AI vs humanity.

Anyway...Go watch the movie It's solid.

Oh dear. I was really looking forward to this, and managed to get a ticket for a pre-release showing. I left disappointed.

One fact that too many film-makers have failed to grasp is that CGI alone does not make a film. Effects can make a good film better, but they can't make a mediocre film good. Marvel, I'm looking at you.

It's not enough to string a few action scenes together and finish with some really big explosions. You have to have a story - preferably one that hangs together coherently. This is what's missing from this film, whose plot-holes are more pronounced than the holes where the AI characters' ears would be. Just one example - our hero is on the run in an unspecified Asian county, where it's established that he doesn't speak the language. He breaks down. A van stops, and he's asked if he needs help. Asked in perfect English. That's bad enough - but then for no explored reason, our good Samaritan progresses from giving a stranger a lift to helping him through a police road-block, risking the lives of his five children in the process.

Why are there gardens on Nomad? Why, if it's the last word in military technology, is it as easy to blow up as the Death Star or a Bond Villain's lair?

The child-McGuffin is portrayed by an excellent young performer, but makes no logical sense. The nuclear blast in Los Angeles (seen in the trailer, so it's not a spoiler) is cited as the reason for the war against AI. There's one throwaway line about this late in the film - but it's just that: a throw-away line. Following it up would've led to a much more interesting film.

I've heard it suggested that this should be seen as a metaphor for America's involvement in Vietnam, If so, it's a tired re-hash and forty years too late. Also, that would mean regarding it as an intelligent film, which it absolutely isn't

Just one more big-budget wasted opportunity.

If the script had been as good as the special effects, then this movie would've scored a Perfect 10. That's because the special effects were absolutely beautiful and aesthetically unique. It's the type of sci-fi I love watching and which inspires my thinking on topics of the future and technology. Back to the script though...

The script for this movie felt uninspired and I didn't care about any of the characters at all. None of them had any unique qualities, and the dialogue was all totally predictable. It was definitely written by a professional though, but it just felt flat and it took no real risks. Towards the end of the movie, however, it seemed to pick up a little bit, but by that stage I wasn't invested in it anymore. Also, the movie went on for faaaaaar too long, considering I didn't care about the content.

So huge props to the special effects team for making me finish watching this film and not thinking it was a total waste of time, and that's the only reason it won't be unforgettable.

While the film boasts spectacular cinematography, breathtaking scenery, and top-notch special effects, it's truly disappointing that the storyline is painfully inconsistent. Despite the promising concept, the narrative fails to maintain a cohesive flow, leaving viewers grappling with disjointed plot points. The movie's visual elements, from stunning set designs to captivating photography, create a visually immersive experience that almost compensates for its narrative shortcomings. It's a regrettable case of missed potential, where the brilliance of the visuals struggles to salvage a story that lacks the cohesion necessary to make it truly memorable.