I can't stop thinking about how much I wish I could call Patrick and chat with him for an hour or so about this film. I think he would have liked it SLIGHTLY more than me. Maybe, one day, I'll find out.
https://youtu.be/573GCxqkYEg?si=vIlk644wDFOzTSL_
My daughter and I went to see "The Creator" last night, on probably the best screen and at the best theater it's playing at in our part of the country.
I have a lot to say, but the quick-hit verdict is this: I'm glad I saw it, and spent the money to do so in a prestige setting and format. But I didn't love it, and that irritates me.
I was a film reviewer and entertainment-journalism and -business reporter for many years, for big publications, online concerns, and as a freelancer, and I can tell you: The hardest pieces to write are about the ALMOST-good, and the NEAR-great, entertainments. One of the hardest, and last films I ever professionally reviewed was "The Good Shepherd", the first of an intended duology of films about the creation and rise (out of control, to a large extent) of the CIA by Robert DeNiro. It had SO much going for it: A stellar cast (Matt Damon, Angelina Jolie, John Turturro, Michael Gambon, William Hurt, DeNiro, even Joe Pesci), great cinematography, a truly riveting story, etc. But it WASN'T "great". It was wildly inconsistently paced, emotionally constipated, and, ultimately, unfulfilling. And it took me two advance screenings and the better part of a month to write (and rewrite, and scrap, and write all over again, from scratch) a 2,700-word review of it, which wound up reading: "Well worth watching, but, unfortunately, probably not worth remembering". (Perhaps proving how very conflicted I am about that film, I not only remember it seventeen years later, but re-watch it fairly regularly. Like a wound that won't heal, I can't stop picking at it. Maybe that redeems it, somehow? Hell, I don't know. I watch "Step Brothers" every time it's on, too.
) "The Creator" manages to fall into the same box, but, to be honest, it's nowhere near as good as "The Good Shepherd" (which is a VERY different film).
Let's start here: I am a big fan of Gareth Edwards, have been since "Monsters" (which is in some ways a more impressive film than "The Creator", despite the fact that it was made for roughly the cost of a 1998 Toyota Camry). "Rogue One" had its issues, but it is far and away the best "Star Wars" film since "Return of the Jedi"; 2014's "Godzilla" reboot is only a few steps removed from perfect, in my opinion. But this may well be Edwards' final big-budget, broad-canvas film... And, you know, perhaps it needs to be. Edwards is one of those innovative filmmakers who may do much better with much less going for him: Thin budgets and iffy financing seems to bring out the very best in him, much like Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, and Christopher Nolan. Give him unlimited resources, and he gets a bit lost, his films a touch unfocused. So it is with "The Creator", a film that could have been made by the hybrid offspring of JJ Abrams and Terence Malick: It is too indulgent and sprawling for its own good, and the result is desperately muddled.
It doesn't help that we've seen this all before. Edwards channels every skeptical dystopian futurer from "Alien" to "Blade Runner" to "Akira" to "District 9" to "Avatar" to "Elysium" -- even, his own "Star Wars: Rogue One" -- some, VERY blatantly. (In fact, "The Creator" COULD have been directed by Neil Blomkamp... On an off day. The special effects are MOSTLY very good -- not innovative, not ground-breaking, but on the high side of adequate for this sort of tale -- the tech design is occasionally modestly inspired (when it's not being in-your-face derivative), and the action sequences are fairly gripping (in particular, a scene with a pair of self-propelled robot bombs was very well done). But there's nothing to make you gasp, here, or grip the edge of your seat, much less, hold your breath. It's fine. But it's no "Blade Runner 2049" or anything, though, clearly, the filmmakers had aspirations of it so being.
It's also a film very much without a heart, and it's hard to pin exactly why. Although I like John David Washington very much, he simply hasn't displayed his father's magnetic charisma, onscreen, yet, and he doesn't here, either. He is very much like Eric Bana: A decent actor no one can bring themselves to give a damn about (Bana's best role was as Hector in "Troy", and he's never equalled that performance, not even close. Washington is still waiting to film a part that will make audiences remember him). And, with the exception of seven-year-old Madeleine Yuna Voyles, whose extraordinary performance in "The Creator" comes close to redeeming the entire endeavor, no other actor makes much of an impression, either: Not the always-mesmerizing Ken Watanabe, not the reliably-memorable Allison Janney, not the always-breathtaking Gemma Chan. Everyone's somehow miscast, even the Discount Donald Sutherland as a grimly efficicient human general. Or, more likely, they're just poorly directed. In a film like this, one expects, to some extent, the actors to take a back seat to the spectacle, and forgives the necessity of that choice... IF the final product is compelling enough. It's not, here, and that's a shame. I keep wondering what Denis Villeneuve or Danny Boyle or Rian Johnson might have done with this concept. "Better", is the only answer I can come up with.
Even Hans Zimmer, who scored the film, is wasting his time, here; and, let's be honest: A film that one walks out of, having COMPLETELY FORGOTTEN that Zimmer is responsible for its soundtrack, is NOT a film one can love. When was the last time that happened to me? "Angels & Demons"? Cripes.
Some of the dialogue is also cringe-worthy: "What do you want?" One character asks another, roughly midway through the film. "For robots to be free," the other somberly responds. "I'm sorry, we don't have that in the fridge." GUH. It's as if someone asked ChatGPT to write a screenplay by Kamala Harris, or George W. Bush, or Miley Cyrus.
Finally, this is a film that could have used a different editor: The flashbacks are clumsily presented, the VERY in-your-face three-act narrative structure is both blatant and unnecessary, and the film at various times is both tedious and rushed. God, I HATE being so negative, because there was actually really quite a lot, here, to work with -- but it's like seeing high-quality Italian marble used to tile the walls of a Buc-ee's bathroom. And I followed with great anticipation "The Creator"'s production, especially Edwards' rejection of studio greenscreens for some VERY ambitious location shooting. (And, to be sure, some of the locations and vistas ARE spectacular. But, then, for a film that is largely set on some of Asia's most beautiful beaches and cliffsides and mountains' shadows, IT SHOULD BE. Frankly, with its budget and location scouting and camera rigs, this film ought to have been a travelogue for futurists, somewhere on a point between "Avatar" and "Dune". It ought to have been fairly jaw-dropping. It's not. It's better than "meh", but far below "whoa".)
Perhaps worst of all: It has, ultimately, NOTHING profound or even novel to say about AI, which is, after all, the theme of the film. Unforgivably, this movie is PERFECTLY timed, as the looming threat and burgeoning promises of artificial intelligence truly begin to shape the world we live in... But it throws this complex and uncomfortable discussion out the window in favor of easy platitudes and pat resolutions. The Hell? This is a film that should have GNAWED at its target audience. Instead, it tosses a softball. Underhand.
I'll give it a 6.6 out of 10. It's not worth even one of the superlatives found in its marketing campaign. If you're a fan of Edwards, Washington, or futurism, sure, check it out, and in a decent setting. But pay matinee prices.
