Non-specific spoilers: I just watched this film. It... really isn't that good. It's entertaining, but I'm surprised that anyone is calling it 'next level' anything. The film contains a number of...
Non-specific spoilers:
I just watched this film. It... really isn't that good. It's entertaining, but I'm surprised that anyone is calling it 'next level' anything.
The film contains a number of interesting sci-fi concepts and classic ethical quandaries. It's nothing novel; if you're passingly familiar with the genre, you'll have seen these ideas before. That's okay; every piece of art is inspired by something that came before, after all.
Unfortunately, the film doesn't really explore any of its ideas to a satisfying depth. They're just there. Maybe that's okay too. Not every sci-fi story needs to be a philosophical treatise. Sometimes the setting can just be a backdrop to a good story.
Unfortunately, The Creator's story itself is unsatisfying. The characters are not well-developed or relatable, the plot is predictable and full of holes, and the film undermines it's own apparent moral lesson.
The special effects (visual and aural), are incredible, I must say. The technical aspects of the film, like the directing and editing are done well, and keep it entertaining.
It would be sad indeed if this were 'the best sci-fi film if the year', but I watched Across the Spider-Verse recently, which was spectacular.
I'm glad you enjoyed it! It's interesting that we had such different thoughts on the film. Now that reviews are out, it does indeed seem to have split opinions. Although I wish the story were more...
I'm glad you enjoyed it! It's interesting that we had such different thoughts on the film. Now that reviews are out, it does indeed seem to have split opinions.
Although I wish the story were more developed, I think the expert technical filmmaking (such as visual design and directing) did wonders to keep the film engaging. I can see how it would emotionally resonate with people.
It's funny to me how expectations changed over time. Take some old blockbuster movies - Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park. They were all a resounding box office success, and yet their...
It's funny to me how expectations changed over time. Take some old blockbuster movies - Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park. They were all a resounding box office success, and yet their stories had no profound message. Their fame was earned largely in part due to the filmmaking craft on display.
But today we somehow expect every original idea to explore some deep theme, or carry a life changing message, for... Reasons. What happened to just loving these films for filmmaking?
Most the movies you listed are incredibly well made in the story departments as well. Raiders of the Lost Ark for example, is an incredibly well written script and story.
Most the movies you listed are incredibly well made in the story departments as well.
Raiders of the Lost Ark for example, is an incredibly well written script and story.
I know you posted this weeks ago, but having just seen the film, it does NOT have the tight/light pacing of any of those movies. Imagine if Star Wars spent an hour on meeting Luke's family and...
I know you posted this weeks ago, but having just seen the film, it does NOT have the tight/light pacing of any of those movies.
Imagine if Star Wars spent an hour on meeting Luke's family and then having them die. That's roughly what we're dealing with here, and why it's so frustrating.
All those films are self aware enough to know they're not trying to make something like Citizen Kane, so the plot is there to mostly get them from scene to scene and to give the characters some depth. Han Solo is the likeable but pragmatic rogue, leia is the no bullshit legislator/warrior, luke is the standard hero archetype, Vader the imposing evil figure, etc. These aren't new, they aren't deep, and the movie doesn't treat them as such and is better for it. Just brief moments to get the point across and move on.
The Creator spends a LOT of time building up the same scenes with about the same depth and acts like they're much more profound. You don't feel much for the death of luke's family because you barely know them, you know he would, and that's enough. We are, multiple times, treated to scenes of characters we've gotten to know about as well dying, but it acts like it's the end of old yeller.
I share my views with Idalium. Outside of stunning visuals and surface level world-building, the movie was incredibly lacking. I do like your comparison to late 20th century cinema revivalism but,...
I share my views with Idalium. Outside of stunning visuals and surface level world-building, the movie was incredibly lacking. I do like your comparison to late 20th century cinema revivalism but, for reasons I can't articulate just yet, this film does not fit that mold for me. Skipping past the innumerous plot holes and predictable I've-seen-this-film-a-hundred-times-already plot, the most major flaw of this film (for me) was a complete disconect with why I should care about a single one of the protagonists.
every single person in the audience (20+ people) was crying
The AI, seemingly for reasons never even explained, detonated a nuclear weapon in Los Angeles - killing over a million people. They then engineer a weapon that within time will be able to control and destroy all electronics on Earth. Why should I root for robots who terrorize mankind, especially when the film never gives more than aesthetic reasons to believe that in this world the AI are more man than machine? Any robot can be programmed to display emotion and maybe that's what's going on here - the film tries to fool us into feeling for the simulants just like AI is designed to fool a Turing Test but somehow I remain unconvinced, in my own personal Turing Test I couldn't escape the feeling that the AI were all completely unsympathetic machines - I felt more for Johnny 5 than anyone in this film. While the audiance at fastpicket's theater were crying watching an adoptive father lose his adoptive child, another unconvincing simulation of a real human relationship, all I could think about was how the main character betrayed the entire human race because he was sad that his terrorist lover was dead.
Then the fact that this flimsy story was used as a springboard to make an allegorical film about US involvement in Vietnam/Iraq-era drone warfare only hightens the disconnect. Being bludgeoned with an anti-US screed for over two hours would be okay for a deep hitting film about the injustices of the US' adventurism in the Middle East but this is just not it. This is a film that wants to be deep but can't convince me to even entertain the basic tenants that it basis itself on.
Top Gun: Maverick and Pacific Rim are great films that epitomize 80's action movie revival. Paper thin plots that rely heavily on action, they excel at immersing the audience and make us root for the good guys while not pretending that they're anything more. Unfortunately, the Creator left me with no immersion and no one to cheer on.
The AI didn't blow up the nuke. Some simulant mentions this during the movie - it was a code bug that caused it, and it was easier for the US leadership to blame it all on AI instead of its own...
The AI didn't blow up the nuke. Some simulant mentions this during the movie - it was a code bug that caused it, and it was easier for the US leadership to blame it all on AI instead of its own workers.
Thank you for that then because I somehow completely missed that. I'll have to reconsider everything I just wrote but I'm not sure if it makes me think the movie is good
Thank you for that then because I somehow completely missed that. I'll have to reconsider everything I just wrote but I'm not sure if it makes me think the movie is good
After reading Summa Technologiae from Stanislaw Lem, I have yet to see an original take on the technology aspects of the future to be honest. He kind of spoiled everything back in the '68. OTOH,...
After reading Summa Technologiae from Stanislaw Lem, I have yet to see an original take on the technology aspects of the future to be honest. He kind of spoiled everything back in the '68.
OTOH, one does not go to the theater to learn the plotline of a Shakespearean play. One goes to see the particular take.
I saw it today and I got the feeling that they had some incredible concept art and they basically threw a plot to join it all together. The story is extremely heavy handed, but it could work if at...
I saw it today and I got the feeling that they had some incredible concept art and they basically threw a plot to join it all together.
The story is extremely heavy handed, but it could work if at least the characters were relatable.
There were several ideas that they got from Akira, but I don't know how they ended up being so bland. There were also some moments that remind me of the scenes in Ghost in the Shell when they show the city... But for some reason the film cuts everything every few seconds and things don't last.
Same, someone sent me the trailer today and I hadn't heard about it until now. This is definitely a movie I'd wanna see and it deserves a lot more buzz.
Same, someone sent me the trailer today and I hadn't heard about it until now. This is definitely a movie I'd wanna see and it deserves a lot more buzz.
Cindy White Hollywood can’t seem to figure out how to sell an epic genre film these days if it's not part of a franchise Related News The Creator First Reactions: The Best Sci-Fi Movie of the Year...
Cindy White
Hollywood can’t seem to figure out how to sell an epic genre film these days if it's not part of a franchise
The response from critics who’ve gotten a chance to see The Creator at preview screenings has been overwhelmingly positive (on social media at least, full reviews are still embargoed). The film will probably need that good word of mouth when it opens in theaters on September 29, because the rest of the marketing campaign for the sci-fi epic has been rather lackluster. It’s not a complicated premise; the beauty of the film is in its depth and execution, something much harder to convey in a two-minute trailer or 60-second TV spot.
Although it borrows liberally from iconic sci-fi films like The Terminator, Blade Runner, and The Matrix, it combines them in a way that feels modern and fresh. You wouldn’t know it, though, based on the early trailers that make it look like a generic retread of worn-out futuristic and dystopian tropes.
It’s a struggle to get an original, high-concept sci-fi film greenlit or distributed by any of the major studios. Which makes The Creator a rarity, and also a tougher sell. Maybe that’s why the marketing has been focused on the aspects of the film that feel familiar, rather than what makes it unique.
Edwards used the guerilla techniques he perfected on that production to keep the budget to $80 million, slightly more than average, but quite modest for an effects-driven, sci-fi-action epic. Edwards shot the film on location in Asia using a consumer-grade Sony camera he operated himself, a small crew, and mostly natural lighting. That it looks as spectacular as it does is a testament to Edwards’ ingenuity and the gifted eye of cinematographer Oren Soffer. There are plenty of $300 million films out there that don’t look nearly as good. And though it may be an impressive achievement, it’s not likely a huge selling point for most potential ticket buyers.
To be clear, The Creator deals with AI in the classic sci-fi sense—as in, sentient humanoid robots—not “AI” in the way it’s been used of late as a catch-all term for language learning models and generative art. That’s an important distinction, since the film kind of depends on the audience empathizing with its simulant characters.
Without any inside knowledge, we can only speculate as to why 20th Century is setting expectations so low for a film that’s been called not just the best sci-fi movie of the year, but the best movie of the year, period. Maybe that’s better than over-hyping it and then labeling it a disappointment when it doesn’t perform as well as a Marvel or Transformers film. The Creator is currently projected to make somewhere between $15 million and $24 million in its opening weekend, with a final domestic total in the range of $40 to $85 million.
Critics on social media say Gareth Edwards' latest is a visually stunning epic with spectacular action and ambitious storytelling, and it's a must-see for any fan of the genre.
Judging by the early social media reaction from film journalists and critics, there is almost universal praise for the way The Creator looks and the stunning work of cinematographers Oren Soffer and Greig Fraser. Many of those who saw the film on Monday described it as one of 2023’s best films.
I distinctly remember seeing the trailer and being turned off by it when it revealed that some AI child was the key to ending some war between man and machine. If there were more complexity and...
I distinctly remember seeing the trailer and being turned off by it when it revealed that some AI child was the key to ending some war between man and machine.
If there were more complexity and depth, the trailer and accompanying marketing truly has done a poor job of conveying it indeed. I got the impression that it was going to be yet another "this magic child will be our savior" story.
I build robots, I dream of robots, I do everything I can to surround myself with stories and realities of robotics. No matter how bad it is, I'll always watch and read about them. You know there's...
I build robots, I dream of robots, I do everything I can to surround myself with stories and realities of robotics. No matter how bad it is, I'll always watch and read about them.
You know there's a problem when even I was incredibly bored by the idea of a savior child story and had no interest after watching the trailer, reading the description had me interested until then.
Will it be good? Probably, but I'm not excited about it.
Yeah, I adore scifi but I saw this preview and wrote it off as an AI/Aleta: Battle Angel/Ex Machina amalgam and stopped caring. The hollow head look isn't terribly fresh, and I'm tired of...
Yeah, I adore scifi but I saw this preview and wrote it off as an AI/Aleta: Battle Angel/Ex Machina amalgam and stopped caring. The hollow head look isn't terribly fresh, and I'm tired of weaponized kids.
I'll try it based on the review, but the marketing is awfully stale.
Ha, when I saw that I immediately thought of that one-shot scene of an extremely minor character in AI: Artificial Intelligence, back when that was a surprising and novel use of CG and compositing.
Ha, when I saw that I immediately thought of that one-shot scene of an extremely minor character in AI: Artificial Intelligence, back when that was a surprising and novel use of CG and compositing.
Went and saw it last night, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. The story has some gaping plot holes, but as others have mentioned in this thread the entire movie is very well crafted. The visual FX,...
Went and saw it last night, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. The story has some gaping plot holes, but as others have mentioned in this thread the entire movie is very well crafted. The visual FX, cinematography, editing, acting where all great. The group of friends I saw it with was underwhelmed but enjoyed it, I think I probably had the highest opinion of it by a large margin.
This movie seems like it's right up my alley, so I am replying to an old threat so more people will see it, because this is the first I am hearing of it. It kinda feels like the movie got set up...
This movie seems like it's right up my alley, so I am replying to an old threat so more people will see it, because this is the first I am hearing of it. It kinda feels like the movie got set up to fail for some reason.
Juuuust got back from this, so spoilers to follow: Short version, it's the fondant cake of sci fi- It's just...it's so so gorgeous. The artistic direction and design is up there with both Blade...
Juuuust got back from this, so spoilers to follow:
Short version, it's the fondant cake of sci fi-
It's just...it's so so gorgeous. The artistic direction and design is up there with both Blade Runners, Dune, and The Fifth Element. Absolutely top tier and with this and Rogue One there's certain "styles" of shots that this director can do better than anyone else. I would gladly frame so many stills of this film.
Other than that, it is bland and boring as hell.
Take District 9, remove any subtly, add in tropes you've seen before, twists you call from miles away, and awful pacing. Oh and for every "ok i'll just ignore that" suspension of disbelief thing, there's 2 more "this is just bad writing" moments.
The movie tries to deliver heartfelt or serious moments on scenes that just...aren't. It takes its time trying to dwell on things as if they're emotionally moving, they often aren't. It brings things up that might be interesting or deep, but they aren't. It has the usual mad libs/fill in the blank action script, but it thinks it deserves to dwell on these moments rather than get them over with. It's just so bad.
Finally, the movie is propaganda. In an "anti" way. I'm struggling to think of a similar film, because I never really like these, but it's "team A is all evil and team B is all good". Honestly star wars (ironically outside of rogue one) but if you took country A for the empire and country B for the rebels.
In this case "The West" is evil, most specifically the US (as I don't believe you see any other "westerners". Everything is clearly labeled US Army or whatever) and "New Asia" and AI are the good guys.
To be clear, I don't care that it's the US being bad guys, and really have no desire to get into the politics side, I just want to make clear that it puts about as much effort into making these characters reasonable/interesting/real as any other propaganda film. They are laughably evil right out of the gate in a preposterous way (having someone threaten to shoot a puppy wasn't enough, they have someone ELSE gleefully cut off someone's face off screen), but suddenly just sensitive enough to allow the plot to move (if you don't kill her we will and it'll be horribly painful). Mostly, they're just as stupid as they need to be.
It's a shame. You could probably dub this film into a timeless masterpiece, but as it stands, it's gorgeous as hell and insufferable to watch.
With the understanding that the world has an alternate history and technological development than ours and therefore the AI cannot generate original human like faces "for reasons", it kind of...
With the understanding that the world has an alternate history and technological development than ours and therefore the AI cannot generate original human like faces "for reasons", it kind of makes sense that the people who would donate their likeness to robots would be older individuals who might be looking to have a legacy that will out last them and/or feel they have an obligation to support the next generation by literally giving them a face.
You know, this was something that took me out as well. And I don't want to diminish your enjoyment of the film by putting it like this, but to me it felt like by putting aged human faces on the...
You know, this was something that took me out as well. And I don't want to diminish your enjoyment of the film by putting it like this, but to me it felt like by putting aged human faces on the robots, or putting "faceless" robots in old people clothes etc, the film was trying to get the audience to sympathize with the simulants.
Now, I don't have a problem with that in theory, but I found that this film didn't then do any of the actual work required to get me to sympathize with them. The only simulant that had any actual personality (other than the main character simulant) was the one with the white domed head, who's personality I can only describe as "veagely irritated". None of the other simulants are describable other than who played them, or specific lines they might deliver, or "the detective (x2)"
Non-specific spoilers:
I just watched this film. It... really isn't that good. It's entertaining, but I'm surprised that anyone is calling it 'next level' anything.
The film contains a number of interesting sci-fi concepts and classic ethical quandaries. It's nothing novel; if you're passingly familiar with the genre, you'll have seen these ideas before. That's okay; every piece of art is inspired by something that came before, after all.
Unfortunately, the film doesn't really explore any of its ideas to a satisfying depth. They're just there. Maybe that's okay too. Not every sci-fi story needs to be a philosophical treatise. Sometimes the setting can just be a backdrop to a good story.
Unfortunately, The Creator's story itself is unsatisfying. The characters are not well-developed or relatable, the plot is predictable and full of holes, and the film undermines it's own apparent moral lesson.
The special effects (visual and aural), are incredible, I must say. The technical aspects of the film, like the directing and editing are done well, and keep it entertaining.
It would be sad indeed if this were 'the best sci-fi film if the year', but I watched Across the Spider-Verse recently, which was spectacular.
I'm glad you enjoyed it! It's interesting that we had such different thoughts on the film. Now that reviews are out, it does indeed seem to have split opinions.
Although I wish the story were more developed, I think the expert technical filmmaking (such as visual design and directing) did wonders to keep the film engaging. I can see how it would emotionally resonate with people.
It's funny to me how expectations changed over time. Take some old blockbuster movies - Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park. They were all a resounding box office success, and yet their stories had no profound message. Their fame was earned largely in part due to the filmmaking craft on display.
But today we somehow expect every original idea to explore some deep theme, or carry a life changing message, for... Reasons. What happened to just loving these films for filmmaking?
Most the movies you listed are incredibly well made in the story departments as well.
Raiders of the Lost Ark for example, is an incredibly well written script and story.
I know you posted this weeks ago, but having just seen the film, it does NOT have the tight/light pacing of any of those movies.
Imagine if Star Wars spent an hour on meeting Luke's family and then having them die. That's roughly what we're dealing with here, and why it's so frustrating.
All those films are self aware enough to know they're not trying to make something like Citizen Kane, so the plot is there to mostly get them from scene to scene and to give the characters some depth. Han Solo is the likeable but pragmatic rogue, leia is the no bullshit legislator/warrior, luke is the standard hero archetype, Vader the imposing evil figure, etc. These aren't new, they aren't deep, and the movie doesn't treat them as such and is better for it. Just brief moments to get the point across and move on.
The Creator spends a LOT of time building up the same scenes with about the same depth and acts like they're much more profound. You don't feel much for the death of luke's family because you barely know them, you know he would, and that's enough. We are, multiple times, treated to scenes of characters we've gotten to know about as well dying, but it acts like it's the end of old yeller.
I share my views with Idalium. Outside of stunning visuals and surface level world-building, the movie was incredibly lacking. I do like your comparison to late 20th century cinema revivalism but, for reasons I can't articulate just yet, this film does not fit that mold for me. Skipping past the innumerous plot holes and predictable I've-seen-this-film-a-hundred-times-already plot, the most major flaw of this film (for me) was a complete disconect with why I should care about a single one of the protagonists.
The AI, seemingly for reasons never even explained, detonated a nuclear weapon in Los Angeles - killing over a million people. They then engineer a weapon that within time will be able to control and destroy all electronics on Earth. Why should I root for robots who terrorize mankind, especially when the film never gives more than aesthetic reasons to believe that in this world the AI are more man than machine? Any robot can be programmed to display emotion and maybe that's what's going on here - the film tries to fool us into feeling for the simulants just like AI is designed to fool a Turing Test but somehow I remain unconvinced, in my own personal Turing Test I couldn't escape the feeling that the AI were all completely unsympathetic machines - I felt more for Johnny 5 than anyone in this film. While the audiance at fastpicket's theater were crying watching an adoptive father lose his adoptive child, another unconvincing simulation of a real human relationship, all I could think about was how the main character betrayed the entire human race because he was sad that his terrorist lover was dead.
Then the fact that this flimsy story was used as a springboard to make an allegorical film about US involvement in Vietnam/Iraq-era drone warfare only hightens the disconnect. Being bludgeoned with an anti-US screed for over two hours would be okay for a deep hitting film about the injustices of the US' adventurism in the Middle East but this is just not it. This is a film that wants to be deep but can't convince me to even entertain the basic tenants that it basis itself on.
Top Gun: Maverick and Pacific Rim are great films that epitomize 80's action movie revival. Paper thin plots that rely heavily on action, they excel at immersing the audience and make us root for the good guys while not pretending that they're anything more. Unfortunately, the Creator left me with no immersion and no one to cheer on.
The AI didn't blow up the nuke. Some simulant mentions this during the movie - it was a code bug that caused it, and it was easier for the US leadership to blame it all on AI instead of its own workers.
Thank you for that then because I somehow completely missed that. I'll have to reconsider everything I just wrote but I'm not sure if it makes me think the movie is good
After reading Summa Technologiae from Stanislaw Lem, I have yet to see an original take on the technology aspects of the future to be honest. He kind of spoiled everything back in the '68.
OTOH, one does not go to the theater to learn the plotline of a Shakespearean play. One goes to see the particular take.
I saw it today and I got the feeling that they had some incredible concept art and they basically threw a plot to join it all together.
The story is extremely heavy handed, but it could work if at least the characters were relatable.
There were several ideas that they got from Akira, but I don't know how they ended up being so bland. There were also some moments that remind me of the scenes in Ghost in the Shell when they show the city... But for some reason the film cuts everything every few seconds and things don't last.
Thanks for posting this, I hadn't heard anything about it. I just watched the trailer, it looks epic!
Same, someone sent me the trailer today and I hadn't heard about it until now. This is definitely a movie I'd wanna see and it deserves a lot more buzz.
Cindy White
Hollywood can’t seem to figure out how to sell an epic genre film these days if it's not part of a franchise
Related News
The Creator First Reactions: The Best Sci-Fi Movie of the Year
by Christopher Campbell (Rotten Tomatoes)
‘The Creator’ First Reactions Revealed
by Abid Rahman (The Hollywood Reporter)
I distinctly remember seeing the trailer and being turned off by it when it revealed that some AI child was the key to ending some war between man and machine.
If there were more complexity and depth, the trailer and accompanying marketing truly has done a poor job of conveying it indeed. I got the impression that it was going to be yet another "this magic child will be our savior" story.
I build robots, I dream of robots, I do everything I can to surround myself with stories and realities of robotics. No matter how bad it is, I'll always watch and read about them.
You know there's a problem when even I was incredibly bored by the idea of a savior child story and had no interest after watching the trailer, reading the description had me interested until then.
Will it be good? Probably, but I'm not excited about it.
Yeah, I adore scifi but I saw this preview and wrote it off as an AI/Aleta: Battle Angel/Ex Machina amalgam and stopped caring. The hollow head look isn't terribly fresh, and I'm tired of weaponized kids.
I'll try it based on the review, but the marketing is awfully stale.
Ha, when I saw that I immediately thought of that one-shot scene of an extremely minor character in AI: Artificial Intelligence, back when that was a surprising and novel use of CG and compositing.
I think it looks great. I've been excited since the first trailer, it looks like a solid scifi movie that I'll get really into.
Went and saw it last night, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. The story has some gaping plot holes, but as others have mentioned in this thread the entire movie is very well crafted. The visual FX, cinematography, editing, acting where all great. The group of friends I saw it with was underwhelmed but enjoyed it, I think I probably had the highest opinion of it by a large margin.
I just want to sneak in here to say that the bipedal bombs were cool as hell. Not the best movie but better than expected.
This movie seems like it's right up my alley, so I am replying to an old threat so more people will see it, because this is the first I am hearing of it. It kinda feels like the movie got set up to fail for some reason.
Juuuust got back from this, so spoilers to follow:
Short version, it's the fondant cake of sci fi-
It's just...it's so so gorgeous. The artistic direction and design is up there with both Blade Runners, Dune, and The Fifth Element. Absolutely top tier and with this and Rogue One there's certain "styles" of shots that this director can do better than anyone else. I would gladly frame so many stills of this film.Other than that, it is bland and boring as hell.
Take District 9, remove any subtly, add in tropes you've seen before, twists you call from miles away, and awful pacing. Oh and for every "ok i'll just ignore that" suspension of disbelief thing, there's 2 more "this is just bad writing" moments.
The movie tries to deliver heartfelt or serious moments on scenes that just...aren't. It takes its time trying to dwell on things as if they're emotionally moving, they often aren't. It brings things up that might be interesting or deep, but they aren't. It has the usual mad libs/fill in the blank action script, but it thinks it deserves to dwell on these moments rather than get them over with. It's just so bad.
Finally, the movie is propaganda. In an "anti" way. I'm struggling to think of a similar film, because I never really like these, but it's "team A is all evil and team B is all good". Honestly star wars (ironically outside of rogue one) but if you took country A for the empire and country B for the rebels.
In this case "The West" is evil, most specifically the US (as I don't believe you see any other "westerners". Everything is clearly labeled US Army or whatever) and "New Asia" and AI are the good guys.
To be clear, I don't care that it's the US being bad guys, and really have no desire to get into the politics side, I just want to make clear that it puts about as much effort into making these characters reasonable/interesting/real as any other propaganda film. They are laughably evil right out of the gate in a preposterous way (having someone threaten to shoot a puppy wasn't enough, they have someone ELSE gleefully cut off someone's face off screen), but suddenly just sensitive enough to allow the plot to move (if you don't kill her we will and it'll be horribly painful). Mostly, they're just as stupid as they need to be.
It's a shame. You could probably dub this film into a timeless masterpiece, but as it stands, it's gorgeous as hell and insufferable to watch.
I liked this movie but I have one lingering question: why so many old man robots? Who would build these and why?
With the understanding that the world has an alternate history and technological development than ours and therefore the AI cannot generate original human like faces "for reasons", it kind of makes sense that the people who would donate their likeness to robots would be older individuals who might be looking to have a legacy that will out last them and/or feel they have an obligation to support the next generation by literally giving them a face.
You know, this was something that took me out as well. And I don't want to diminish your enjoyment of the film by putting it like this, but to me it felt like by putting aged human faces on the robots, or putting "faceless" robots in old people clothes etc, the film was trying to get the audience to sympathize with the simulants.
Now, I don't have a problem with that in theory, but I found that this film didn't then do any of the actual work required to get me to sympathize with them. The only simulant that had any actual personality (other than the main character simulant) was the one with the white domed head, who's personality I can only describe as "veagely irritated". None of the other simulants are describable other than who played them, or specific lines they might deliver, or "the detective (x2)"