by Heath Lynch, Contributing Writer
A truly great science fiction film is a sight to behold. One that can breed wonderment in its audience as it shows us the bright and hopeful possibilities of tomorrow, while also putting a spotlight on the horrors of today and the destruction they can foster in the future. So when we get a brand new sci-fi movie that actually wields an original concept, world, and story, it’s time to take notice. That’s what we have here with The Creator, a unique film worthy of our attention. Too bad it doesn’t capitalize on that attention…
Gareth Edwards made a name for himself by making two films for well established and beloved franchises in Godzilla (2014) and Rogue One: A Star Wars Story. In fact, there are many who consider Rogue One to be the best Star Wars film since the Disney takeover of LucasFilm. I would vehemently disagree, but I’m in the minority there. My disagreement aside, these two earlier films were more than enough to leave people wondering what Edwards would do next. Now, seven years later, we get that answer in The Creator.
This is an original film set in the not-too-distant future in which artificial intelligence has evolved to a state of being nearly indiscernible from human lifeforms. But things go off the rails when a nuclear bomb is dropped on Los Angeles, leading to war. But not an all-out war of humanity versus A.I.; no. Because there are some who want to defend A.I. creations and their place in the world. So in actuality, we get a war that consists of the United States fighting against “New Asia” and their A.I. All of this, in theory, sounds fascinating. Trying to deliver a high-concept sci-fi film that examines geopolitical conflicts while examining the moral quandary behind A.I., all while delivering exceptionally spectacular visuals. Sounds like a gas! Too bad that’s not this film.
The harsh truth is that Edwards falls into the same traps and pitfalls that he did in Godzilla (2014) and Rogue One. And keep in mind, I say that as someone who likes those movies. Because, while Edwards excels at incredible visuals and adrenaline-filled third acts, he really struggles with lulls in the narrative, pacing issues, and character and thematic gaps. There’s a joylessness, a bleak sadness, to his movies that are almost inescapable, sometimes making them a bummer to watch. These issues are more pronounced here in The Creator than ever before. I want to be clear: It can be a lot of fun to watch an Edwards movie. But there’s one to two acts of sluggishness that you have to endure to get what’s entertaining and fulfilling from a cinematic experience. Except in The Creator, for the first time out of any Edwards movies I’ve seen, the third act juice wasn’t worth the squeeze.
This is because the movie doesn’t know what target it’s aiming for. Worse, for this being an original film, it sure seems to borrow from far too many other well-known (read: better) properties that you can even get bored at how this copies other films. Is this aiming to be a revenge flick for our lead character losing a loved one? Kill Bill and many more. Or is it a rescue mission to save someone behind enemy lines? Saving Private Ryan and many more. Is it a movie about governments and corporations not understanding artificial intelligence and their inherent humanity? Blade Runner and many more. Or about how A.I. is going to destroy us? The Terminator and many more. Or is this a film about a found-family in a world at war where a man who lost a child and a child who doesn’t have a parent? The Last of Us and many more. Maybe a movie about how a child is a weapon to be destroyed, but our protagonist can’t bring himself to do it? Looper and many more. Maybe it’s about building a new world post nuclear war? Akira and many more. Perhaps it’s simpler than that, and this is just a fun time where we get to see people fight against armies of droids with laser weapons? Star Wars and many more. Now, it’s arguably not fair to compare this film to all these cinema greats. Movies borrow from other movies all the time. But this film beats you over the head with its ideas and attempted messaging to the point that it becomes impossible for me to see beyond where this movie is borrowing from. It’s impossible for me to not compare it to those other films.
So this “original” film, over time, feels less and less original, and it really fails at creating an identity for itself — what it’s aiming for, what it’s trying to say, what it hopes to accomplish. Even in its closing minutes, it tries to touch on several of these points, but it never puts in the legwork on any of them to drive the point home. So I come away from this movie feeling nothing. This would all be frustrating enough as it is, but it’s also, unfortunately, boring — a cardinal sin in cinema. But this movie’s second act, which seems to drag on forever, just becomes so repetitive and mundane that it becomes easy to lose focus. In fact, if I’m being honest, I actually fell asleep for a minute or two during this second act. That’s never a good sign.
But it sounds like I hated this movie? Yeah, but that’s not the case! I don’t think The Creator is a bad movie. I just don’t remotely think that it’s a good movie. That’s because, for all of its faults, it is still visually bewildering, and stunning in its world building. I have no doubt it is the greatest draw for most audiences, and the number one reason people are liking this flick, and, frankly, I get it! It feels like forever since we’ve gotten a high-concept sci-fi film on the silver screen, and this movie doesn’t waste a frame. Beauty abounds. And you’ll likely be captivated by some of the character design, great visual effects, stunning practical effects, and even the little nuances in the world. The look of the NOMAD space station, the lights beaming down from space, the design of the simulants, and so much more makes for gorgeous visuals. The idea of donating your likeness to A.I., the U.S. government waging war with nations and A.I., half the world embracing A.I. and the other half rejecting it, and so much more makes for an intricate world. My only slight would be that there are a few moments where the cinematography doesn’t match the excellence of the visuals due to some poor lighting choices, but this is luckily not a constant issue, as most frames in this flick could be saved and printed on a canvas to hang in your living room.
Additionally, I have to shout out Madeleine Yuna Voyles, a nine-year-old kid in her debut role who does more in The Creator than most adults do in almost any movie. It’s really challenging to deliver a convincing child performance, let alone one that has such an emotionally complex relationship with the narrative and other characters. No exaggeration, this is one of the best child performances I’ve ever seen. While no one else in the cast matches her intensity, I still feel that John David Washington and Ken Watanabe do good jobs. Impressive work there, especially given each of their character’s background and journeys in this flick. But I have to say that Gemma Chan and, especially, Allison Janney are a bit of a letdown here. It’s not that they’re bad — far from it — we’ve just seen both of these actresses do so much better than this, and I wish they delivered here what they’ve delivered elsewhere.
But that’s enough props. I now have to dive into the biggest issue I have with this film, and that’s its stance with artificial intelligence, and our world’s relation to it and this movie. It’s very clear that this movie is pro-A.I. by its ending, as it expresses that the world is a better place with it, and that A.I., once it understands and embraces emotion, is human. That’s lovely. Beautiful even. But the movie wants to have its cake and eat it too by basing its conflict on the notion that A.I. had grown so unstable it went and nuked one of the largest cities on Earth, murdering millions of people. When, in actuality, it’s explained incredibly poorly in a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it line that the nuke went off due to human error. A.I. wasn’t involved at all. So which is it?
How come the A.I. supporters don’t preach throughout this movie that it was humans — the United States — who started this war by nuking Los Angeles in the first place? That A.I. are just victims of fear and persecution, fighting for their survival. On the flip side, why do the A.I. haters never stop to think, “Huh, the A.I. nuked us over 15 years ago, but they have never attacked us since. In fact, we keep attacking them…” This motivational juxtaposition is at the core of this film and why it doesn’t work for me, and the film never even attempts to address this. The script is entirely void of answers. That’s to say nothing about how A.I. is growing in our real world. Between Chat GPT, deep fakes, and the Writers Guild of America and Screen Actors Guild having to fight to keep A.I. from ruining the entertainment industries, this movie doesn’t seem to understand that it’s advocating for a technology that could very likely, if left unchecked, account for detrimental levels of destruction upon humanity. Maybe it’s just me, but I just don’t think this is the message we need right now. At least not until A.I. is better understood and regulated.
I imagine that the visuals, world building, and performances will be more than enough to engage with most audiences. If those are some of the factors that float your boat, then you should definitely give this movie a try. But, if you’re looking for a movie that’s more than just visually rich, while being emotionally and thematically hollow, you might want to look elsewhere. The Creator will provide tons of brilliant and entertaining spectacle, but it will force the audience to fill in the gaps in its script and themes rather than doing the work itself. This is a most hesitant of hesitant recommendations.
Go for the visuals, stay for… hollow feelings?
Rating: It Was Okay
The Creator is currently playing in theaters
You can read more from Heath Lynch, and follow him on Letterboxd