The Creator - What Happens When AI Makes a Movie | Anatomy of a Failure
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 чер 2024
- The first 500 people to use my link will receive a one month free trial of Skillshare: skl.sh/filmento12231
The Creator, from the director of Star Wars Rogue One, is a new sci-fi flop that has a lot of things going for it, especially on the visual side and with elements like The Nomad that's kinda like the AC-130 from Call of Duty. But a big problem is that the movie feels like it was written by an AI like ChatGPT. Something just doesn't feel right about it. That's how Hollywood movies nowadays often feel. So in today's Anatomy of a Failure, let's dig into that!
Book, Amazon: www.amazon.com/dp/B0BW1TN97D?...
Book, PDF: email me at saltyfilmento(a)gmail.com
Support: / filmento
Follow: / filmento
Filmento en Español: / @filmentoenespanol
#thecreator #anatomyofafailure #scifimovies
-
The Creator (2023)
As a future war between the human race and artificial intelligence rages on, ex-special forces agent Joshua (John David Washington) is recruited to hunt down and kill the Creator, the elusive architect of advanced AI. The Creator has developed a mysterious weapon that has the power to end the war and all of mankind. As Joshua and his team of elite operatives venture into enemy-occupied territory, they soon discover the world-ending weapon the creator watch full movie online free creator flop explained ending everything wrong with the creator honest trailer creator behind the scenes watch online sci-fi movies box office flop bomb is actually an AI in the form of a young child. Directed by Gareth Edwards, director of Rogue One: A Star Wars story. - Фільми й анімація
Instead of using AI, get the skills to create your own thing with Skillshare: skl.sh/filmento12231 (free trial for first 500)
No intro joke in the video because Disney is trying desperately to block footage covering this movie. This was the only version I got through.
Pls pls PLSSSS do Halloween Ends Alternate Cinima PLEEEEAASSSSSSS
I love you :] ❤
I totally agree with you except on one thing. Logan is not the oposite of this movie, it's exactly the same.
A regurgitated product based on movies like Leon the Protector, Mad Max, and like this one, The Last of Us.
The only difference is basically that audiences weren't tired of the trope yet, so Logan was well recieved, but it's basically the same.
Hey Fil, Kung Fu Panda 4 was announced and what your thoughts on original trilogy?
Please do a video for Real Steel (2011), I hope it's perfection because it has a great story and characters. Plus, we didnt have a good video about good movie in long time.
@@hansoharrigen6958 Logan was well received because it was Logan. Even if the story is not that original, it has more meaning because we had known Logan for years and so his arc here had a lot more emotional resonance
The fact this movie had a $80 million budget and looked this good should make companies like Marvel and DC (Looking at you The Flash) question where their budget is going.
Money laundering.
The Flash made me upset tbh.. idk how else to describe it other than that. Felt like I was watching a movie that wasn’t finished yet in a WB safehouse
On God lots of these movies don't need to spend 200 million on a movie and that doesn't include marketing and advertising. More movies should obviously spend less to make more even if said movies are decent to good at best.
"administrative costs"
@@origami83 totally agree. When the truth comes out oh dear Bob Iger!!
Watching the creator is like watching an entire demo of a video game, and not actually playing the game.
Something was missing for sure.. it had moments of promise tho. Just never lived up to it.
so every david cage and kojima game : P
and a leftist video game at that
@@firstlast9846 It has all the elements to be a masterpiece but they chose to play them safely
@@krono5elother than death stranding, which Kojima game falls into this category?
One of my biggest gripes with this movie was how is the East such an underdog compared to the West? The East was willing to use robotic workers and AI in every application, from industrial to military. This would make their labour pool incomprehensibly huge, so how did they fall so far behind?
I came out of the movie thinking the exact same thing... The "geopolitical landscape" is just so poor. The US is somehow the only superpower and a whole half of the world (the "east") is like a single poor SEA country even though they are the ones who have been heavily investing and working with mature AI for decades. Where's China and Russia in this world for example? This lack of a coherent "backstory" or just setting in general really makes me believe it was written by ChatGPT.
@@MrMontoroAthe new Asia was really a coalition of like 6 Asian countries from India to Laos you don’t expect a bunch of already 3rd world countries to put up a fight against an already established superpower
@@unkown981 According to "The Creator Wiki" New Asia is comprised of Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Philippines, Laos, Cambodia, Singapore, Malaysia, Sumatra Islands, Borneo Islands, Bhutan, Nepal, Vietnam (excluding an area that would be Champa), Four North-Eastern States of India, Sikkm, West Bengal, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Himachal and Pradesh. So, Japan, Singapore and India after years of heavy, deeply military-focused investment in what was already robust AI at the beggining of the conflict, while the US hasn't touched AI for the whole period and it's like powder vs slingshots? Nope, not buying it. And more important than New Asia's military prowess, why are the other world super powers not even mentioned? China and Russia stay quiet on their own while the US invades and levels countries that are literally their neighbours? They get to deploy and use the NOMAD at a few killometers' distance from China's borders just like that? Imagine if the US deployed a sub with nuclear capabilities in Southeast Asia waters nowadays... except the NOMAD is a bit more deadly than that. That's what I mean when I say the geopolitical landscape in the movie is just poor.
Good point. Why did these Asian countries didn't own an advanced army to counter the U.S ? Just a rag tag bunch of rebels. The movie looked more like some future Vietnam war .Not a war with the whole of Asia ..
@@unkown981that’s not even mentioning that uhh such a super union is unrealistic, considering most of these nations HATE each other, if you want an example look at Vietnamese and Chinese relations, or just look at what chinas trying to do in the South China Sea.
Sad that the visual team did such a great job but the writers didn't
What???
@@genaugmen4505what?
@@genaugmen4505the plot predictable but the visual is awesome.
@@genaugmen4505 look good, story bad
@@sollyroger4119 i think whatever you armchair reviewers would think is great would be an utter failure to 99.8% of people who find appreciation in a good story and visuals to match.
"What happens when an AI makes a movie."
You could have saved that for your Wish review we all know you want to make.
Would like to see Filmento do a video on Wish.
Has Filmento done Disney?
@@lacolem1 he did Spiderverse because it was exceptionally good. I think he will do Wish if he thinks it is exceptionally bad.
@@strangelaw6384 spiderverse is part of sony tho
He always covers movies that are not always from main stream companies or really different; I'm sure other issues he can tackle with Wish.
The Nomad did not have a single defensive weapon system to deal with an air assault.
the little robot girl could handwave an entire city block into blackout but later needed to touch localized tech to disrupt it..soo many other problems
Same with the rebels of New Asia no Air defense or shield for some reason with there advanced Robot and sim they can't make it lol
Nomad was (supposed to be) a "space station" .... Air defenses? In space?...
@@BarrGC Did you not even see the movie?
where it operated inside the atmosphere to drop bombs?
@AutodidactAnimotions Ya, hence my use of brackets. Nomad violated all the rules around orbital dynamics and should not have been capable of entering the atmosphere. What sort of magic unlimited fuel source was it using?
@@AutodidactAnimotions yeah lets not have the strongest hacking defences for our most reliable military weapon. wth are you talking about 😂
Another insightful vid man. Creator had flaws but I did like it. It was a breath of fresh air compared to most of what we got this year
One of the best movies this year. Wasnt great, but overall ok. And it looked great
@@matteomariani5160 It was beautiful rubbish. It had a truly terrible script.
@@ebukaobieri well, yeah but... don't know, I guess I have low standards when I go to the cinema nowadays. But I enjoyed many scenes in the movie, while also disliking many others
Dude, the fact you watch this channel is so cool! Love your vids! Just need u to upload a little more! Lol! Take care!
It's been such a disappointing year
Biggest problem of this film is that nothing in it makes sense. Like literally you can take every single plot point, character and piece of the world building and you'll find it completely illogical.
Exacly! Like why did they build nomad, then it is essentially a nuclear silo in space? Like, what's a point in building it in space and wasteing trillion of dollars, then you could just have build it on the ground? And why do they have farms there? And why destroing it deactivates the missiles? And how did a error in code coused a nuke to exploud (not to mention, what was it doing in meddle of L.A. to begin with). And those gigantick super-inpractical tanks?And whats the point of those blue lasers leting people know then you are aiming at them? And why dose the U.S hates A.I. and New Asia so much, like, whats they motive?
I know sci-fi is not always meant to be realistick, but then it take place in our world, it should folow a certain logic, and not make things really inpractical, for sake of it. This movie fealt like every second scene that was suposed to be in, got cut out, making the world building fell so incomplete.
Don't forget the shoulder fired bombs that attached to people and they act like they couldn't feel it hit them. In the beginning of the movie, they had their special forces coming out of the water with flashlights on in an enemy country with NOMAD at low altitude shining its light on the ground near them.
Man. Exactly.
I somewhat enjoyed this movie for the first half but got pissed at all the logical flaws. In the end it felt like a comedy to me
The part that stood out to me the most. When that random monkey on the battle denotes a massive enemy tank. I was genuinely shocked in how dumb that was 😆😅
@@tenkoles9784 I can explain SOME of those things here pretty easily.
The Nomad having "farms" is mostly done like that for food and creating oxygen in space carriers for the people living IN it, that should be obvious here
An error causing a nuke to explode makes sense when you have computers having full control of the detonation and a problematic message being shown on having machines be responsible for everything in society, having a nuke in LA is not entirely out of the norm when it's far enough to be detonated by clearly this time it wasn't.
The AI aren't responsible for the nuclear denotation, as the movie stated, it WAS just a coding error by the opposite side of the US and they were blaming the AI as if they announced to the world that THEY just simply screwed, it would have been embarassing and made them look incompetent so they needed a scapegoat. The US doesn't "hates" the A.I. they're using them as a scapegoat and they're going to war with them and anyone whose siding alongside with them.
One of the most important rules of literature is that, sometimes, reality is unrealistic. A thing can make sense without feeling like it makes sense. Because a good story is just a small snapshot of what happens in the world of the story. Things that feel like they don't make sense are that way because the reason "why" it makes sense is absent or not at the forefront enough.
Yet the literature has to impart some, lets say, philosophy, about the real world if not about the fictional world. It has to make sense thematically. I haven't seen the movie, but the review made me feel like that's what this movie lacks.
This reminds me of Dr. Manhattan's speech in Watchmen when he realizes that humans are more interesting than he thought because he learns about someone behaving in a way that makes no logical sense.
THANK YOU!! So much Hollywood writing these days COMPLETELY FORGETS THE REST OF THE FICTIONAL WORLD EXISTS!! That's what we mean when we call the fantasy world of "The Lord of the Rings" 'lived-in'. As is, it FEELS like that world is vast and interconnected with an enormous history to it all, because the author took the time to craft HOW EVERYTHING IN THAT WORLD WORKS, even when it was barely mentioned in the story itself. The presence of those world elements are still all there, in the background, filling in all the gaps in the 'simulation', so that it feels like a world that COULD exist.
Frankly, we have too many fanfic self-insert writers in Hollyweird, and very few TRUE AUTHORS.
There nothing realistic about this movie. The war in this movie is about "The Western Civilization" against "The Orientals". That's racism. Well, a racist movie is realistic. And yes, they actually use the term "Western Civilization" in the movie, by the way. Pretty bizarre.
@@gundamzerostrike They are robots.
Again and again, i can't get enough of this movie's artstation sci fi style aesthetic
Watch Total Recall (2012) and Elysium. Same style.
@@JDoe-gf5oz yeahh dude! elysium is exacly my cup of tea, haven't watch total recall tho
@@kingghidorah102 It's like the others: near-future Earth with lots of special effects and peak Beckinsale and Beal running around in tight clothes.
@@kingghidorah102Repo men?
Blade Runner 2049 and Ghost In The Shell (2017) also had great aesthetics.
The visuals were spectacular... But there were two separate occasions where I thought the movie ended and was looking for the credits. And each time was surprised by how much time remained in the film 🍿🎥
I watched the creator because i heard a lot of good things about it, but got disappointment even more due to that. It wasnt only very predictable if you watched a lot of movies, it also had logic errors. The giant spaceship that can only fire below itself until the last scene where it can suddenly fire around the globe. the human officers looking in the car, clearly seeing the metal parts of the child and not caring about them. The east being able to construct something so powerful that it can turn off the power all around the globe, but arent able (with AI aswell to do the the heavy work) to construct a big rocket to just shoot it. If they can construct the highest form of ai, why that instead of a way easier constructed weapon. they dont even have to aim far since the nomad always flies straight above the target anyways.The west appearing everywhere with no explanation how they found him is another thing. And if they knew where he was, why not instantly send the nomad and just bomb him and the child. Even if the tracking is not accurate enough, the nomad has enough firepower to just bomb the whole area. It feels like a lot of things are just how they are because it is convenient for the plot at that specific moment The entire movie looks beautiful, but thats kind of it.
Ya, i felt like it was just "ok" overall. They had some storm trooper like scenes when they where on the bridge and Alphie gets shot.... One guy in the middle of the bridge with a pistol fighting and getting the better of 4 people (and more behind them) behind cover with rifles cant hit the guy standing out in the open. Then i would have to watch again but they didnt turn off Namata's life support because they cant harm humans but they are in a war killing humans? Visuals were beautiful, AI designs looked very cool.... but too many things in the story to pick apart. Just very hit and miss thru out the whole movie.
@@carvedfromlife8949 The killing of Nirmata part I think is more of a religious/cultural thing than their coding.
@@carvedfromlife8949 I think they couldn't kill Her not because they couldn't kill humans, but because they were programmed to not harm the Creator.
The world building in case of aesthetics was just mindblowing. As it shows similarities to other movies I dont think thats why it felt an unsatisfying experience at least for me
For me the characters was the problem they weren’t interesting enough or developed in a way that wasnt predictable. That could have still work if the movie still focused on the world however even if I wanted to see more of that world it kept focusing on characters that arent well developed or written
The world made no sense. Why don’t any of the other nations bomb the base that’s terrorising another nation? It makes no sense. Also, why did they have to create that child to go on the base? The ending didn’t even use the kid. The dude just blew it up like normal. So both the plot and world building were lacking. By all means, the characters were the “best” part of the film other then the visuals. And that’s not saying much.
@@coldermusic2729what? I mean have you seen what America does in history, they literally terrorise other countries and don't get attack in return for how "strong and important" they are, also the child is just something they tried to create to destroy the thing from remote distance, it ain't some ultimate solution, it's just what they can think of that could work the best
Yea, it's a butchering and mashing of district 9, elysium, chappie, etc.
I feel that this is a very contemporary problem of competent movie direction, built upon incompetent writing.
Exactly at the end I thought the same if you could have just bombed the base to take it down why present the child as the only solution to end this war
And also agree on the world building thats why I said I wanted to see more of it to make sense. Maybe other nations have a political issue just like Taiwan and China. US is claiming that they own the robots however no one can act cause the fear of starting a world war. So the AI is alone and the only way to destroy the base is from surface and that's why the child is the only solution etc. It was just surface storytelling that was needed to move on to next cool scene@@coldermusic2729
Another reason why this scene where the human soldiers shoot at the car full of children felt off: There was zero damage on the car. So it felt like there was never anything at stake during that scene and you wonder why they started shooting at the car to begin with
that was my immediate thought when I first saw the scene in this video
They were shooting the car to STOP the car, that should be obvious, the car not having much damage is more of an oversight if anything but their reasoning is that they needed to get the girl.
@@Gadget-Walkmen they are shooting at it to stop it, but that wold kill anyone in there. The only reason it didn’t is because it’s a movie, and writers like to ignore physics. Which is why the scene feels so off
@@ookami5329 It was obvious the cops didn't care about the people in it, ONLY to stop them no matter what even if it DOES kill them. You can have cars getting shot up from a gun and having people survive in believable encounters, that's happened in real life (as there's literally real videos of that happening on the web) AND in fiction seamlessly. It being a "movie", is NOT an excuse, if you don't find it believable, then sure you can say that on your part.
Writers don't "ignore physics" as carelessly as you say, it's a matter of if it's believable.
@@Gadget-Walkmen writers absolutely ignore physics. There are many cases. I’m a writer so it’s something I pay attention to. It’s an oversight. This isn’t even close to the most egregious example. The car itself isn’t damaged from the gunfire, and the amount of bullets pelting it should’ve caused injury at least.
Though we don’t know exactly where the fault lies here; director, writer, VFX etc.
I give it props for being 80mill and have that good of CGI
In addition to the rapidly developed rapport between Joshua and Alphie feeling rushed and weird as discussed around 18:00, I had a big issue with the film trying to present Joshua's relationship with Maya as Pure Fated True Love. This is because not only was he horribly deceiving her the entire time they were together (undercover cops or similar developing long-term relationships with targets has been in the news quite a bit lately here in the UK, which doesn't help) but *she* was deceiving *him* the entire time as well (hiding her identity as the new Creator and her plans to use *their* unborn child to make a robot child).
I read somewhere that Gareth Edwards said he had a much longer edit of the film. I wonder if there was a lot of character development which ended up on the cutting room floor which would have made the relationships make more sense.
If you apply logic to the plot... pretty much none of it makes any sense at all. Why put this super-weapon in a weak childbot body? WHY?! THAT MAKES NO GOD-DAMNED SENSE!!
Look at "Ghost in the Shell", the ORIGINAL anime, for an AI super-weapon that WORKS in the context of its world AND is very well-constructed in terms of story-telling.
@@Alondro77 My assumption would be that no one would expect it. Alternatively, it could be a developmental thing, where it needs to start young and age up.
@@Selrisitai But it's a PROGRAM Once you reduce intelligence to something that can be programmed into a computer, a fully-developed AI can be produced FROM THE START. The problem is, the writers do not understand the implications of the technology they're writing about. "Ghost in the Shell", from nearly 30 years ago, got it right, by having the Puppetmaster and its vast intellect emerge RAPIDLY from the government secret ghost hacking program.
@@Alondro77it was placed into a child so as to hide it much more easily. They had never created a child before, so the concept wasn’t something that would be sought after
@@Fernando_616 That's rather contradictory. The robotic parts are rather obvious if you wear anything other than a heavy hoodie. And it's uniqueness makes it even more likely to draw attention. Using a completely normal robot would be better.
my friends and I were so hyped for this because we're huge Gareth Edwards fans, going as far back as his film Monsters... and we walked out of this pretty bummed, the story felt cobbled together from other well-known sci-fi films and the script felt like it needed a few more passes. The best character moments were in the trailer, and the movie didn't offer much more beyond those scenes. We try not to bash the film too much just because we feel so starved for original concepts and at least this movie tried
Exactly. You're never gonna succeed without a good story. Writers need to learn from FNAF. That's how you're suppose to write. That's how to succeed.
@@thedarkemissary FNAF? Succeed? Is this sarcasm?
@@thedarkemissaryand just like that, you’ve invalidated your opinion just by considering FNAF as good writing
@@CorelUser Check the box offices, bro. Massive success. Setting records for horror. Any sarcasm is directed at the notion that writing matters. It doesn't. FNAF is pure trash and still destroyed most films this year anyone would consider "good writing." Fact is, good writing, just doesn't matter. 30 of the 35 top grossing films of the year are from recognizable IPs. Simple as that.
@@thedarkemissary Box office success is a measure of a film’s popularity and marketing, not its storytelling quality. A movie can generate high revenue if it’s well-marketed and appeals to a broad audience. Who would have gone to see FNAF if did not have a recognizable name attached to it?
For the most part it was okay movie with excellent visuals, but the logic and use of technology drove me up the wall. And I've watched scifi a plenty where I can forgive such things. But in here, it hurt my overall experience like flys splattering to my windscreen... Immediately upon seeing stuff, I started to ponder something like this:
-Nomad's flying altitude altering between orbit and few hundred meters. If it's capable of launching it's missiles from orbit, why even bother bringing it down to the reach of conventional weapons... never minding the fuel costs of entering and exiting orbit.
-Nomad's targeting circle and audio cues give unnecessary forewarning to the target area. Or is it a product design of sheer hubris, meant as a psychological part of the weapon system, like Stuka siren...
-All robots are reskinned humans and they need to sleep...? The police robots at the rice fields get confused and scared, wth. If these were intentional decisions made to drive home the point that robots are equal to humans, they took it too far.
-The suicide walker drone only has legs because they needed it to kneel before the girl. It's also slow as shit, honestly, wheels would've made more sense.
-The whole bridge scene. What the drones are targeting, what the bazooka troops are not doing, usage of cover, where the tanks went, how tf they miss the individual american coming for the girl...
-The tanks individual soldier targeting missiles and their reticle appearing on the target to inform they're going to die... why? A building sized tank disabled by single thrown mine. How?
-The hilariously big size of Nomad's missiles compared to their yield.
And that's just the start of the list! I had the same problem. I can let go of a few things like this, but it kept happening. The movie looked great, but the characters and the inconsistent tech just kept pulling me out of things.
Wheels can't climb stairs. The bomb robot can climb stairs because it has legs.
The individual missiles showing targeting reticules exist for the convenience of the audience.
It creates the moment where the robot stops to prevent the children being harmed by the missile aimed at it.
@@lesath7883 Google Stair Climbing Wheels. Wouldn't be that hard to implement to a scifi drone... that didn't have to climb any stairs in the scenes it was in
Technology in this movie was the sort of thing you find in Dying Earth scifi. Post-apocalyptic worlds where technology is used in suboptimal ways because people lack the knowledge and resources to use it right.
However, this movie is NOT Dying Earth Scifi, therefore it makes no fucking sense.
I hate when movies just expect you to be sympathetic to characters but they give you ZERO reason. I wanted the AI to die the entire time, the protag was a villain.
Why were you against the AIs though?
The AIs do basically nothing against the humans, and the only times they do it's because the Americans are literally trying to genocide them!
I found the story frustrating specifically because the AIs were so clearly not a threat in the slightest. They just wanted to live like normal people.
@@tweda4 >lmao coding mistake = nuke
>not a threat in the slightest
@@zogwort1522 That's still humans being morons for giving robots control over nukes. And besides, none of the AIs they're now killing have nukes, so the as far as I was concerned, the lesson was just, - don't give AIs charge over your nuclear weapons, and they won't detonate any of your nuclear weapons.
@@tweda4 Here's what we see in the film: The kid is arguably more dangerous than a nuke. The robots are not above making stupid random decisions. The robots have embraced buddhism. The robots use suicide bombers.
Realistically, Super-Mega Aum Shinrikyo 9000 was gonna happen any day.
@@tweda4 Guess the American government is a bunch of morons then. Because their department of defense has AI in charge of the nukes. All it needs is 2 people to press the big red button.
I'm a fan of Gareth Edwards because of Godzilla 2014. He's a got a real talent for scale, suspense and delivery, and visual awe; so it was a given that the Creator would deliver on these things as well. That all being said, his writing and characters tend to be lacking quite a bit, and this movie is no exception. In fact, it might be his weakest film to date. But, I don't regret seeing it.
Gareth Edwards is what you get when concept art becomes sentient
Gareth Edwards is what you get when you prompt ChatGPT for James Cameron
@@lacolem1 I disagree, Gareth Edwards is a mastermind when it comes to visuals - he's just kinda shit at writing
It's literally Detroit Become Human in movie form, good graphics with a bad script
Wait that game had a bad script
Just wondering what do you say that?
@@triplermemes7717i think people just hate the fact that this movie and detroit try to make ai a good thing , especially rn what all the controversy with ai
@@triplermemes7717 The game presents an idea, and that's it. It's the same thing as an PETA comercial, "feel bad, it's a living thing" kind of perspective.
And on Detroit the game just says "they're alive" and expects me to care just because a character says "it's not a machine".
It's too superficial, like this movie. And yes, it has a lot of cliches like this movie.. so, here it is. It's just the same thing, idea and script.
@@triplermemes7717
Bad representation of an idea.
@@rubenimmanuel9339 It's not just that. It's also that they both try to make robots an allegory for humans. Thereby implying that oppressed humans are inherently designed to be slaves. Whoops.
The incredibly long handguard on the space AK from the movie ( featured in the Filmento thumbnail) cracks me up. Someone on the design team was proud of that.
As a lifetime science fiction fan when I saw the previews for this movie I was certainly intrigued as the special effects looked incredible. However the plot seemed rather weak especially after the reviews started coming in. It reminded me of Prometheus, which obviously cost substantially more but had the same problems. Beautiful to look at without having any real substance. Such a shame since this movie had so much promise.
I often think about how scenes could've worked out better in films like this, because I really wanted this to be a win for Gareth after Rogue One. Hopefully in his next film he gets paired with a better writer because the directing and visuals are there, but the writing wasn't. It was still a blast watching the first time in theaters and it's high up on my list for this year's films, but I was hoping for more in the end.
Problem is Gareth Edwards was the writer. He bit more than he can chew. Somebody else, more capable, should do the writing. Not him.
I was so tempted to watch this, but I just couldn't because of the plot line, which I could easily guess just from the trailers. I've seen so many movies with this exact same plot, and its not just Logan, there's a few other obscure sci fi movies I can't remember the name of right now. So many with the grizzled old soldier, that has to defend the child or weapon, from the bad guys and finally learns to love again.
I just put a comment saying how this film is literally just Chappie (2015) plus Elysium (2013) lmao
A kid has been the main 'weapon' in so many movies now
The Mandalorian, too?
they probably weren't using ai to write this. But they probably used the algorithms James Gun spoke of, in one of his interviews, that determine percentage wise the success chance of a movie depending on which combination of themes it has.
Omgggg can I hear more about this? If James Gunn is using algorithms to maximize success of his scripts then we can bet his DCU will be a massive corporate success.
The movie was visually stunning throughout. I can't believe they pulled that off so flawlessly with an 80 mil budget.
The whole thing was shot in asia that's why it was so cheap.
They should have thrown in a couple extra milly and hired a decent writer.
Or budgets are usually inflated because of money laundering.
most of robots in this movie have deeper charisma than the protagonist
creator felt like an elevator pitch for show instead of actual movie
one of the weirdest things to me is that a major US city gets nuked, we have a civil war against ai, and somehow Asia who has fully adopted AI and robots, is the underdog? Seems like that would have given them a huuuuuge advantage in this conflict
This movie is one of those rare ones where the performances and visuals make it enjoyable despite a tropey, disconnected story
In short, there's a big difference between inspiration and imitation. Inspiration involves creativity, imitation does not (usually.)
I've seen this movie in the cinema and I really loved it. Was refreshing from the usual Hollywood garbage nowadays.
Visual Effects were also top notch.
I’m sorry but how is this movie any different from all “the usual Hollywood garbage” when this video proves it could have been written by a literal fucking robot?
@@ReinierSandtke It has visuals that you can only find in this movie
It fricking sucks.
@@LuisSierra42the hell you talking about? There are tons of movie with visual like this movie.
@@tanpham937 name one
Now I can imagine the idea of a villain coming back in a robot body, being almost unstoppable, and then the girl steps in and takes control of his robotic body.
Or maybe the hero is knocked out and falling to his death, so she takes control of the robotic arm to grab onto something.
Now, that kind of stuff would have been cool.
The second I heard the world-ending super weapon was a little girl that had to be protected I rolled my eyes so hard it torn a hole in my brain
I quite liked it. The end dragged on a bit though.
personally i liked the movie but i will say once you dive into it a bit more it definitely feels like a heavily formulated story where stuff happens because it has to happen in a specific way, rather than a natural story
Chris Stuckman had an interesting take on that. The director had to make it a bit generic for the studio executives to greenlight the movie even though its not part of a bug franchise."its like logan, that was successful, remember?" I cannot explain it that well but if you're interested, watch his review.
The concept short film they put together to get funding looked amazing. No story - but suggested so much potential. The final movie was so frustrating because it felt like there was a much better movie in there trying to get out but the editing kept chopping it away. Would love to see Joe Walkers original 4 hour assembly.
Is there a link for that concept short film? I'd love to see it. Thanks.
You absolutely don't want to see a 4 hour assembly. Assembly cuts are paceless and exist only so the director can see all the chosen footage. It would be a horrible slog to get through if you're looking to be entertained as a viewer.
I thought it was pretty cool. For its budget it looked better than some of these blockbuster MCU films. My favorite parts were with the dog and monkey, seeing this in Dolby was an experience. Props to the team for actually doing their due diligence in preproduction.
"some"? Im mcu fan, but I would easily say "all" xd
Only if you completely turned off your brain and watched the movie in zombie brain dead mode. So many plotholes and just up broken in-world logic. A world where robots "die" and get a burial ceremony all while it's totally normal in this universe to store HUMAN memory and conscious on a goddamn USB memory stick. This is just one example of absolut braindead slob writing.
"My favorite parts were with the dog and monkey" i hope you never become a movie critic
actually you'd fit right in with the modern ones
@me67galaxylife I'm not a critic, just a person who loves going to the theater. You seem a bit bent over something I found a little humorous, get a snickers.
@@LycanVisuals No it's just that those seen were absolute nonsense, like we're not even at the point of deus ex machina, we're at sheer stupidity. It's like whoever approved those scenes especially the monkey one managed to synthesize stupidity into a liquid and drank a gallon of it. It's objectively retarded. But say, you said it was humorous ? So you interpreted it as a comedy ? I kinda see where you're coming from in that case, but unfortunately no this was very serious...
In 2023, the difference between cinema and content is growing increasingly clear. So many promising but forgettable movies like this are nothing but content, something that looks pretty and is cool but doesn’t make any lasting impact beyond the moment.
And then Japan gave us "Godzilla Minus One" and reminded us what it was like when characters acted like actual people and not robots in human skin.
Is it? Cause cinema is just a medium. There's always been schlock in theaters.
I think it kind of resumes Gareth Edwards’ filmography: very simple stories told in a spectacular manner !
Gareth is the master of CGi.
I understand the metaphor of the A.I., he, he... In fact, a lot of writers make their stories "by the numbers", they grab the "Hero´s Journey" as a template, and just write what is follow. No, it´s not bad to use a template, in fact, it makes sense in order to do a good job, just let your imagination PLAY over that template, i think that was the lesson from this video.
Perhaps AI makes things predictable so we won't know how smart it really is . . . :P
@@zogwort1522 It is very much the hero's journey.
Call To Action: US asks JDW to help
Refusal: He says no
Supernatural Aid is switched to: JDW is shown his wife is alive so...
He "Crosses the Threshold" and says yes
Belly of the Whale: JDW finds Alphie, ship/lab gets blown up, he's stranded in New Asia
The Road of Trials: JDW and Alphie actually go on a road trip with multiple bonding moments and obstacles
Meeting with the Goddess: JDW meets up with his old ally and he is assisted in his journey
Temptress: JDW is given the chance to give Alphie up and still go home a hero
blah blah blah I think you can fill in the rest.
I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Idk how they would do it but I'd love to see this world be revisited
I'd highly recommend you watch CHAPPIE (2015). Its a movie I only saw when it came out, and its what this movie reminded me of. Quite baffling how the scale of the two movies can be so different, yet the emotional context of Chappie far better, especially the ending.
@@b1rdbot510 I loved Chappie. That's another world I'd love to explore further. I've heard rumors that Chappie, District 9, and Elysium are in the same universe/timeline
@@b1rdbot510 Chappie was a pretty terrible movie though, with just the most annoying characters
@@M_k-zi3tnI loved Chappie from beginning to end. Is your job of this channel to be a cynic or just a straight up edgelord lol?
@@Eva01-jy2qu7pu9r Nah love, Chappie ain't it. It's not cynicism, just plain truth
Filmento - you always do such a great job in analyzing movies.
This explains so much. I remember seeing the trailer and thinking it was either a re-release or a trailer for a film that doesn't exist. Everything about the trailer feels like it's an example of a post-2010 sci-fi action film that you'd see playing in the background of another, better film, or the image a company uses on the box for their TV to show how good the picture is.
Ai Movie: The producers hit their filters and it pushes out a rough draft. They then hand that over to the director with a list of things he must add and he adds some more filter choices and passes that to the writers. The writers must somehow create some script to match what the draft forces (MST3000). Now the Director finishes with some 'old school' instructions to various departments like wardrobe and other things the AI can also be tasked with designing. In the end people still make choices but never initiate anything more than some filter inputs.
Well, this movie is far from perfect - but in this era of cinema we should praise any attempt that tries for something more than another "marvel comicbook superhero crap". If this is a hollywood taking a chance - they should be encouraged by audience to take more chances like this otherwise we end up with another 200 marvel movies or woke disney crap.
The fact that this movie was made in current industry state, and looks so good within this budget should be considered already a success in itself. Yes, the writing and story could be better, but acting was mostly great, visuals were top notch and it was engaging to watch and experience. Calling it a failure strictly by box office numbers is unfair in this case - if they had pumped some extra money into marketing this would surely earn better money and a different story in the end.
False dichotomy. The choice isn't between marvel crap and scifi crap. Go find actually good movies and support THOSE.
"audiences don't show up for cinemetography, they show up for compelling narrative" i think the entirety of star wars and marvel nullifies that point
Star wars had a great story. Marvel had a big team up gimmick.
And you only had two example compared to how many films?
He is right audiences want a story first.... That's not exclusive to films either. Narratives are what sell.
this analysis has me rethinking and reworking one of my short stories in a positive way, thank you :D
He left out perhaps the biggest reason it failed: The generic name. I had no idea what movie this was until I saw the ridiculous robot girl and remembered that I saw the trailer for this in the theater.
A movie title needs to have a hook that draws people in and gives them a flavor of what it’ll be. The Creator is so nothing. But I guess that fits since the story seemed so nothing.
Kinda building off this video's idea, this movie made me realize that almost every modern sci fi movie is copycat.
"Oh, let's have the main character realize hes on the bad side and be the hero for the other side like in Avatar"
"Oh, let's take the incredibly talented hero kid trope, but he'll be an android with an ai brain"
"Oh, let's take the death star and make it an air/space ship that drops nukes from the sky. it'll also be blown up in the end."
"Lets do the anti-war trope that every other sci fi movie these days does. and we'll give it ties to Vietnam, Afghanistan, and war crimes and stuff"
modern sci fi seems to be all about taking what you liked from older sci fi and seeing what different settings/characters/macguffins you can put them with. Its the kinda shit a middle school fanboy would do
The creator was a beautiful movie, but it didnt do enough with its components to make it feel original. The NOMAD is just another death star, the magic kid saves the day, the protagonist realizes hes on the bad side and turns, then becoming one of the most useful assets against the real enemy.
I agree with take. I’m skeptical they actually used AI to write this, because a piece of me feels like the studio would be dumb enough to brag about that in its marketing if they did, but I agree the result is essentially the same here. Having an AI regurgitate algorithmic tropes is at best just going to be occasionally more inaccurate than having a human regurgitate algorithmic tropes
Dawg I’m so mad this movie had a mid story. The concept and the effects were amazing
That radiohead scene was amazing though, one of the best beat drops in a movie I've seen this year.
And yet, it feels so forced, so meaningless... so far, up to this point, everytime a Radiohead track has been used in a show, it has had huge impact to the story. Think Children of Men, Prisoners, Romeo and Juliet, Black Mirror, Peaky Blinders, heck, even Clueless.... and then it seemingly breaks that streak in this movie.
I was actually excited for when Everything in its Right Place started playing, thinking, ok, they're using Radiohead, something extremely important and impactful is about to happen, or there is a message they are trying to convey here, and the track is going to incorporate it perfectly..... and then nothing. Absolutely nothing happens. They land, get out, and the music fades out.
An absolute waste of Radiohead, and for the first time too. It was just playing Radiohead for the sake of playing Radiohead. Felt kind of insulting, if you ask me.
@@MatBaconMC different opinions from different fans. I loved it and know alot of radiohead fans that loved it. Maybe nothing "important" happened but it made you FEEL the song and scenes together and it felt cool like getting ready to see a futurisitic tech mvoie.
@@MatBaconMC Ozark too
I agree with 50% of this video review essay. But to me, it's still the movie of the year. Bc personally, I relate to some of the subject matter. Plus, its a beautiful movie.
Definitely one of my favorite movies I saw this year, agreed. Thanks for watching!
Movie of the year is Godzilla minus One.. watch it, you'll see..
I am beyond tired of AI creations being presented as human-like and sympathetic.
AI beings like these are the most dangerous thing in the universe for mankind.
That's something that got to me the entire time too; I could never really bring myself to root for the AI team, especially when they excused the nuclear dentonation as a "coding error." Like, wtf?
You have to understand that's AI with EMOTIONS here. They're not the "most dangerous thing in the universe for mankind" when they're limited by their resources here.
You're completely wrong here in this statement because you're saying ONE type of AI that you want to see, in fiction you see VARIOUS types, and that stems from them being equipped with emotions.
Just because they're a super computer, doesn't mean they have "advanced processing power" that lets them do everything perfectly right when the situation calls for it.
They're clearly not terminators as they're WAY more human than that.
Like I said to someone else. Lol you seem to think that AI can do everything just because they're AI, no bro, that's not happening at all in EVERY story featuring them as most narratives don't have AI doing what you're saying at all even though the internet has full around to it's recognizable form for at least over 25 years now, and most media don't portray Ai as this all knowing being that can just do everything perfectly, ESPECIALLY when they have emotions.
They were just restricted to their bodies and couldn't just inject themselves into the web to take in every information out there or do whatever you seem for them to badly think they can.
You have to LIMIT the A.I.'s capabilities in stories if you plan to overall balance in conflict between humans and AI unless you just want the robot AI to just destroy all the humans easily which they could if you portray them in their realistic capabilities like in terminator, and just because they're AI, that doesn't mean they can do everything.
Every sci-fi story that's made has their own version of AI that has rules to them, and not every AI in a story can just absorb the information in the internet JUST because they're a machine, lol that's nonsense because by that logic EVERY machine can do that in a story and it would break the narrative of humans even coming CLOSE to winning anything at all.
AI robots ARE naturally smarter than humans in a realistic sense but they can't do everything because they are AI, they are limited by their resources just like humans are, and most of the AI don't have all the right resources to do whatever they want, and they're in with the eastern humans who want to live in harmony in them in the opposing side of the war.
This should be obvious here as the AI aren't trying to rule everything, they just want to live in peace in nature with the humans they are with in the war. That's it.
@@g.d.graham2446 That's NOT right at all as the AI team were just trying to live in peace and they didn't want the war. The AI aren't responsible for the nuclear denotation, as the movie stated, it WAS just a coding error by the opposite side of the US and they were blaming the AI as if they announced to the world that THEY just simply screwed, it would have been embarassing and made them look incompetent so they needed a scapegoat.
When you create something to love and/or serve your personal needs, you don't love what's natural: in other words, it is hard in general to feel emotional for Ai creations🤷
@@dtm2078 that’s false as when AI have emotions and fully sentient, you can start loving them as any person would an animal or another human. That simple!
Fightin' the good fight Filmento. Well done.
I found the movie to be great. A solid 8/10.
next summer : 1 hour of fireworks and someone shaking keys in front of the camera from time to time. you'll love it
@@me67galaxylife When it comes to taste in entertainment, you shouldn't judge. Since your kind of entertainment seems to be a prick on a UA-cam comment section. How many people did you reply to, to let them know about your superior taste in movies?
@@GreekFreakyJokerthe box office numbers says it all
@@GreekFreakyJoker you bark yet you only served my point and couldn't bring any arguments to refute it. and speaking of which, it looks like i struck a nerves. you only served my point further
@@me67galaxylife Wow you have a lot of "i have hard opinions on things" energy going. Try getting some perspective and realizing that other people like different things than you, you try hard.
The final explanation for the nuke in LA was this year’s “Somehow, Palpatine returned.”
I appreciate how you criticized many aspects of the movie, while still saying you liked it and encouraged people to see it👌🏼 Despite its flaws, I thought it was freaking awesome. It did an incredible job of crafting a world, and I wish it would’ve done more with it
great review
why didnt this guy just make district 9 2
ffs ☝🏼 this guy gets it!
When i watched it, i definitely got the sence that all the thought went into the world building, leaving nothing for the story. And all that was just so they could justify a message that seemed vaguely relivent atm.
@@zogwort1522 of course you can have world building without a story, dungeons and dragons for example, or any ttrpg for that matter. there are stories within the world and such but the world exists without the story. what your talking about is a sort of world building that exists to facilitate a story, that's common for movies, star wars for example started out that way. my point is that the writers for creator seem to have been given a theme (humans vs ai) and built a world to facilitate that allegory, the plot was just tacked on at the end to show us the world, so it doesn't work very well.
16:45 I think you're absolutely correct! And I've been watching this problem get worse since the 90's! It's one thing to have the scripts and stories written by people who act like robots, but when the actors also act like robots and don't question the writing, we get movies like Ghostbusters 2016. At some point the actors have to embrace their own sense and humanity and challenge what they're being told to do. Sarah Conner is an example of a specific character, and Luke too (at least Mark Hamill explained to us how that happened). I should be able to name many examples but I've slipped so far from the movie industry because of the reoccurring destruction of my fav characters and stories that I've happily forgotten it all, but thank you for pointing it out.
One of the things I liked about Iron Man 3 was that the relationship between Tony and the kid never fell into the tropes you mention. Every time it skirted round the edge of one of those, it would pull back, keeping it unique.
How did the fact that this is basically a futuristic version of The Golden Child go over your head?. It was as clear to me as Avatar was Dances with Wolves in Space. The major elements are part in parcel identical to The Golden Child. Budget Denzel=Eddie Murphy. The Colonel, Sardo Numspah. The guy with the Colonel Tommy Tong. The Bomb Robot, The guard the Golden child touched. The Nomad was basically the Devil from GC brought out front. I could go on and on with plenty of content to make my own video. Even when the child used her abilities to start the car like the GC did. Only difference is the girl spoke more than GC did. Yeah it did follow a more cookie cutter protagonist than the Golden Child did. But i would still say that was the primary inspiration. It wasn't the greatest movie. I know i could have taken this script and done much better but it was worth a matinee viewing.
I was literally going to write the same thing! I stopped watching half way through because it just reminded me of a more entertaining movie.
Was way better than most 2023 big blockbusters 🤷🏽♂️
In other groundbreaking news: Peepee better than poopoo.
Another thing that lead to it being the 2nd most boring experience in the theater was how cut down it was. It felt like there was 25% just sloppily chopped off
I don't know what you mean by that of it being "cut down" but I disagree entirely so from being anywhere near "bORIng" AT ALL here in ANY way as it was a great theater experience.
It felt like there was 25% just sloppily chopped off is what I meant by it feeling like it was cut down
@@moviesaredope Maybe in the director's cut will flesh things out even more so.
@@Gadget-Walkmen I'd welcome that. It felt really weird having him just be in the temple near the end. Like we skipped a whole sequence of him getting there
I really wish I could have enjoyed it like Dan Murrell did
@@moviesaredope I thought him being in the temple was obvious from how he was able to escape the area and walk up the mountain in secret with alphie while the americans were distracted.
Good analysis and point of view Man.👋
Cant wait till the 4k disc releases, this is one of the best looking movies this year.
Technically this looked good. So many of the shots were spectacular. And oh my got, the Simulants running the temple brought up so many questions related to “Do Robots Dream of Electric Sheep?” But it was so emotionally empty.
Oh no… another character died… Anyways…!
They literally used the line "more human than human" in the film.
DAMN this was a great review!!!
What's really frustrating is that when the background details in environment end up sparking more questions that have a more interesting concept than the story we end up following throughout the film. Like the faceless robot defending the village alongside Harun. We don't get his name, but his personality comes through in the short amount of time he's on screen.
Or stuff like the idea of robot monks, or robots becoming parental figures for kids in rural parts of the country. How many interesting ideas could you approach just with those images alone?
I actually really enjoyed this movie even with some of the stupidity that's in it I still really really like it a lot. It also was very beautifully shot and I thought the access scenes were pretty good and I thought the story was pretty good yes it has some plot holes what movie doesn't have plot holes for fuck's sake. Is it the greatest real number? No it's not but when you find out that it only costs $80 million for him to do this it pretty amazing. So I would give it a 8 out of 10 for what it is. It was a very enjoyable sci-fi movie that will be a cult hit later on
What “stupidity” are you even talking about here in the movie? What?! There was none! The movie wasn’t pitch perfect but it’s the furthest thing from ANY kind of “sTupidIty” AT ALL!
Genuine question I didn’t understand from the movie. How did the nomad work? Like, throughout the movie we’ve seen it physically get to each place he wanted to destroy, scan it, and then firing the missile. In the end tho we see that it fired all of his missiles directed to different parts of Asia distant from each other while it remained still. Did I miss something?
@@Gadget-Walkmen my friend, the concept of AI in this movie might as well have been written in the 1950s. Right now, we already have AI that’s on the verge of being smarter than humans BECAUSE IT HAS ACCESS TO ALL HUMAN KNOWLEDGE VIA THE INTERNET. These robots were literally stupider than most humans.
Also how about *poke* *poke* *poke* in the girl’s head, stands up “dude, I’m about to deliver to you the entire plot of this movie in three sentences because I just poked inside her head. Suddenly I know everything about her. Turns out she’s the greatest threat to mankind.” 😂😂😂😂
Time to send the slow running bomb robot at the enemies so they have time to either escape or destroy him from a distance before he blows them up instead of just firing a f*king missile at them.
I don’t mean to be mean, but narratively speaking, this movie is an absolute joke. Gareth Edwards did a fantastic job getting fresh visuals with his style of VFX integrated filmmaking, but he is certainly not a writer.
@@ChristopherCopeland No, just NO! Completely against most of EVERYTHING that which you're saying here. The concept of AI in this movie was NOT "might as well have been written in the 1950s." in the slightest as you just seem to believe that AI can do everything just because they're supercomputers. No, they're sentient beings that can reason AND have emotions as seen in this movie. When you give an AI full on emotions, than it's starting to be a person who can full think for themselves and make logically and rash decisions like any other human being.
The robots were NOT "literally sTuPiDer tHaN mOst HuMaNs" AT ALL, they were just restricted to their bodies and couldn't just inject themselves into the web to take in every information out there. Lol you seem to think that AI can do everything just because they're AI, no bro, that's not happening at all in EVERY story featuring them as most narratives don't have AI doing what you're saying at all even though the internet has full around to it's recognizable form for at least over 25 years now, and most media don't portray Ai as this all knowing being that can just do everything perfectly, ESPECIALLY when they have emotions..
You have to LIMIT the A.I.'s capabilities in stories if you plan to overall balance in conflict between humans and AI unless you just want the robot AI to just destroy all the humans easily which they could if you portray them in their realistic capabilities like in terminator, and just because they're AI, that doesn't mean they can do everything.
Every sci-fi story that's made has their own version of AI that has rules to them, and not every AI in a story can just absorb the information in the internet JUST because they're a machine, lol that's nonsense because by that logic EVERY machine can do that in a story and it would break the narrative of humans even coming CLOSE to winning anything at all.
AI robots ARE naturally smarter than humans in a realistic sense but they can't do everything because they are AI, they are limited by their resources just like humans are, and most of the AI don't have all the right resources to do whatever they want, and they're in with the eastern humans who want to live in harmony in them in the opposing side of the war. This should be obvious here as the AI aren't trying to rule everything, they just want to live in peace in nature with the humans they are with in the war. That's it.
"Also how about poke poke poke in the girl’s head, stands up “dude, I’m about to deliver to you the entire plot of this movie in three sentences because I just poked inside her head. Suddenly I know everything about her. Turns out she’s the greatest threat to mankind.” 😂😂😂😂"
What? What are you even saying right now? You're not making any sense in this statement at all here because I have NO idea on what you mean AT ALL here as what you're saying didn't happen in the film.
"Time to send the slow running bomb robot at the enemies so they have time to either escape or destroy him from a distance before he blows them up instead of just firing a f*king missile at them."
They DID have missiles and they WERE firing at them with it, they were just using a bomb robot as well to get close in range to target all the people in closed groups. This is obvious if you were actually paying attention to what's going. The bomb robot can't be easily destroyed at all, it's a running tank of a machine, this is made clear but they didn't know that the child would shut down the bomb robot they already had PRE-made. This is also obvious here.
"I don’t mean to be mean, but narratively speaking, this movie is an absolute joke."
Disagree entirely so as it's FAR from an "abSoLuTe JoKe" at all. While the movie DOEs pull from other influences in it's narrative pretty clearly as it does have a "yeah we kinda saw this stuff before."
The plot and writing of the movie is well executed enough to be coherent for the most part.
"Gareth Edwards did a fantastic job getting fresh visuals with his style of VFX integrated filmmaking, but he is certainly not a writer."
He IS a writer whose competent enough to write out an engaging enough story that people are interested in seeing that's heavily elevated from it's fantastic visuals and great set-pieces with compelling enough characters you want to follow and see through.
The movie isn't perfect, but it's nowhere NEAR as problematic as you are making it out to be or what filmento has said either.
A movie doesn't to be ENTIRELY original for it's story to have a plot that no one has EVER seen before, it JUST needs to be well done and well executed for people to want to see in the big screen, which the movie IS and does very well.
Finally Someone appreciates a piece of art that was bit above average.. but still a piece of art given the state of movies nowadays..
honestly that game couldve been GREAT, the robots in the rice field actually made me want to get up out of my movie seat and walk closer to the screen... they shouldve just added maybe 5 or so more millions, and invested in a REAL story...
the TENET joke went too far though i love nolan and john washinton
- "This is story board number 1, snd this is number 2, and 3, and 4…"
- "What happens in between? These aren't cohesive and doesn't make any sense on their own."
...
*Silence*
Thank you for your work.. your videos have inspired me to
For me it was the third most favourite movie of the year after Oppenheimer and Kaguya-sama: first kiss never ends. And most of things you said here, I didn't even notice them, but you made sense. Except for the ending part. The "unsatisfying twist" is one of the main reasons why this movie was so good for me. It impressed me and it was emotional. It was not like what you tried to say: like AI wrote this scene.
Kaguya-Sama, great call! I saw this back in February and glad its gotten a mention! :D
You sir or ma’am are a human of culture.
everything but the sfx was garbage in this movie. the fucking scene with the monkey activating the mine, not even by accident but on purpose, exploded what neurons i had left at that point. badly written and with cringe leftist vietnam mentality not even hidden in the slightest.
For real this movie is great some people are way too harsh on it, it's Terminator Salvation all over again.
There is movie about Kaguya-sama? thank man, have something good to watch
I strongly believe that Neill Blomkamp would have been an excellent choice to direct this movie, even though I am a fan of Gareth Edwards. I believe he could have set this story in the slums of South Africa, drawing inspiration from films like District 9 and Elysium.
Neil made Chapie, I miss District 9 Neil
The plot feels like it's Elysium 2.0
This movie was awesome. It was Akira and Ghost in the Shell smashed together. Honestly, this is what the live version of Ghost in the Shell should have been a few years ago.
Are you sure about that?
Here is what Akira has, that this movie doesn't: Complex characters. A reflexion on buddhist values and the power dynamics of cults. Psychic powers. Social decay. A believable love story. Extreme body horror. Wide-scale generational conflict. Moral dilemmas. Crime and delinquency. Comedy.
Here is what GitS has, that this movie doesn't: Believable geopolitics. Intricate power dynamics between official agencies. Psychic powers. Technology that mostly makes sense. A reflexion on the process of adaptation and the relationships between a system and its components. Conflict between private and professional life. Pornography. Massive amounts of worldbuilding. Comedy.
Considering its fairly restrained budget, I thought Creator was a fairly good, standard SciFi movie.
This is the perfect title! I really felt that this movie was written by AI, it was really generic.
This is one of the better scifi movies alongside Dune.
The reason I watched this movie was from its description, and let me tell you, that movie almost had nothing to do with its description. The movie started out perfectly, but after the part where Joshua is first shown, it completely goes down hill.
You hit the nail on the head. Story elements that don’t reflect our lived reality ring hollow. That is probably the truest critique of modern cinema.
Sadly, there are many movies I watch just for the visuals. I can enjoy things at that level. But I am fully aware of this, and I make sure I let people know when they ask me for an opinion.
That statement applies perfectly to MTV when it launched. They needed videos and even bad music can have good visuals.
I watched this movie last night and then came upon your analysis of it today. You've put into words why I did not enjoy it as much as I should have. I kept spotting small inconsistencies in the narrative, and while it was entertaining, it could have been a much more engrossing film.
Filmento on point as usual 💯
Humans cannot create out of a thin air also. We reassemble fragments of our memories into new pieces. It’s why designers, writers have to travel, see and meet new people, read and learn. New learned data, creates new possible variations of new “things”. We can see the proof of it in born blind people, they don’t have visual dreams, cause their brain never received any visual data. But they vividly dream in other sensory realms; sounds and feelings.
The reason we are so advanced in “creativity”. Cause our brain is still more efficient at storing data(everything we ever seen, heard, touched or felt).
thank you man, finally someone who isn't just "AI bad because it doesn't have a soul" or "It's just google on steroids and nothing more" like I've been using an AI to help me with my DnD homebrew and it's honestly incredible how good it is if you know how to use it properly, if you ask dumbshit like "Make me story with knight" it will make something shit, but if you give it a lot of information, details and specifications, it will deliver a very well made story or item.
when we getting a Godzilla Minus One Review
Lol you had me at AC130..... 👍
First rule of learning what to expect from a film: if it starts by telling the audience how the world should work (through monologue, mono...script?) instead of showing characters interacting in the world, that's a giant red flag 😆
Filmento, the GOAT, please do a DISTRICT 9 episode! It would make my entire year!
just finished, pretty good.
Its funny, I saw the Creator, loved it, and I was ready to come to this movie’s defense when I saw the title of your video…and then I remembered I how I forgot about this movie until your video reminded me. And yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head as to why I forgot about the Creator but remember Oppenheimer and even Barbie.
Oppenheimer is way overrated, I hate that movie, and I don't say this to be edgy, but I actually feel a mild form of disgust when I think of Oppenheimer. Crearor was kinda stupid, but I didn't get annoyed at it like I did with Oppenheimer.
its crazy how many people have praised this movie 💀💀
There are a lot of people mad at Disney who want Star Wars to fail. They want a replacement Star Wars to prove their point. First this, then Rebel Moon.