No assembly RequireD

Science fiction films have always been able to show where we are as a society, where we want to go and all the mistakes we will most likely encounter. Well with two new science fiction films out (one based on an original concept the other a novel adaptation) both have shown that while our fears of A.I. and otherworldly explorations is real, our greatest concerns should be our life down on Earth. This is far from a new concept (most science fiction films are not), but even so it becomes increasingly frustrating to see both films fall short and feel flat while exploring human themes that are trying to grasp onto something larger beyond our worldly being.

THE CREATOR

THE CREATOR may be sold as an original idea from Gareth Edwards, best known for “Rogue One,” but it is anything but that. There is nothing wrong with being inspired or even taking ideas from greater films of years previous, but THE CREATOR is just a mashup of science fiction tropes all designed to feel fresh. The world has been overtaken by A.I. robotics that we on Earth have created ourselves, and former undercover agent Joshua (John David Washington) is still mourning the loss of his wife (Gemma Chan in a thankless dead wife role) and child. He blames both the A.I. destruction as well as the humans who abided them. But when government agents inform him his wife may still be alive and harboring a world destroying weapon, Joshua rejoins his military roots to find her. But and to very little surprise the “weapon” in question is a young A.I. girl (Madeleine Yuna Voyles). While the renegade cowboy and small child trope has been revived (for better or worse by Disney’s “The Mandalorian”) it doesn’t help that Washington is lifeless throughout. Instead of carrying the “man with no name” silent type, his clunk dialogue does not assist his already shaky performance that never brings any personality to an already robotic film. Much has been talked about with THE CREATOR being made for only eighty million, which in terms of a big studio action film is without question astonishing. When other franchise films waste nearly two hundred million juts to bomb at the box office, it can be refreshing to see what Edwards and his team of visual artists create with a bare percentage of the normal expense. There is no denying THE CREATOR at a visual stance looks remarkable. It is a telling reminder to studios what you can do with less than half the budget and practical effects. Unfortunately that is where the excitement ends.

THE CREATOR with its script co-written by Edwards and Chris Weitz is not just one of the most misguided scripts of the year, its one that is the worst cases of wrong place wrong time. Moral ambiguity is always welcomed when giving us complex characters and story that re-evaluates the way we as an audience look and feel about familiar situations, but THE CREATOR continuously wants to re-enforce the idea that yes you’ve seen this before but now it’s in IMAX! The film, while trying to bring awareness to the dangers we as humans will create through A.I. still comes off as such a pro-robotic film in a time where the last thing we need to support is more human replacement at every turn. Edwards had great trouble with 2016’s “Rogue One” with constant studio interference that eventually led to most of his film being reshot. THE CREATOR is clearly a response to this allowing him to make the film he has always wanted. A film unlike “Rogue” believes it’s rebellion is at the center. Early on in the film when a stunning parachute mission is led to the tune of Radiohead’s “Everything in Its Right Place” you find yourself chuckling at its inclusion but also full of excitement that much like the life changing band this film may have some curious ides up its sleeve. Unfortunately the song much like the film is cut off so quick that you are left wanting to go back as it becomes evident that is as good as it will get. THE CREATOR is a Gareth Edwards’ film through and through, but now that we get to see what he can actually create maybe we are better off destroying it before it gets out of hand.

D

THE CREATOR IS IN THEATERS EVERYWHERE

FOE

On the other hand is FOE an adaptation of Iain Reid’s novel of the same name, and while it is somewhat ironic that an adaptation has a little more originality than THE CREATOR this film also falls in the same realm of bringing very little to the table of its concept. FOE however while having A.I. near its center is a film focused on marriage, love and how we as humans fall in and out of love often faster than we’d hope for. Directed by Garth Davis, FOE often feels like it is in the wrong hands as it circles around the best of intentions while never being able to articulate past melodramatic performances and the need to shoehorn in its lesser engaging sci-fi elements.

Hen (Saoirse Ronan) is exhausted. She spends her mornings crying in the shower as her husband JR (Paul mescal) wakes up on the couch far away from the comfort of his bed on their family farm. The house has been in the family for generations, but very little is discussed of this couple’s life before marriage. Very little is discussed between the two of them as it is as they are not able to before they are interrupted by the arrival of a mysterious man named Terrance (Aarron Pierre) who claims that JR has been selected to live and work on a new space station currently orbiting the Earth. Pierre as Terrance brings such a subtle and calming performance that it often helps the film distract the audience from the unsettling tone that will soon take over for Hen and JR. As Terrance informs Hen and JR that it will take years for this process to happen (if it even does) the film finds itself in a marriage counseling session as Hen and JR must battle the idea of how do we spend the possible little time we have left together and not to mention with a new figure now moving in to observe our own marriage. While the film and Davis’ directing wants to move things into more science fiction territory the script co-writtern by Davis and Iain Reid attempts to keep it in line with its psychological and marital turmoil. Unfortunately the film is riddled with a bad case of mismanaged casting. Saoirse Ronan one of our finest young talents who has made a critically acclaimed name for herself feels strapped down by a melodramatic script with lifetime movie dialogue. Mescal on the other goes above and beyond to showcase a man with increasing frustration but whether it is his poor attempt at hiding his Irish accent in favor of an American Midwest, or if Mescal just thinks teeth grinding and groaning is what suits JR best none of it works and it feels comical at times. There is no denying the frustration that comes with the opportunity placed in front of Hen and JR, and the film tries to grapple with when love for a partner dying as time goes on, the chemistry between Ronan and Mescal is obsolete.

FOE often wants to have its cake and eat it to, all too much. Its viewpoint of love and marriage is sincere. As Terrance becomes more familiar with this couple, the growing animosity that most men would have is apparent. Its commitment to keeping Hen and JR caricatures of lost men and women is admirable in a film that wants to speak to the masses. But too much of Davis’ directing brings us back to an A.I. theme that is redundant for a film centered on more human experience. Even when the two intertwine with necessity you can’t help but feel cheated out on a better directed film that can engage with its own concept. FOE may find those moments sprinkled throughout and especially in its finale but does that even matter at this late in the game. If FOE is meant to be this larger than life dissection of an everyday marriage than it needs to feel less on autopilot because the only thing it has us falling out of love with is itself.

C

FOE WILL BE RELEASED IN SELECT THEATERS OCTOBER 6