then his in the wrong chair,his not a director.

@@orangefacedbuddah1776agreed but what are those emojis😂😂😂😂 never seen that before

@@jackdriscoll8387 here's our dirty little secret when you reply to a you tube video,underneath the black line that appears you will see a smiling emoji in black and white,press on his face and SHAZAM Emoji man and his crew appear,have fun.

​@@jackdriscoll8387😊1😊1j

​@@jackdriscoll8387😊1😊1j

He's mediocre at best but DEI llololololo

forgot he made that. it was his best film, but that's not saying much imo.

It was boring I thought

Properganda

Agreed

Then you'll probably like both of those hacks' garbos

I wrote those comments, so I'll answer you. I reacted to the movie's ending because I empathized with the little girl's plight. She's an innocent creature watching television alone in an isolated room. Then she gets set free. She walks outside to see the sky and the sunlight and the wind rippling through the grass, and she's like, "Life!" A few moments later she realizes her life mostly entails being trapped in a violent war between humans and robots. So she latches onto the protagonist because she's vulnerable and inexperienced. He protects her and eventually grows to value her. Then he dies. She's all alone again, but now she's experienced enough to feel loss, and if you watch the young actress's facial expressions at the end of film, and match those expressions up with the journey she's taken, then there a chance you'll empathize too. It's ridiculously high quality acting. Of course, there's a good chance you won't feel anything at all because the film is quite artful, and that's okay too. That's how art works. And the film is not perfect. Its characters are pretty bland. It works best as a thematically driven war story with peripheral elements involving A.I. If a story is thematically driven, it doesn't have to rely on strong character envelopment for depth. Think 2001: A Space Odyssey. Not to say The Creator measures up to 2001, but to judge it by its characters alone is to miss out on the movie's strongest elements: themes on war. And even those war themes involving personal tragedy come and go, especially in the third act when the movie attempts to give us the big action packed sequence we're all expecting and the little girl unleashes terror and violence all her own. In my opinion, the protagonist should have been the lonely little girl. Seeing her manufactured and raised in isolation to become a weapon to win the war would have ensured the themes a stronger supporting structure. In other words, put her in every scene. Oh well...

@@plath1756 Thanks for your thoughts. I agree, I think making the girl the protagonist would have been much better. I guess I found it hard to empathize with her because for most of her screen time she was just giving blank stares in response to the dull protagonist's questions. It took too long for her emotions to come through and when they did, I didn't feel the need to care.

Fair enough. I don't think the film went through great lengths to make her accessible. More attention to the relationship between her and the protagonist would have done wonders.

I get not liking the movie, but gareth’s intentions with this movie is full of humanity in my opinion

I swear I was sitting there waiting for each scene knowing what would be said next and rolling my eyes more and more each time.

he should be head of special fx,not calling ACTION. on the set.

Similar problems apply to many "successful" author/directors nowadays. They have one aspect of film making they are good at, but fail at creating a whole piece of moving picture. Neill Blomkamp has a good sense for action directing and VFX, but his films lack character development. Christopher Nolan has a good sense for plot construction but lacks in scene execution and cannot write characters for shit. Zack Snyder has a good sense for single poster shots but does not know how to tell a story at all, and he cannot direct a single scene built on character relations instead of content- & context-free aesthetics & kinetics, so he goes for slomo instead of suspense whenever he needs to break the dire monotony of undermotivated stuff happening and captured randomly at normal speed. It baffles me how these one-trick ponies are being lauded as creative geniuses. It is almost as if an entire generation of fans has never experienced watching good movies to compare their works to and to establish some standards.

@@elevenseven-yq4vu Exactly - auteurs are extremely rare. Good directors know when to hand off cinematography, scriptwriting, etc. Movies are a team effort. You can still be a visionary by simply being a good leader (I'm thinking someone like Villeneuve or Lynch). You don't literally have to do everything yourself.

It's his 4th movie. Not many could say that their second directed movie was a blockbuster with 160 million dollar as a budget. You're right he is not the best storyteller. He knows how to write worldbuilding, like in his first film Monsters. I hope he keeps working on it.

@@fillezzo I don't blame him for taking the Star Wars gig - who wouldn't? The fact that someone so inexperienced didn't completely fumble it is a miracle. Very respectable - but it was still an average movie. But I agree that he still has tons of potential. I just hope this movie breaks even...

@@_uncredited well actually Godzilla was his second movie, first big budget movie. Then it was Rouge one. But yeah I hope this those well, I'm probably going to see it. He has potential, maybe it will take a few tries before he gets there.

Very well said.

go out and make up your own mind.

So what exactly are the movie's strengths? You mentioned world building; which would make it a good sandbox to put in some characters, a plot, a story, conflicts, ideas, and concepts to explore. This is a starting point, or a prerequisite, much like an interesting setpiece or matte painting. But what makes "The Creator" a good movie?

​@@elevenseven-yq4vu Just in case, did you watched the movie already? For me, this was a good movie because I was able to get emotionally attached the main characters while they go through their journey on this epic/massive world that uses technology in interesting ways (you kinda need to see the movie to understand what I am talking about), and whose main conflict makes you wonder about how things could happen in such a future. You also need to see this movie to understand why world building plays a big role here, on one side gives you wonderful imaginary (like Blade runner), but more importantly also context about the culture where the main event happens and the reasoning of the people there. By the end of this movie you kinda want to see more of everything, or maybe a prequel or sequel. The whole thing is outstanding, it felt like Akira tbh.

@@uppgo Thank you very much! This gives me some inkling as to what the appeal of the movie might be. I have not watched it yet.

Movies that did a similar thing to me were "Dark City", "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "World on a Wire".

I loved it too

he is there because his father is denzel,although i haven't seen him in anything,so i cant judge,i have long suspected that he got this big role for the wrong reason.I will go and see it and see what i see.

That’s a good question certainly its not disney

They seem over micro managed out of their minds

Robert Eggers, Ari Aster, Daniels, Greta Gerwig, Rian Johnson, Edgar Wright

@@TheGrades90 i dont like any films by any of these people i think theyre awful. Hereditary was quite good so thats one

But do you seriously think they compare to Kubrick or Ford or Welles or Powell and Pressberger or Spielberg?? Come on not really even a competition

Same for me disney was good 50 years ago

Disney helped make my childhood, then destroyed it.

@@rodneyadderton1077join the club modern disney is not Disney

@@rodneyadderton1077agreed modern disney is not the disney we knew

@@jimhot7790i think thats 100% true Jim its a different set of managers with some suspect priorities

Yep she names loads of great films as if thats relevant

@@scienceisforsale2834 2015 was peak good good film making, no agendas, no heartthrob casting, no politics , no toxic fandom...its all gone downhill since

@@tahnadana5435yes for a reason its being dumbed down to dumb the people

Jeez calm down insecure nerd

No, it's not, comparing films is normal and warranted.

It was only 80mill

Franchise films had a good 2023. what are you talking about

Edwards produced, wrote and directed this himself and for a modest budget of about $86million.

on tops

How dare someone care about their art