Cast:
John David Washington (Joshua), Madeleine Yuna Voyles (Alpha-Omega "Alphie"), Gemma Chan (Maya Fey), Ken Watanabe (Harun), Sturgill Simpson (Drew), Allison Janney (Colonel Howell), Ralph Ineson (General Andrews), Marc Menchaca (General McBride), and Veronica Ngo (Kami) Directed by Gareth Edwards (#582 - Godzilla (2014) and #888 - Rogue One)
Review:
I had to remind myself that Gareth Edwards had not been behind a film for the past seven years (Rogue One was indeed released in 2016). Granted, the director isn't the biggest focus of any film discussion point (particularly for sci-fi), but it did lend a hand in checking out a film to close out the decidedly-non spooky month of September out (you might think, hey, it's got this person in the cast, but I find that only works for older films). Contrary to the usual big-budget gorgonzola films, there is actually an attempt here to make a sci-fi film with a semblance of design work to it. As stated by Edwards, the crew shot the film in a wide variety of locations that resembled certain images that they wanted before the editing process would see these frames painted, effectively doing a runaround on expectations of green screen or extensive spending (as opposed to spending) before the effects would be headlined by Industrial Light & Magic. What better year to release a film that happens to talk about AI than 2023, one supposes. Edwards has cited various films as inspiration for his film (which he co-wrote with Chris Weitz) such as Apocalypse Now (1979), Baraka (1992), Blade Runner (1982), Akira (1988), Rain Man (1988), The Hit (1984), E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982) and Paper Moon (1973); this is the fourth feature film by Edwards.
It may seem a familiar film, and perhaps it may have a view that you can see arising before the end of its 133-minute runtime, but I enjoyed what I saw and felt from the film, and that is essentially what one is hoping to see from a sci-fi film that is obviously crafted with the audience in mind. I wouldn't exactly call it a pro-AI film, because really the heart of the film is one of redemption. Yes, it does push at times for the idea of making a real attempt at co-existence, but really the only way to create a new phase of living is to break apart the old system (this does not involve talky sequence, of course, but I'm sure you can read what that means). That might as well make it a modern-day parable, one that examines the moral quandaries that exist within the similarities that really do seem to lie within humans and the AI that they had crafted, particularly when it comes to crafting a living in the hardest of times. The grip of the military-industrial complex cannot have their boot firmly in place on the oppressed when they find a way to dig out (oh sure, painting humanity in a weird light seems odd, but, well, have you seen the dregs of humanity at times?). With that in mind, the scope of the film works best within its effects. I love the look of Nomad, spaceship that is the focus for the climax that resembles a bird of prey with those particular features in its looming nature. It is the kind of future you make for useful scare in one's mind when it comes to the human element and what really is real. Washington proves a useful lead presence in that search for humanity on the road that makes for quality desperation once the passiveness is shed away. This works with Voyles for a suitable pairing, one that shows the bounds of what it means to be around someone beyond crafting a name and feeling to one that did not have it before. The rest do fine but are mostly just players being moved around the board in the senses of interaction, which is mostly consisted of mercenaries on either side. The action sequences are pretty entertaining, mostly because it doesn't come off as sludge to accompany green screen sludge but instead manages to seem like a blockbuster made in a better time that actually seems to care about creating something interesting even if at times it nearly reaches the plodding-off point at times. The film closes itself with a feeling of peace that does not feel the need to bait for further blockbuster spelunking, which is totally fine with me, because sometimes a good feature really can just end right where it is and leave it up to the viewer more than looking up a screen. There are worse ways to spend time with a film that builds a world more than a big story when you can have the imagination to let it ride.
Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.
Next Time: Looking to the past in order to set the future for October. You'll see.
