welsch@ihu1e.UUCP (l.a. welsch) (09/22/85)
I saw "Creator" Friday night and left with a distinct feeling of this could have been a good film but, .... The issue is but what? The more I thought about it, the more it wasn't so much that there was any one thing wrong or that the film attempted to do too much, but rather that nothing the film attempted quite succeeded. So close, and yet so far. Yet why didn't anything succeed. I think the answer lies in lack of plausibility. I can almost believe in Peter O'Toole as Professor Wolper, a slightly eccentric but brilliant biology professor, but I cannot believe that he doesn't have to teach any classes, or that he is a practicing MD with hospital privileges. It just does not pass the plausibility test. The film is consistent. Nothing is quite plausible. For example, at one point a main character falls into a coma. No apparent reason is given, just that she felt she might be pregnant. Now, I do know of cases where a people have dropped into coma's for no apparent reason, but usually it is following some vigorous exercise not just standing around watching a game of football. I am not asking that a film reflect reality, I loved "Real Genius", only that the film have a plausible explanation where it deviates from the expected. This was where Real Genius worked and Creator failed. Larry Welsch ihu1e!welsch