Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihu1e.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!ihu1e!welsch
From: welsch@ihu1e.UUCP (l.a. welsch)
Newsgroups: net.movies
Subject: Creator - A Review
Message-ID: <538@ihu1e.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 22-Sep-85 11:41:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihu1e.538
Posted: Sun Sep 22 11:41:26 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 23-Sep-85 02:43:00 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 24

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


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com