Unexpectedly Disappointing || Review Of Foe (2023)
#/media/File%3AFoe_2023_poster.jpg){kind=link}
We are in the age of advanced technology and things are rapidly moving towards the realisation of artificial intelligence. This is often depicted in recent sci-fi flicks. It reflects growing concern about AI sentience and the authenticity of human clones. When I saw Foe (2023) on the streaming site, I was fascinated. It's sci-fi and oh, look, it's the talented Saoirse Ronan on the film poster. So I relaxed and watched. After an hour and forty minutes of my life, I wish I didn't. Let's get into the review of this film.
Foe is a sci-fi and psychological thriller focused on a not-too-happy couple, Junior (played by Paul Mescal) and Hen (played by Saoirse Ronan). The opening credits reveal that it's the year 2065, a time when fresh water and habitable lands are the most precious commodities. Also, human substitutes (AI with consciousness) will be used to replace human labour.
The film begins properly showing that Junior and Hen are at a phase of their marriage where their spark is dying. Then a stranger, Terrance (played by Aaron Pierre), shows up on behalf of the government to recruit Junior for a job that involves colonising space so people can move up there later on. This job offer worries the couple and Terrence assures them that a clone of Junior will live with Hen for the duration of the job. Will this clone revive the couple's spark and preserve their marriage or will it show us another side to AIs?
Review
Sci-fi movies are a delicate genre to navigate. They can either fascinate the audience or totally bore them out. Sadly, Foe is the most dull film I've seen this year and even more so with Saoirse Ronan as the main character. This lady is a talented actress with many awards in her repertoire and deserves better. She and her co-actor give this film their best but it can't salvage the lacklustre script and directing.
The plot is a good one focused on a futuristic timeline where AI is used to create sentient, almost indistinguishable copies of humans. It's fascinating but the storytelling fails woefully to bring the plot to life. The scene sequences are totally off because it's towards the end of the film that I was able to distinguish between the real Junior and the clone or robot. It's a straightforward plot but the arrangement of the scenes makes it complicated. The scenes are mismatched and confusing.
Also, director Garth Davis invests too much energy into the emotional and psychological aspects, rendering the film almost melodramatic to the point where it becomes challenging to see the sci-fi elements in it. The dialoguing between the characters is stilted and sometimes cliché.
The acting is great, no doubt. Saoirse Ronan, Paul Mescal and Aaron Pierre are convincing in their roles but still, there's only so much they can do if the script and directing are dull. As I watched, I had so many questions like why choose Junior for the space assignment, and since the government can clone him, why not send the robot to space instead? These are areas that should have been tackled in the storytelling but the director leaves the audience in the dark, making a solid movie rather lifeless.
Another part I find odd is why make Hen live with a facsimile of her husband who has fallen out of love with her. Surely, it would further complicate their relationship and destroy it. Eventually, that's what happened in this movie. I expected more from this film because of Saoirse Ronan and was disappointed.
Overall, I wouldn't recommend Foe to anyone. It's just not worth the time. If I had known this earlier, I wouldn't watch it. I dare not rate it either.
Thank you for visiting my blog.
Other images are screenshots from the movie
Posted using CineTV
Thank you
View or trade
BEER.Hey @kemmyb, here is a little bit of
BEERfrom @pixresteemer for you. Enjoy it!Learn how to earn FREE BEER each day by staking your
BEER.Thanks
Well written film review, thank you very much.
There is an oversupply of bad films, as always the gems are a rarity, aren't they? Especially when the scriptwriters follow the zeitgeist superficially rather than using it as an opportunity to tell a truly accomplished story.
I would immediately subscribe to the weaknesses you give the film. The fascination with artificial people replacing real people is very old, certainly well over two hundred years, I suppose. The classic film on this subject is probably still "Blade Runner".
Incidentally, I don't think much of the apparently fashionable gloominess of films. Depressing final messages are of course allowed (and there are plenty of good films with a non-happy ending). But what the abundance of new films seems to be saying to me is: "Guys, there's no point. The world is bad, just give up."
On the other hand, as much as the image of the superhero has been and is exaggerated, I think the image of the depressed future man is just as exaggerated. But if the stylistic device of exaggeration is well realised, there's never anything to be said against it. If you want to write good scripts, I think you need a lot of life experience. Bad film scripts seem to represent little of it.
I couldn't agree more about the abundance of bad films recently. There's been a significant shift in the way movies were made in the past compared to the present time. But how can we find the true gems without seeing them all? Hehe. I wish scriptwriters and filmmakers would delve into more profound storytelling like most old movies. I know a cinephile who prefers to see old movies of say 60s and 70s rather than the recent releases.
I thought I was alone in this! 😄 I'm getting tired of the sad or unrealistic endings. Thanks so much for reading my review and your thoughtful response. I know you have a keen eye for storytelling and it's nuances, so maybe you'd like to check out our ongoing contest. 😊 !PIZZA
... Watching trailers? ... LoL - but you are right, it is not easy to find the gems without watching the non-gems. I noticed that I don't need to watch a whole movie in order to find out if it's a good script and character build up. Mostly, ten or fifteen minutes are enough to find out.
The high amount of bad movies are elsewhere called "Storytelling entropy".
You can sense whether a message is only being delivered because you want to deliver one at all or whether it is one that is convincing.
Entropy is evident in the fact that big budgets try to mix everything with everything that has ever been successful. They mix genres and former high performer flicks together, the heroes look like heroes and speak like heroes, but have no recognisable path of suffering behind them and are "just like that", without any recognisable reason. They have no mentors and no arduous journeys, no narrated failures, so they seem hollow and insubstantial. Even the sufferers suffer for little recognisable reason, it is as if the suffering itself is "just there".
Entropy, if I have understood it correctly, means that clearly distinguishable elements become so intermingled that at some point it becomes impossible to distinguish between them. Like dark blue ink colour, which, if you pour it into a glass of water, can be clearly recognised by streaks. But if it has been mixed with the water long enough, everything turns light blue.
For a good story though, the viewer needs to identify and distinguish the characters and their unique path in life.
😄 not at all. I love movies and there are still many people who love them, too. The younger generation though seems not very interested in movies. They watch "clips" or play games. ... I am still not certain about the meme-thing. Can one understand a meme without understanding a plot?
Thank you for the compliment. In the moment I am not so much into storytelling myself. It probably will come back, though. Have fun in the contest!
$PIZZA slices delivered:
@kemmyb(2/5) tipped @erh.germany