“Gemini Man” is Will Smith’s latest film debut, and it has already reported a $75 million loss. 

Now when a film busts as it did for Smith, one can look for faults within the film, but one must also consider alternatives. 

To start, “Gemini Man” repeated a craft seen in movies such as “Rogue 1,” a “Star Wars” standalone, where living actors are replaced with CGI counterparts. While the execution has so far been lackluster on the silver screen, when needed, the execution can be effective. 

“Rogue 1,” featured two CGI characters; a young memorable Princess Leia and Grand Moff Tarkin — Tarkin being a character who was originally portrayed by Peter Cushing who had passed away in 1994. 

While these character portrayals were present in the film, their parts were short and limited. Their participation within the film was not necessary, but their presence added a semblance of nostalgia. 

Compare this to Smith’s “Gemini Man” and the two exist in two entirely different universes. Within “Gemini Man,” the young Smith CGI recreation is present throughout much of the film, with the character being a focal point within the film. 

As a viewer, there is ample time to stare at the CGI abomination that is young Smith, where it becomes clear that some scenes garnished more effort than others. 

While at times holding up, nothing can compare to the facial expressions made by the real Smith. While the concept within “Gemini Man” is in itself interesting, as of now the technology does not hold up. 

Why did “Gemini Man” fail so miserably though? It’s not only because of the lacking CGI. 

The answer is simple. “Joker.” 

“Joker” is a movie where the simplicities of practical effects clearly overshadow the advent of modern CGI technology. The best way to explain this is to look at the simple clown make up adorned by Joaquin Phoenix. 

While it probably took a while to match up to Hollywood standards, the clown makeup that masks the Joker’s identity was perfectly simple. When it comes down to it, this is what viewers prefer. 

Film is already detached from reality, and the blend of CGI technology that is ever present in modern cinema just makes the gap larger. If one looks at the root of early cinema, one wanted to have something that could easily have happened. 

Cinema is supposed to be believable and something slightly unbelievable, but convincing enough to hold true. This is why the “Joker” was effective and why “Gemini Man” will eventually be forgotten. 

Should we give up on CGI acting altogether? Perhaps not as technology grows, but for now, I’ve learned my lesson in trusting a film that promises to house a CGI character