A Bold Experiment That Falls Short

‘Where the Robots Grow’ caused me to break my cardinal rule: I avoid writing reviews for films I can’t wholeheartedly support. That’s why you rarely see me rating a movie below a five. If I have to go there, why should anyone else have to? However, this film was specifically requested for review due to its claim of being the first full-length feature created entirely using generative AI, motion-capture, and other CGI technologies. With that in mind, I present my honest, albeit harsh, take written immediately after watching the 90-minute film on YouTube.

Though I acknowledge the great efforts likely involved in creating this film, I stand by my critique as an objective reflection of its quality. My opinions were later reinforced when I saw that IMDb ratings mirrored my own. I rated the film a 4.5, while IMDB rated it 4.8. My initial commentary was:

“‘Where the Robots Grow’ proves a completely AI-generated film can still be hampered by the ineptitude of the Humans involved.”

I don’t feel the need to apologize for that statement. Watching this film was frustrating, especially since it could have been much better if someone had brought in a script consultant or a few professionals to aid in its development. My advice: only watch this film if you’re specifically interested in exploring the intersection of generative AI and filmmaking.

The Writing: A Script in Name Only

The only significant achievement of Where the Robots Grow is that it was finished at all. Frankly, abandoning it might have been a kinder fate. The film offers nothing beyond its novelty. The dialogue is so painfully bad that silence would have been a welcome alternative. It’s filled with unnecessary exposition—characters constantly talking even when there’s no need for words.

To call this writing a “script” is generous. A script implies some level of planning, character development, or emotional investment, none of which are present here. The movie feels like a series of disconnected, digitally animated scenes that lack any emotional or intellectual engagement. The only reason to keep watching is the thought: “This is history in the making.” It claims to be the first entirely AI-generated film, and that’s its main (if not only) selling point.

If this film is a glimpse into the future—where actors, writers, and crew are replaced by mediocre digital animators—the outlook is grim. Sure, the technology will improve, but will it matter? Many films already pour more resources into digital effects than into the storytelling. See: Marvel’s Cinematic Universe or the latest Star Wars productions.

Still, the implications are staggering. Will actors be forced to digitize their likenesses to stay relevant? We’ve been discussing these concerns for years, and the recent writers’ strike only postponed the inevitable. Someone was bound to make a film like this, if only to see if it could be done. Now that it has, the proof of concept could pose a threat to the traditional film industry. This was a modest production, and I could barely find any information about the studio behind it.

Countries like China, already heavy on green-screen filmmaking, may be the first to feel the impact. They’re already advancing in digital effects and could easily transition to fully AI-generated productions, cutting costs while expanding their digital landscapes and sequences.

The Future of AI in Film: A Warning or a Promise?

That said, fully generative AI films remain a novelty rather than a serious trend. The more intricate the illusion, the higher the cost of production. Right now, it’s likely still cheaper to animate traditionally than to make a low-quality AI-generated film like Where the Robots Grow.

Yet, the relentless advancement of AI is undeniable. Every year, we’ll see more AI-driven elements in mainstream films as the technology becomes more affordable. This rise could erode the traditional studio system, much like CGI impacted set design. Soon, we may even see industries devoted to capturing real-world locations, selling them as stock footage for use in AI-generated films.

The crew complement of this production includes Steve Mosley as the executive producer, Taylor Clark-Hill as Cru, Three and Four and Nicole Bartlett as Pop and N.A.N.A. The sinister antics of Number Two were delivered by Lee Preston. Young Cru was Cory Teplizki and Little Miss was Olivia Teplizki. The film was written and directed by Tom Paton. Visual effects were produced by BigTooth Studios. The film was produced by in the UK by AiMation Studios in association with Pigeon Shrine Consultancy.

Ultimately, Where the Robots Grow marks a milestone—not for its quality, but for simply existing. It’s a piece of history, though not one of excellence. Yes, this film is historic. Historically bad. It’s not quite Birth of a Nation bad—there’s no offensive content, and it does try to present a hopeful vision of humanity’s future among the stars. But in ambition, it fails spectacularly, reminiscent of Ed Wood’s disasters.

But don’t just take my word for it — watch it and decide for yourself.