"Companion" exudes exactly the kind of self-important arrogance it desperately tries to parody

The massive success of Netflix’s futuristic thriller series “Black Mirror” has left burgeoning filmmakers and storytellers fighting to get their work made using a double-edged sword. On one hand, the show has widened the public’s eyes and sharpened their focus on matters of technocratic domination, which is essential for art and media as we move further into the post-digital age. (How that collective fear didn’t stop Elon Musk from becoming a right-hand man-child to the president, I’ll never quite understand.) On the other, its popularity has resulted in a deluge of screenplays that mimic the series’ distinct brand of terror, hoping that viewers will respond to that “Black Mirror” flavor, even if it’s been watered-down to a faint, sour-tasting suggestion.

This onslaught of ignorant “Black Mirror” copycats has reached such cultural saturation that even saying the phenomenon sounds like a plotline from the show feels obnoxiously trite. But what other word than “dystopia” is there for a world where smart techno-thrillers have been all but erased to make way for bland regurgitations of better movies? The latest of these witless reiterations is writer-director Drew Hancock’s debut feature “Companion,” a movie with a decently clever premise that’s squandered right out of the gate, both by the film’s marketing and the movie itself. An early teaser trailer indicated that “Companion” could be a fun, freaky good time, while a more recent spate of promotion revealed the film’s central plot point that its initial marketing took care to keep under wraps. With that key narrative element out in the open, the movie’s beats are all too easy to predict, diffusing what little humor there was left to garner from its meager amount of twists. 

But even going in blind couldn’t save a movie like “Companion,” which has been so clearly inspired by recent films of a similar ilk that its attempt at a thesis statement shrinks from banal to downright offensive. The movie cobbles together the capitalist perversions of “Fresh,” the mechanics of “Ex Machina,” the futuristic chauvinism of “Don’t Worry Darling” and the self-satisfied showboating of “Barbarian” into a smug Frankenstein’s monster of movies that were, aside from the first two, not much better than “Companion” to begin with. Its comedic elements are bafflingly one-note and conventional, but worst of all, they’re devoid of any perspective or insightful commentary, despite Hancock’s many attempts to send up the poison of masculinity throughout the film. Instead, “Companion” is content with being a rough draft of a movie about objectification, a lazy first pass that hopes its audience will mistake the insinuation of progressivism for the actual philosophy.

If you’re worried about spoilers in this review, don’t be: “Companion” serves up almost all of its twists on a silver platter right at the beginning. (Others have already endured a spoiler sneak attack while watching the trailer play before other theatrical releases.) We meet Iris (Sophie Thatcher), who is meandering through a grocery store dressed in a 1960s Priscilla Presley babydoll look. She seems almost out of place with the modernity of her surroundings, but that’s of no concern to Josh (Jack Quaid), who is mesmerized by Iris over a display of produce. After their meet cute, the two get to talking and hit it off, quickly falling into the patterns of your typical loving relationship. However, this relationship is anything but ordinary, as we soon find out when Josh and Iris head out of town for a group trip with two fellow couples: Kat (Megan Suri) and her boyfriend Sergey (Rupert Friend), and Eli (Harvey Guillén) and his boyfriend Patrick (Lukas Gage). 

Lukas Gage as Patrick, Harvey Guillén as Eli, and Jack Quaid as Josh in "Companion” (Courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures)But already, things seem out of order. The honeymoon phase of Iris and Josh’s relationship feels rushed, culminating in this abrupt couples getaway that pops up out of nowhere. Barreling into the film’s central action does set up a later reveal, but it also provides Hancock with an excuse to hurry toward the first twist so fast that audiences won’t be able to keep their wits about them. If Hancock spent more time fleshing out his characters, perhaps the rapidly paced events of the movie’s first act wouldn’t cause such whiplash. But, suddenly, there’s Iris, in a fight for her life against Sergey, who is attempting to sexually assault her not far from everyone else’s view. Iris stabs a nearby knife into Sergey’s neck in self-defense and runs back to the swanky, shared house to tell everyone what happened.

The ensuing panic confuses both the viewer and Iris, until Josh delivers a voice command that shuts Iris’ programming down. Yes, Iris is a robot — more specifically a sex robot, though she doesn't realize her own mechanical identity. She was purchased as the key part of a loony conspiracy thought up by Josh and Kat to have Sergey killed in a way that wouldn’t implicate either of them, so the clandestine lovebirds could make off with his dough. The fact that Josh could have sex with Iris in the meantime was just a gross bonus. 

Maybe this reveal would feel meaningful if it didn’t come at the film's outset, or if the audience was allotted enough time to believe that Josh might be a genuinely good guy before the rug is pulled from under them. Unfortunately, “Companion” treats those simple requests like luxury perks, opting to deliver its decent concept in the cheapest possible package. Josh and Kat are mere sketches of villains, driven by nothing but baseless greed that Hancock never bothers to dig into. They’re like Boris and Natasha, if Boris and Natasha had gay sidekicks whose equally unsurprising side plot would’ve made a more thorny and altogether insightful critique of contemporary social politics.

Once Iris wakes up tied to a chair, you can begin mapping out what will occur from there on out — escape, struggle, another escape, more struggling as the body count rises — save for one or two fortuitous bits that earn a few chuckles. (A scene where Iris alters her language settings in a sticky situation is the best in the entire film.) Viewers are left to spend the remainder of the movie wondering how Iris’ certain revenge could be remotely satisfying when she’s battling against such rudimentary archetypes. Depicting the casually abusive, chauvinist male pig we’ve seen countless times before isn’t unique enough to warrant inflicting audiences with more run-of-the-mill sequences of abject violence against women, or even robots who look like women. The total lack of subtext makes the film frustrating to watch, even if we know Josh will get his comeuppance. Seeing an evil man get exactly what he deserves may provide some fleeting wish fulfillment, but that inevitable scene where Iris takes back her power doesn’t make “Companion” an inherently feminist text.

But for its throng of faults, the movie does sport a critical saving grace that keeps it from being completely unwatchable: its achingly human star. Sophie Thatcher has the artistic skillset to keep “Companion” from being an outright catastrophe, and it’s her alone who makes the film interesting enough to keep on with it. She’s convincing for both the 10 minutes viewers think Iris is human and the 80 minutes they know she’s a robot. Watching her rise above such a flat and uninspired script with total conviction is a major testament to her ability and deserves to be lauded. 

Yet, how fitting that Iris has a titanium spine, given that Thatcher has been carrying all of her recent projects on her back. “Companion” is only the latest in a slew of material undeserving of Thatcher’s talents. She ably went toe to toe with Hugh Grant just a few months ago in the religious horror flick “Heretic,” and in just a couple of weeks, she’ll return for the third season of Showtime’s “Yellowjackets,” where she established herself as MVP long before the show went off the rails in its second installment. Some might say that Thatcher is paying her dues in Hollywood, juggling all sorts of material as she works toward a proper breakthrough. While that might be true, she’s already proven to be more than a contending scream queen, a fact that “Companion” confirms once more. Thatcher can play funny, sweet and completely scorching — and jump between them at will. She’s the film’s sole draw, but Thatcher's expertise can’t save it from short-circuiting in the end.

Hancock throws out broad questions about autonomy, pleasure and choice that Thatcher would be ably capable of grappling with onscreen, but “Companion” doesn’t care to begin answering them. Instead, the film is content with falling back on goofy, predictable gags and brief action setpieces too tepid to be true crowdpleasers. “Companion” is confident, but with so little to back it up, that confidence comes off as arrogance, making the film feel ironically steeped in the pernicious masculine tone it’s trying to lampoon. 

It's doubly unsettling to see a film so cocksure at the start of Donald Trump's second term, when we must be extra cautious of movies that have all the buzzy language of political statements, but fall apart when you try to unravel them. Though it's a case of bad timing, “Companion” is hollow in the same way. It's a movie that waves its hands and makes big, peacocking gestures as though it’s saying something, despite not having much more to say than, “Guys still suck.” Walk outside and turn your body slowly in a complete circle and you’ll be able to deduce the same conclusion without paying the price of admission.