Movie Review: Surrogates (2009)
This is what happens when filmmakers hope you aren't paying attention
Photo: Touchstone Pictures
All I can say is at least it is only 88 minutes long, because Surrogates is a film promising a high tech concept only to offer up a story so dumb the plot holes are evident from the opening moments and get worse and worse as the film goes on. Is there a possibility for this world to ever exist? I'm not sure if you are a pessimist or an optimist if you think it can, but I'm sitting here laughing at the balls it takes to even suggest it could… at least at the level presented here.
The cast includes Bruce Willis, Radha Mitchell, Ving Rhames, Rosamund Pike, Ned Vaughn, Boris Kodjoe and Helena Mattsson. For more information on this film including pictures, trailers and a detailed synopsis choose from the following menu.
Review
"Surrogates" is a Touchstone Pictures release, directed by Jonathan Mostow and is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence, disturbing images, language, sexuality and a drug-related scene. The running time is 1 hour 29 minutes.
Ironically enough this comes after we are told crime rates are at an all-time low as one guy has been assigned to watch over the surrogates and make sure they don't do anything bad. Let me say that one more time… One guy is the final wall of security in a world where we are led to believe everyone is plugged into these things. Everyone! A situation that apparently makes you a surrogate user or a lunatic living on made up reservations where the FBI doesn't even have jurisdiction.
Dedication to these "surries," as they're referred to, is so high humans now refer to themselves as "meat bags." Perhaps this is the world we are headed to, and in that case I would certainly have to say it's a pessimistic way to look at things, but still not a realistic or logical one.
Setting out to solve the crime of the murdered son is Greer (Bruce Willis) and Peters (Radha Mitchell), two FBI agents with what appears to be special surrogate powers such as running and jumping as if they are equipped with G.I. Joe accelerator suits. Lines are crossed, back-stabbing occurs and not everyone is who they appear to be. It's a film invested in eye-roll moments and there are several to satisfy director Jonathan Mostow's dedication.
Serving as his first theatrical film since 2003's Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, Mostow has done himself no favors with Surrogates. The idea behind this film could best be described as a cross between The Matrix and I, Robot, but the execution doesn't even begin to live up to either comparison. And I would hate to be James Cameron right about now as the inevitable comparisons to Avatar are sure to be made, but even Cameron wasn't dumb enough to propose an entire species would decide to jack themselves into artificial beings at once, because, you know, that's stupid.
As a result of the turmoil and destruction seen in Surrogates if you think the economic woes we are faced with right now are a big deal they would be nothing compared to the global economic collapse that would come as a result of Surrogates. It's impossible to predict what screenwriters Michael Ferris and John Brancato expected us to take from this and I have never read the Robert Venditti and Brett Weldele graphic novel of which their screenplay was based, but if it's anything like what is presented here I can only assume no one read the script before deciding on the film's budget and giving it the green.
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 12 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
So you're complaining that fictional movie (a science fiction movie at that) isn't realistic enough…
The graphic novel is actually pretty good, it treated a far-fetched concept with maturity and realism. From what I've seen of the flick though, they've thrown a lot of that out of the window…which is a shame because the cast was decent. I blame Mostow.
Gotta agree with the first post. It seems one of the main reasons you didn't like the movie was that you didn't find the premise of all humans using surrogates and one person in charge of security realistic. But is this any more far fetched than three agents patrolling the entire earth in the Matrix or the machines insisting on only sending one assassin back in time in each terminator film? Even in District 9 which you gave a good review to, i personally found ****SPOILERS*** the liquid the main character was exposed to transforming him into an alien, a little far fetched***** however i didn't let it dominate my overall opinion of the film which i enjoyed. My point is that since these are sci fi films they are allowed a certain degree of freedom when it comes to their concepts.
Also i found it a bit odd that your review didn't even touch on the performances of the leads or jonathan mostows direction. It really just comes off as seven paragraphs attacking the story. Now I'm not saying the movie is great but your review of it seems very uneven which is unfortunate since i generally find your reviews very informative.
You know, I didn't hate this movie, actually, when I opted to see it last night. As sci-fi, it's pretty thin, but better than "Pandorum," which I just slogged through and hated most of. I don't think all of sci-fi needs to be realistic as much as it needs to be realistically pulled off within its own universe. "Surrogates" succeeds based on that fact alone. Sort of like the somewhat undervalued "Terminator Salvation" and "G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra" (which, okay, wasn't great) in that respect. I enjoyed both passingly and much, much more than wasteful junk like "Gamer" and "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen."
@oldskool138, @beachworld and @Joel: Joel hits it on the head when he says a film "needs to be realistically pulled off within its own universe," but I don't see how he can say Surrogates succeeds based on that fact.
The universe Surrogates creates is our universe and when isn't science-fiction a metaphorical commentary on our own society? The point of a film like Surrogates is to create realism, to create an alternate reality, but a reality nonetheless. When that reality is flawed or is lacking in logic then we have a problem and if it is overwhelmingly flawed then it's even worse.
It seems odd to me a couple of you are not accepting of the reason I didn't like the movie as if I should come up with other reasons simply because I found the plot to be entirely stupid, which for some reason is not enough. I'm sorry, but that's just how it is. If you see it and disagree then that's great, we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.
As for the acting and the direction, I said all I felt I needed to say. Sometimes not saying something proves just as informative as breaking things down piece-by-piece, at least in my opinion.
Let me get this straight, Brad. You rate this piece of dog meat at the same level as Bright Star?!? (You knew I was going to ride that rating for a while, didn't you?)
)@oldskool138: Come on! We create fictional worlds with each novel that is written and every film that is shot. And sometimes we create alternative universes or times, too. But they have to follow a rule of logic and a graspable concept. How does it make sense that people randomly give up their physicality, turning their lives over to robots? What would be the advantage? Looks? We'd be better looking?!!? To whom? To other robots?
@beachworld: What did you expect Brad to say? This film makes no sense, is so ludricrous in its delivery that you can get eye strain from the eye rolls, but the performances are nuanced and riveting? This is BRUCE WILLIS, the king of the exaggerated moment and the half smile. If he doesn't have a script to hang his hat upon, he doesn't have anything to give us. And when a film is this bad, how can you possibly expect praise for the director?
The way society is today…I believe it is possible that everyone would plug into the Surrogates. Though they should've made it so you HAD to be, like there is no choice.
That said, I can't possibly believe this movie won't be really good (haven't seen it yet).
That was a bit hash! i'll give it a B+.
It is unsafe to condemn a movie just because it is unrealistic. Other than biopics, historical dramas and documentaries, I can say that 99% of all other movies are unrealistic. Maybe, you find comedies and animated features realistic; I don't. Perhaps, you may find that the scenario in "Surrogates" implausible. But, please bear in mind that this is a sci-fi movie – it is supposed to be pure fantasy. When we walk into a movie theater nowadays, we are not under any illusion that we will gain any scientific knowledge, receive any philosophical insight or experience any artistic enlightenment. If it is mere entertainment that we are after, "Surrogates" is not entirely devoid of value.
@Daniel Lee: Very well expressed. I am just tired of all the screen time and limited investment funding being used up for star vehicles that have nothing new or interesting to give us. But of course, that's very subjective.
Science fiction and comic book adaptations are not unlike the Westerns that were once so prominently churned out for many, many decades. Most were run of the mill. Just there. Once in while there was one of particular note. I shouldn't get all bent out of shape over the many poor examples of this genre we are being served up. This too shall pass.
@Daniel Lee: No offense, but can't I dislike a movie for any reason? Can't I find the reality created in one movie to be flawed to the point I don't accept it? That is all that is happening here. Surrogates created a reality, I found it to be supremely flawed and therefore did not accept it.
Every movie creates its own reality, yes, and we prove to accept or reject that reality based on the evidence and facts presented to us. Surrogates suffers from so many problems, just last night I was discussing the movie once again and rattled them off one after another.
However, in writing a review I have to be careful with what I reveal and what I don't when it comes to specific faults I find because my opinion is mine and mine alone and to spoil a film for a reader that may disagree is disrespectful. I would have loved to simply list off my problems with Surrogates in this review and left it at that, but instead I said my peace and allow for others to disagree. Does it hurt my argument to not be able to tell you everything that bothered me? Certainly, but by leaving out details I allow my readers the opportunity to enjoy a movie I didn't particularly love, which to me is more important.
@Brad Brevet: I know I'm late to the game here, but I did see Surrogates. The movie was only really ruined for me by the ending in which the "hero" proved to be little morally different than the "bad" guy.
But the reason for my post is because I've been thinking about the issue your review brings up for some time. That issue is "buy in". I passed on seeing A Knights Tale a couple of times because I happen to know a little about the historic culture of the Middle Ages. A Knights Tale is actually a modern movie showing a modern culture in a historic setting, for a modern audience. It's totally unacceptably ahistorical, despite it's pretentions. HOWEVER, I finally rented it once, and suspended my sense of stubborn disbelief, and really liked the movie! Enough to buy it! When by brother was very young, he liked to show off his knowledge. Once, when we were watching a humans with dinosaurs movie, he said, "If that dinosaur eats meat, then this movie is fake, because that type of dinosaur is a vegetarian!" We laughed and laughed, because the entire movie was fake. Dinosaurs never existed with humans. But we buy in to the story to enjoy it as we may.
'Buy in' is a neccessary ingredient to enjoy ANY movie. That's why your lack of buy in argument/reasoning failed to convince anybody. Interestingly, to me, this also seems to be somewhat the case in music, but I'm still exploring that angle.