Off In The Distant Unknown

Zone 9- Schematics 3422

In Time

In Time, starring Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried, certainly had potential and promise, yet failed to live up it.  The notion that society would take that next evolutionary leap is quite the interesting notion.  Why should anyone think that, in future societies, that man will not have created a system to prolong life for extended periods of time, if not institute a system where eternal life is possible?  We’ve already, through a better awareness for how the body works, regimented by proper diet and exercise, expanded our lifespans dramatically. 

But doesn’t this idea run counter to human biology?  I’m not that adept in this area, but from my limited knowledge I would certainly say so; that without some radical internal adjustments, it wouldn’t seem remotely possible.  But that’s why this is a movie, science fiction to be certain.  The concept in itself is an interesting one, as it provides the prompt for exploratory discussion.  This is the main reason I love when a philosophical construct is inserted into the basic premise of a book or movie.

Yet this film also, in raising a discussion on everlasting life, is also operating in a manner that goes completely against the teaching of the church.  With this system in place, God is now useless, to a certain degree.  To the best of my recall, I don’t remember seeing or hearing anything associative with religion.  Perhaps the people living in such a society are beyond prayer; perhaps they’ve simply given up altogether? 

While I’m not offended easily, I do find it interesting why any form of entertainment, would virtually throw down their gloves at religion.  Even when done under the radar, it boggles the mind.  Those building something that they intend to sell, hope to make profits from, and would be wise to avoid any such topic that could prove to be counterintuitive to their overall design.  Now, that all said, If the premise is intrinsically tied into edgy subjects than obviously there is both a case of purpose and not including such elements would be a bit of a loss, as it pertains to integrity.

Religion is a subtle attempt at ruffling feathers, whereas politics is a whole other ball of wax.  To be fair the criticism argued on talk-radio is both emblematic of what can and typically does take place when presenting “fringe” elements, as well as a bit overblown at the same time. 

The societies within this film are certainly a main part of the film.  Any attempt to water this down would certainly dampen the film.  However, those responsible for content, certainly have an agenda. 

The caste structure within In Time is broken down into zones.  It’s a system where the higher the zone, the more affluent the residents.  This is nothing shocking, in fact look around your own city and you’ll see this structure firmly in place already.  Where the film takes the extra step is by illustrating the tax structure in place in their fictional representative cities or zones.  The lower you are zone-wise, meaning the poor you are, the higher you are taxed.  The “ruling class” cite Darwin and thus equate money, in this case time, makes you more likely the fittest.  Yet in a society where everyone has the potential to live forever, that is if they can consistently buy, earn or steal enough time, then overcrowding would most definitely occur.  For this problem enter the timekeepers.

The timekeepers are simply policemen.  They ensure that time is allocated properly, that is ensuring that the higher zones contain the most time.  This idea, combined with the ever-present, almost daily, increase of the cost of living in the lower zones, means that a “natural” weeding out will take place.  It’s also extremely interesting how the “law” of this future time are not concerned with murder or any act we would most likely deem as criminal in this time.  Instead they say as such, only concerning themselves in keeping the status quo safeguarded.

While the philosophical and sociological elements in this film are pretty interesting to delve into, the film lacks in the majority of the other areas necessary for a good production.

First, the acting is commonplace.  There is nothing special by any of the actors in this film.  Olivia Wilde (House, Cowboys & Aliens etc…) and Matt Bomar (White Collar) do the best job in this regard, despite both of their characters being killed off within the first fifteen minutes of the film.

Next is a cinematography that offers nothing special outside a nice contrast between the highest and lowest population zones.  Other than that it’s a whole lot of continual repetition throughout.

Finally, the plot itself falls flat.  While the philosophical questions and socio-economic conditions are certainly the backbone of the piece, outside of motivation they’re second-seated throughout the entire showing.  What this film becomes then is a simple rehashing of Robin Hood, where the two main characters, travel around robbing banks and stealing time, all in an effort to level the playing field and assisting the poor.  While this is a noble premise, and I love the Robin Hood stories, it’s been done and putting the setting in the far off future doesn’t incite sparks as those previous “steal from the rich, give to the poor” tales have been providing for years.

The film, in my opinion, should have stuck to what I believe they wanted to do, which is explore the philosophical constructs further.  I won’t criticize the writers for deviating their course though.  They simply did what they thought they had to do to sell a film.  With that said the film would’ve been better off exploring it’s initial dynamics more profoundly, with unknown actors, and a much smaller budget, which would afford them the luxury of low overhead, meaning “arthouses” would be the likely locale.  And if we’ve learned anything in the past twenty years, arthouse films can make a profit.  If the film is good people will go see it, regardless of what type of cinema it’s showing in.

Overall the film is about a C+ if I had to provide a grade.  It’s probably one you’d rather wait for on Blu-Ray, DVD or even pay-per-view though.  If you still choose to go see In Time on the big screen, just keep your expectations in check, especially if you were drawn to this film based on the premises hinted at through its trailers.

Real Steel Review

I didn’t have any intention of seeing this film.  Things change though when you misread the show times for another film, in this case, The Ides Of March, and find out that there isn’t any movie you haven’t already seeing, outside of Dream House of course, which I just won’t see, except for Real Steel.  So you buy your ticket, overpay for the soda and sit down in the dark.

The trailers are always an interesting sign of what demographic Hollywood feels fits the feature.  In this case, Puss In Boots was first up, followed by One For The Money, Immortals, and Breaking Dawn Part I closed things off.  I really didn’t get any interesting insights from the trailers, except, after seeing the final trailer, I’m pretty confident the Twilight series will rebound from the last lackluster showings in a big way. 

Every time I viewed the Real Steel trailers, whether on television or on the big screen, I couldn’t get the image of Rock ‘em, Sock ‘em Robots out of my head.  The movie just looked bad.  Anyhow what’s done is done and cannot be undone.  The movie wasn’t very good, but it wasn’t nearly as bad as I thought it would be.

In a nutshell this film shows the fall of a professional boxer, his unlikely ascension into the world of robotic boxing and his rapidly deteriorating career and personal life.  He owes debts to everyone and their third sister-in-laws.  He’s a deadbeat dad.  He’s ruining anything that could be conceived as good in his life.  But more than anything he’s a desperate delusional, looking for a way back.

While the acting wasn’t anything to write about, and therefore I choose not to in any substantial detail, it should be said that the acting was a mixture of sloppy to melodramatic.  Really, the best acting done in the film was done by Atom, the old school robot Hugh Jackman’s character and his son found in a junkyard, then revitalized and trained for a boxing stint, and outside of the boxing itself, all Atom actually did was occasionally blink his, if you want to place gender on him, eyes a bit here and there.

There’s a few interesting reflections upon society in the film though.  In a pretty neat topical discussion on boxing, how the sport evolved from sparring to boxing to wrestling, to MMA and its offspring, and then eventually to this world of robotic boxing.  But outside of this pugilistic analysis, it also shows how the sport adapted out of necessity, which is integral to the survival of a species.  People hungered for more and more brutality, unstated but I’m assuming is somewhat related to the economical conditions drawing an eagerness for the mind to live vicariously through the battles in the ring, and eventually they wanted the type of destruction that human beings just couldn’t provide, thus birthing the sport, if you want to call it that, of robotic boxing.  The cultural and economical dearth is shown pretty prominently throughout the film, as, while set in the future, we see how so many underground robot leagues were seemingly everywhere, as people just needed to search for hope, and in so doing, as many often do, they turn to the illegal, and to gambling.  Outside of the potential monetary gains, it can be guessed that all people really were looking for was a distraction.  But I’ve begun to tangent my discussion away from the review at hand, therefore I shall return now.

The story is billed as an underdog story, which it is part.  Atom is a sparring bot that isn’t supposed to be able to compete with the big boys, and their sizes depict this very nicely, as far as a visual comparison can make that case.  This boxing underdog story is but the surface storyline. 

The real story is about a father who never even seemed to care about anyone outside of himself, and seemingly didn’t give two winks about the son he fathered.  You also have the son who, just losing his mother, and is being bought and sold by his family members, his rich aunt and husband being the buyers and his father the seller.  The boy isn’t happy about the turn of events and the position he’s been put in, but more than anything else, he’s distraught by the fact that his father doesn’t seem to care about him at all, and that’s really all he’s ever wanted, the love of a dad.

The story then continues by depicting their relationship and its evolution, going from bad to good as the film moves forward.  But unstated, each of these characters needed the other in more ways than a father and son relationship would imply.  The father needed the son to provide that spark to his career, rejuvenating his defeatist mentality, blossoming it into one of hope.  He also needed his son’s stubbornness and conflicting personality to draw a comparison to his own, primarily for the purpose of showing him what he really needs to do in life, take care of his own.  The son, as stated needs a father, he needs a winner.  The wants and desires of the two characters collide and then merge into one as the film finishes up, wrapped up by a feel good ending.

The story is rushed too quickly though.  It moves from point A to point B in an unrealistic fashion, although I guess you have to take it for what it is, after all it is a story set in the future revolving around the world of robotic boxing. 

Overall Real Steel has its metaphors and allusions and there are positives to take out of it, but more over it’s not a burden to sit through.  The boxing scenes are rather good and the sociological glimpse into a potential future is interesting as well.  If you do go and see this film, take it for what it is, and for what it’s not.  If possible just enjoy the break from your own problems and try to make the most of your experience.  Would I have seen this movie if it weren’t due to a miscue on my own part?  Probably not, but I’m not ruing the twelve dollars either.  The film, on most accounts and my own, was probably not worth the money I spent to see it, but there have been so many movies that were far worse.  So, I look at that money bought me a little over two hours of reprieve, which is never a bad thing.  Maybe never is too concrete, but I think my point is understood.