Review: Surrogates
Filed under: Sci-Fi & Fantasy, New Releases, Disney, Theatrical Reviews, New in Theaters

Some science fiction films take us to different worlds or alternate realities, or offer visions of the future. In each of these new worlds, certain new rules apply. Sometimes the rules are pretty simple and can be easily and clearly established, as in Star Trek or District 9. Other times the rules are exceedingly complex and raise a million questions, as in the new Surrogates, which is based on a comic book by Robert Venditti and Brett Weldele. In this future world, humans can strap themselves into a chair, plug themselves into a bunch of sensors and have complete control of an artificial being, including movement, speech and senses. This artificial being can then go out into the world to perform daily tasks, while the real person is safe at home, never risking getting hit by a car or falling down a manhole.
From there, things get sticky. A narrator explains to us that 98% of the population uses the surrogates, and later a character says something about a "billion" users. Last time I checked, a billion was only about 20% (or less) of the population. Plus, how much do these surrogates cost? Can all the poor people of the world afford them? We do get to see a few things like a surrogate bringing home food for its owner to eat, and other points in which surrogates freeze up while their owners use the bathroom, but just how do people go about their daily lives? Some of the users look like they're in pretty bad shape, sitting in their chairs. Is using a surrogate physically or emotionally addicting? Do their muscles atrophy? Do they take showers? Do they ever get together to have sex? Has the population gone down because of too much surrogate sex and not enough human sex?
Then there are the physical aspects. Some of the surrogates seem to have super-powers. One of them, belonging to an FBI agent, jumps from the roof of a moving car to the roof of a moving bus. Is this something that just anyone can do, or is it specific to the Bureau? Some of the surrogates seem pretty sturdy, but others can be taken down by a couple of bullets, or by poking them in the right spot at the back of their skull. Just how strong are they? The movie shows us images of very plain-looking military surrogates, but in another scene, non-surrogate human soldiers are dispatched into a scene of violence. Why? These are just some of the things I want to know, and a movie just about a day in the lives of the surrogates and their owners would be pretty interesting to me, but Surrogates is instead about a murder, something unusual and unique in a safe, risk-free world.
A man meets a blonde at a nightclub and vacates to the back alley for some nookie. There, a man on a motorcycle shoots them with something that knocks them down and burns out their eyes. Unfortunately, it turns out that the surrogate fail-safe device has not kicked in and that the two human operators have also died. The girl turns out to have been operated by a fat guy, and the guy turns out to have been the son of Dr. Lionel Canter (James Cromwell), the inventor of the surrogates. We learn that Canter originally developed them to give the disabled an advantage in life, but he was later fired by the giant corporation, VSI, that continues to manufacture the surrogates. Canter now lives as a recluse.
FBI agents Greer (Bruce Willis) and Peters (Radha Mitchell), who of course work their dangerous job in surrogate form, turn up to investigate. They discover the existence of a dangerous weapon, and they find their suspect. A chase scene leads Greer to the compound of "The Dreads," a small community/cult that refuses to have anything to do with the surrogates. They are led by "The Prophet" (Ving Rhames), who promises a rebellion. Greer sticks his nose in the wrong place, and his surrogate is destroyed, forcing him to finish the case in his human form. He quickly collects a series of painful cuts and bruises to remind him of his humanity; he eventually decides that he'd like to see his wife (Rosamund Pike) in person for once, and that maybe this whole thing was a bad idea.
Director Jonathan Mostow (Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines) turns in a fairly clean, tight film that looks great -- especially the weird, scrubbed, polished look of the surrogates -- and with the requisite number of car crashes and helicopter explosions. And it's pretty certain that he favors the idea of humans over the artificial alternative; it's a potent theme in this age of iPhones and Blackberries and whatnot. But it's more of a thriller than a cautionary tale, and it doesn't go very deep in either direction. (Steven Spielberg's sci-fi double-bill from earlier in the decade, A.I. Artificial Intelligence and Minority Report, took on all these ideas with a great deal more thoughtfulness and skill.) Ironically, what's really missing from Surrogates is the human element; the movie has no concept that some people might see both the good and the bad in the surrogates. Instead it assumes that all flesh-and-blood individuals are either for or against them, like a digital switch that can be flipped from "1" to "0." We humans deserve better.










Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
9-25-2009 @ 10:40AM
J said...
Reviews like this annoy me to no end.
If you went into the movie looking to psycho-analyze the universe that the filmmakers are trying to create, why bother?
This is stupid.
Reply
9-25-2009 @ 11:14AM
shadowracer said...
Movies and shows that make you think kick ass. Case and point: 2001 a Space Odyssey and Lost.
Those bot designs look so boring. Plus this movie sounds a lot like I, Robot.
Why doesn't someone go give Alfonso Cuaron a garbage truck of money and have him make Ghost in the Shell - it would probably be some of the best sci-fi of all time. Stop wasting time studios.
9-25-2009 @ 12:01PM
MosquitoControl said...
Viewers like you annoy me to no end.
If you go into a movie and ignore plot holes and overal stupidity, well, you're probably something of an idiot.
My brain has no on-off switch. I can't walk into a movie theater and lower my IQ by 75 points. If something in a movie is mostly retarded I'm going to be bothered by it. Yes, movies don't have to be based in our reality, but they need to be based in some reality. If there are surrogates why are humans still being used for war? This would need some kind of explanation that makes sense in its world.
I haven't seen the movie yet but I feared these plot holes. I know the movie involves surrogates dying so Bruce Willis goes out in human form, but my question was how much does that really minimize risk? If people usually do dumb things, since it's just a surrogate, isn't being a frail human in this world extra dangerous? Wouldn't it be easier to kill him than do whatever special action kills surrogates? Humans are surprisingly easy to kill, especially if being attacked by what's essentially a robot with no fear of pain...
9-25-2009 @ 11:09AM
filmsuki said...
I wish you guys would put a summary of your review in the first paragraph teaser. It's annoying to have to skim through spoilers trying to find whether or not you liked it....and then only to find there's no rating, and an unclear idea of your opinion. :\
Teaser summary + rating + perhaps a point form of lights and dislikes at the end = informative review.
Reply
9-25-2009 @ 11:15AM
shadowracer said...
His closing sentence sums it up perfectly.
"Instead it assumes that all flesh-and-blood individuals are either for or against them, like a digital switch that can be flipped from "1" to "0." We humans deserve better."
Cinematical I like your reviews as they are, but in order to avoid the needles comments about reviews please create a ratings system. Either give the movies 1 - 5 stars, rate on a scale of 1-10, or give letter grades F-A.
9-26-2009 @ 2:44AM
Taylor said...
actually 98 percent of all the people on the planet have used a surrogate at one time, that does not mean that all 98 are plugged in right now. Check your facts or don't write a review.
Reply
9-25-2009 @ 1:40PM
ML said...
There are plenty of places where you can find summary reviews. Does every place have to provide capsule reviews and simple star ratings? Why not go to rottentomatoes.com and look for the consensus (currently 42%). Or you can check imdb.com for a review round-up.
I like seeing a thoughtful review that has something to say about the filmmaker's intentions ("psycho-analyze", if you will). If you're at Cinematical reading a review, I think you can expect a certain amount of "spoilage," so if you've already read one review here, you can say "fooled me twice."
Reply
9-25-2009 @ 7:09PM
madgamer said...
I thought the movie was a lot better than this review would indicate. Some of the gripes, including the whole third paragraph, seemed to be explained right in the film (there were vastly different surrogate models, and to explain the human soldiers thing would be a bit spoiler-ish). I would recommend seeing it if you like sci-fi action type stuff.
Reply
9-28-2009 @ 2:09AM
Howard Holton said...
I saw the movie opening day and have a few issues with it as well:
1. No decent public transportation. Since all the "people" on the street are surrogates you would think that a decent public transportation system would have been invented, or at least an "autodrive" system. Seems like in the future you never leave your house, yet the commute to work still sucks.
2. The only time you see kids is in the "reservation". At no point do children appear, though a reference is made. You would think there would have been a few in the street scenes, if surrogates has caused a population drop the legal argument would have gone out the window, no government can survive without future generations.
3. In reality it is a silly idea. I may not like having to go into the office, but if I was to go there virtually, why bother making it in reality - why not a virtual world that does not need to conform to the laws of physics? I guess if you work in manufacturing or research, but even then, manufacturing would be replaced by robotics to save costs and I do not think that hardware prototyping would be more than 10% of the time.
Overall the movie was fun, but in no way did I feel like I could suspend my disbelief. The Matrix felt more possible.
Reply
10-06-2009 @ 11:58AM
adele said...
Watch it online http://movies-land.net/
http://watch-movie-online-free.com/
http://free-movies-on-line.com/
Reply