Film/TV Oct 8, 2014 at 4:00 am

In the Future, a Massive Solar Flare Can Destroy Plant Life but Not Capitalism

There are massive holes in the plot.


I've never heard of Melanie Griffith being referred to as that.
This is disappointing to read. I had hoped this might be a good movie. I love Antonio Banderas; he has more raw charisma than any 10 Hollywood stars combined. The trailer looked kind of interesting. Too bad.
So, you don't like the pretext? Ok, what about the actual movie. Isn't a review supposed to give insight into the qualities of the film - acting, direction, etc - rather than comment on the unbelievable backdrop or impossibilities in the film? Obviously a man can't fly or stop bullets but that doesn't automatically make Superman a bad movie. Hey, zombies aren't real, so 28 Days Later and Zombieland are horrible.

Why is Mudede doing movie reviews? May as well have anyone share their opinion on why a movie couldn't occur.... Garbage.
for the love of any deity you wish to mention please hire some one to review films that actually likes and understands them.

send Krishanu - he is awesome! also pay him more money!

this review and the earlier Brush With Danger review are such clear examples of charles inability to connect with film on any level other than socialism or sex that it seems he has a contempt for film that doesn't do what he thinks it should. and this is not new. HE HAS BEEN DOING THIS FOR YEARS!

charles, you are the worst film reviewer in Seattle.
Looks like a good movie from the previews.

Simply ignore this review by Muede.

He draws politics into a movie review. a movie that dares to show a future where Socialism is not dominant.

Socialism - 100 years of failure and misery proves nothing, right Charley?

Solar Flare destroys ALL Plant life. Obviously the plot is imagined by idiots with no thought to biology; an earth without plant life is an earth without animal life. Where do these 22 million hold outs get there O2 from? How do complex humanoids live without an ecology? This plot reeks more of the 20th century hooliganism of reduction-ism, the thought that we exist separately from our ecology and environment. Maybe that is the new definition of capitalism.
@1, good one.
I have to agree with the unregistereds on this one. This review drips of pretentiousness and disdain, and is chock-full of so much garbage that I wouldn't know where to start.
Does Mudede ever write anything that doesn't discuss capitalism? I mean, I'm as anti-capitalist as the next progressive-for-a-living, nonprofit activist. But everything Mudede touches becomes a vehicle for him to ham-handedly share his opinions about capitalism, even if he has to really shoe-horn them in there.
So we can add "movie reviewer" to the list of things you can't do, Charles.
I can think of many ways to approach a movie review, but Marxist economic theory isn't one of them.
Yes, how dare they suggest capitalism could survive in such an environment? This is obviously a time for classical Marxism -- From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. It works so well in similarly impoverished countries already, like North Korea.
Sounds like a sort of oddball remake of Ghost in the Shell 2
A robot repairing itself is not an indication of consciousness or self-awareness. It's a pretty rudimentary feature of technology to self-diagnose and run repairs or even upgrades. My laptop's software does it weekly, and we'll see hardware doing it before long, unless the mechanisms of capitalism forestall this advance in light of its preference for product replacement over product repair.

In fact, are you sure that's not why the thing was destroyed? In a capitalist dystopia, that's not far fetched. Death for the crime of durability.
Wait. In a post-apocalyptic world they're supposed to get the capital together to build subways? And on the one-market thing: I assume people still have jobs, right? With valuable work that robots can't do? You mentioned Cop and Insurance Adjuster in your review.
@Everyone asking "Well how did you like the movie itself?," he just told you, it's bad. Plot holes that glaring (and a plot hole is not the same as an intelligent omission; you're not Hemmingway just because you leave an explanation out, especially if you couldn't explain the omission even if you tried) tend not to be made up for by good acting, not that they usually go hand in hand. Remember Will Smith's atrocious I Am Legend? That movie blew chunks for the same reason; I would have been able to overlook Will Smith's tremendous egotism for a little while if only it had actually been consistent, but it wasn't, and this movie sounds like I, Robot got beat up in a dark alley by Elysium's aesthetics in a stained, unwashed Bladrunner t-shirt. Even with Mudede reviewing (and you guys love shitting on articles just because Mudede wrote them even though--surprise!--he provides social commentary and doesn't pretend to do otherwise), I can already feel myself preparing to cringe at the movie's atrocious attempt at social commentary and I haven't even seen it.
Of course capitalism would survive such a catastrophe. We like to think of capitalism as an organized system, which it can be, but first and foremost, it's a way people behave, a way of keeping the barter system alive in light of goods and services being traded through the intermediary of currency. I suppose we can imagine that we wouldn't, in any given future, try to organize ourselves around that principle (though even that is a stretch; socialism is really just capitalism with the state standing in for the private owner), but even in, say, a horticultural system or a hunter/gatherer system (neither of which are likely to crop up in a plantless world), some people will have more of something than they need, and will try to trade it for something else of which they're short. And so begins a market.
Saw this last night. Its good. It isnt Oscar material but it is a good "plausible future" film Go see it. Hell, Snowpiercer had plot holes, too.
the one feature i want in my RSS reader is the ability to prevent me from seeing any article by charles mudede.
This movie was very white. And I'm not talking about the white sand desert. Odd that Mr. Mudede didn't mention that aspect.

I did think that the movie did a good job of depicting a run-down future society that was slowly dying.
Reviewer is clearly an idiot who should be blogging to other horny 14 year olds.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.