This movie is about a silicon valley snowflake--the alpha-snowflake in a troupe of snowflakes. They form a circle of dinner-partying friends, including man-bun Ken, that has become cliche in television and movies.
The protagonist, Marc, is reanimated in 2084, but the technology is closer to what I would expect in 2030 at the latest. The future he is reanimated into is never shown. I assume this was done deliberately to maintain the sense of sterile hopelessness that ultimately consumes him.
Marc is an unimaginative self-centered garden-variety atheist who "knows" there is no afterlife because he has not been there. He ultimately proselytizes at length about the utter meaninglessness of life that his unique experience has revealed to him and decides to kill himself and take action to keep his old girlfriend (a character from The Big Chill) from ever being resurrected. Marc does not have the foresight to realize that, even though his resurrection is profoundly lacking, technology will inevitably be mastered that makes it possible for him to be completely normal and, relative to his original life, considerably superior.
The film is filled with the typical indictments of industry and medical research that one expects from snowflake dinner-party movies. The doctor is predictably ambitious and only somewhat regretful of the horrors he has caused in the process of attempting to resurrect countless prior subjects before this final pseudo-success. He is prompted, at one time, to say, "What did you expect, a miracle?"
To this, I would have answered, "No, but I expected you to wait and revive me when you were finally capable of something better than this botch-job."
The resurrection itself is done with technology that can easily be extrapolated from present research. The main "nurse" in the story is impressed at seeing artificial muscles. Marc is resurrected without the ability to consume at least some nutrients through his mouth and has to be regularly connected to a mechanical umbilical cord. He is fragile and prone to all sorts of maladies.
This is not so much a futurist movie, or an earth-bound variant of Passengers, as it is a remake of Frankenstein's Monster. Instead of having visible scars on the outside, all of Marc's scars, except the umbilical cord, are on the inside. Marc's hair begins to grow back, but he deliberately has it shaven off (why) and maintains his embryonic appearance of superhuman frailty.
This movie was made by people who, instead of starting with technology and working backward to the story, started with the view of the human condition they wished to portray and forced science and events to conform to their predetermined tale. No one has ever died and been resurrected, but the writers assure us that they have been there and that there is nothing behind the curtain. They use numerous visuals of death, dying and cruelty to reinforce their all-encompassing view. The end product is depressing, melodramatic nonsense.
I gave this movie three stars instead of one because it held my attention to the depressing pointless meaningless wrongheaded end.
The protagonist, Marc, is reanimated in 2084, but the technology is closer to what I would expect in 2030 at the latest. The future he is reanimated into is never shown. I assume this was done deliberately to maintain the sense of sterile hopelessness that ultimately consumes him.
Marc is an unimaginative self-centered garden-variety atheist who "knows" there is no afterlife because he has not been there. He ultimately proselytizes at length about the utter meaninglessness of life that his unique experience has revealed to him and decides to kill himself and take action to keep his old girlfriend (a character from The Big Chill) from ever being resurrected. Marc does not have the foresight to realize that, even though his resurrection is profoundly lacking, technology will inevitably be mastered that makes it possible for him to be completely normal and, relative to his original life, considerably superior.
The film is filled with the typical indictments of industry and medical research that one expects from snowflake dinner-party movies. The doctor is predictably ambitious and only somewhat regretful of the horrors he has caused in the process of attempting to resurrect countless prior subjects before this final pseudo-success. He is prompted, at one time, to say, "What did you expect, a miracle?"
To this, I would have answered, "No, but I expected you to wait and revive me when you were finally capable of something better than this botch-job."
The resurrection itself is done with technology that can easily be extrapolated from present research. The main "nurse" in the story is impressed at seeing artificial muscles. Marc is resurrected without the ability to consume at least some nutrients through his mouth and has to be regularly connected to a mechanical umbilical cord. He is fragile and prone to all sorts of maladies.
This is not so much a futurist movie, or an earth-bound variant of Passengers, as it is a remake of Frankenstein's Monster. Instead of having visible scars on the outside, all of Marc's scars, except the umbilical cord, are on the inside. Marc's hair begins to grow back, but he deliberately has it shaven off (why) and maintains his embryonic appearance of superhuman frailty.
This movie was made by people who, instead of starting with technology and working backward to the story, started with the view of the human condition they wished to portray and forced science and events to conform to their predetermined tale. No one has ever died and been resurrected, but the writers assure us that they have been there and that there is nothing behind the curtain. They use numerous visuals of death, dying and cruelty to reinforce their all-encompassing view. The end product is depressing, melodramatic nonsense.
I gave this movie three stars instead of one because it held my attention to the depressing pointless meaningless wrongheaded end.