Gimmicks of men

Rating: 3/10 (14 February 2009)

This movie is difficult for me because I can't quite figure out how to articulate exactly how this film falls short, but I'm going to give it a try and see what happens. First, I'll say that overall the movie, for what it was, was done OK. I was in the moment the majority of the time, sort of. But distraction doesn't equal real reward. Actually, this is usually my biggest gripe about anything purporting itself to be "artistic" or real cinema, that it is simply a distraction: "I'd like to forget I'm alive for the next two hours so I can get lost in something.. but nothing more please!" Or maybe it isn't trying to be anything but a distraction, who am I to say? But either way, the foundation of this movie is gimmick. Gimmick gimmick gimmick. You'll see what I mean. I'll start with the more minor points, to make some points, and also to second the opinions of many others..
Blood on the camera: gimmick. What does that add to the movie? Or is it more "real", bringing me back to the fact that I'm looking at a film frame made on a Hollywood set? The hand-held thing, especially in the woods, if anything made me feel like I was a wolf waiting to attack our characters. Either way, I don't know what kind of message I am supposed to be getting about a pulsating camera holder, especially in scenes with no one even in the frame.. Gimmick. Then there is the military seeing the first baby born in years, then like a tank of goldfish completely forgetting, going on to fight some more. Not only was that absurd, but it was also almost unclear WHY they happened to be attacking that building with tanks and everything, just at that moment, when the Only Baby On Earth was inside.. And this film also features the most noisy "smooth" exodus from a compound of guys standing around with guns 5 feet away. And the car door taking the same guy out, twice? First, Really?? Second, Gimmick.
In addition. There was hardly any character development. Now, granted, everyone is shooting half the time so it isn't like they are going to be sitting around debating Nietzsche or something. But, these characters are stoic, monk-like. They hardly seem invested at all, except when they are about to die or think they are about to die. Otherwise the carnage around them apparently doesn't bother them too much, unless it's way too close. In the building at the end of the movie, Clive continues to nonchalantly walk in front of open windows while the whole British army is knocking people off all around him from outside. And let's not forget how at the very end the air force decides to start air bombing the hell out of a city with their troops scattered throughout. Or how old Clive managed to paddle what appears to be miles with a bullet in his stomach. And, I hardly cared that he died. He was THAT developed. Wait, I forgot that the miracle baby was delivered in perhaps the quickest and most pain free birth in the history of man. Just a few minutes of screaming and POP.
But let me get to the real problem. All that other stuff would just be good humor in the face of an OK movie. At least worth 6 stars, right? No. No! No! Because the whole GD movie was a big gimmick. This movie is the definition of gimmick. Gimmicky characters walking around a gimmicky world with gimmicky TV's and gimmicky military and gimmicky everything. I'll do my best to articulate what I'm complaining about. This whole movie runs on one thing, the last woman on earth that has a baby. But that's it. This is our justification, our only justification, for everything else that happens. It's cheap, plain and simple. A gimmick. This is the only "thought-provoking" part of the whole movie. I'd rather they would have just left it out and left the whole thing ambiguous. That would have been a lot more fun for me, just the experience of society falling apart for some reason. But no. The apocalypse will come because of.. infertility? Governments collapse from not having babies? Really? So THAT is what will cause the breakdown in government. Not foreign relations, scarcity of oil, food, water, etc etc. But infertility. The word "orwellian" will soon be replaced when we see how insightful this film is in time.. and every other justification is just as gimmicky.
OK OK, I'll stop talking S and get to the point: Just because the film REFERENCES something doesn't mean it CONSIDERS it. This film just name-drops subject matter, a small series of really bad excuses for a long chase scene. This film is like if I came over to your house, spattered a few post-it notes with words like "homeland security", or "just imagine being on a bus and feeling like you are going to a concentration camp", and you go, twitter, facebook, and myspace the hell out of the internet, about how GD thought-provoking I am and how great I am to have as a friend.
A good movie, in my opinion, is more than distraction. It's about giving me an Experience. Reflecting back towards me. Maybe even giving me an insight or two about life. This didn't have these things. It was a 90 minute chase scene thriller. I don't need everything explained to me to enjoy it, but don't treat me like an idiot by "explaining" the movie in a cheap way.. I'd rather they just skipped the pretensions. Enjoy it for a not-so-hot chase scene, but don't go talking about thought-provoking. Clear out the spider webs of your mind, there is a lot more thought-provoking out there, in any medium, than this film.