A movie who wanted much, but settled for less

Rating: Null/10 (24 March 2011)

I guess casting is for the viewer like naming a new baby for the persons who meet the baby: one cant's compare what it sees to what might have been. The movie it is what it is with these here actors. But this movie just gave me the feeling of bad casting. The actors are too sturdy, too... something for their parts. Maybe it's the subject's fault, all that talking about adjustment made me wonder how would it have been if someone would have adjusted the cast.
Besides this sensation, the idea is interesting, yet it fails to create an atmosphere, an universe. Matrix had that, for example. There are no important buildings, places, landscapes that would fix the cornerstones of such an universe. It's a miss.
I also resented the sharing of human history in slices, out of which some were watched by these agents, others not. Sounded too manipulative, why assume again that the humans by themselves are bad and only guided by mysterious others can be better? Why not the other way, since it's fiction? The bad humans idea is so used that it's all worn out...
I cannot compare it with the written story(never read it), so I will not judge the book from 1954, but the movie from 2011. And for this age, the ending is also a fail: announcing the winners like in a game show, talking about fighting for the free will, it's all so old and corny.
We have the "fabric of our universe" idea, the "guardians" or "watchers" idea, the multiple choice destiny idea, not many of them logically explained, even in a fictional way.
And what's with the hats? We have them at René Magritte, we have them in Fringe..now here. Anybody care to explain more about the hats obsession or symbolism?
These being said, I had the impression of a movie who wanted much, but settled for less.