Why do *so* many aging fluorescent bulbs go unreplaced in the future?

Rating: 4/10 (25 January 2012)

Sorry, I just don't buy it: I sincerely think the emperor lacks clothes, here.
Everyone talks about the back story and the mom/daughter bonding and the conflict and all that, but why do I get the impression that at heart all this was a dim premise to generate a bunch of CGI heat? I know I'm fully capable of resonating with a compelling myth; don't tell me I just "don't get it".
I really don't belong here: Movies like this are almost another species of public entertainment. I love love love lo-tech flicks that pry my heart open and remind me of what truth, beauty, and heroism really are.
This is a great movie if non-stop violent action with little-to-no motivational narrative support floats your boat. I mean that: I have enough imagination to realize that there is a significant demographic that digs this, and more power to them and the sector of the film system that caters to them. But if you like a great story and you like to be truly touched by something beautiful in a movie, don't be surprised if this flick leaves you cold.
Well, this film does leave us with one powerful existential question: Why, in the future, are public spaces lit solely by fluorescent bulbs that flicker on and off incessantly? Will epilepsy have been completely eradicated by then? Are the janitors frequently on strike?