SURROGATES - great sci-fi future-shocker

[DubiousComforts]

I was pleasantly surprised by this film. Surrogates is a great sci-fi future-shocker, much like a modern-day version of Westworld. If there was ever a film where the premise benefits from having actors that look like fashion models or action sequences that depict super-human abilities, this is the film. Nearly flawless use of CGI effects that were well-integrated into the story.

My primary criticism is that this film could have easily justified a two-hour running time in order to have explored in greater detail the idea of a world where people live vicariously through machines (wink wink, nudge nudge, know what I mean?) Typical Hollywood protocol of shoehorning every good idea into a 90-minute box.

Anyone know how well the film follows the comic series?

[zombie04]

It's good to hear that. I've been waiting for another good Bruce Willis movie to come out for quite some time. Die Hard 4 was enjoyable for the most part, but lets not get into that can of worms.

[MinionZombie]

Just got back from watching it.

Indeed, it's a slim running time, so there's not a lot of room to really explore what having all these surrogates running around really means ... plus it is more about the spectacle, rather than the idea (which is what sets truly great sci-fi apart from the mainstream) ... also, it's a shame it was a PG-13/12A.

I mean it did have some violence, and shockingly for a PG-13 some BLOOD, but hmmm ... needed a smidge more juice to it for added pump, but it still worked - if it had been a longer film, and therefore more thoughtful on the whole surrogacy thing, then it would have really needed a higher rating to really explore the idea of surrogacy.

Still, coming from Mostow, it's a hell of a lot better than Terminator 3, and quite possibly the history-raping U-571 (it's been absolutely years since I've seen that, hence "quite possibly" rather than anything definite).

[blind2d]

I will now be sure to rent this.
U-571 raped history? Guess it's been a while for me too...

[acealive1]

reminded me of I,Robot. then i saw james cromwell is in it. kinda odd

[MinionZombie]

reminded me of I,Robot. then i saw james cromwell is in it. kinda odd

Aye, I had the same feeling when I was watching it too.


I will now be sure to rent this.
U-571 raped history? Guess it's been a while for me too...

*flies off to teh intarwebz for a moment, comes back*

* It was British personnel from HMS Bulldog who first captured a naval Enigma machine, from U-110 in the North Atlantic May 1941, before the United States entered the war.

* The real U-571 was never involved in any such events, was not captured, and was in fact sunk in January 1944, off Ireland, by a Short Sunderland flying boat from No. 461 Squadron, Royal Australian Air Force.

...


"Americanization" of real historical events:

America's direct participation in World War II commenced in 1941 with Lend-Lease and the Attack on Pearl Harbor, but the history of capturing Enigma machines and breaking their codes had already begun in Europe.

An earlier military Enigma machine had been captured by Polish Intelligence in 1928; Polish intelligence broke the Enigma code in 1932 and gave their findings to Britain and France in 1939, just before the German invasion of Poland.[3]

The first capture of a Naval Enigma machine and associated cipher keys from a U-boat was made on May 9, 1941 by HMS Bulldog of Britain's Royal Navy, commanded by Captain Joe Baker-Cresswell. The U-boat was U-110. In 1942, the British seized U-559, capturing additional Enigma codebooks. "The captured codebooks provided vital assistance to the British cryptographers, led by Alan Turing, at the code-breaking hothouse of Bletchley Park, near Milton Keynes."[3]

There were some 15 captures of Naval Enigma material during World War II, all but two by the British. The Canadian Navy captured U-774; the U.S. Navy seized U-505 in June 1944. By this time the Allies were already reading Naval Enigma routinely.

The film caused irritation and anger in Britain. At Prime Minister's Questions, Tony Blair agreed with questioner Brian Jenkins MP that the film was "an affront" to British sailors.[4] In response to a letter from Paul Truswell, MP for the Pudsey constituency (which includes Horsforth, a town proud of its connection with HMS Bulldog), U.S. president Bill Clinton wrote assuring that the film's plot was only a work of fiction.[5]

A written acknowledgment does appear on-screen that the Royal Navy captured the first, and subsequently the vast majority, of the Naval Enigma devices.[6]

David Balme, the British Naval officer who led the boarding party aboard the U-110, expressed positive feedback about the U-571, calling it "a great film"[6] and arguing that the movie would not have been financially viable without being Americanised. The film's producers ignored his request for a message making it clear that the film was a work of fiction, but they did agree to include a message at the film's end mentioning the Royal Navy's role in the capture of U-110.[5]

In 2006, screenwriter David Ayer admitted that U-571 distorted history and stated that he would not do it again.[7] Ayer told BBC Radio 4's The Film Programme that he "did not feel good" about suggesting Americans captured the Naval Enigma cipher rather than the British:[7]
“It was a distortion...a mercenary decision...to create this parallel history in order to drive the movie for an American audience. Both my grandparents were officers in World War II, and I would be personally offended if somebody distorted their achievements."

...


Falsely negative portrayal of U-boat sailors:

The movie portrays a scene in which the U-boat sailors kill the Allied merchant crewmen who have survived their ship's sinking, in compliance with naval policy and so that the survivors do not report the U-boat position. In contrast to the negative depiction of U-boat men in the movie as well as wartime propaganda, U-boat crewmen in reality were known to assist survivors with food, directions and occasionally medical aid.[8] Assistance to survivors only stopped after Admiral Karl Dönitz issued the "Laconia order" following a U.S. air attack on U-boats transporting injured survivors under a Red Cross flag in 1942. Some U-boats still occasionally provided aid to their victims. In fact, out of several thousand sinkings of merchant ships in World War II, there is only one documented case of a U-boat crew deliberately attacking the ship's survivors: that of the U-852, whose crew attacked survivors of the Greek ship Peleus.

...


General inaccuracies:

The real U-571, captained by Oberleutnant zur See Gustav Lüssow, was lost with all hands on 28 January 1944, west of Ireland.[10] She was hit by depth charges, dropped from a Short Sunderland Mk III flying boat, EK577, callsign "D for Dog", belonging to No. 461 Squadron, Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). The aircraft's commander, Flt Lt Richard Lucas, reported that most of the U-boat's 52 crew managed to abandon ship, but all died from hypothermia. "D for Dog", which was crewed partly by Royal Air Force (RAF) personnel, was based at RAF Pembroke Dock, in Wales.

Another inaccuracy was the presence of the German destroyer in the Atlantic Ocean, as most of the surface fleet of the Kriegsmarine never ventured that far west, and none did so from 1942 onwards. The few exceptions were their capital ships, such as the Admiral Graf Spee, Scharnhorst, and Bismarck.[11]

In addition, a surfaced U-boat could never engage a destroyer at point blank range and survive, let alone escape. Although the script claimed the destroyer could not aim her main guns at U-571 due to the extremely close range, the destroyer could have still inflicted serious damage on U-571 with her considerable secondary armament of anti-aircraft cannon. In these situations the destroyer captain would also have the option of sinking the submarine through simple ramming.

During the destroyer's depth charge attack more than 80 depth charges are detonated in the film, despite the fact that German destroyers rarely carried more than 30 depth charges during the war.[12]

The German resupply U-boat would most likely not have been sunk by U-571. The only instance of a submerged submarine sinking another submerged vessel was in February 1945 when HMS Venturer sank the U-864 with torpedoes.[citation needed] This would have also been difficult for a German U-boat to achieve, as German sonar was not as advanced as British sonar at any time during the war.[13]

Furthermore German Type XIV supply U-boats didn't have torpedo tubes and thus could not have attacked S-33.[14]

The real S-33 was stationed in the Pacific Ocean from June 1942 till the end of the war. She was not sunk during World War II and was sold for scrap in 1946.[15] The S-26 did not sink in a test dive, instead sinking in a collision with a patrol combatant, PC-460, in January 1942.[15]

The German reconnaissance aircraft was a 1940s-era Swiss attack trainer; the same type of aircraft was used in the film Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

Fuck "U-571".

So yeah ... Surrogates is way better than T3 and U-571.

Some more stuff:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2000/07/01/american_histories_1_article.shtml

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/feb/25/u-571-reel-history

I love this bit from the second link:

At the time of its release, Tony Blair condemned U-571 in parliament as an insult to the Royal Navy. A far more entertaining response would have been for Britain to fund a big-budget revenge epic, in which a small platoon of foppish yet plucky Brits swans over to Vietnam in 1968, defeats the Viet Cong, and wins the war. Moreover, it would be nearly as accurate as this.

[blind2d]

Tanks minion! I am informed and amused! I knew there was a reason I wasn't fond of war movies.... Private Ryan was better as a red squirrel, imo.

[AcesandEights]

It's good to hear someone liked the film, as I was a bit concerned about it when I heard who the director was a few weeks back.

Don't foresee myself checking it out in the theater, but on netflix it's a definite.

[MinionZombie]

Rather than post here, I posted mine in another thread (with other reviews, hence not posting in this thread) here:

http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/showthread.php?t=14845

[Danny]

did we see the same film?, ive just got back and what ive seen was asinine. I wasn't alone, for once everyone i whent with agreed that this was a stupid, stupid movie. The action was great, but considering bruce willis was playing his mclain character again that was unsurprising, the plot was confusing but enjoyable, what got me was the ideas of it.

For one thing it suffers from what i call "hackers syndrome", it uses loosely associated "science words" to try and cobble together an explanation for events, which could easily just be explained as "magic" instead. In a world where top of the range police are using windows 7 and memory sticks as high technology im supposed to believe they can use 3 crocodile clip wires to alter something as radically as the climax in this?
I can ignore the basics of the surrogates to enjoy the story, but when its just generic science bullshit i feel cheated and insulted that the writer thinks the viewer is that stupid.

For a second thing it fails at its apparent primary task. I can guess it trys to be some commentary on the human condition but just as it goes into some cool ideas, surrogate free zones and the like it goes into some story from any generic action movie. hell 5 minutes in i was being sarcy and said "oh yeah, and i bet hes john mclain, but with a son who died in an accident" - and he IS!
Its basically a stupid popcorn version of ghost in the shell, but by the end what intrigue and possibility is gone, to be honest if i wanted to name a better recent film on a similar subject matter id go with wall-e. in that theres social commentary thats smart, obvious, but smart, in this theres a guy talking on tv about "people experiencing life through surrogates and not there own eyes - ON A TELEVISION!:mad:

i could rant for a good half hour on this, in fact i already have, but it takes a cool idea, tries to run with it and gives us a very stupid film. they use surrogates as soldiers, what for?. they can shut down surrogates, what about ones working in power plants and the like?, do meltdowns occur?

to be honest this was the first film since the phantom menace ive asked for a refund on account of the film "being complete bullshit", i wasnt even properly entertained because its just mind numbingly dull, it does nothing new. if you like sci-fi odds are very good you've seen all the plot points before, and more likely in a much more cleverly implemented way.

do not pay to see this movie, the writer doesn't deserve the royalty's.

[MinionZombie]

but considering bruce willis was playing his mclain character again that was unsurprising

Don't agree with that at all. Just because it's Bruce Willis, doesn't mean he's 'doing McClain' - I was expecting to see such a performance, but couldn't find it.

This character is far more damaged, he's not as tough, he's world weary and world naive at the same time. There's not a jot of "yippie kay-ay" in this character, so I have to completely disagree on this point.

[Danny]

i think it was the same stuff weve seen from him dozens of times before, which is a shame because id like to see bruce willis do something different, not to say his acting was bad, it wasnt, it just felt like bruce willis doing his thing.
i mean i honestly cant remember his characters name, for me it was just bruce willis playing his usual guy but who was a bit sad right now.

[DubiousComforts]

did we see the same film?
I'm sure that we did, although Surrogates' premise is not one bit like Ghost in the Shell, Wall-E or even I, Robot (except for the obvious inclusion of human-shaped machines), so I have no idea where any of that silliness is coming from. The film has much more in common with bleak future-shock fare of the 70s like Westworld, so I'd suggest broadening horizons and watching some films made prior to the last 20 years or so before trying to decipher this one.

To be honest, this film could have probably been directed by anyone. You've got Bruce Willis doing what he does best--playing the everyman with whom the audience can easily identify, same as in The Sixth Sense. And even though Mostow somewhat redeems himself from the nonsense that is Terminator 3, it's not like there is any semblance of directorial style evident in the finished film. It seems to be a paint-by-numbers execution of a vety good sci-fi cautionary tale.


U-571 raped history?
Of course. That's what you get for watching anything with Jon Bon Jerkoff acting in it.