"Surrogates" review

Plot: Surrogates are basically robots that act as our bodies. The death of a surrogate does not mean the death of the user, but when a mysterious weapon is used to kill both the surrogate AND the user, it's up to a detective to catch the killer and solve a conspiracy.

Review:

There is one interesting facet about "Surrogates" that I noticed: Why is everyone in this movie rich? Sure, the first victim could've easily been rich, but how is an FBI agent that wealthy? I bring this up because "Surrogates" raises a lot of questions, but never really answers them. Actually, wait, that's not why I brought it up. Apparently the economy during the time this movie takes place is good, but right now, it's in the dumps. Even somebody like me who is a freak movie buff is beginning to count the dollars in my wallet(and I save up) every time I go to the movies. Now, I can easily rant about how the quality of movies needs to be better when we're forced to spend a god $10-15 to watch them, but I won't. Instead, I'm going to give you some advice. Go to youtube, type in "Surrogates trailer", and watch it. It's free, it's quick and easy. Because watching the actual movie takes more time, money, and has little else to offer than what is seen in the trailer. Seriously, the trailer actually SPOILS nearly every twist. So why watch it? It's bad enough that the movie isn't very good, but when its own advertising reveals the finale, then you're movie just sucks that much more.

The film begins with some exposition about how the Surrogates were made and how they basically took over the world. People who protested against surrogates(religious fanatics, of course), have their own little section in the city. Surrogates can't kill the users, but when the son of the original engineer of the surrogates(Canter, played by Cromwell) is killed by a mysterious weapon, things begin to get troublesome. FBI agent Greer(Willis) is assigned to the case. His introduction makes us wonder if this would be a throwback to the days of film-noir. It's not, that aspect of filmmaking is dropped after one scene. So it's a murder mystery? Right? Wrong. They find out who killed him pretty quickly, it's just a matter of who hired him. But then there is some conspiracy nonsense. It all ends predictably, even if the trailers didn't spoil anything.

My main issue of contention with "Surrogates" is just how boring it is. Sure, there are moments of wit and great action, but you see most of that in the trailers as well. It's an 88 minute long movie that feels too content to deal to Greer's sudden transition from using a surrogate to going out alone. He must deal with the loss of his dead son. This trope has gotten tired and to make it even worse, they never really follow through with it. How did the son die? Greer seems mysterious about it, but we never know. Why was that subplot even there? Who knows.

But this movie can't just be a generic action/mystery, it also has to have its own dose of pretentious commentary. The surrogates look down on 'meat-bags'(people who don't use surrogates) and the meat bags are even worse by using violence and hostility to the surrogates. Yet we're always supposed to be on the meat bags side. But the worst scene has to be when Greer finds his surrogate crucified. For one, I was under the impression that this was a religious community. I can accept them using violence, but crucifixion isn't something Christians take lightly. Then again, maybe they're not supposed to be Christians. Maybe they're Muslims, but even Muslims knows the symbolism of the crucifix and they wouldn't do that for their own reasons. But this is obviously meant to be symbolic for the Christ-like figure that Greer shall become. We're supposed to look at his final decision as admirable, but I found it to be selfish. But oh well, a bad movie has bad movie cliches.

At least we're graced with a solid cast. Bruce Willis(Greer) has a lot of presence and does good in his more serious role(I personally prefer the "Die Hard" persona more, but that's just me). Rosamund Pike(Maggie) was great, being somewhat creepy with her 'robotic' role. Boris Kodjoe(Stone) does fine in his boring part. Ving Rhames(The Prophet) is always fun. He acted very much like what you'd expect from a hypocritical prophet. James Cromwell(Canter) is always good. You can't go wrong with a cast like this, that's for sure.

I won't say that "Surrogates" is all bad. It sports slick production values, a good cast(as said), and a few good chase scenes. For me, the main highlight was how perfect all the surrogates looked. They looked so flawless that it almost becomes unattractive. It's a great effect, but the movie is pretty pointless. It's just like watching "The Stepford Wives", "I Robot", and most of all: "Minority Report". Except unlike "Minority Report", it isn't the least bit riveting, interesting, or provocative. One review on imdb said that the film was "thought provoking". How? The film takes its predictable stand that surrogates is wrong while completely ignoring the other side of the argument. Furthermore, the ending almost feels studio tampered. I wouldn't be surprised if "Surrogates" is a major victim of studio tampering.

Violence: PG-13. Some.

Nudity: Lots of tame sexuality, but nothing explicit.

Overall: Watch "Minority Report" and imagine that as a dumbed down, slower paced, less interesting, and no longer riveting movie. Then you've got "Surrogates". But it's not a terrible way to kill an hour and a half.

2/4 Stars