I don’t understand this at all. Soylent Green is a legitimate classic. Do you laugh at any sci-fi from the 60’s? That’s all that could explain it.
Uhh… I think I’ve unraveled the mystery:
The same trick works with Gandhi, as I recall.
bolding by me
Bzzt ! WRONG ! You ask who is being served 
I viewed it differently. Someone made reference to an obsessed Captain Ahab, and I felt that was closer to the mark. Hawke was an obsessed character whose personal victory over the system was purely personal and wouldn’t ripple anywhere externally. Also somewhat reminiscent of classic samurai-revenge flicks. It’s only “yay!” for those who find self-destructive obsession to be heroic, otherwise it’s very bittersweet.
Oooh so close! But really it’s Signs.
The alien invaders, who would have been destroyed by rain within a few days anyway. I can’t even remember how they got the brilliant strategy to go after them with baseball bats, and whatever other chunks of wood were handy.
I see your Signs and I raise you The Forgotten.
King of the thread!
My assumption was that they froze people to save money, and some day when psychology or medicine was advanced enough to “cure” them, they would be thawed. Was there any actual discussion on the movie about this? Frankly, I would rather be frozen and unconscious than locked away in a cage being force-fed psychoactive drugs.
I have no idea at all what you’re trying to get at here. It’s sounds like saying the punishment is no good as a deterrent because these people don’t think clearly enough to consider that, and you may be right. But so what? Should there be no punishment for less thoughtful criminals, or less punishment? Is it totally unreasonable to have a policy that the harsher the crime, the harsher the punishment, irrespective of the deterrent value to others?
Well, yeah, though you could say the point of the movie is the folly of messing with fundamental humans rights because of some bogus scientific research.
To me the dumbest part of the movie is just that – that they COULD apparently suspend the civil rights of everyone in DC as part of a big science experiment. Course, they don’t have representation in Congress either, so it’s not quite as crazy as say Escape From New York.
Babel, House of Sand and Fog, Crash—all so, so serious, trying so very hard to make a point and pound us over the head with a message, and accomplishing little beyond being irritating and pretentious.
The answer is C.
If so, then the future/mirror world/whatever you want to call it, is stupid.
Look, I understand that the movie was made at a time when advances in genetic science meant that a lot of people were talking about genetic screening and the implications that might have for society. The movie is a product of its times, sure, but then most people at that time didn’t have the faintest fucking idea of what they were talking about when it came to genetic science - this film’s makers included.
For an allegory to work, it has to make sense. But this film strayed waaaaay out of it’s own knowledge base to try to make a point, and it didn’t work for aforesaid reasons. If it resonated with you and others I would never belittle you for that - there’s plenty of lowbrow crap I like simply for my own reasons that I’d never expect any one else to like.
But for others gattica was just stupid.
Just because it didn’t work for you doesn’t mean it didn’t work. Nor does the fact that you can’t get past your own objections mean that your objections are necessarily true or that the movie is stupid.
For example, the movie did not explicitly say the answer was C.
Crash, the Oscar winner, definitely qualifies for this thread. It was just sooooo heavy handed with it’s message that would’ve played better 10 years earlier. I liked the other two films, however.
You, too, huh? Aside from disliking the whole “superintelligent sociopath who plans ten steps ahead” trope, the reason prosecutors accept plea bargains and such is because they don’t have the unlimited resources necessary to take every case to trial. When the “Citizen” starts killing judges and dozens of government lawyers in his snit, he significantly decreases these resources. With his staff decimated by carbombs, the Jamie Foxx character will have no choice but to cut even more deals in future, at least until he can rebuild and re-recruit, which will take several years at least.
Well, that and the killer robot in the graveyard.
And I liked Gattaca. I don’t mind the plot holes - it’s ultimately a high-tech story about “passing”. The only part that had me chuckling was the astronauts at the end boarding their spaceship - still wearing their jackets and ties. Was there a cocktail party waiting for them on Saturn?
I’ve not seen the movie, so I don’t know if it’s stupid or not, but sometimes kidnap victims do come to sympathize with their captors. It’s called Stockholm Syndrome.
See also Patty Hearst.
Oh, god. I hated hated hated HATED HATED that movie. I’m getting all tense and angry thinking about it.
Heh, I loved “Dead Man”. ‘Hey marm, read us a passage from the Good Book!’ 
Say no more…
God, what a stupid movie!
If I had to pick my top 10 films of the 90s, the Jarmusch film would unquestionably be on there–beautifully shot, impeccably acted, provocative, haunting, hilarious, and generally wonderful. Plus: Neil Young!
Yeah, I’m not getting the “Dead Man” hate at all. 