Surrogates (2009) User Reviews

Better than some reviews suggest

[ajasys · 7/10 · 2 January 2010]

I see many reviews here that denigrate the film, and a few that celebrate it. I believe it deserves neither fulsome praise nor vitriol, as it is a somewhat better than average film betrayed by bad choices.

I'll keep this short: The concept is decent, the execution is mediocre, the result is that I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

I would have graded this far higher had the creators spent more time making several of the characters more human (which is funny, given that "humanity" as compared to a more machine-like existence is a core concept of the screenplay), but they didn't. The only character in the film who achieves anything like true humanity is Bruce Willis', and this occurs only because the plot requires it.

When a film's construction and leverage depend on the very definition of humanity as it's core concept, leaving the humanity of most of the characters behind is something more than stupid -- it cripples the film.

This doesn't mean the film is unwatchable; it has enough elements of action, pathos, suspense & revenge to make it worth your time throughout.

But it could have been so much better, if not for so many poor choices.

GOOD SCI-FI STORYLINE, but not unforgettable

[tripxyde · 6/10 · 25 September 2009]

Surrogates is a sci-fi movie about a future where every human being can connect their bodies into machines & they instantly live a different life through their robotic human-looking surrogates. Anybody can just stay home all day while they are connected online with their surrogates that can just easily live outside in the real world. But when a surrogate was killed along with its user, FBI agent Greer unravels a conspiracy that can lead to the death of billions of lives.

The storyline of this movie falls somewhere around the categories where movies like Blade Runner, Minority Report, and I-Robot belong. A movie that talks about how future technologies can affect human life and provide some philosophical point-of-view that is worth pondering on. The idea of technology progressing into and reaching the boundaries that it becomes an abomination of nature. The movie tends to be thought provoking, but does not make it good enough to be worth an entire evening of discussion.

There were some moments that seemed preachy, but could have been delivered more effectively if given a proper execution or interpretation. I am talking about the moments when our main character realizes the beauty of a world free from technological complexities. We also have the minor subplot of a corporation just concerned about safeguarding their own products. And a main character coming to the realization that these products eventually diminish the humanity of a person.

It is surprising that the weaker point of this movie is the action. The terminator rip-off scenes seemed bland and there was a chase scene with a female surrogate that looked goofy because it employed a "superhero" type of action. To make it worse, there are some visual effects that look like they've been rendered 15 years ago.

With the main character of Bruce Willis running around in his actual human form for most parts of the movie, we realize that he basically is the weaker person in this world of robotic mannequins, and yes we do see him bleed a lot in this movie (it is funny to note that Willis is one of those actors that just look cooler when he gets more scars and bruises, it's like John McClane only without the crazy action). With him being the frail character, that alone clearly reminds you that this is not your regular Bruce Willis action flick. The movie just basically starts out as a futuristic detective-type movie then progresses into the same mood as Willis was in films like "Unbreakable" where he stumbles around a maze that leads him to some enlightening truth.

The high points of this movie lie in the storyline. Second is the way the movie creates this amazing-looking world of a future inhabited mostly by surrogates. The surrealism of the movie is not too far-out that most of what you see seem like they exist in the present world; there are no flying cars or rockets everywhere; its just the simple existence and presence of mannequin-like robots everywhere. The storyline may be good enough to be enjoyably satisfying, but it certainly is not the best, or perhaps not good enough to be groundbreaking.

All in all, SURROGATES is one of those good sci-fi movies that will simply entertain those who are fans of smart sci-fi movies. Action junkies may be a little disappointed though. This is a far cry from Blade Runner, but this certainly gives you a cheaper version of that kind of enjoyment. I loved it. But it is definitely not unforgettable.

Surprisingly timely

[spamcatcher-10034 · 7/10 · 2 May 2021]

Heavy handed, but surprisingly effective.

On the effects of a remote life, thanks to the interwebs and Uber.

And a surprisingly contemporary ending, with people in their dressing gowns coming out in the streets -- is this what the end of the Covid confinement will look like?

Ps-yes, Bruce Willis is scary with that wig. Get over it. In 10 years we won't even have actors.

Basically entertaining

[ToddWebb · 7/10 · 26 September 2009]

It's a great concept. In the future, the Sims style online gaming, where people live vicariously through characters, has evolved to living out real-life, in the real world, via surrogate robots. Everybody stays home all the time, 24/7. They work, play and travel via their surrogates, from the comfort of their home.

I'm not spoiling anything here -- this all happens in the first 5 minutes. The result of this new era of existence is the dramatic drop in violent crimes, sexually transmitted diseases, death by accident, etc.

Well, it's a great concept. And the CGI is good. Because of the plot, every character is insanely pretty, so the screen is filled with beautiful people.

But... it just... doesn't... quite... gel. The whole thing feels like a cool episode of Star Trek, or something on TV. The story is not riveting. I didn't really care about the characters. The timing was off; things either came too late (I was bored, expecting them) or so fast I couldn't really appreciate.

Surrogates lacks that wow-factor.

Example of bad timing: At the start, one wonders, "What do the users really look like? Anything like like their surrogate robots?" I would expect that, at first, we see Bruce Willis, just some facial hair which his robot doesn't have. Then, eventually, we see that he is older than his robot, so he's "cheating" on age too. Even later still, maybe we'd see an obese person at home posing as an athlete via a surrogate which looks nothing like him. Well, "Surrogates" skips all that build up and goes straight for the punchline: within 10 minutes we see a hot chick robot making with a young man; turns out the hot chick is actually slovenly a middle-aged man. Any twists to come later, in this variety, loses all punch.

Worth a rental.

A sci-fi concept well examined despite predictable story patterns

[Movie_Muse_Reviews · 6/10 · 17 May 2010]

With the number of mainstream movies centered around a future human dependency on robots, it would be incredibly stupid if we actually let that happen. "Surrogates" is the latest of these concepts and surprisingly one of the more well thought-out ones. Based on the graphic novel by Robert Venditti and Brett Weldele, "Surrogates" imagines a world where humans interact with the world solely through robot versions of themselves called surrogates. They don't have to leave their homes and are impervious to danger.

Writers Michael Ferris and John D. Brancato, who previously collaborated with director Jonathan Mostow on "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines" and sadly also wrote the Halle Berry "Catwoman," do their best work with this script, which is of course not saying much. The positive here is that they truly embrace and explored the possibilities of a word where people don't interact with people -- just the robot versions of themselves. It's the saving grace of the film.

Bruce Willis stars as a homicide detective assigned to the very first case on record where the actual human operator of a surrogate died when the surrogate was killed. With nearly all of the planet using surrogates, any knowledge of danger would throw the world into panic. Willis -- Det. Greer -- must track down the weapon that did the damage. When his surrogate is destroyed, Greer begins to re-examine life through non-virtual eyes.

Without question, however, the concept and the setting are far more clever than the script. Ironically like robots, when you boil down the exterior of "Surrogates," it's composed of overused clichés and recycled components of Isaac Asimov and Philip K. Dick stories. The simple premise and thoroughly conceived world of "Surrogates" manages to override some lousy story lines and character development, but I'm not sure that most viewers who come to "Surrogates" looking for more action and less high-concept science fiction will be able to say the same.

The subplots and back stories given to Greer and other characters are throw-away. At 89 minutes long, "Surrogates" offers just enough in terms of story development to be a glorified TV detective show set in the future. The twists are foreseeable and the character motivations barely scratched at, but it keeps your attention and stays focused enough on the central story that you never have to actually dwell on the more hollow elements of the film. The venerable James Cromwell, who plays the disgruntled inventor of surrogates, has never looked more shallow in a role, but it's hardly of any consequence.

Sci-fi epiphany? None here, but a well-calculated exploration of a possible new technology - - yes. "Surrogates" is not mindless fun, but it's not artistic science fiction perfected to a tee either. It does just enough to intrigue the future-curious mind with a different cut from the same robot mold.

~Steven C

Visit my site moviemusereviews.com

Good Sci Fi concept and a mostly satisfying detective thriller

[theycallmemrglass · 7/10 · 2 January 2010]

Although this movie boasts a great Sci-Fi concept, there are a couple of elements in the setting that is just too flawed even for science fiction. I'll come to those flaws shortly.

Having accepted the implausible environment, i.e., a world where 98% of humankind stay at home with their minds plugged into their surrogate robots that they live their life through, the rest of the plot is pretty damn riveting. The mood of the film is more akin to Minority Report and certainly feels like a Philip K Dick narrative. The future depiction is not overly futuristic in technology other than the Surrogates themselves so don't expect a big budget effects ridden movie. Having said that, the Surrogates robotic power makes for a couple of excellent action scenes comparable with the Will Smith vehicle "I, Robot".

But as usual, it is the awesome Bruce Willis who carries the movie both as surrogate (a disturbingly young look with a frightening wig!) and in human form. Thank god he carries it though because there are hardly any significant supporting characters in the story as it focuses on him most of the time as he investigates a rise in rare human murders. There is just something re-assuring about watching him on screen, regardless of the film quality. Going into the 4th decade since Die Hard, he is still in my view a bona-fide movie star.

I said there were flaws in the whole concept. Well, I find it impossible to even speculate the possibility that 98% of humankind will love sitting at home plugging their minds into a surrogate robot that they can live their lives through and let their natural bodies wither away with no exercise or self esteem. It seems they prefer to have sex as robots, and flirt with young women surrogates who may be controlled by an old man or...well you get the gist. The appeal is supposed to be a 99% reduction in crime rate where accidents or crimes against a surrogate does not affect the human host. That concept is too flawed even for science fiction. What is stopping a surrogate from burgling a house killing its human owner for example? I don't knock the concept of surrogates itself, its an excellent one but I don't buy the social environment.

All in all this was a very very decent entry in the intelligent Sci-Fi movie library. Despite my gripes I enjoyed it and I expect most Sci-Fi lovers will too.

a fine performance by Bruce Willis

[StarkTech · 10 October 2009]

Finally saw this and I'm with the majority here... a solid 7/10 film.

This surprisingly compelling sci-fi film takes a while to set up its universe but delivers down the stretch. It's borderline whether they establish enough credibility so as to invest real emotion in to the characters and buy in to the premise. If you allow yourself to buy in to the bizarre concept of living life through android duplicates, then the film works on a few levels. It's somewhat weak on certain of those levels but raises interesting questions concerning the level of our technological dependency as we live our lives. The emotional aspect of this movie plays better thanks to a fine performance by Bruce Willis. His character's journey through this bizarre world is obviously the heart of the film and it's written and portrayed very well.

Very intriguing, while it's less than perfect the good far outweighs the not-so-good

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 20 April 2015]

Surrogates' great and very interesting concept and the amount of talent on display were its selling points, and Surrogates on the whole delivers, its good parts being pretty great actually. Of course it's less than perfect, but none of the not-so-good things come over disastrously, more unevenly if anything else.

The film is a very good-looking one, the sci-fi/technological look very handsomely rendered and imaginatively surreal. It's also beautifully shot and crisply edited and there are some good special effects on display. That is not to say that all the special effects are great, some of them looking rather cheap and being more at home in a film from the late 80s-early 90s. The music has its bombastic, pulsating moments as well as a hauntingly understated quality. Some of the script is interesting and probes a lot of thought, but other parts are on the weak side, with some very clichéd dialogue and it doesn't develop its characters as well as it could have done. James Cromwell's character especially is very underutilised and shallow.

From a story point of view, most of it works. There are some good ideas and subplots that are in a good amount if not all cases explored intelligently and intriguingly but what was really remarkable was the subplot with Greer and Maggie's failing relationship, which brought an emotional core that really resonated with me. It's not completely successful, some of it does plod, especially the conspiracy elements, and much more could have been done with the ending, which felt underdeveloped and confused. The action's a mixed bag, some are energetic and exciting but others are pedestrian and on the silly side. Surrogates is directed efficiently and the cast do a great job, though James Cromwell has been much better and more engaged in other roles.

Particularly impressive were a charismatically world-weary and no-nonsense Bruce Willis and Rosamund Pike's excellent, sympathetic performance ranks among her better roles. Radha Mitchell is also touching. Overall, has some uneven moments but a most intriguing film that delivers on most levels. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Surrogacy is a perversion. It's an addiction. And you have to kill the addict to kill the addiction.

[hitchcockthelegend · 7/10 · 31 January 2014]

I first viewed Surrogates upon its home format release and positively found it very ordinary. Viewing it again, with focus and in solitude, it proved to be a far better experience.

The action scenes are what you would expect for a multi-plex appeasing popcorner, loud, colourful and owing great debt to modern technology. Yet to dismiss this totally as one of those easy money making blockbuster movies is most unfair.

Surrogates oozes intrigue, even if it doesn't quite deliver on the smartness written on the page. The idea that in the future robotic alter egos can carry out our everyday mundane functions is cracker-jack, and it opens up a whole can of berserker worms.

This is not merely an excuse to have Bruce Willis running around exploding surrogate robots, as much fun as that is of course, there's a deeper emotional core pulsing away as Willis fights the good fight to make sure being human is not cast aside like a thing of the past, that as flawed as we are, hiding away in a surrogate is not the answer.

This axis of the story is beautifully realised by the plot strand involving Willis and Rosamund Pike as his wife, with both actors doing fine work to give it the required emotional heft. It may ultimately lose itself to a standard conspiracy plot, but there's intelligence within to make Surrogates a better film than it first appears. 7/10

More relevant now than it's ever been

[corrt106 · 7/10 · 27 April 2023]

When you have scores of people living their lives through their online personas, each competing with one another to appear more happy, more perfect, then this movie seems rather prophetic.

I see some complaining about the wooden performances throughout the film, ignoring the fact that this is the point. The surrogates emote very little, and are uncanny to us, who rely so much on non-verbal language to understand our interactions. The moments where actual humans are allowed to emote, especially the brief scenes with Rosemund Pike, shine all the more for it.

Is this movie high art in film form? No, but it's entertaining, it's fairly well paced, and its message is cogent. I recommend watching it at least once.

Willis makes it watchable

[gregsrants · 5/10 · 25 September 2009]

With the action heroes of my generation all too old or M.I.A. (Ford, Hackman, Eastwood), I have consistently made the comment, "Thank God for Bruce Willis". Good ole Bruce, aging towards his mid-fifties, consistently brings action films to our local theatres year after year after year. As an actor, he has 70+ projects contained within his historical biography and the guy keeps making bad films mediocre and mediocre films watchable.

Surprisingly, he has but one credit to his name in 2009, Surrogates, a film that looks ripped from just about every other science fiction fantasy you have ever seen or read.

Extracted by a graphic novel by Robert Venditti and Brett Weldele, Surrogates transports us to a future where people live through robotic surrogates from the privacy and safety of their own sanctuary and can manipulate their avatars into either copies of themselves or they can transform themselves into just about anything they want (I say just about anything because the world was not full of Megan Fox's). The opening credits give us a 14 year history of how we got to whatever future we are in at Present Day.

But when a murder – the first in an eon – occurs, FBI agent Greer (Willis) is assigned the case and his subsequent investigation outside of his own surrogate is filled with enough revelations to bring down the entire Utopian world.

I can't even begin to ramble of the countless movies the Surrogates borrows from in an effort to keep us entertained for the very swift 88 minutes of running time. Hell, there were even a few television programs I thought it copied for certain scenes.

That noted, Surrogates is not all that bad. Director Jonathon Mostow (Terminator 3 – which I actually liked) might not have put the most seasoned piece of sci-fi on the screen, but he could have done much worse with the cheesy premise.

The special effects are kinda few and kinda crappy. A scene with a surrogate riding on the hood of a car was blue screen embarrassment. But the special effects are kept in tow as Mostow tries for more of an atmosphere than he does an all out future world experience.

Bruce Willis always throws me off in movies where he has hair and Ving Rhames shows up as a human (?) who opposes the surrogate conglomerate. It's been 15 years since Rhames and Willis had screen time together and I was thankful there was no plastic ball in their mouth and a gimp parading in front of them while they approached their purpose in the script.

Surprisingly, for all the borrowing and lack of any true originality, Surrogates, is watchable. The ideas are all squished (think of a marshmallow being squeezed through a key hole) into an entertaining if not enthralling sit that might not exactly be worth $50 and a babysitter to make a night out of, but it can easily be a rewarding DVD rental in the new year.

Recommendation is clearly to rent it.

www.killerreviews.com

A Metaphor for the Present

[scottwallvashon · 9/10 · 27 September 2009]

The important thing to understand about this film is that it is not a prediction of something that is likely to happen. Rather, it is a metaphor for something that has already happened.

Television was the earliest foray into this phenomenon. How many of us form a significant portion of our impression of the world based on what we see through this artificial sense organ? With television, we are all 5% closer to the creature depicted in Surrogates. As I sit here at my computer writing from this remote location, I am 10% of the creature depicted in this film. When I get on a discussion forum with an avatar that represents my impression of myself or possibly the impression of myself that I wish to project, I am 20% of the creature depicted in this film.

I have begun to teach an online class. My students, instead of seeing me as a living flesh and blood person, now see me as an intellectual engine that they may visualize in any number of ways. I have the option of posting a picture, but have not gotten around to that yet. I now do part of my work from a safe remote location—as an abstract disembodied entity.

After leaving the theater, I had an overwhelming urge to spend more time with my dogs. They are very physical and can never relate to the concept I herein discuss. Actually I had a new insight into their possible impression of all the time I spend watching television: "Stop staring into the scrambly box and pay attention to us. Snap out of it!"

What will the future look like? ... Maybe like this!

[buiger · 6/10 · 11 April 2010]

I basically agree with Ebert's review on this one. This is definitely only a simple action flick, but it is well made, the acting is decent, the f/x very good, the film is never tacky, boring or overtly see-through. Enough to keep e viewer interested and entertained while lounging on a couch eating popcorn and drinking beer on a Sunday afternoon. What's wrong with that? In addition, it poses a couple of interesting questions about our current and especially future relationship with machines, the morality of it, etc. These questions will become more and more important as each day passes, and even though the movie does not even attempt to analyze or answer them, it is not unimportant to have posed them. A classical, typically Hollywood-ian ending offers no real solutions, all the wrong certainties and faulty answers, albeit populist ones.

Entertaining story in technologically inconsistent environment

[pcox-mail · 3/10 · 26 December 2009]

Don't spend too much time or money on this movie if you are bothered by seriously inconsistent or unrealistic science in a science-fiction movie. Despite great production values and acting, the film is marred by a badly imagined technological world.

A world technologically capable of producing robotic avatars that convey complete sensory experiences to the users would not, as the world in this film does, resemble early 21st century in every other meaningful way. The technology necessary to accomplish such remote direct brain interface control and sensing is so advanced on so many levels; it would, by definition, be accompanied by other equally huge changes in technology.

In Surrogates, the world is basically "ceteris paribus" but for one enormous mind-bogglingly advanced change. We would expect, for example, far more advanced robotics in other areas, such as dangerous occupations such as law enforcement and tedious occupation such as low level sales. Yet there is no evidence of this in the film.

Similarly, the notion that the entire world's robotic avatars would be susceptible to a one-point attack is simply too absurd. The Web today has multiple redundancies in terms of DS servers as well as other protocols. Corporations and governments maintain multiple backups for important functions, with several levels of Internet available only to high level academic and military users. That a similar level of sophistication doesn't exist in Surrogate's world, despite having an economy dependent on the technology, is too implausible.

I can suspend my disbelief with the best of them, but the suspension necessary to enjoy Surrogates comes at too high a cost.

Average

[bob the moo · 9 December 2009]

As with most films, the trailer made this look like it would be something good – an action movie with an interesting sci-fi concept behind the world created for us. For this reason I was a bit surprised to see the "finishing time" of the film being listed as barely 90 minutes after the start time because I thought it would be hard to do all the things that the trailer proposed in such a comparatively short time. Leaving the film at the end, I found it easily fitted into the 90 minute time period and sadly it achieved this by not actually doing a great deal that I had hoped it would. The plot sees us in a world where the majority of humans live their lives from the comfort of their homes, experiencing life through the android clones (surrogates). Although pockets of humanity have banded together to resist this, generally they are seen as weirdos rather than having any sort of point. Due to the surrogates, accidental death has been nearly eliminated while crime is at an all-time low. However when the destruction of a surrogate leads to the death of the user, Detective Tom Greer is assigned to the case – a case that becomes even more high profile when the victim turns out to be the son of the creator of the surrogacy system.

The potential is there in the plot and the various things they put in around it (Tom's marriage, the loss of a child etc) but it doesn't really deliver on much of it. The subject matter isn't really that thought provoking, partly because it doesn't hold out a lot for consideration by the viewer but partly because the film doesn't even seem happy with its own world creation. The whole idea is full of holes to the point that the film can't hide them or distract from them for very long and you get the sense that it is rushing a bit before it all runs out through its cupped hands. This is a shame because it niggles the whole way through and becomes worse whenever we see what surrogates can do (their speed, strength etc) because you wonder why the world looks the same as it does when full of "normal" people. Outside of this though it is still an action film of sorts so one hopes for thrills of that side.

Unfortunately this doesn't really spark either. The running/jumping effects are not perfect and the scale of some of the action sequences means that some come over as being remote and not engaging or thrilling – a bit like watching someone else playing an video game that you don't really care about. It isn't bad though – the effects do still work, the action is still noisy and the plot is decent enough to at least not irritate – but that is the sort of level of film we're dealing with, one where my "praise" of it includes me saying its not too irritating! The performances sort of match the patchwork feel to the world and the film – it doesn't seem to be sure of itself and neither are they. Willis does his best (despite the wig etc he has to wear) but doesn't manage to balance the action with the character stuff and, thanks to the material, doesn't really deliver on either. Mitchell is so-so, as is Pike, while Cromwell essentially dials in a character he has sort of played before (but it made sense in other films) and Rhames is just plain odd.

Surrogates is not an awful film – but it is a distinctly average one thanks to the amount of things it half does. Whether it is the action, the substance, the effects, the performances or whatever, it all appears to be "OK" but never pushing for more than that. Improved focus, a stronger script and a longer running time could have made this a better film but ultimately it was just average.

Flawed but Entertaining

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 13 February 2010]

In a near future, with the development of the robotic, mankind stays at home operating surrogates with their signature to live their lives in the outside world and resolving issues like racism, complex and safety and reducing crime rates. Only a few people live in reservations the traditional way of life without the use of substitutes. When the surrogates of a man and a woman are destroyed by a sophisticated weapon, the FBI agents Tom Greer (Bruce Willis) and Peters (Radha Mitchell) are assigned to the case and sooner they discover that the operators have also died. Tom Greer goes further in his investigation and finds that there is a conspiracy involving the army, the company VSI that manufactures the androids, the FBI, The Prophet (Ving Rhames) leader of the humans and the scientist that had developed the surrogate technology Canter (James Cromwell).

"Surrogates" is a flawed but entertaining feature with an interesting concept but many plot holes. If the viewer does not think about the story, he or she will certainly enjoy a lot. But the screenplay does not explain many points, like for example, how could people live sitting on a chair without any sort of exercise have a safer and healthier life? Why Canter had not dedicated to destroy the surrogates only without harming the humans disconnecting them first? Why Peters did not get the access code by herself? What has happened with the humans when they discover that The Prophet was a machine? There are many other flaws but in the end I am a fan of Bruce Willis and Radha Mitchell and I found this movie is a good entertainment. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Substitutos" ("Substitutes")

Good, but could have been better

[KineticSeoul · 7/10 · 21 February 2010]

Well this was a pretty entertaining sci-fi flick with some message behind it. So the premise is that surrogates which are better looking versions of the operators walking on the planet in year 2017 while the real people isolate themselves while they think they are living the dream life controlling these robots. So in another words it's like a real life version of that one game "Second Life". But the story mostly revolves around a FBI agent Tom Greer(Bruce Willis) that is trying to investigate a destruction of a surrogate and the murder of the operator and it goes a bit more deep as Greer investigates. The twist was decent but it wasn't all that great or interesting and there really wasn't that big of a mystery behind it, but it was still fun from beginning to end. To sum it up it's a fast paced entertaining movie, but still sort of forgetful. Wouldn't really hurt to rent it.

7.2/10

This is a surprisingly interesting picture.

[Sirus_the_Virus · 7/10 · 21 January 2010]

Bruce Willis does what he usually does in films, kick ass, in Surrogates, or The Surrogates. Except this is a sci-fi film. The Surrogates is a very interesting film. Is it the best sci-fi film i've seen this year? Perhaps not, but I was entertained by every minute of the film.

The movie does have a couple of flaws. One is that though the movie is original, the whole robot type deal has been used before. James Cromwell plays a similar character that he did in I, robot, but I think this is a little better. Ving Rhames' character looks kind of silly. Those are really the flaws, and it's not like they're a big deal either.

The film takes place in a world where humans are isolated. They actually have robot type things called Surrogates doing their work. The surrogates are the attractive version of someone. As you can tell by seeing Bruce Willis, Radha Mitchell, and Rosmund Pike's characters.

Bruce Willis stars as Agent Tom Greer. Him and his partner(played by Radha Mitchell)are trying to solve the murder of a younger man who is actually the son of the creator of the Surrogates(played by James Cromwell). While trying to catch this killer, Greer's surrogate is destroyed. So he must go on in the world as his older normal human self.

Greer is having troubles with his wife(played by Rosmund Pike). They don't really communicate that much. Obviously this is a problem. As himself, Greer must continue to find the killer and eventually has to prevent the end of the surrogates.

This is a very entertaining film. The cast is good. Some of the action sequences look kind of cheesy but the Surrogates has it's moments of awesomeness. Especially in the climax. Is this movie art? No. But I think you should give it a chance. It's a lot of fun.

Surrogates:***/****

Commercial intelligence

[tubby1 · 7/10 · 13 February 2010]

Surrogates is a sci-fi film which has the feel of an audience pleasing action-thriller and a touch of thematic quality that propels it too a more satisfactory experience even if it is rather cliché and formulaic.

The premise is intriguing and paints a picture of the future which one could foresee. Humans remain at home and in their place are 'surrogate' robotic creations which the humans have complete control of and who perform all their everyday activities in the outside world. Without going into too much detail the event the film relies on to propel the story is rather unoriginal but a necessary tool to up-the-ante and provide its talking points.

The introduction to Surrogates is good at setting the scene of this future world but it misses a finesse, or a quality, it settles for a more commercialised feel. Indeed this is the precedent that the film sticks too - there are a number of shoot-outs and car chases. Mixed into this we have the concept itself that is of natural interest, which is aided by the reasonable special effects and the highly impressive makeup and technical work.

The two female characters in Surrogates are played by Radha Mitchell and Rosamund Pike two very good actresses who impress, although the film does not stretch their talents. Bruce Willis is at home in this thriller/sci-fi as Tom Greer an FBI agent caught up in the startling revelation. Willis's performance is played in the right spirit and with the necessary intensity to provide Greer with a connection to the audience. The only performer, who seemed out of place was Ving Rhames sporting a rather funny hairstyle, and looking ill-at-ease. This I would also put down to his character 'The Prophet' who is the failure of the film, he screams of stereotypical design.

Surrogates was made to entertain and it does do this well. The story is straightforward enough and has a nice twist, without being too challenging. Surrogate does what it needs to be a satisfactory viewing and although the script is rather Hollywoodesque it has enough of a concept to be that little bit more.

Let Your Surrogate Cut the Grass

[NousPax-1 · 7/10 · 14 October 2009]

Enjoyed this SciFi thriller though wanted it to be longer. Creepy in some ways, but very entertaining. Notable at first is that Willis appears to be 25 years younger. Radha Mitchell is stunningly beautiful in this, but like Willis, THAT is her surrogate. Effects are first class and story line and plot pacing is good. Am biased in favor of "Robot" movies and this one delivers decently, though I prefer a darker ambiance like Blade Runner. There is something VERY redeeming about this which involves Willis and his wife, but that should remain a surprise. There is a most excellent action sequence with Radha that You will find highly entertaining. Warning: If any of your loved ones are acting strange check the back of their head for a rectangular opening.

A Unique Sci-fi theme

[ashikrk · 6/10 · 15 October 2009]

Whoever was the make up artist, they sure well did a incredible job on Bruce Willis's makeup. I couldn't imagine how young Bruce Willis looked as a surrogate. Besides that the movie was OK. All the humans using surrogates to stay young...Interesting theme. The movie was Okay. Maybe I should have just waited for the DVD to watch it instead of going to the theater.

I think the ending was pretty bold! Didn't expect Bruce Willis to kill/shutdown all the surrogates. Anyways it was a decent sci-fi movie but not one of those you'd remember for very long. I saw this movie last week and I don't even remember a lot of details right now.

Writing a more convenient future...

[doobleg · 2/10 · 28 September 2009]

'Surrogates' is a film that shows how the introduction of a new technology has radically changed the world we know. This new technology, which is freely available to everyone, has brought the crime rate down to almost zero, and united humanity in ways never before imagined, leaving a few filthy hard-line rednecks to wave the flag against progress.

So! What is wrong with this picture? Rather than think about what would REALLY happen with everyone using robots to do everything, the writers of this film have created their own reality for the sake of convenience. For example:

• Why would giving everyone a mind-controlled robot to play with reduce crime? The robots allow anyone to do ANYthing, so surely EVERYone would be doing EVERYthing! Life would suddenly be like Grand Theft Auto. Also, while everyone's using their robot, they're practically asleep in their own homes, so home invasions and other related crimes have never been easier. - How does everyone get a robot? You *know* the poor ain't getting' one, but apparently abject poverty is no barrier to joining the robot revolution. - Why can't the FBI fly over the redneck camp? They can hack into people's robot feed and shut them down legally within 20 seconds, but fly a helicopter over some hippie's love circle? Forget about it, Willis, hand over your badge and gun.

And now, my other problems with this film:

• the entire film was shot on a dutch tilt (i.e. the camera is askew; this device normally indicates something wrong in a scene). I noticed this about thirty minutes in, and after an hour I realised the director was probably trying to say something about his world (i.e. 'this world ain't right') and would likely have the camera right itself in the closing scenes. Sure enough, when Willis makes amends with his wife, the camera goes level, so all is right with the world once more.

This is the most pretentious conceit I have seen in film in a long time. Yes, a director must communicate through the language of film, but an entire movie on the dutch tilt is someone saying 'Look at me! I'm saying something important!'

• Why didn't the bad guys send hit men or ninjas or something to James Cromwell's house and just kill him for real? He's in a wheelchair, so it ain't like he's going to outrun a ninja. So much simpler than using a super secret weapon and blah blah blah. Plus, the ninja could make it look like an accident or natural causes. - Why did James Cromwell commit suicide right before seeing everyone else die? And why a cyanide capsule? He had a perfectly good gun right there! - James Cromwell (in robot form) just happened to sneak into Radha Mitchell's house and see the EXACT MOMENT of recorded footage that would tell him how kill everyone on the planet? What are the freakin' ODDS of this, people? - We've got instantaneous mind control over robots that are miles (if not hundreds of miles) away, and yet we still use USB? Please.

Ah screw it, this movie was crap and I feel better now. :)

In the Eyes of the Beholder

[Cineanalyst · 8/10 · 21 October 2020]

Sometimes I'm confounded by how others see movies. Take "Surrogates," with its 37% RottenTomatoes score and criticisms of action-flick banality and stupid robot stuff. Indeed, the picture's introduction during the credits explaining the entire scenario as a political thriller was unnecessary and misguided, and if one accepts it on that level, it makes some sense that they'd be disappointed. What I enjoy about it, however, is that it's about spectatorship--about gazing upon movies. Characters see the world through virtual-reality headsets to identify with their robotic avatars much as we follow figures on the screen in dark movie theatres or alone in our bedrooms. Moreover, these robots are the actors' doubles just as film is but a representation of recorded people and not their actual presence. Initially, the only "meatbag" in the surrogates' world, as opposed to the reservations for the hold-outs who prefer living in their own skin, is the guy watching the surveillance monitors tracking the goings-on of the surrogates. He's our on-screen surrogate, even as we largely identify with and follow the protagonist played by Bruce Willis--especially when even our on-screen surrogate spectator, like us, is physically powerless to affect the proceedings. Even the noir-ish, detective mystery is over the murder of people through their eyes, and the love story is about the desire to see the woman inside and not the superficial shell she inhabits--in a way a repudiation of the so-called "male gaze."

The acting isn't bad, either. There are quite a bit of little mannerisms added to suggest their second bodies' artificiality, along with the costume and production design. Willis and Rosamund Pike each have exceptionally expressive eyes. The visual effects have a hyper-realistic aspect to them that works well for the overall artificiality of the endeavor, and I even like the sense of weight when the surrogates land from leaping about. Sure, it's not perfect. Besides the opening credits, the implementation of Dutch angles seems rather haphazard. There doesn't seem to be much of anything to make of white characters possessing black-skinned surrogates, or of the transgendered potential of inhabiting any sex, and I think it's unfortunate that they have reservations for the humanity that is uprooted from their way of living, but the movie doesn't prominently cast any Native Americans. But, then again, viewing "Surrogates" as a reflection of reality I think is to miss seeing its fantastical potential as a sci-fi mediation between the screen and the spectator.

Surrogates solid, thought provoking film

[leadercobra · 7/10 · 23 September 2009]

I went to an advance showing of Surrogates tonight and while it starts out a bit silly I ended up really liking it. The films strives for the mock realism of district nine but ends up falling short of that level of intensity. I have not read the graphic novel upon which the film is based, however knowing it's a multi part graphic novel is a bit odd since the film in incredibly short. I believe it clocks in at less than an hour and a half long. Rarely do I feel that the climax is reached TOO quickly in a film but everything seems to fall into place with little explanation as too how the characters know what's going on other than blind luck.

The movie sees Tom, played by Bruce Willis as a cop whose living through a surrogate. Think i-Robot but with less tension between the humans and the robots. Surrogates function in a way that humans can lie down with caps over their eyes and neurologically control attractive, boring versions of themselves. Curiously, Tom's surrogate is a cop with a blond comb over. Tom however is growing tired of relying on his surrogate. He wants to see his wife more often...his real wife.

In one of the film's many plot holes, a vagrant "meatbag" human (one who is against the idea of surrogates) uses a "device" to kill surrogates which somehow kills humans at the same time by making their brains exploded. If that sounds convoluted...that's because it is. There's many things in this film left unexplained including that aspect as well as the need for surrogates in the first place. Why bother? These thoughts are quickly erased once Tom is on a chase to find out who is trying to kill surrogates and why.

The film has a very fast pace like I said above with from the point of action to the climax very little digression. Within the title crawl you already what surrogates are, what their purpose is and the history of the surrogates. I wish they could slow down a bit and discuss more of the mentality behind the process, but I suppose that's up to the audience to decide.

Surrogates is a film that made me happy to be alive as I walked out and thought about it. It's an entertaining film but I can't help but feel that it falls into the same lines of action/drama/sci fi movies as recent ones like The Happening, I am Legend and i-Robot. It's definitely that kind of movie and if you enjoy that, then it won't disappoint.

Could have been so much better.

[colormind · 5/10 · 20 October 2009]

First of all, let me start with a quote from David Brin:

"Hey! Go to Kiln People for the original concept, done a whole lot better, by the original author."

There goes it, the ideas behind the Graphic Novel that inspired the movie, are taken from a great book from SF write David Brin. The difference between the book and the movie is that the book explores so much more, the movie is extremely shallow and fails to explore the ideas of the book. If you want to see some action in a SF disguise, then go for it, but if you truly like SF I would recommend the book over the movie.