This one seems to be flying under the radar, but I think it’s worth checking out, but don’t watch the trailer as it kinda spoils the whole thing.
The basic premise is basically the same as that not very well done film with Justin Timberlake, In Time, but instead of time being the currency and everything, you can sell/donate your time.
You know what? I actually liked In Time. I was young, but I don’t recall anything wrong with that movie, and from what I remember the climax was really really emotional and cool… I don’t know, I might need to revisit it, but I remember I revisited it a couple of times and it was always entertaining, at least. I cared about the characters.
With Paradise, I felt like it’s just another “eye for an eye” story that I’ve seen so many times, and ultimately it was not about the concept of time as currency, but the concept of revenge, which is like… fine, okay.
I have not seen In Time, but I do agree with you here. The selling time for money was more of a backdrop to the revenge plot of the movie.
Good set up, decent movie, but wish they would have expanded more on the life span selling.
it’s not a revenge story ala John Wick.
it’s an anti-capitalist story. or hero waking up from the system he participates in and rebelling against it (in that way it’s more of a Equillibrium).
In a way it’s also a critique of people who only realize that shit is wrong once they are personally affected by it.
Wouldn’t say it’s any Eye for an eye story at all.
Ultimately both movies are a critique of capitalism, In Time is more on the nose with it, with time being the literal currency, meaning the moment you run out of “money” you literally drop dead. It’s been some time so I should probably rewatch the movie, but from what I remember the movie didn’t do a very good job at exploring those anti-capitalism themes fully.
I think Paradise does a much better job of exploring the capitalist exploitation be it criminal or “legal”.
spoiler
In time is mostly just rich people bad (which they are). Paradise also includes the other side of the story, not only are the most vulnerable exploited by the richest, also the criminal element, the illegal clinic at the end stealing years from kidnapped refugee kids.
The part about how most people are okay with “doctors doing the killing for them” I think is a good metaphor for how we deal with Climate change, lots of people are mostly okay with letting it go to shit, as in continue to participate in life as before, because the ones facing most of the consequences are the 3rd world countries.
or you can interpret it as a vegan argument if you like, most people are fine buying neatly packaged pieces of meat, most wouldn’t go and kill an animal to eat if they’d have to.
Yeah, I don’t want to re-watch In Time, but I have fond memories of the movie.
The plot was simple and was conveyed effectively, which is not something you can say of many Time Travelling/ Modding films.
I thought this movie had a good premise. I was describing it to my wife under the guise of a movie that I didn’t really like, but ironically, as I described the major plot points, it sounded like a great movie. However I just think ultimately the plot is too predictable, and some of the dialogue is a bit too on the nose. Also the way the two main characters seem to switch moral positions so easily seems pretty inconsistent. The two main characters really have the least interesting story imo. The bodyguard’s subplot also seems completely unnecessary since the themes it covers are a subset of the husband’s subplot.
TL;DR interesting premise with subpar execution.
Also the way the two main characters seem to switch moral positions so easily seems pretty inconsistent.
I don’t think so.
spoiler
The husband is at first convinced that he got Sophie Thiessen, who is lying about being her daughter and is in denial about her being the daughter while he can plausibly deny it, once it’s undeniable that he got the wrong person, he is no longer okay with going through the plan, because he thinks Sophie is dead, he saw her being shot, so it’s no longer a case of, her mother can just give the years back to sophie, so it’s a kind of victimless crime.
This to me is inline with the character, as we can see him argue the merits of his job this his father-in-law who is criticizing him, but later during the standoff he reveals he was fully cognizant of the fact that of how he was exploiting the poor as a donation manager, but maybe as he was convincing others of selling their youth, he was also convincing himself that he is doing good for these people.
The woman protagonist (forgot her name), on the other hand is against using the daughter or at least on the edge, that is until she tries to kill her, it’s when she realizes she is not the young innocent woman she thought she was.
I don’t really have an issue with where their morality lands, but moreso how quickly and extremely it changes. The characters feel like their morality is assigned to them rather than developed.
Also
spoiler
Why would the daughter shoot the woman protagonist? They were very clearly being not hostile to her, and there was a very high likelihood of her being shot if she didn’t escape with them. I would say the daughter’s (Marie?) character is also sloppily implemented.
spoiler
why would she be shot? she was being rescued, though what I found sloppy is that she just followed them, and didn’t try to run away at that point, that makes her pulling the trigger weird.
spoiler
why would she be shot?
There were still plenty of anti-donation forces around that already attempted to shoot the protagonists. I assume they wouldn’t hesitate to shoot her just like they wouldn’t (and didn’t) hesitate to shoot her mother.
spoiler
well they said they don’t kill innocent people randomly, didn’t they? so there is really no reason any of them would harm her
