Electric State
Movie popped up out of nowhere on Netflix [full disclaimer, I do not pay for Flix so as to avoid that inevitable comment]. Had seen no promotion for it, no buildup, nothing. Just "here it is..."
The movie looks great. Visuals, CGI (the vast majority) is good. It has the expansive look of a big budget, tentpole type film. And the cast supports that 'big movie' concept. Chris Pratt, Millie Boobie Blippy Brown, Woody Harrellson, Giancarlo (Gus Fring) Esposito, Anthony (Fake Captain America) Mackie, Jenny (Supposedly famous?) Slate, Jonathan Ke (Oscar winning Short Round) Quan, Brian Cox, Stanley Tucci, Holly (Get me that baby) Hunter, Jason (Costanza) Alexander, Michelle Yeoh, Alan (I'll fong you) Tudyk... Huge, expensive celebrated cast.
A little while into the film, as I saw the look of it and watched name after name actor pop up, I did a little checking. It's big budget, alright. Netflix supposedly spent over $320 million making this movie. They went all out. The film was made under the guidance and direction of the Russos - who were fully or partially responsible for Marvel entries Endgame, Infinity Wars, Winter Soldier and Civil War, as well as Community and Arrested Development. For comparative purposes, they spent more to make this film than they did to make Infinity War. That film grossed over $2 billion. Electric State is on track to make two dollars and forty cents.
I honestly cannot concieve of how Netflix intended to make back its investment when Electric State (regardless of critical reception) will have no theatrical release and no trail of streaming rental revenue. New subscriptions? Even assuming every new sub at the highest rate pays for an entire year, the service would have to sell roughly 1.1 million new subs just to cover the cost of this one film.
Take the financial considerations out. What happened here? Why was this enormously expensive, broadly expansive, CGI stuffed film flying so far under the radar? How did it take so much (alleged) acting and directoral talent and a budget the size of a double-wide trailer and generate a film that has no buzz and no audience traction? Why are critics so brutally abusing it?
The story (apparently adopted from some graphic novel) is that in the early 90s these product placement robots rose up against humanity and demanded civil rights. There was a war. The robots lost and their representative - Mr. Peanut - signed a treaty with President Clinton. Robots were banished to a restricted area in the American desert. Meanwhile, Mr. Skate (Tucci) created some VR headset that everybody wears which essentially turns the entire nation into a drooling mass. Everybody basically exists in their own fantasy worlds within these giant headpieces (or something). Bibby Bee Blonde goes on a mission to find her brother - whom she thought was dead - when a robot purporting to contain his essence shows up. She hooks Pratt (playing a watered down version of Starlord) and his robot along for the ride. Along the way she runs afoul of Mr. Skate and ignites a showdown beween the kind hearted robots and the evil humans.
That's part of the problem. The story is ridiculous. It wants balance the absurdity of the robot world it creates with the bigger implications of creeping technology to make some deep and grand overarching Terminator-level final denoument about the reliance of man on robots, AI, virtual reality over actual humanity. Bippity Boppity Brown and Sorta Starlord aren't up to the task. She's ok, he's ok and they're ok together but... the movie was too silly to make that kind of dramatic beat land.
The robots were interesting. It was almost Tim Burton level offbeat. Take Burton's black and white motif, take away the "horror" aspect, and cover it with dust and you might have something like these off-beat robots. There's a baseball one, a female mail carrier, Mr. Peanut, a piano player, and some other assorted oddities - but nothing like robots ever were or would be other than in the imaginations of the writers/directors. Even that wasn't bad. They were comedic at least. Think Transformers if the robots were cartoonish, couldn't change into cars/trucks, and were far less serious.
The humans were less interesting. Blue Footed Boobie Brown was probably the least interesting of the bunch. Pratt seemed to just be pulling scenes from Guardians and doing an impersonation of them. Never really became a true character in this universe.
Even the attempts at Easter eggs or clever references fell flat (and there were many). Take the Twinkie callback to Harrellson's Zombieland Tallahassee character. Doubt many caught it (since aparently nobody watched or is watching this).
It's really hard to pinpoint what went wrong. It's not a terrible movie. I didn't hate it. The story was wonky, Blue Bonnett Boofy Brown was a significant weak point, but even she didn't wreck the film. She wasn't that bad. The simple fact is that whatever intent the Russo's had, they simply did not stick the big budget landing.
The Zombieland Twinkie reference (that, like the movie, didn't quite land) is telling, actually. I think they wanted this to fit that Zombieland mold - a romp through a dystopian, robotic landscape. Somewhere, somehow, that got off track. Again, I wasn't wowed by the movie but I don't hold it in the same sneering disdain as the critics apparently do.
It's watchable if you aren't demanding that films be "art." It's imminently more watchable and enjoyable than the dour Nosferatu.
3655 Replies
974488 Views