Its basically about a relationship between people with different backgrounds who would normally interact namely an American man near to retirement who has had a prosperous life but now seems to have little passion in his life and some illegal immigrants who he discovers living in a second home he has.The American Walter(Richard jenkins) finds himself sympathetic to the immigrants who are a couple of mixed races and allows them to stay in his apartment.Over the course of the film he becomes very involved emotionally with them especially the mother of the male character who he meets later in the film.The male Tarek is a very charming person and gets Walter into playing a bongo drums.The female Zainab has the weakest part and seems pretty weary of walter but his acts of kindess eventually soften her attitude towards him.
Memorable parts: Security guard says to Walter 'Step away from the counter' which is something Walter sees happen to someone else earlier in the film.
Anyway I give this an 8/10.
By the way Richard jenkins will probably be familiar but not one of those actors stands out but after this film you will probably notice him more just like the guy who played locke in Lost.
Anyway I watched this on the BBC IPlayer so it might be still available if you live in the region for it.
In the future, food is scarce, and the totalitarian government organizes a "game" in which 24 people are selected from 12 districts of the country to fight to the death. These people are drawn from a "lottery", in which every person is in it once, but additional times for when they took food from the government. The winner of the tournament never has to enter it again.
I had no idea what this movie was about going in, but I enjoyed it a lot. There were a few minor points which made it difficult for me to connect with the movie, for example the art style. Everything is super flashy and flamboyant, it was just something that I really didn't enjoy looking. It was hard to take it as serious as the movie intended it to be. The characters were pretty dull as well, they had really boring backstories even though they tried hard to develop them. The character development on the other hand was excellent. The plot was great, except the pacing of it was so on and off. Overall it was a great movie, I actually really enjoyed it. It felt a little too much like a novel (I know its based off of a novel), so you know what type of movie it was.
Read a Good Answer to the Question of; Why Hollywood Does not make Hard Sci-Fi movies?
"No it does not and I will tell you why.
Let's start with your terms. To you, "hard sci fi" is L5 and Primer. Never mind that Primer performs the same slights-of-hand as Inception with a much less entertaining story, or that L5 is Alien or Prometheus or Pandorum or, for that matter, Avatar. It's that "science fallacy in film is a huge pet peeve of yours." So superconducting rocks are probably out, right? Or any element that can't be explained by your current level of science understanding... which means no warp drives, no transporters, no antigravity, right?
For starters, there isn't a lot of that written because there isn't a lot of that bought. Compare the reception Richard Morgan or Greg Bear get compared to Asimov or Piers Anthony. Would Larry Niven count as "hard sci fi?" I mean, slaver stasis fields, tasps, Kardashev II civilizations... there's some pretty serious sleight-of-hand involved in The Smoke Ring, and even more in Ringworld. It's been my experience that faster-than-light travel is usually out in "hard sci fi" but near-perfect-efficiency fusion reactions are A-OK. You know what that looks like to all but the most hard-core science fiction fans?
It looks like arbitrary affection.
I had a discussion with Larry Niven once. He pointed out that it's a rare science fiction story that doesn't end with some form of deus ex machina. What happens at the end of 2001, by the way, the "gold standard" for hard sci fi? If you watch the movie, Frank Bowman disappears down some form of stargate or other, ends up in an oddly uplit pure-white mental construct of a hotel room, ages in minutes and is reborn as an embryo. If you read the book, Frank Bowman disappears down some form of hyperintelligent computer or other, ends up being re-assembled as a superior life form, and swoops down upon the near-warring Earth in order to set things to rights as The Starchild.
...Starts to make "the Force" look positively quaint, doesn't it?
"Hard sci fi" then is an intangible. It's an arbitrary boundary drawn between "we can't do this yet but we think we'll be able to sometime in the foreseeable future" and "we can't do this but yet but maybe we'll be able to eventually."
Meanwhile, movies are retardedly expensive. Your friends at L5 appear to have spent $10k making a 25-minute episode... cheap by any reasonable scale but astoundingly costly compared to just about any other niche endeavor. Even Monsters cost $800k and it was just a crew of 5 wandering around Mexico and Costa Rica for three weeks (wrapped up in 750k in post-production). If you're going to make your money back, you need to be willing to discount those people who are going to discount you out-of-hand because you have "Jeffries Tubes" in your story.
Meanwhile, science fiction is viewed as an "adolescent" pursuit in Hollywood. It's what directors do before they get serious. Spielberg? First movie was sci fi. Lucas? First movie was sci fi. Ridley Scott? Second movie was sci fi. Twohy? First movie was sci fi. You make a scrappy, avant-garde science fiction film so that you can demonstrate your "vision" without having to worry too much about being a stunning commercial success right out the gate. Then they "trust" you to do bigger things.
Because in Hollywood, "sci fi" comes in two flavors: super-cheap and super-expensive. The movies in the middle - Screamers, Gattaca, Existenz - are noteworthy for losing money hand over fist. If you're going to make sci fi, it's going to be less than $10m or more than $150m. No middle ground. And if you're going to spend more than $150m, you're not going to trust it will succeed because of all the "hard sci fi" fans out there.
It's a peculiar tweak of sci fi fans. Fantasy fans don't do it. Neither do mystery fans. Can you imagine a fantasy geek going "I'll watch a movie with dragons and unicorns in it, but seeing spells cast "annoys me to my core?"
Why don't you let go of that?
There are any number of posts on here asking about "good sci fi movies." There are lists at IMDb. There are lists at BoxOfficeMojo. 'cuz I've been down here for five years, fighting the good fight, trying to get stuff made, and I gotta tell ya - there's nothing worse than hearing the people you still think of as 'your core demographic' drawing lines in the sand as to what they will and will not watch.
You start to understand why Hollywood ignores them."
Speaking of which, the new Total Recall trailer is here.
On the up side, it has golden dildos at 1:44 and an eyeful of fun new tech ideas. However, it leans too heavily on the older movie. Nearly every scene in the preview mirrors a part of the 90's version. Will the whole movie be scene after scene of tributes? The Nightmare remake tried this to a lesser extent, and it just came off as pointless and yawn-worthy.
In the new Total Recall, there won't be a trip to Mars. Thank god. I'm ready to see a different movie completely. What are your thoughts? Will Total Recall 2012 have some balls and actually be new, or will it just cut and paste everything from the famous blueprint of the past? Is the trailer trying to trick us into thinking it's the exact same story so they can mess with our heads in theater, or is this just a marketing scheme to appeal to fans of the old?
I'll admit I wasn't excited about a remake of Total Recall. Why all the remakes and sequels? I believe last movie season there were nearly 30 sequels released! I'm hard pressed to view a movie with a 2,3,or 4 at the end of the title. I understand it's a money making venture, but I'm seriously concerned creativity is all but dead.