I got a Dark City vibe where the world was recreated on a different planet by these aliens and humans supplanted onto it. Or as you say, maybe a simulation.
It did seem like there was a deeper meaning behind it, like the woman naturally tending to 'it' despite knowing it wasnt human while the guy was more dismissive of its behaviour, as well as needing something to focus on to get away from it.
I'm sure there are more clues if watched again, just not sure I'd want to. It was OK for a one-time watch.
This is a pet hate of mine. Movie makers being cryptic for no sensible reason but to challenge and confuse an audience. I believe they think it makes them look clever. It doesn't.
Nothing wrong with a bit of residual mystery or leaving breadcrumbs for audiences to follow, but unless you read alien, and really fucking quickly, you are flat out of luck here.
Tbh, I don't even get the premise. Alien creatures kidnap couples so those couples can raise alien offspring to adulthood, all the while providing every resource necessary? They must really hate their own offspring. It's one helluva investment in resources. The analogy to cuckoos made in the film doesn't even come close to being right, since cuckoos leave eggs in other nests and the cuckolded (that's where the word comes from) birds have the burden of feeding and protecting them, usually at the expense of their own chicks.
Off course, if gene splicing a Twilight Zone episode with an 80s music video, watched while you are on acid, is the sort of thing that gives you a buzz; this is gonna make your acorns hum.
Ultimately, as others have said, the filmmakers have not given enough information to reach any conclusions, or the clues are so minor as to go unnoticed.
Couldn't agree more with everyone here. There was absolutely no payoff in this movie, leaving us wondering why these creatures existed at all, other than to replace their predecessor in a crappy housing showroom ready to kidnap the next first homebuyers.
I don't understand the high ratings from some of the reviewers on this site. Maybe I need to be on the same drugs as them to unlock my third eye or something.
Wow, I think ALL of you missed the mark! The very beginning of the movie opens with Bird Brood Parasitism. Some birds (ex. the cuckoo bird), lay eggs and sneak them into other species of bird's nests....leaving them to raise a baby that isn't there, but somehow BELIEVES its theirs (in the couple's case, they KNOW its not theirs, yet they are kinda forced, then starts to feel responsible), in many cases, due to the bird CONSTANTLY needing attention & to be fed, they become MASSIVE (again, shown in the beginning of the movie, but you can Youtube some videos), stressing the imprinted parent bird with a LOT of strain because of their "baby" ...slowly wasting them away and even killing them from exhaustion or starvation or both. Its downright scary and makes you want to MURDER all those damn Cuckoo birds! lol. Apparently its all part of the eco system and "it is what it is" in nature, but can't imagine it happening in HUMAN form....til now! I think it made the film that much more disturbing for me!
No jorgito, you missed the mark. I already mentioned the cuckoo and how that parallel doesn't work in Vivarium.
I might've missed your comment...and although it isn't EXACTLY a brood parasite scenario, its close to it! With a little added "oddness" to make the viewer uncomfortable.
The fact that we interpreted it differently compliments the movie me thinks. Gets the gears spinning a bit. Were they interdimensional beings? Aliens?
No jorgito, you missed the mark. I already mentioned the cuckoo and how that parallel doesn't work in Vivarium.
I might've missed your comment...and although it isn't EXACTLY a brood parasite scenario, its close to it! With a little added "oddness" to make the viewer uncomfortable.
The fact that we interpreted it differently compliments the movie me thinks. Gets the gears spinning a bit. Were they interdimensional beings? Aliens?
The movie doesn't give us any information to form a conclusion, so we'll never know the answers to these questions. As I said earlier, nothing wrong with mystery or loose ends, but this entire movie is a loose end. It's like reading a book only to discover someone had ripped out half the pages, including the ending. But worse than that, what we DO have doesn't make a lot of sense. It's a reasonable suspicion that the reason we don't have a more complete story is that the writers never had a proper story.
In any creative endeavour, it's not enough just to have a good idea. Spend time with a typical 8 year old and you'll come away with any number of wild and interesting ideas, because children are rich with imagination. But when producing something for other people, whether it is art or entertainment, a writer (or painter, or director) has to utilize the skills needed for the relevant medium in order to convey meaning. That part is more like trade or craft. It's actual work.
No jorgito, you missed the mark. I already mentioned the cuckoo and how that parallel doesn't work in Vivarium.
@jorgito2001 I agree with @Jacinto Cupboard here...we all got that. The discussion was about the larger point whether in the movie or in real life (good art does both). I'm not particularly upset with the filmmakers, if not answering the question was their goal, then they succeeded. One more thought on this was the age and the apparent age of the cast. This definitely seems more about obligational consumerism than anything to me, as it has aged in my mind.
This definitely seems more about obligational consumerism than anything to me, as it has aged in my mind.
This I think might have been a good explanation had the movie been better written, or even released in a different era. The idea of being enslaved by possessions and the commensurate obligations, in this case a mortgage, would have worked well in decades past when interest rates were high and ordinary people often struggled with those obligations. In today's world with record low interest rates and at a time when for much of the world the family home is the primary source of wealth, it doesn't ring true. Plus, from a narrative sense, the couple are not seen to enter into any kind of commitment or contract. If we are to be depicted as prisoners of our consumer choices, then choices need to be on display.
Many years ago, more years than will allow me to remember the author or the title, I read a short story the premise of which was a distant future in which not only had hunger been solved, but humanity produced so much food the poor were obliged to eat it. Now this was a story written when mass starvation and famines were regular news and even poor people in the developed world sometimes suffered malnutrition. The premise was ridiculous even by SciFi standards. Back then the word malnutrition served as meaning not enough food. Yet today malnutrition means, at least in the West, eating too much and eating too much of foods that harm us. And this obesity and diabetes and heart disease epidemic is rooted in poverty. Junk foods and other poor lifestyle choices are marketed to the lower orders of society. It might not be 'obligational consumerism' but it sure is hard to resist consumerism.
A critique of consumerism cannot start by robbing the protagonists of agency. In this movie they are literally kidnapped and enslaved. Such a critique has to be centered on personal responsibility for the choices we make.
To be clear, I am not saying you are wrong. Your observation regarding consumerism is astute. I can readily accept that the creators of this movie had something sneering and patronising to say about ordinary suburban people and their (our?) lock step lives and mindless consumption. If one tells a story about dehumanisation, the core of which is loss of agency, it would be helpful if the author didn't appear to think of people as tools in the first place.
This film was quite watchable throughout and reasonably well-acted, but not offering any kind of explanation was pure lazy screenwriting, and i left the cinema with a sour taste thanks to this.
If we are to be depicted as prisoners of our consumer choices, then choices need to be on display.[...]
A critique of consumerism cannot start by robbing the protagonists of agency. In this movie they are literally kidnapped and enslaved. Such a critique has to be centered on personal responsibility for the choices we make.
If one tells a story about dehumanisation, the core of which is loss of agency, it would be helpful if the author didn't appear to think of people as tools in the first place.
I'm not so sure it was about contractual obligations, but rather expectations, assumptions and desires. To put it succinctly, the trap of living an unexamined life.
Can't find a movie or TV show? Login to create it.
Reply by cpheonix
on April 3, 2020 at 4:45 AM
I got a Dark City vibe where the world was recreated on a different planet by these aliens and humans supplanted onto it. Or as you say, maybe a simulation.
It did seem like there was a deeper meaning behind it, like the woman naturally tending to 'it' despite knowing it wasnt human while the guy was more dismissive of its behaviour, as well as needing something to focus on to get away from it.
I'm sure there are more clues if watched again, just not sure I'd want to. It was OK for a one-time watch.
Reply by volkstraum
on April 26, 2020 at 5:00 PM
Purgatory
Reply by Jacinto Cupboard
on May 19, 2020 at 5:55 AM
This is a pet hate of mine. Movie makers being cryptic for no sensible reason but to challenge and confuse an audience. I believe they think it makes them look clever. It doesn't.
Nothing wrong with a bit of residual mystery or leaving breadcrumbs for audiences to follow, but unless you read alien, and really fucking quickly, you are flat out of luck here.
Tbh, I don't even get the premise. Alien creatures kidnap couples so those couples can raise alien offspring to adulthood, all the while providing every resource necessary? They must really hate their own offspring. It's one helluva investment in resources. The analogy to cuckoos made in the film doesn't even come close to being right, since cuckoos leave eggs in other nests and the cuckolded (that's where the word comes from) birds have the burden of feeding and protecting them, usually at the expense of their own chicks.
Off course, if gene splicing a Twilight Zone episode with an 80s music video, watched while you are on acid, is the sort of thing that gives you a buzz; this is gonna make your acorns hum.
Reply by Jacinto Cupboard
on May 19, 2020 at 5:55 AM
For the audience maybe.
Reply by Daddie0
on July 14, 2020 at 3:24 PM
Some facts: -Martin is not human
Some theories:
Ultimately, as others have said, the filmmakers have not given enough information to reach any conclusions, or the clues are so minor as to go unnoticed.
Reply by larz9
on August 23, 2020 at 8:54 AM
Couldn't agree more with everyone here. There was absolutely no payoff in this movie, leaving us wondering why these creatures existed at all, other than to replace their predecessor in a crappy housing showroom ready to kidnap the next first homebuyers.
I don't understand the high ratings from some of the reviewers on this site. Maybe I need to be on the same drugs as them to unlock my third eye or something.
Reply by janinathuth
on August 23, 2020 at 1:13 PM
I expected a better ending, but the whole plot was good
Reply by jorgito2001
on September 30, 2020 at 4:40 PM
Wow, I think ALL of you missed the mark! The very beginning of the movie opens with Bird Brood Parasitism. Some birds (ex. the cuckoo bird), lay eggs and sneak them into other species of bird's nests....leaving them to raise a baby that isn't there, but somehow BELIEVES its theirs (in the couple's case, they KNOW its not theirs, yet they are kinda forced, then starts to feel responsible), in many cases, due to the bird CONSTANTLY needing attention & to be fed, they become MASSIVE (again, shown in the beginning of the movie, but you can Youtube some videos), stressing the imprinted parent bird with a LOT of strain because of their "baby" ...slowly wasting them away and even killing them from exhaustion or starvation or both. Its downright scary and makes you want to MURDER all those damn Cuckoo birds! lol. Apparently its all part of the eco system and "it is what it is" in nature, but can't imagine it happening in HUMAN form....til now! I think it made the film that much more disturbing for me!
Here's a short video on YT: Brood Parasitism
Reply by Jacinto Cupboard
on September 30, 2020 at 9:59 PM
No jorgito, you missed the mark. I already mentioned the cuckoo and how that parallel doesn't work in Vivarium.
Reply by jorgito2001
on October 1, 2020 at 9:28 PM
I might've missed your comment...and although it isn't EXACTLY a brood parasite scenario, its close to it! With a little added "oddness" to make the viewer uncomfortable.
The fact that we interpreted it differently compliments the movie me thinks. Gets the gears spinning a bit. Were they interdimensional beings? Aliens?
Reply by Jacinto Cupboard
on October 1, 2020 at 10:08 PM
The movie doesn't give us any information to form a conclusion, so we'll never know the answers to these questions. As I said earlier, nothing wrong with mystery or loose ends, but this entire movie is a loose end. It's like reading a book only to discover someone had ripped out half the pages, including the ending. But worse than that, what we DO have doesn't make a lot of sense. It's a reasonable suspicion that the reason we don't have a more complete story is that the writers never had a proper story.
In any creative endeavour, it's not enough just to have a good idea. Spend time with a typical 8 year old and you'll come away with any number of wild and interesting ideas, because children are rich with imagination. But when producing something for other people, whether it is art or entertainment, a writer (or painter, or director) has to utilize the skills needed for the relevant medium in order to convey meaning. That part is more like trade or craft. It's actual work.
Reply by Daddie0
on November 9, 2020 at 3:19 PM
@jorgito2001 I agree with @Jacinto Cupboard here...we all got that. The discussion was about the larger point whether in the movie or in real life (good art does both). I'm not particularly upset with the filmmakers, if not answering the question was their goal, then they succeeded. One more thought on this was the age and the apparent age of the cast. This definitely seems more about obligational consumerism than anything to me, as it has aged in my mind.
Reply by Jacinto Cupboard
on November 9, 2020 at 7:58 PM
This I think might have been a good explanation had the movie been better written, or even released in a different era. The idea of being enslaved by possessions and the commensurate obligations, in this case a mortgage, would have worked well in decades past when interest rates were high and ordinary people often struggled with those obligations. In today's world with record low interest rates and at a time when for much of the world the family home is the primary source of wealth, it doesn't ring true. Plus, from a narrative sense, the couple are not seen to enter into any kind of commitment or contract. If we are to be depicted as prisoners of our consumer choices, then choices need to be on display.
Many years ago, more years than will allow me to remember the author or the title, I read a short story the premise of which was a distant future in which not only had hunger been solved, but humanity produced so much food the poor were obliged to eat it. Now this was a story written when mass starvation and famines were regular news and even poor people in the developed world sometimes suffered malnutrition. The premise was ridiculous even by SciFi standards. Back then the word malnutrition served as meaning not enough food. Yet today malnutrition means, at least in the West, eating too much and eating too much of foods that harm us. And this obesity and diabetes and heart disease epidemic is rooted in poverty. Junk foods and other poor lifestyle choices are marketed to the lower orders of society. It might not be 'obligational consumerism' but it sure is hard to resist consumerism.
A critique of consumerism cannot start by robbing the protagonists of agency. In this movie they are literally kidnapped and enslaved. Such a critique has to be centered on personal responsibility for the choices we make.
To be clear, I am not saying you are wrong. Your observation regarding consumerism is astute. I can readily accept that the creators of this movie had something sneering and patronising to say about ordinary suburban people and their (our?) lock step lives and mindless consumption. If one tells a story about dehumanisation, the core of which is loss of agency, it would be helpful if the author didn't appear to think of people as tools in the first place.
Reply by rudely_murray
on November 9, 2020 at 8:25 PM
This film was quite watchable throughout and reasonably well-acted, but not offering any kind of explanation was pure lazy screenwriting, and i left the cinema with a sour taste thanks to this.
Reply by Daddie0
on December 13, 2020 at 6:46 PM
I'm not so sure it was about contractual obligations, but rather expectations, assumptions and desires. To put it succinctly, the trap of living an unexamined life.