Paradise is an exciting action sci fi with a really interesting premise. What if eternal youth, was available to anyone with money... yet it involved literally sucking the life force out of others less fortunate than yourself?



The movie focuses on Max, who after his wife is unexpectedly forced to give up 40 years of her life, he desperately searches for a way to get her youth back.

The movie is filled with the usual plot twists, cool sci fi graphics, true love and the like.



There are two truly interesting elements to this movie. The first is the cynical idea that if the rich could live forever, then they would be much more motivated to think about and solve for the long term health of the planet.

In this movie, only the rich can afford to extend their lives for as long as they choose, so we also see how that would severely impact wealth inequality. 



The second interesting element of this movie is a series of questions very similar to the trolley problem. If you could extend your life, at the cost of someone else's youth, would you, assuming they were somehow reimbursed financially?

What if your youth had been taken from you; or what if youth had been taken from someone you loved. Would you take it back? Would you take it back as ethically as possible, or ethics be damned?

Could you give up your youth to save a loved one from an extremely unkind yet uncertain end, or is it easier to risk your life to save theirs than it is to give up eternal youth once you have it?



At one point in the movie, we learn it is easier to take someones life passively through the forces of economics and medical science, than it is to actively kill someone with a gun to their head. Which is the essence of the trolley problem. But it is also the essence of wealth inequality.

We could easily flip the switch, to improve the quality of life and length of life for many people, at the cost of one rich persons riches, but those with power passively choose to not do so. The movie doesn't philosophize anywhere near as much as I am doing right now, instead focusing on fast action, true love and cool sci fi. But I think perhaps this movie is a very subtle warning to the rich. At a certain point of wealth inequality, some portion of the population will want their fair share of the wealth, ethics be damed.

https://www.netflix.com/title/81288179

Hi everyone,
So having been a massive fan of the Matrix trilogy, I was very excited about the Matrix 4, but obviously with a very hesitant heart of not being too excited, for fears of it failing to meet our expectations. But unfortunately, that's what happened, at least from every person that I've asked about it.

I know it was just the one Wachowski sister that was involved with this version, so it makes sense that it might have a slightly different flavour. And yes, I've watched it about 3 times. I really wanted to see if there was anything I needed to see or think about that would make it enjoyable, as I really wanted to have it up there with the original trilogy. (After all, I did enjoy some of the Wachowski's films after the trilogy.)

Is there anyone here that:

1. Did enjoy it.
2. Would be able to play devil's advocate on why they think it was good, or what we missed?

I am very keen to get into the nitty gritty of it. :-D

He says he wants the "man-machine" built with the likeness of Maria in order to "sow discord" amongst the workers. Maria is the one who is preaching a message of hope/faith and therefore keeping a revolution at bay. For how much longer, who knows. The point is, she is giving the workers hope and preventing violence.

Why would Johann want a version of Maria that encourages a revolution (death to the machines!)? It is in Johann's best interest if the workers stay succumbed, as his bourgeoisie lifestyle is dependent on their work.

(First post, sorry if the tags are bad.)