Idiocracy

Moral Rating:

______

Add to your list?
View your list

E-mail this page to a friend

Moviemaking Quality:

Primary Audience:

Teens, Adults

Genre:

Sci-Fi, Action/Adventure, Comedy

Producer’s Synopsis: “Private Joe Bowers, the definition of “average American,” is selected by the Pentagon to be the guinea pig for a top-secret hibernation program, set 1,000 years in the future. He discovers a society so incredibly dumbed-down that he’s easily the most intelligent person alive, and becomes a close advisor to the president of the United States President Comacho (Terry Alan Crews).”

Positive - I liked the 180 switch on the future of mankind. Being a sci-fi buff, it is not hard to recognize that, generally speaking, movies about the future are filled with high tech gadgets, futuristic vehicles, intelligent science-minded people supposively having solved all the problems of mankind. With “Idiocracy” we get the opposite and perhaps a more realistic dose of where our culture is headed. Although this movie exaggerates how unintelligent people of the future might become, there is some underlying truth. No one can deny the dumbing down of the English language within the last 100 years. If we followed that same curve, assuming it progressed as it has now, it could very well be as the people were in this movie. A vocabulary of about 100 words and an IQ of 30.

I really liked the play on evolution in the film. Evolution is generally stated to be increasing in complexity, against the norm of the laws of thermodynamics. YET, in this movie, it is really shown that “survival of the fittest” is often not “survival of the smartest,” but rather the “C” student or trailer park resident has far more children than that liberal “A” student, who thinks he has all the answers. In the end, the smart die off and only the trailer park or inner city folk remain.

There is also a play on corporations and how they will do anything to gain more power and money. In the future, only 3 or 4 companies own the whole United States. Water is replaced by Gatorade. Starbucks serves much more than just nice drinks. And Costco has stores that are several miles in size. And also a play on how we put too much ephasis on celebrities, as the president of the United States is basically a WWE star. And, although I love monster trucks, this red neck passion is put on steriods.

Refreshing movie. As several people have said to me. To sum up this movie, “It’s not the best movie in the world, but you cannot look away from the TV screen.”
My Ratings: Average / 3
—Anthony Woodcock, age 31

Neutral - Tough call for this one. Definitely not for the kids, or for the squeamish. It has some solid, laugh-out-loud moments, and an intelligent message (even though it is presented unintelligibly). An enigma of a film, it somehow willingly condemns itself. There is no Christian message, and it is laced with lewd jokes, yet it has an air of respect for the audience that many other comedy films lack, and a cinematic polish uncommon for the genre that gives it a sense of authority. There is no nudity but lots of sexual dialog and imagery, as well as profanity including quite a few uses of God's name in vain (which is quite a few too many). Overall, if you are on the fence about seeing this, then do not see it. If you are determined to see it, try to look at it as a warning message; see what a world utterly rejecting God can look like.
My Ratings: Extremely Offensive / 5
—Adam, age 24

Neutral - I know dark comedy, and usually I'm a fan, but this time it was just too much. As far as quality goes, the filming wasn't bad, but it wasn't good either. The storyline is less than outstanding, which is why this will get a three.

Moral objections? I counted slightly over 75 f's and I lost count of s's (which in idiot-land, is used in place of unidentifiable nouns). The sex-related humor is painful, but not sickening. Do movies have to include Colin Sullivan-grade (okay, it wasn't that bad) obscenities to be good nowadays?

It had its moments, granted. But there was so much sex reference and language that I really couldn't enjoy it. It could have been so much better, and, in fairness, it could have been a LOT worse. This is not a kid movie, no matter how inviting the cover looks.
My Ratings: Moral rating: Extremely Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 3
—James, age 19 (USA)

Negative - I was really excited about this movie coming out. After having a limited release in theaters I stumbled across some reviews and discussions online. I thought it was a creative and interesting idea and looked forward to seeing how it had been put together. When I rented it, I noticed that it was rated R, but I rented it anyway. I was extremely disappointed in what I saw. Not only was the movie vulgar, but filled with sexual image after sexual reference after sexual image. Examination of the idea of the dumbing down of our society was limited at best. Mike Judge failed miserably in his attempt to make a comedy out of this topic that, in my opinion, had so much potential. He choose to overlook intelligent humor and filled this movie with perversion and stupidity. The movie lives up to it's name, although it appears to have been written by the society that it portrays. In brief, it could have been funny, but it wasn't.
My Ratings: Very Offensive / 2
—Natasha, age 29

Negative - This is one of the few films I regret ever seeing. I was a huge fan of Judge's “Office Space” and was excited to see this movie. Not only was it unfunny but frightening in it's portrayal of the future. In it Americans have gotten so dumb that garbage has piled up so high that Garbage Avalanches occur, and we have stopped using water to grow plants but Gatorade. It proposes that it is the “dumb” people reproducing leaving the “smart” people to become extinct. Content-wise there are many F-words and numerous sexual references. Quality-wise it is on the same level as a made for TV comedy. I cannot recommend this film to anyone, not even die hard Mike Judge fans. I can see why Fox refused to show this movie in theatres.
My Ratings: Extremely Offensive / 1
—Daniel, age 25