2073

Audience Reviews

View All (62) audience reviews

Rebecca F Only MAGAts will hate this movie. Rated 5/5 Stars •  Rated 5 out of 5 stars 04/24/25 Full Review Lex L 2073, directed by Asif Kapadia, is a controversial dual genre film. It is sci-fi mixed with documentary clips. In 2073, years after “the event”, the world is plunged into a dystopian authoritarian society. The film follows the main character, Ghost, and her daily survival as one who is not an elite member of society and lives hidden underground. This film received a wide range of reviews. Many commented that they dislike the true documentary clips mixed in with the sci-fi plot. Personally, this element is a huge part of why I enjoyed the movie. The contrast between real life and sci-fi helped set the pace of the film. The dual genre aspect was the most unique and memorable factor about the film. The documentary sections were a little slower, and then the sci-fi parts were a thriller and a more fast-paced section. This contrast in pacing set a great flow of the movie. Further, the documentary parts evoked pathos. These scenes established a connection to the audience’s real life, which in turn made the sci-fi parts more realistic and hit close to home. The whole point of this film is to make the viewer sit with the uncomfortable feelings that a dystopian society could easily happen in our own reality. Experiencing these feelings is not a negative for me, but is for others and may be why this film has mixed reviews. This film uses a lot of different lighting techniques, especially underground. The dark setting underground added another element of fear and despair. New San Francisco appeared very hazy with lots of pollution in the air. This combined with the rubble and dilapidated infrastructure set an almost post-apocalyptic scene. I enjoy the acting from Naomi Ackie and Samantha Morton. Morton’s character, Ghost, does not speak to other characters, yet the audience was able to grasp the message and her feelings. She heavily relied on non-verbal communication and acting. It is impressive how much emotion she was able to convey in this manner. Ackie’s character served as foreshadowing to Ghost’s fate as the film developed. Ackie and Morton’s friendship also added and element of hope and connection, which was needed to balance the overall tone of despair and fear. Some of the background characters were not needed. For example, Hector Hewer’s character did not add much to the film. And, I would have been more interested in more viewpoints in New San Francisco above ground. It would have added more perspective to see what middle class and above class did during the days as well. This film is about an hour and a half, which is relatively short. They could have added 30-45 minutes’ worth of more content to see more perspective. This may have allowed the film to connect to a broader audience as well. The biggest downside of this film is the lack of subtlety. The film was very straightforward with little room for deeper analysis or interpretation. There was no allegory or metaphor. The message was crystal clear and almost too direct. While the directness of the story was the director’s creative choice, I personally felt that the film would have been more enjoyable if there was thought required to analyze the message. Further, I’ve noticed that many of the dislike revolves around political opinion. Some feel this film is critical of many current global political powers. However, no matter your own political beliefs, I feel it is an important skill to analyze and recognize how current political decisions may impact future generations. I am one who can find strengths and weaknesses on both sides of the isle, which is why I am able to enjoy this film. People who have unwavering loyalty and an inability to critique current political figures largely dislike this film. The trope of authoritarianism and dystopian societies is an idea covered by many other books and films. So, in 2025, if a director is choosing to use this idea, it is fundamental to the film’s success to be unique and stand out. This film missed the mark on that and was very unoriginal. There was an attempt with the duel-genre to make the film unique. Also, never explaining, “the event” was supposed to add an element of mystery to make the film stand out. However, these two elements were not enough to qualify this film as novel and memorable. Overall, I enjoyed the message, the different genre styles, the acting, and the excellent lighting techniques when producing the film. While there was a lot of good to this film, there was a lot of mediocrity as well. It’s worth one watch, but I won’t be rushing to watch it again soon. Rated 3/5 Stars •  Rated 3 out of 5 stars 04/23/25 Full Review Clay D This movie falls flat on its face. This movie would not be bad honestly, if it would just stick to the images of the documentary, do a voiceover and talk about the real issues that are having the problems and not go back-and-forth with this weird acting and going back-and-forth with the characters and then why is the main woman in this movie a mute doing sign language? I don't understand that at all on top of that it's really aggravating too that they go back-and-forth with different political videos and it's hard to understand where it's taking place of going back-and-forth between different past times from 2022 to 1997 and you're not understanding why they're going to these different time zones of past times on top of that. It doesn't make sense. Why like they're showing stuff in the documentary of looking for chicken or looking for scrap metals I mean it feels like they're doing a parody of fallout the video game lol it just feels really strange that they would do this in a movie or a documentary, and it does feel somewhat of authoritarianism with Donald Trump, taking people from Maryland to El Salvador without due process, but to be honest with you, authoritarianism has been around for quite some time even before this Documentary but they really should've thought about this movie fixed. A lot of the issues did a voice over not done all this weird acting it probably would've been a decent movie, but it really is not a good movie. Rated 1.5/5 Stars •  Rated 1.5 out of 5 stars 04/23/25 Full Review Charles C A lazy documentary with about 30 minutes of slow post-apocalyptic pseudo sci-fi story patched in, literally, between scenes. Oh it is so engaging the protagonist doesn't speak, only narrates with voiceover directly to the audience. What it lacked in exciting sci-fi insights and journalistic importance it made up with repetitive imagery to look at while listening to the narrator. Rated 1/5 Stars •  Rated 1 out of 5 stars 04/23/25 Full Review Ryan W Uninteresting and full of holes Rated 0.5/5 Stars •  Rated 0.5 out of 5 stars 04/22/25 Full Review Blaine B This is a mind numbing film that ironically paints a dystopian future were rights like free speech and privacy have been stripped away, and somehow blames it on the right. 🤦‍♂️ Rated 0.5/5 Stars •  Rated 0.5 out of 5 stars 04/21/25 Full Review Read all reviews

2073

My Rating

Read More Read Less POST RATING WRITE A REVIEW EDIT REVIEW

Most Popular at Home Now