We Ate the Children Last (2011) Reviews

• Sits a bit awkwardly, but is an engaging slice of consumerist satire

  bob the moo2015-06-26

  A medical breakthrough sees digestive tract illnesses essentially cured by replacing the defective human ones with those of a pig donor. The trial patient is healthier than ever, but yet suffers from an intense appetite. This live-saving procedure becomes more popular when a pop star undergoes it for non-medical reasons, and the media contribute to this being a life-style choice that many follow. However, the darker world of the procedure starts to manifest itself. There is a lot in this film, and not all of it is necessarily successful, even if mostly it is. In terms of the delivery, we have a mix of the film being focused on one person, but then also free to explore the wider world as events unfold; it is a bit awkward between these two approaches, and neither one totally comes off as a whole, but they overlap reasonably well. The content of the film satirizes our consumerist culture, driven by media sensationalism and the need to consume whatever we are given and told is the new hot thing. I think I am better at this now that I am older, but certainly it is a trait I recognize in myself too easily. The film expands this into the other role of media and reaction in people – which is fear. This it does with familiar images of division, riots, and protests – the suggestion is a world in turmoil, but the suggestion is that the more it is covered, the more it is the case. It is relevant as we see protests and divisions along racial lines in the US, but also as we see the media's coverage of ISIS in the UK – with such a tiny number or people from here moving to Turkey to try to join the fight, but yet the coverage suggests we will all be murdered in our beds. Technically it is well made, and the news footage etc feels very real. The attempts at narrative and the focus on the central (?) character don't totally work, but as a bigger picture satire it does have some smarts to it, and links an absurd situation into our very tangible reality – and to be honest, outside of the pig-specifics, it doesn't feel too far-fetched.

• Good, but I expected great

  rgcustomer2012-03-23

  (I'm spoiling this right at the top) But ...they didn't eat the children. At least, not that I saw. It's not a zombie film, but it's close, and in zombie films, they have no qualms about killing the kids on screen. We accept it, because it's so absurd. So to actually NAME your movie this, and NOT show it? Cowardly. Also, although it's a ridiculous idea from the outset, let's assume the premise is true, and that Porcicure or whatever it's called turns you into a garbage-eater because garbage just tastes so good. It's a fun idea. We like to speculate about the future, and what if we did X or Y. So here, it makes people hungry for garbage. It's also a rather blunt statement about consumer society. We do eat garbage. It just looks and smells and tastes like food. But there were some things that, even in the context of the film, don't make sense. 1. How do you go from eating garbage (because it tastes so good) to eating freshly-killed meat? I doubt fresh meat tastes anything like garbage. 2. Who is going to continue to perform a procedure that turns people into cannibals? It didn't seem like there was a lot of time in between the procedure, the garbage-eating, the cat-eating, and cannibalism. How could the procedure be performed on so many people that you'd run out of non-human animals and adult humans (including each other) to eat? 3. The procedure didn't make anyone superhuman. It just made them hungry. So, how did all these other people die? Nobody had a baseball bat handy? So I give it a 7 for being a fun idea, and not-so-subtle comment on consumer society, but this should have been better.