Good Luck, Have Fun, Don't Die (2025)

A wild ride of a movie. The focus is on anti-AI, anti-overconsumption, anti a world where the spirit of humanity becomes lost to technology. It's presented in an over-the-top way, so it's not as serious of a take on these issues in some ways, but this makes it enjoyable and entertaining while still posing deep questions. Similar feeling to Black Mirror. The cinematography is excellent. I was closely engaged for the whole movie and eager to see it through. During the first half, I thought it would end up being my favorite movie of this year... Maybe it still will be, but some flaws in the second half make me less confident in making such a claim.

Spoiler-full reactions below.

• The ending

  • The hesitation
    • He was able to plug the thing in, but then he hesitates for twenty seconds. It seemed like he could have plugged it in during those twenty seconds, but instead he stopped to watch what was happening (objects started flying in the air, but they weren't threatening yet). Clearly they needed him to not plug it in at that point so that Ingrid could be the one to go for it and then we get the reveal that she is the time traveler's mother. They could have paced that scene better so that he didn't have the unreasonable, unbelievable moment of hesitation. This alone knocks half a star off my rating for this movie.
    • That being said, twist #2 (they actually lost) revealed that the safeguards didn't actually change anything. So the hesitation didn't actually matter ultimately, and in fact perhaps did show to time traveler that this approach will never work. I just wish the hesitation was more plausible. Did he really just freeze up? The scene did not set it up in that way.
  • Twist and double twist. I was not too pleased with the first twist (she is his mother), but was decently redeemed by the second twist (the safeguards didn't actually help; their reality is being manipulated; they really lost).
    • Her being his mother... I had thought the future he came from was much further into the future, not max ~50 years ahead. Maybe it makes sense.
  • I'm pleased with the very ending -- the new idea to spread her technology allergy. Who knows if it's the thing that will actually save the world, but I like that the whole plot of the movie led up to scrapping the premise (the original heist idea) and using what was learned to get to a next step that we don't actually see.
  • But also, maybe it's not the ending we as an audience, dealing with similar issues in the real world, want. Or at least I don't. We don't want to be forced to not use any technology. We would rather have guardrails. But that's the idea of the ending. It poses that guardrails will never be enough; technology will always corrupt. The only way to avoid that is to avoid technology entirely. Do I believe this? Again, I don't really want to. But I think it's a reasonable hypothesis.

• Open questions

  • We didn't get much info about the group of people that sent him to the past. He opens with the information that there is some grouping of people in the diner that will lead to a successful mission. How does he/anyone know that? (Does it have to do with Ingrid being his mother? Did he somehow know she had been there?) Did that only apply to the flash drive mission, or does that also apply to the new rat-spread-tech-allergy idea at the end?
  • Will the proposed solution at the end work? Who knows. But there is hope still.
  • What's the mechanism by which the AI/technology controls the people using it? The anti-phone ray guns show that when the tech turns off, the user seems to exit a trance state.

• What was up with the mother's AI son helping the heist? Was that just the all-powerful AI luring them in so that it could get to Ingrid, make the son reveal, and try to convince her to stop the rebellion? (probably)

• Not totally sure about why the AI is able to seemingly manipulate the real world like spawning the cat monster. Oh, I guess if there is technology to clone humans, they probably are advanced enough to make cat monsters that emit sparkles.

• Dystopian concepts presented

  • Using AI voice to replace a lost child
  • Using AI-driven clones to replace a lost child. The clones spout product advertisements.
  • School shootings have become so commonplace that parents are numbed to it and are willing to replace their children with AI (truly absurd).
  • Teenagers behaving literally like zombies due to technology

• Other notes

  • Feels like the writer is talking directly to audience when the time traveler explains the mission and the bad things about the future. Example at 53:00.
  • I like the junk build aesthetic. Like the anti-phone ray guns.
  • I like the "good luck have fun don't die" chorus sound and also the theme song.

• Writer's message to the present world

  • Create AI guardrails before AI advances further

• Parallels to my writing idea

  • One of my ideas for a story (not sure if short story or novel) is "Agents of Chaos", about time-looping agents who must complete missions to change how events turn out, and there are antagonistic forces trying to stop them. This movie had a similar core concept. Does this make me less interested in my own idea? Only time will tell. It perhaps slightly is off-putting to me, but I don't think I should let it and I don't necessarily think it will. My idea is different enough and generally I understand/believe that similar concepts can be manifested in different executions/styles/etc. I'm not claiming to be the sole inventor of a time looping idea at all. It seemed like a fun idea to me. Also my idea became quite sprawling, so I feel there's a lot of potential with it. (If I ever actually start writing it...)

• Questions to think about

  • Effectiveness of the over-the-top ridiculousness of the plot, versus a more serious take?
  • Would I volunteer to participate at the diner?
  • What am i doing to fight against this future?
    • In my very small way:
      • Evading short-form content and instead cultivating rational, critical thinking-geared writing in this digital garden
      • Cultivating real life community and connections
  • Could a VR world where you are your perfect self really be a better reality? Could AI/VR/tech really get us there? (It's pretty abstract, the concept is so unimaginable I'm not sure how it could be answered.)

• Read this review. I liked the ending note: "Everyone can align on the peril ahead as AI increasingly embeds itself in everyday life. How to meet this challenge with a new response remains tantalizingly just out of reach. Verbinski and Robinson’s cinematic equivalent of screaming “FIRE” in a crowded room might help the next person tackling this pressing topic find the exit.".

  • It feels like an important message to get out there and make art about. I'm curious how it will be represented in other media (whether future films, tv, or anything).