Plot Synopsis: Documentarian Jason Springarn-Koff examines those who are addicted to an online virtual reality game by the name of “Second Life”.
Justin Oberholtzer
I appreciate that Jason Springarn-Koff didn’t take the obvious route with “Life 2.0”. It would have been very easy for him to examine those whose lives have been ruined by an addiction to “Second Life”, thus demonizing the game. While there are cases where it does do so (such as the man who got so addicted his fiancé left him), there are also scenarios where peoples lives have been enriched by the game. Two players spark a relationship (albeit destroying their marriages), which carries over into the real world. Another subject began designing her own products to sell in the game and is making a living off of the profit.
While these cases are interesting, they can’t sustain the hundred minute running time. This is a problem many documentaries face. They move along at a swell pace, only to hit a roadblock an hour in. By the time they reach the sixty minute mark, they’ve run the gamut of material on display. Even with films such as this, where there are multiple scenarios going on, they start to lose the audience’s interest. One wonders if the director felt too attached to the material and didn’t want to cut it down or if attaining at least a ninety minute running time made them feel more legitimate.
Whatever the case may be, “Life 2.0” suffers from overlength. What once started out mildly engaging slowly became a slog to sit through. Twists may have occurred in the individual stories (such as the designer’s creations being stolen), but they weren’t enough to keep me glued to the screen. Not having a direct focus also dampened the experience, as I began to drift just like the cases did. Even the creepy child avatars (being played by grown men) became stale.
At an hour long, “Life 2.0” would’ve been a sufficient experience. It would’ve shown us the various effects a video game addiction would have on people and move at a brisk pace. At a hundred minutes, it becomes repetitive and somewhat dull. I guess what I’m trying to say is watch the first hour, then turn it off. Well, unless you’re desperate to see how each scenario unfolds. I, unfortunately, stopped caring by that point.
Why Should You Put This In Your Queue? It can be a fascinating look into video game addiction and it how some people can make it work well (romantic relationship/friendship, career), while others don’t (destroying a personal relationship). Also, if you’re looking for something chilling, the child avatars are creepy. Not just their design, but their controllers, too.
Why Shouldn’t You Put This In Your Queue? It’s too long and loses interest around the hour mark. It grows stale and becomes repetitive.
Matt Stetler
Life 2.0 is a documentary that follows 4 people, all who are addicted to the online simulation game Second Life. I am a gamer but I have never played Second Life, nor did I really know much about it, if anything at all. I’ve played the Sims, but I get very bored with it after spending some time doing it. Needless to say, Second Life seems like an even bigger waste of time to me. I understand it’s made to be a virtual world simulation, but the idea of just walking around virtual parks or going to virtual clubs to dance or spending real money in a virtual mall is like eating a picture of spaghetti instead of just making spaghetti. Sure they’ll both fill you up, but who would choose eating a picture over eating food? The same kind of person that chooses to spend 85% of their time in front of a computer instead of going outside and meeting real people.
I know I’m coming across harsh, but the tone Jason takes is almost one of sympathy. He wants you to feel sorry for these people that live within this video game. Granted, some are worse than others. The couple that met through the game and are both cheating on their spouses are just reprehensible and for some reason are made to look like a virtual fairy tale come true. It actually made me happy to see that things didn’t work out for them. Then there’s the guy who has a 13 year old girl as his avatar. This guy needs to be a serial killer in David Fincher’s next crime thriller. He’s engaged, which helps to produce the only person you’ll truly feel sorry for in his fiancé. She voices her concerns to not only him but the camera as well, but he is so consumed with Second Life, her concerns fall on deaf ears. At one point, through time lapse filming, he spends over 12 hours playing Second Life. Again, I somewhat get it. From time to time I still pull the all night Xbox 360 gaming sessions. However, if you play Red Dead Redmeption for that long, you still accomplish something at the end of it all. There are no accomplishments in Second Life. This is probably the reason why it comes across as such a terrible waste of time to me. The only subject in the film that doesn’t come across as a horrible person is the woman that actually makes a living playing Second Life. Through her creation of merchandise within the game (homes, clothing, etc.), she is able to not work a nine to five job and instead, wake up at 6 p.m. and play all night.
You’ll find yourself watching Life 2.0 in a state of disbelief. Every person in life has their addictions, but the addictions to Second Life just come across as sad and wrong. The film itself takes what should have been a 45 minute MTV True Life episode and stretches it out to over 90 minutes, which is more than anyone really needs. If you can make it through the scene where the cheating spouses have virtual sex and not want to poison your eyes, then you’re a stronger person than me.
Why you should put this in your queue? It is an, at times, interesting look at a video game subculture and the lives that it dominates.
Why you shouldn’t put this in your queue? It is too long and also focuses on to much of the bad that goes along with this game. Would it have killed the director to maybe find someone whose life was made truly better by Life 2.0 and not just in a slight financial way?