Mostly set from May through July of 2018, “Life Hack” (2026) revolves around four online friends, all minors, who escalate their usual shenanigans of scamming the scammers to a heist of stealing bitcoin from a famous billionaire. When the scammed discover the identity of the scammers, will these kids lose everything they had, including their friendship? It is the latest screenlife film where all events are shown on a device’s screen from cowriter and director Ronan Corrigan and cowriter Hope Elliott Kemp in their feature film debut. If you are interested in seeing it, then definitely do so in the theaters because watching a screenlife film on a computer screen gets deadly dull after the first half hour.
Film critics can watch films before they are released in two ways. If there is a screening, the critic goes to the theater with other critics and/or the public to see the movie as intended. If there is a screener, the critic watches it on whatever device it plays on. Ideally a lot of places use apps so it can be played on television, but even if an app is available on television, sometimes the screener is not the kind that can be viewed on the television, but needs to be viewed on a desktop, laptop or cell. As the screen goes down in size, so does the experience, and it means that the movie must be way better than it would be during a theatrical experience. “Life Hack” may be the first screenlife film that I watched on my desktop, and all the film’s flaws were glaring under those conditions, but I suspect that I would have enjoyed it more on even a television screen.
Kyle Andrew Peters (Georgie Farmer) is the mastermind of the operation. He lives in London without much parental supervision. “Life Hack” starts two years after the heist, so sometime in 2020, during a virtual hearing before the NCA – Cyber Crime Unit to determine whether he should have internet access again. Most of the movie takes place as Kyle decides how to answer their questions to show how he ended up in this predicament. Peter “Petey” Le (James Scholz), the brains, has the most stable home life, hopes to go to Stanford and misses his childhood friend, Kyle, when they both used to live in London before Petey’s family moved to Indiana. Sydney “Sid” Daniels (Roman Hayeck-Green), the troll, joined them through Facebook and has a talent for navigating the sketchier side of the internet. Don’t they all? His dad is the worst. Alexandra “Alex” Kemp (Yasmin Finney) is the group’s Smurfette with a code of ethics regarding her illegal activity of choice, selling fake IDs. Filmed earlier, Rosario Dawson or Angelina Jolie would play Alex, which is good news for Finney who nails the “cool girl who only hangs out with guys” vibe.
“Life Hack” is like a twenty-first century Sid Davis social guidance film about the dangers of social media and lack of parental supervision or the right kind of supervision. Except for Petey, every one of them has a sad tale of neglect, which explains why they decide to start robbing from the rich, specifically Don Heard (Charlie Creed-Miles), who gets chosen because one of the four has a dad who pays more attention to Don’s content than his kid. Don is a healthy mix of tech bros: the history of Bill Gates, the antics of Elon Musk, the private security of Peter Thiel and some generic brashness to make him unlikable such as appearing on the Joe Brogan (wink) podcast or being a bad dad to Lindsey (Jessica Reynolds), an underage wannabe model and influencer who is the ticket to breaching his security and getting his Bitcoin treasure. There is also the articulated fear that compared to other titans, the four are late bloomers and will not develop according to the markers that these tech bros’ biographies set as required stations to success. It is not about eating the rich so much as supplanting them in a virtual intergenerational rivalry.
“Life Hack” relies on the adrenalin and thrill of four kids bypassing the biggest and brightest adults with way more resources. The film wants to celebrate their teamwork, hustle and ingenuity, but also does not want the audience to take away the wrong lessons as they enjoy their ill-gotten games. The guys meet up in the US to party, which immediately had my hackles up. Why the hell is Alex not included? It is possible that an explanation was given, but I missed it while sitting in my office chair internally begging for less inane material. My personal taste finds boy protagonists boring, and this film does not imbue them with more than thimble deep depth. Also watching screens within screens within screens is less thrilling on a computer screen. It just feels like a gimmick. As a subgenre of found footage, screenlife is inconsistent and is only as good as the story. John Cho also helps. While everyone does their job, no one and no storyline is so interesting that it feels compelling to follow.
The denouement is so rushed that it feels like the last episode of a limited series where a bunch of storylines need to be wrapped up. Suddenly Alex is in the field for a mission, which would have felt less annoying if she partied with the guys. The advantage of watching at home is the ability to rewind and rewatch the sequence when Don and Kyle are finally face to face and compete for who will have the upper hand. It is the most thrilling aspect of “Life Hack” and actually throws in a murder mystery conspiracy which makes sense at second glance, but most movie goers are going to be left in the dust with the rapid-fire dialogue explaining the issue.
At its strongest, these four living their lives online lead to some poignant sequences showing how the characters grew over the years, interacted and developed into who they are today. It is reminiscent of “Didi (弟弟)” (2024) or “Boyhood” (2014), but not for long. “Life Hack” prefers to stay in shallow waters though it also raises the idea that someone like Syd feels insecure in this group even though he is a crucial member. The film gets a bit terrified at the real-life prospect of being close with someone online then those ties are severed without the internet connecting them, and there is no way to access the person in the real world. The filmmakers pave over emotional discomfort preferring the dynamism with movement.
It is objectively impressive how staring at a screen and using different programs such as closed-circuit cameras, Facebook, video games, folders, etc. can tell an entire story. If you are a fan of the genre, go to the theater. If you have a low tolerance for immature teens with lots of money and skills and are tired of hearing about crypto currency, you may miss the screenlife flicks that address more urgent issues like missing people or horror. Consider yourself warned.
