Before I begin, I would like to mention a couple of things first.
One: I see that it may appear to some that I might be giving out some spoilers of this movie, though I personally don’t see them as spoilers, per se - rather, I see it more as a sort of perspective re-framing of how a movie can be seen (mainly, though the eyes of the antagonists of the movie)
Two: I realize that I might be actually over analyzing this movie. Yes, the plot of the movie is not really complex, or not as complex outwardly as I expected it to be. If there is a deeper message in this movie, it is shown in very brief and fleeting moments and, of course, as is usually the case, through the fleeting last words of the bad guy. In any case, this is my interpretation of the movie.
The first impression that many people may get of the movie is that it basically addresses a social class conflict between the rich and the poor. Many people also see it as a reflection of the current economic events and the weaknesses in our present economic system.
The main driving point, or conclusion of the movie appears to be an assumption that we are at the point where we have enough wealth/time to spread around for everyone to live a ‘meaningful’ life and then, to die. The main opposing views in this movie, as I saw them, concern human nature: the desire to live forever on one hand vs. the desire for everyone to live a meaningful, but more so finite and equal life, on the other. There is an apparent power struggle, and consequent ideologies between the two desires.
If the desire to live forever, as portrayed by Mr. Weis’ character, in fact trumps the desire to live fully and then die (as portrayed by the suicidal Mr. Hamilton character), then the inequality follows naturally. It is reasonable to assume then, that people who want to live ‘forever’ will, over time, seek out more efficient and sophisticated means of ensuring it. Because this desire is so self-centered (self-preservation) and so self absorbed, the other falls out of the equation and becomes one of the means of attaining it. This is the main argument of Mr. Weis, when he re-asserts the assumption that no matter how many times you restore equality, you could not get rid of people’s desire, the desire itself, to live forever.
The validity of this view is countered by the suicidal Mr. Hamilton, who, on the other hand, re-asserts the idea that everyone must eventually accept death as a natural order of things. The end of the movie ends in equality (here’s your spoiler 
), but the words of Mr. Weis (and also the timekeeper, a character which I found very intriguing and cryptic) still linger around as a warning.
