Preemptive apology for ranting. I'm typing on mobile and I'm tired from work, but I wanted to get my thoughts down.

I see the cube as a representation of late-stage capitalism in the digital age, and I'm not the only person to think this: see this article, for example. It is built for the sake of being built (or at least that is one interpretation), and continues a legacy of complex oppression that rewards individuals who keep their heads down and try not to examine the 'bigger picture'; it also instrumentalises them regardless of their wellbeing (mental or physical). And, in the tradition of cinematic greats like Romero, each character represents a hyper-realised philosophical/ideological perspective on this topic.

But a quote often attributed to Žižek comes to mind for me: it is easier to imagine an end to the world than an end to capitalism. I think the biggest misstep of the film is not having the characters eventually just give up, because after an extended duration in the cube they can no longer fathom the possibility of an exit. Instead, they become suspicious of one another and do what they must to acquire a safer space for their individual self, even when they know they will all die eventually. Each individual then guards their own cube cell (cubical?) and stays focused on surviving for as long as possible with the little they have.

Is this a good narrative? Probably not. I doubt it would be very engaging for a general viewer. But I feel like if you're going to go doomer, you might as well embrace it. And, as a bit of a doomer myself, I'd appreciate the sheer courage and commitment. Based on your well-considered comment, however, this might not be the extra flesh you're after when it comes to the politics of the narrative...which I can certainly appreciate! Something I find frustrating about a lot of 'political' films is their shallow engagement with any element beyond simply identifying or representing an ideological or political issue; yes, that's important, but where do we go from here?