Movie Review: Elysium

Neil Blomkamp is the new force to be reckoned with in Hollywood. He tore into the scene with the brilliant masterpiece, "District 9", delivering visceral and genuinely thrilling action, impeccable acting from an almost entirely unknown cast, and a sense of intelligence and heart that Hollywood seems to have forgotten. With such a genius first-impression, whatever Blomkamp did next was going to have incredibly high expectations. "Elysium",while not as good as "District 9", thankfully, avoids that infamous sophomore slump, and delivers the year's smartest and most thrilling picture thus far.

Like all great science fiction, "Elysium" is really a story about mankind himself. Taking cues from "Metropolis", "Elysium" focuses on the class differences in society. The rich live on the space station Elysium, while the poor squander away on a polluted Earth. Updated for modern problems, the film generally revolves around immigration and healthcare. While it can be argued that it was delivered extremely heavy-handed, I would argue that the decision for that only adds to the film. Much like the film "Crash", "Elysium" takes a problem and magnifies it, making seem so real and immediate. Beside the obvious though, the film has other themes about man: sacrifice, love, destiny, and power. None of them are subtle, but in life, seeing protesters on Wall Street and immigrants being horribly treated is not exactly subtle either.

The story here is one of Max de Costa (played by Matt Damon), a worker at Aramadyne, getting blasted by a lethal dose of radiation by accident. A medical droid coldly informs him that he five days to live. Max has had a checkered criminal past, and goes to an old friend (who happens to be the leader of LA's freedom fighters), promising to do one last job in exchange for a ticket to Elysium. On Elysium, people live forever due to a machine that instantly heals you of any ailments. The plot does get thicker with Jodie Foster's Secretary DeLacourt trying to stage a coup of the liberal government on Elysium; and Kruger, who is a psychotic agent that works for Delacourt.

Matt Damon was the perfect choice for the role of Max, bringing that tough, powerful exterior, with a warm, loving interior. We can see that he is a desperate man, fighting for his life and the ones he loves. I cannot stress enough how perfect this part is for Damon. He is channeling Jason Bourne, Will Hunting, Benjamin Mee, and even Linus Cadwell (all previous Damon Roles) into Max, making him nuanced and wonderful every moment he is onscreen. People have been accusing Foster of bad acting in this film, but I do not see it. Is it unique? No. But why does it have to be? Foster does what she must, giving a fine performance, albeit with very little depth. It is not bad, but it is not great. It is acceptable and neither adds nor subtracts from the experience. Which is fine, because once you see this, you realize who the true villain is: Sharlto Copley's Kruger. Copley is quickly becoming one of my favorite actors. He deserved an Oscar for his lead role in "District 9", and then stole the show in the "A-Team", reminding us all of why Murdock is such a boss. With upcoming parts in "Maleficent" and "Oldboy", Copley is becoming incredibly versatile. As Kruger, Copley is without a doubt one of the best movie villains ever. He is gleefully insane, reveling in violence and destruction. His maniac energy brought to Kruger makes every scene with him come to life, much like Heath Ledger as the Joker. Now, I am not saying it was as good as that, but its comparable. Copley is having the time of his life in this role, defying what we expect from a science fiction villain (calm, cool, collected, brooding (etc....)) and instead reminds us of people like Hannibal Lecter and Alec Trevalyan.

A massive problem in the movie industry nowadays is the over abundance of CGI. Entire scenes of some films are in CGI, sucking the human element out of them. Some movies justify this, like "Pacific Rim", because it adds to the film's grandeur, but most use it for the sake of using it. Similair to "District 9", the visuals here are woven into the human element. The droids that act as police officers are the most realistic looking CGI creations in any medium, and the way they interact with the actors makes us forget that they are fake. In many great films, no matter how good the special effects are, we KNOW they are fake; but that is because we see them do impossible things. These droids, and cities, and ships all act in a normal fashion. We are not forced to witness absurdity to the point of fantasy. Scenes don't focus on the CGI, but instead make it just part of the whole scene. "Elysium", gives me hope for CGI.

Max's quest echoes the life of Moses, as he struggles to free "his people" from their oppressors. The film shows what it means to be a hero, as Max fights for the poor and suffering. The Bible tells us to take care of "orphans and widows", and Max does but through violence. It is unavoidable and he has no choice but to kill in order to succeed here. The film features some awesome action scenes, and some incredible movie weaponry, two being a gun with the name "Chemrail" that shreds anybody in its laser spray and the other being Kruger's exploding ninja stars. In a gruesomely funny moment, he chucks one into a guy's chest and quips "It's only a flesh wound!" then detonating it. The guy splatters apart. While this may sound disgusting and gross, the gore is quick and not gruesome at all. The action is fun, and never gratuitously violent, just like "District 9".

"Elysium" hits all the right notes with its amazing visual, incredible action scenes, memorable villain, and deep, intelligent themes. It is heavy handed, but it only adds to the film. Action junkies, science fiction fans, and movie fans in general will find lots to love. Take a trip to Elysium, and I promise, you will want to go back countless times.

Rated R for Strong Bloody Violence and Language Throughout

Movie Review: Man of Steel

*It was impossible to do this review without spoilers, so be warned*



Superman is the base superhero. He is morally incorruptible, always fights for what is right, never has selfish thoughts, is nigh invincible, and the list of his powers is massive. He is the quintessential superhero, but unfortunately, this is hard to capture in film. Superman's film history is full of more misses than hits. The original and the sequel are the only two to really capture Superman and what he is all about, which is not the action and violence of many other heroes, but rather his saving of people, and defeating villains; locking them up, and never killing. DC decided to reboot Superman, giving him a fresh aesthetic and feel; it is a certifiable mess.

The decision of both directors and producers were horrible. Zach Snyder, the man behind Watchmen and 300, too k on the directors chair, while Christopher Nolan is listed only as a producer, but acts more like a co-director. Nolan basically re-invented superhero films for the 21st century with his Batman trilogy, opting to forgo the cartoonish nature of superhero movies past, and instead offer mature, adult drama. It was pure genius, and "The Dark Knight" is still widely regarded as the best superhero movie ever made. Batman was such a perfect fit for this gritty nature, but Superman is not. This is my first problem with this film: tone. Superman should not aim for any type of realism or PG-13 violence levels. Superman should be kid-friendly (something this movie is not), light-hearted, and fun. I am not saying it should be a shallow cartoon, but it needs to be FUN. "Man of Steel" really forgot that element, and gives us a soulless and incredibly boring film.

The performances are everywhere on the acting spectrum. Henry Cavill gives a poor performance as Superman himself, lacking almost any charisma or warmth. He was most likely selected for his attractiveness level for girls, and not for acting. Amy Adams, an actress I really love, is just cringe-worthy as Lois Lane. She is boring, and any character is non-existent. There is absolutely no chemistry between Lois and Superman, leading to shoehorned romance scenes. Russell Crowe is actually incredibly enjoyable as Jor-El, giving an overly dramatic, but fun version of him. He is the only one who seems to be having any fun. Michael Shannon, another actor I love, chews the scenery and spits it back out. His performance as General Zod is perfect for a Superman movie, being incredibly over-the-top and ridiculous, but is so shallow and forgettable in a summer of some horrible villains.....now that is bad.

The action of the film is even boring. How that happens, I don't know, but this has the worst action sequences I have ever seen in a superhero film. .Continuing a trend established in  "Transformers", the big final battle is like 45 minutes long. It has no variety though. It is literally people punching each other into progressively bigger things, and pausing to monologue. It is destruction-porn of the highest order. In addition, the CGI is horrible, making the entire affair look like a crappy videogame.

The idea of Superman being like Jesus is hammered home again and again, in fact, every single piece of symbolism is hammered into audience's skulls multiple times. We are considered too idiotic to dissect anything, so deeper themes are just as shallow as the rest of this film. And the ending.......oh the ending. The last pathetic attempt to show how "gritty" and "dark" it had to be, they had Superman kill Zod......by breaking his neck. I do not care what argument you present, having Superman kill is a stupid act. The attempted establishment of why he doesn't kill is a popular one, but it holds no ground. Superman's love for humanity and aversion to violence showcase already a logical basis for no killing, making the final, ultra-violent act of violence insult to injury.

"Man of Steel" is a bigger disappointment to me than "Prometheus". At least that film can stand on its own, and is wonderful in its own way. This movie is a sluggish, boring affair that brings shame to the name and symbol of "Superman".

 Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi violence, action and destruction, and for some language

Movie Review: Only God Forgives

I immediately want to say that I do not recommend this movie to anybody I know, as you will most likely hate it; his movie is not in the least bit entertaining, exciting, or even enjoyable. But I adored it. How you ask? Because it is a Nicolas winding Refn film, and it is one of the most absorbing and mysterious movies ever made. This thing has been torn apart by many publications and audiences, but there are those few who found its merit; I consider myself part of that group. "Only God Forgives" is so unique in that it is not even trying to be like a normal film. It has almost no dialogue, people seem to be moving in slow-motion, and the characters are not really characters at all. Its a delirious David Lynch impersonation with no soul, interspersed with violence so grisly and brutal, it would make Peckinpah and Tarantino blush. What arrives through this insanity is a work of art; art is not art unless it is a cause for a debate, and this film is one.

The plot is rather simple and is not worth mentioning. It isn't the reason for the film. Any plot could be used, and I would not have cared. I was absorbed by the actors and sets. Ryan Gosling is the "main character" as Julian. Julian is clearly a haunted soul, speaking very little, instead using his steely and fiery stare to communicate. While it sounds ludicrous, I find such nuance and depth in just his eyes. Gosling has perfected the art of doing nothing, but conveying everything. It makes him a truly powerful actor. Kristin Scott Thomas chews the scenery and spits it out tenfold as Julian's mother, Crystal. She is the only character who acts like she is in a normal film. Her performance is hilariously profane and entertaining, but lacks the depth of Gosling, and the real star of this film: Vithaya Pansringarm. Vithaya is a menace, and while seemingly the villain, is truly the hero. He is an unstoppable force of moral cleanliness and justice. Like One-Eye in Refn's "Valhalla Rising", Chang is an extremely violent yet controlled monster.

The actors fall victim to being upstaged by the visuals, and for good reason. Everything is so Kubrickian and Lynchian, making every moment look like something from an artist's gallery. Colors intertwine and bathe environments in other-worldly glow; wallpapers pop out with flare and life; even something as simple as blue light reflected off blue eyes becomes entrancing and glorious. For best eye-candy, this movie is high up there in the list. What makes the violence even more disturbing and graphic then, is how ugly it looks compared to the background. Its messy and heavy, even though it is stylized in a sense. Blood splatters and drips, and flesh rends with sickening sounds. It does get ridiculous and gratuitous during one very long, and drawn out interrogation. It pays as a homage to Tarantino's "Reservoir Dogs" with the infamous "ear scene", but does not make it that memorable but instead dizzying.

Only God Forgives can not really be dissected at a spiritual level here, because what people see might be different. What I saw was a film about absolute morality and justice; Chang is God. He is an unstoppable force, and can seem unfair, yet is always right. Chang is death in a pure form, never straying from his path. Though, by the end, we see that he can't be God, because if only God forgives, than why doesn't Chang forgive? The nature of God, man, violence, justice, and what it means to be a human are all explored in depth here. Like I stated earlier, it's not a movie that is meant to be enjoyed or liked. It is meant to confuse and anger. It is an experience, and for those who understand that are witnessing moving art, and not a film, you will find a something to debate and dissect for awhile to come.

Rated R for strong bloody violence including grisly images, sexual content and language

In Tribute to James Gandolfini

Much like "Game of Thrones" is currently pushing what television programming can deliver, "The Sopranos" was that pushing force previously. What made it stick was its characters, and each was drawn out well and characterized deeply. The supporting cast was excellent, but the true force that made the show stand-out was James Gandolfini as lead character Tony Soprano. This deeply layered individual was TV's first true anti-hero; a man who leads an evil life and does terrible things, but we can't help root for him. Without Gandolfini's brilliant performance, characters like Walter White of Breaking Bad, and Donald Draper of Mad Men would not have come about. Both are brilliant in their own rights, but they owe it all to James. He was a cross between Tony Montana, Cody Jarrett, Vito Corleone, Tony Comante, Tommy de Vito, and Bill the Butcher; all famous gangster characters.

Gandolfini has many smaller roles in a variety of films,  not all of which I have seen; but in the ones I have, he was always a stand-out. His first true role was the vicious hit man Virgil in the late tony Scott's best film, "True Romance". Anybody who has seen it has one stand-out moment forever stuck in their minds, and it's the incredibly bombastic, bloody, painfully violent, and nasty fight scene between Gandolfini and Patricia Arquette. James conveys a fearsome gangster, and it truly seems helpless for our heroine. He is terrifying with his slimy smile and psychotic look in his eyes. It takes lighting him on fire, stabbing him multiple times, then a few shotgun blasts to the chest to finally kill this beast. In "Get Shorty", James plays Bear, the mob bosses right hand man. This one is far less scary, but delivers a huge laugh as we watch John Travolta pick him up and fling him down the stairs. His huge beard and ponytail give him a hippie-like looks, but what makes this memorable is his love for his daughter, giving this man a spark of good and kindness.

 In 'Killing Them Softly", James' character of Mickey is a haunting portrayal of a broken man. An alcoholic who has nothing, Mickey sits in a room all day drinking and sleeping with hookers. He is world-weary, and sick of living. He has no desire to fulfill the hit he promised Jackie, and is truly a drink away from suicide. Its such a radical departure as James usually plays a man who we can care about, but Mickey is a black hole of despair. I am of the belief that he should have been nominated for an Oscar for his performance, as it captures the state of the mafia today, as being broken, beaten, and sick. James' final performance I have seen was in the recent Best-Picture deserving masterpiece "Zero Dark Thirty. James has hardly any screen time, but his role is one of the most significant. He plays the military "brass" who gives the go-ahead for the fateful mission on Bin Laden's compound. Many actors have portrayed characters making history changing decisions, and many with greater consequences, but none that felt so exasperating. Beaten down at every turn, Maya needs this man to allow the mission, and we can see it in James' eyes as he ponders his response. We know what he is going to say, but nevertheless it makes us hold our breaths as his eyes look about the maps and diagrams with so much depth and knowledge.

James Gandolfini was hardly past 50 when he died. It was too soon for an actor who had so many potential performances waiting to be discovered. The passion he brought to every role, no matter how big or small, is a rare thing in Hollywood nowadays. He never took the easy route of phoning it in, but rather made each and every character shine and truly standout. James Gandolfini will go down in history as the man who played Tony Soprano though. An icon of the modern gangster, Tony Soprano will be analyzed and discussed for many years to come. Rest in Peace James, and I pray that you found the Lord before you passed. You shall be sorely missed by many, and especially by this young fan.

Book Review: World War Z

Zombie books are usually campy, dumb affair; not taken seriously in literary circles, and for good reason. They are horrible books that cover cheesiness with page after page of gore and swearing, simply appeasing our id's desire for violence and foulness. Well, the book "World War Z", written by Max Brooks, decided to show the world differently. Gore? Plenty. Swearing? Frequent. What it does differently is that it has a heart, and logic. See, this book is not really just about the zombie apocalypse; it's about society and politics. The book really touches on some incredibly complex ideas, that are delivered with care and never given an easy answer.

The book is presented as an 'Oral History" of the zombie apocalypse. The setting is many years after the initial outbreak, and consist of chapters that are structured like interviews. The unidentified reporter is trying to gather as much information as he can. The book is in a chronological order, with different interviews grouped into different times of the apocalypse, from outbreak to building a world again. The sheer brilliance of this set-up is it makes everything more believable. Of course, zombies are incredibly unrealistic, but like Orson Welles' "War of the Worlds" broadcast, the ludicrous is presented as palpable. Many of the people interviewed are more fully realized and fleshed out than protagonists of entire novels. Brooks makes us care for everybody interviewed, and understand how they were able to make the hard decisions that some of them had to make.

Stories of these survivors do remain fairly consistent, but as per-usual with multiple stories, there are those that really stick out. The most beloved is the survivor of Yonkers without a doubt. Describing a harrowing last stand at Yonkers, the tale is grisly and shocking in its explicit violence, but pervaded with a sadness that reminded me of actual war survivors. Some stories present views on the zombie apocalypse that have never been explored. For example: one story comes from somebody who was stranded on the I.S.S. with no way to get back down to Earth for eight years. This astronaut had video screens of earth from other satellites and did what he could to send messages to governments and military groups to help plan. He was their eye-in-the-sky (or space, if you will). Another is a man who made war propaganda films that showed armies decimating the zombies. What Brooks presents us is a world set in the apocalypse that feels real.

Many political and societal issues are brought up in context of the zombie infection. The actions countries take reflects their current stances and ideals. America thinks it is invincible, and ends up suffering almost the worst out of any country; Russia enacts a brutal martial law, executing soldiers for the slightest hesitation in orders; the North Koreans simply disappear; African dictators and republics look to one leader to guide them; Cuba's already efficient Communist society helps it avoid much infection, and their prosperity is a by-product as they become a superpower; Israel immediately builds a massive wall to isolate itself; Pakistan and Iran destroy each other with nuclear war; the list goes on and on. What it presents though, is how our world would react to disaster. The geo-political undertones of the book is what gives it its lasting power.

Max Brooks presents us with a world in which hell has broken loose. We see how the world is so fragile, and an event so large could re-establish everything we know. Stories each contain different things, a few of them being: grisly horror, sharp criticism, pitch black humor, spiritual lessons, physical hardships, savage violence, mystery, and love. Some are scary, some are funny; some are gory, and some profane. Some are  brutal, and some are bizarre. No matter what they are, each story tells us a piece of the whole war. It's a war against the zombies, but really, it is a war against human nature. It is no coincidence that Z and 3 rhyme. Brooks writes about the human condition, and our world as it is and could be today. With its glory, with its pathetic squabbles, and with its everlasting power. This is a story of humanities last stand, and the perseverance at the heart of every man, woman, and child on this Earth.

Contains extreme gory violence and  strong language

Movie Review: The Squid and the Whale

"The Squid and the Whale" is one of the most perfect movie titles ever. In the Natural History museum in New York, there is a model of a squid and whale fighting. This display is a perfect allegory for the divorce that this film centers on. The ugliness and brutality of divorced parents is shown through a brilliant acidic wit and charm, disarming the viewer, and then sucker-punching them.

 The divorce is generally shown through the eyes of the two kids, and each see it differently. Walter, the older of the two, finds the separation leading to doubts of his own when it comes to relationships, and he tends to side with his father much more than his mother. Frank, the younger brother, sides with his mother, Joan, and feels confused and daring; Frank constantly drinks alcohol (he is 12 mind you), masturbates at school and is prone to swear like his father, Bernard. What makes the kids so interesting is how although they each clearly have favorites, how the other is so influential. Frank discusses with his mother how he believed he had his mother's facial features, but in fact he takes after his father. Walt remembers how his mother and him used to be so close, and how she was always there for him as opposed to his father. Both Joan and Bernard have P.H.D.'s in Literature, and their opposition does partially come from success. Bernard is less successful than compared to how he used to be. while Joan is actually getting her first novel published.

 The actors here are phenomenal as well. Jeff Daniels, Laura Linney, Owen Kline, and Jesse Eisenberg make up the core of the cast. Daniels gives the film performance of his career here and Eisenberg shows audiences the acting chops he really has pre-"Zombieland" and "The Social Network". These actors draw you into their characters and make you care for them in ways I never thought a movie could. It wasn't a "cry for their pain" connection, but rather a complex feeling as though these were real people. Its heart wrenching to watch this family split apart. But the strength in the acting is that they still make us laugh amid the pain and suffering.

 The film benefits from some incredibly well written dialogue, coming off more realistic than normal. It felt like these were real family members, because their conversations had such nuance and depth, and the trademarks of a deep relationship. A film about divorce is usually bound for cliché territory, but the script subverts our expectations, ripping into new ground for divorce and exposing it raw and fresh. For example: the moment when Bernard practically begs Joan for a second chance and proposes that they eat dinner as a family, Joan bursts out laughing and crying at Bernard's pathetic attempt to show his love. I never knew what to expect in scenes, as they would surprise consistently. What balances this horrible pain is the humor. The film is extremely funny and clever in many places, and has the ability to both be funny and tear-jerking. That is what truly makes it so memorable is its brash and bold comedy in the face of a terrible event.

Divorce is something that has affected many people, and discussed frequently in the context of Christianity. Marriage is a sacred vow before God, that is not meant to be broken. If it were, it wouldn't be so hard on so many people. Now I am not getting into whether divorce is right or wrong, I am simply stating that it is not what is meant to happen between two people. We see in this film the rippling effects this separation has. Everybody involved is searching for answers; answers to what this means in their own future. The confusion and divided household does nothing good for the family, and brings pain and misery into their lives.

As I said in the beginning, the title "The Squid and the Whale" is the most perfect film title ever. The display at the museum makes us want to cover our eyes, but something about it makes us watch as two titans battle, frozen for eternity in their struggle. Much like how this battle rages unnoticed beneath the waves, the divorce rages unnoticed under a seemingly happy family. The film is a brilliant piece of work that is funny, heart-breaking, and charming all at the same time.

Rated R for strong sexual content, graphic dialogue and language

Movie Review: Headhunters

Let me start by saying that this was one of the most entertaining films I have ever seen. It's a pure adrenaline rush from start to finish, and is plain, good 'ol fashioned fun. This Norwegian film is about a successful headhunter who makes a living on the side by stealing art, living far beyond the realm of wealth where he should. One piece of art he steals, turns out to belong to a mercenary out for blood. This simple plot kicks off a movie that features some great twists and tense action.

The two main actors, Askel Hennie and Nokolaj Coster-Waldau, have amazing screen presence. Hennie is superb as Roger Brown, the headhunter on the run. His performance is vulnerable, unsure, and quite nervous. The lengths he has to go to escape from Waldau's ruthless mercenary, Clas Greave, lead to some horrifying experiences. One in particular involves being locked in a port-o-potty with nowhere to hide except......well....you can imagine the rest.  Waldau is that other type of "headhunter", calmly stalking Roger with incredible slickness. The performances are consistent and provide much enjoyment.

What makes these performances really special is how funny they are; this film is a pitch-black comedy with some of the best dark humor this side of Tarantino films. Watching Roger start up a forklift in lieu of any cars, and impale Greave's dog and then riding down the road is brutally hilarious.

Technically, the film is also wonderful. Norway is captured in wonderful detail, and the modern European interior look has never looked better. The camera is steady, and doesn't devolve into the shaky and unfocused realm of camerawork that so frequently plagues modern thrillers. The sound is solid, and provides crisp, clear audio output.

The deeper theme here is that what goes around, comes around. Roger cheats on his wife frequently, and feels no regret for it. In an almost karmic twist of fate, it turns out Greve has been sleeping with Roger's wife. Roger also goes to incredible lengths to try and survive, and has no desire to kill. I find it interesting that the few bodies Roger ends up leaving in his wake (not going to spoil who they are or why they are in Roger's way) are all killed by accident. Life can be crazy, and Roger really gets to find out how insane things can become.

"Headhunters" is quite the film. A throwback to older thrillers, it is a consistent and engaging film that surprises and shocks with riotously dark violence and caustic wit.


Rated R for bloody violence including some grisly images, strong sexual content and nudity