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