Skip to main content

They can fix this shit on Elysium.


Elysium
(2013)

(SPOILERS) Original science fiction fare should be welcomed with open arms; all the better to stave of the safe familiarity of endless legions of sequels and remakes. And, with Oblivion, Pacific Rim and Elysium, all from uber-talented directors, this year held a lot of promise. In each case, to a greater or lesser extent, those uber-talented directors have been hobbled by the stark reality of their limitations as screenwriters. None more so than Neill Blomkamp, whose sophomore feature is replete with the same level of phenomenal action and beautifully rendered effects as District 9. Unfortunately, this time his story sucks arse.


Having some to say about the world is to be commended; that is, after all, what great science fiction should be about. Exploring grand themes about humanity, philosophy, morals and ethics; about ourselves. It is rarer and rarer for sci-fi not to be subsumed by spectacle, obsessing over the trappings rather than the content, but it does happen (last year’s Cloud Atlas, for example). Blomkamp has big things to talk about here, much as he did with his apartheid/immigration parable in District 9. He focuses on the post-financial crisis topicality of the rich 1% in Elysium, but this time he just hangs his topic there. He doesn’t have any insights, and his delivery is frequently asinine, The road to message movie hell is paved with facile intentions, and Blomkamp has delivered a soggy, simplistic mess. It isn’t just that District 9 had a wicked streak of black humour running through it; it deftly sidestepped rubbing the audience’s face in its commentary (mostly) by deflecting it on strange and interesting aliens and idiosyncratic, charismatic characters. With such a remove, the unsubtlety of the message was less overt. That, and, it was very funny. Here, there’s only the earnestness, like a slug of cold porridge, as Blomkamp bares his message on his sleeve (or Matt Damon’s bloodied, mechanised bicep). And he forces us to ingest it, repeatedly, despite the protestations of our gag reflex.


Matt Damon’s Max lives on a squalid derelict Earth, where the populace aspires to a better life on a vast orbiting space station called Elysium. There the rich live, lording it up and having their every whim tended to, including the use of miraculous personalised medicare machines that cure any illness. Dogmatic robot police below regiments the scum down. Occasional doomed escape bids to this heavenly utopia, and the healing that it promises, are made. Max, a former thief, has gone straight. When he receives a fatal dose of radiation in a workplace incident, he agrees to a plan that could take him to Elysium and reconstitution (a plan that relies on belief-beggaring coincidence to evolve into Max becoming the saviour of humankind).


The opening scenes of little Max being tutored by a kindly nun, in what appears to be a return to District 9's Johannesburg shanty town but is in fact a Mexico rubbish tip doubling for future California, do not bode well. These reminiscences will recur as punctuation points throughout the movie, a sledgehammer of bleach-out slow motion nostalgia, the push-pull between Max’s potential and his waywardness. It’s an over-familiar device without the depth of character that might extract it from the maw of groan-inducing cliché. There is so little substance to Max that the rose tinting is required to stand in its place; it’s all that is needed to give him motivation and affect the audience. But it fails miserably. We don’t empathise with Max because we never really get to know him. He larks about with street kids (well, more like dirt track kids, as there are no streets) and shows determination to stick to the straight and narrow. He finds time to wax his chest but is supposedly an everyman blue-collar worker; and check out his tattoos! This is the Hollywood 99%, where you can at least keep your dwelling spick-and-span when all outside has gone to hell.


If that had been the extent of the problems, it might have been an unconvincing characterisation but not insurmountable. Instead, Max not only has the fate of the Earth foisted on his shoulders but we're introduced to his one time girlfriend Frey (Alice Braga) and her cancer-stricken child. It’s at this point, as Frey’s superior at the hospital informs her that no, the poor wee lassie cannot stay there another night. And so it becomes clear this is storytelling of the crudest, most ham-fistedly manipulative variety. The doe-eyed moppet reads dusty children’s storybooks on how wonderful Elysium is, and that’s about the level of depth Blomkamp brings,. Just with added splatter and grue.


Even Frey cannot resist those woozy flashbacks, as the sight of his Max & Frey 4ever tat (I exaggerate but it’s something similar) sends her into a spasm of reverie. I can only assume that Blomkamp, consciously or otherwise, was aiming for the resonance of Alfonso Cuaran’s Children of Men. Both films feature a not entirely noble protagonist and his one-time girlfriend, who sets him on a course towards his salvation. Along the way he finds himself rediscovering his soul and sacrificing himself so that mankind might live. But Children of Men is never cloying, and steadfastly refuses to resort to cheap manipulation. When Clive Owen’s character expires it is strangely appropriate. When Matt Damon wipes his memory (you just know an earlier scene, establishing that only an undamaged brain is suitable for the medicare healing, was inserted to establish that he can’t be saved; it’s that clumsy) it smacks of nothing so much as Blomkamp working through the broad strokes of a hero’s journey formula. There’s no meat on the bones and nothing fresh about his take.


The world Blomkamp has created just hasn't been thought through. It is underpinned by a big shiny metaphor straight out of a pulp sci-fi novel. He then attempts to bind the components together with gritty realism. But it collapses in on itself under the weight of scrutiny; he only succeeds in spotlighting the lack of logic behind his premise. This vision is littered with great (if familiar) ideas (the ID stamps, the automated police force/parole centre, the overpowering claustrophobia of the surveillance state). Unfortunately, many more are half-baked; shooting a spaceship down with a super bazooka like something out a Roadrunner cartoon; there's no indication of how these medicare units can reconstruct an entire face in seconds, other than it’s 140 years in the future (it's magic!); or why, given the leaks of tech to the stricken Earth, there isn't a thriving black-market in such curative measures.


The society in the sky is two-dimensional as the one on Earth; there’s a presidential council, a Secretary of Defence (Jodie Foster) but hardly anyone is there (all the houses are empty, it seems). The star is Syd Mead’s giant space wheel. Blomkamp does establish that this future isn’t racist as there is a President Patel and everyone speaks multiple languages; so it’s clear that this is not at all like D9, then. When a spaceship breaches Elysium’s (fairly shoddy) defences, we assume that this must be a one-off. Certainly, it seems like a rare occurrence. But down in the deportation bay there are masses of Earth citizens waiting to be ejected. It doesn’t make any sense (wouldn’t they all be bundled off on the next available flight?)


The director has made a 1% movie with barely a brain in its head. All he has are good intentions, which aren't nearly enough when the post-climactic happy ending arrives. It’s an assault of nauseating sentimental and shockingly nonsensical proportions. Now everyone can come to Elysium, but all those with maladies have priority it seems. So everyone will wait in line? Fat chance. Maybe the now friendly robot cops will have to use lethal force to hold back the throngs? And when the billions (?) arrive, are we supposed to think this space ark will be able to sustain itself? It will crumble and fall in hours. Oblivion had another (self-sacrificing) ill-considered climax, and also followed it with a scene that raised more questions than it answered in the name of a false upbeat final frame. But it pales next to Elysium’s daftness. It treats its audience like brainless simpletons, expecting us to swallow the proffered happy pill ending. If nothing else though, this is a truly jarring piece of work, one moment piling on the ultra-violence and the next bathing us in the sound of angelic choirs.


But, and this is the Elysium’s saving grace, as a technical display the film is astonishing. The staging, editing, action, effects, are all first rate. As clean and expansive as Oblivion’s vistas are, Elysium’s are raw, punchy and laden with grime (well, not the latter on the station itself).  When a shuttle comes training into view (or a sports car model thereof) you never question its physicality. And when Matt rips the head off a robot, you can feel the explosive fury. Max’s encounters with Sharlto Copley’s Kruger are breathlessly pulse quickening and about as visceral as a main stream action movie can get without leaking guts and grue from the cinema screen. Blomkamp’s obsession with grisly body tech, horror, pulverisation, and transformation (akin to a much less cerebral David Cronenberg) is alive and well and exploding from a head near you now. Even here, his aversion logic occasionally intrudes however. You’re not convincing me that these exo-skeletons some how protect the body from shattered bones, extreme impacts and concussions. 90% of the body is still exposed to the elements. Matt hasn’t suddenly turned into Robocop or donned the prawn suit.


Copley is entertainingly evil up to a point, in a sub-Kurgan from Highlander way. But he represents just another extreme that undercuts Blomkamp’s serious theme. He’s a mechanised psycho who appears from holes in the ground he’s “activated” (and he must be very hot and stinky adorned in that heavy duty potato sack). There’s something entirely random about the choice of villain. I wouldn’t have been surprised to see him emerge magically from random objects; a dustbin perhaps, like Top Cat. He’s definitely no Buxton. For all the seething of menace and the black-eyed darkness (courtesy of contacts) he’s too rudimentary to be interesting; Kruger is a one-man slaughter machine, and as soon as we learn that rape is on his rap sheet he’s going to direct his weirdy attentions towards Damon’s girl. Copley’s decision to use his natural accent might be a mistake, purely because it draws attention to this coming from the same hands as District 9.


Jodie Foster gives a weirdly studied performance, I half wondered if she was trying to be a bit Thatchery, but with that strange vocal performance it’s anyone’s guess. Yet, with all the attention she’s received I expected her to be doing some kind of Golden Razzie-worthy performance (I’m sure she’s a shoe-in for a nomination). But she’s fine, and I didn't find her off-putting. The rest of the support (Braga, Diego Luna, Wagner Moura) are solid, but none of them have much to play with. William Fichtner’s hasn’t had the best summer; aside from a highly OTT line about being breathed on by one of the 99%, his nasal nerviness is underused. And him being 144 years old and all. As for Damon, it’s a good thing he’s a likable chap because Blomkamp doesn’t give him any support. Max’s character arc is vapid, but Matty never shrinks from giving it his all (Damon should perhaps avoid the shiny pate look; he more resembles a musclebound baby than a tough guy).


We end up asking too many questions about Blomkamp’s flawed spectacle, and so we’re only able to truly engage with it when the viscera are exploding towards us. Which surely isn’t what he intended. It’s a perverse argument for empty-headed blockbusters, if ones that do come along with convictions make such a hash of things that they’d have been best not to bother. The director has said he doesn’t like to write, and it really shows. He’s also repeating himself in multiple arenas on his only second excursion; obvious messages with little nuance, samey locales and design work, body horror. His next, Chappie, is supposed to be a science fiction comedy (two genres that tend to clash), co-written with Terri Tatchell. Hopefully he can claw back some distinction.

***

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Something something trident.

Aquaman (2018)
(SPOILERS) If Aquaman has a problem – although it actually has two – it’s the problem of the bloated blockbuster. There's just too much of it. And the more-more-more element eventual becomes wearing, even when most of that more-more-more is, on a scene-by-scene basis, terrifically executed. If there's one thing this movie proves above all else, it's that you can let director James Wan loose in any given sandpit and he’ll make an above-and-beyond castle out of it. Aquaman isn't a classic, but it isn’t for want of his trying.

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

You look like an angry lizard!

Bohemian Rhapsody (2018)
(SPOILERS) I can quite see a Queen fan begrudging this latest musical biopic for failing to adhere to the facts of their illustrious career – but then, what biopic does steer a straight and true course? – making it ironic that they're the main fuel for Bohemian Rhapsody's box office success. Most other criticisms – and they're legitimate, on the whole – fall away in the face of a hugely charismatic star turn from Rami Malek as the band's frontman. He's the difference between a standard-issue, episodic, join-the-dots narrative and one that occasionally touches greatness, and most importantly, carries emotional heft.

The wolves are running. Perhaps you would do something to stop their bite?

The Box of Delights (1984)
If you were at a formative age when it was first broadcast, a festive viewing of The Box of Delights may well have become an annual ritual. The BBC adaptation of John Masefield’s 1935 novel is perhaps the ultimate cosy yuletide treat. On a TV screen, at any rate. To an extent, this is exactly the kind of unashamedly middle class-orientated bread-and-butter period production the corporation now thinks twice about; ever so posh kids having jolly adventures in a nostalgic netherworld of Interwar Britannia. Fortunately, there’s more to it than that. There is something genuinely evocative about Box’s mythic landscape, a place where dream and reality and time and place are unfixed and where Christmas is guaranteed a blanket of thick snow. Key to this is the atmosphere instilled by director Renny Rye. Most BBC fantasy fare doe not age well but The Box of Delights is blessed with a sinister-yet-familiar charm, such that even the creakier production decisions may be vi…

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

I take Quaaludes 10-15 times a day for my "back pain", Adderall to stay focused, Xanax to take the edge off, part to mellow me out, cocaine to wake me back up again, and morphine... Well, because it's awesome.

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
Along with Pain & Gain and The Great Gatsby, The Wolf of Wall Street might be viewed as the completion of a loose 2013 trilogy on the subject of success and excess; the American Dream gone awry. It’s the superior picture to its fellows, by turns enthralling, absurd, outrageous and hilarious. This is the fieriest, most deliriously vibrant picture from the director since the millennium turned. Nevertheless, stood in the company of Goodfellas, the Martin Scorsese film from which The Wolf of Wall Street consciously takes many of its cues, it is found wanting.

I was vaguely familiar with the title, not because I knew much about Jordan Belfort but because the script had been in development for such a long time (Ridley Scott was attached at one time). So part of the pleasure of the film is discovering how widely the story diverges from the Wall Street template. “The Wolf of Wall Street” suggests one who towers over the city like a behemoth, rather than a guy …

I am so sick of Scotland!

Outlaw/King (2018)
(SPOILERS) Proof that it isn't enough just to want to make a historical epic, you have to have some level of vision for it as well. Say what you like about Mel's Braveheart – and it isn't a very good film – it's got sensibility in spades. He knew what he was setting out to achieve, and the audience duly responded. What does David Mackenzie want from Outlaw/King (it's shown with a forward slash on the titles, so I'm going with it)? Ostensibly, and unsurprisingly, to restore the stature of Robert the Bruce after it was rather tarnished by Braveheart, but he has singularly failed to do so. More than that, it isn’t an "idea", something you can recognise or get behind even if you don’t care about the guy. You’ll never forget Mel's Wallace, for better or worse, but the most singular aspect of Chris Pine's Bruce hasn’t been his rousing speeches or heroic valour. No, it's been his kingly winky.

Mountains are old, but they're still green.

Roma (2018)
(SPOILERS) Roma is a critics' darling and a shoe-in for Best Foreign Film Oscar, with the potential to take the big prize to boot, but it left me profoundly indifferent, its elusive majesty remaining determinedly out of reach. Perhaps that's down to generally spurning autobiographical nostalgia fests – complete with 65mm widescreen black and white, so it's quite clear to viewers that the director’s childhood reverie equates to the classics of old – or maybe the elliptical characterisation just didn't grab me, but Alfonso Cuarón's latest amounts to little more than a sliver of substance beneath all that style.