Skip to main content

How was I supposed to know that you'd become you?

Chappie
(2015)

(SPOILERS) Neill Blomkamp scarcely needed anyone else voting against him self-penning his own movies after the underwhelming Elysium. But, just in case anyone was on the fence, he has ollowed it up with phenomenally misconceived Chappie, a picture so fascinatingly bad, so inept on every level (barring effects and action direction, both rendered with typically deceptive ease) that one is baffled Fox would be willing to hand him the keys to the Alien franchise.


I mean, let Blomkamp direct an Alien movie by all means but he shouldn’t be let near a typewriter ever again. This isn’t the first time a multi-hyphenate “auteur” has been unleashed on the all-conquering xenomorph. The last time was a decade ago when Paul W S Anderson, the legend in charge of the Resident Evil series, took it upon himself to match aliens against predators. I can give Elysium a bit of slack; I mean, it was clunkingly obvious and crude in its storytelling and logic, but its heart was in the right place. Pretty much. What Chappie is trying to say is a mystery.


On the one hand it’s the tale of an E.T. like innocent in Robocop form, a child A.I. brought up as a gangsta rapper by Die Antwoord (white South African rap-ravers Ninja and Yo-Lande Visser, playing themselves for reasons unclear – possibly the way Norman Wisdom always plays “Norman” – and excruciatingly providing soundtrack accompaniment too; one can only guess the latter came free, or they paid Blomkamp). On the other it’s a glorification of Johannesburg guns-and-ganster culture; our murderous protagonists are apparently to be rooted for and, even though Ninja’s a complete prick, he’s still Chappie’s “daddy” (I may have missed something, but I don’t get why we’re supposed to treat them like Ocean’s 11-type likeable felons).


The corporate side is absolute nonsense; so much of this movie teeters on the brink of self-parody, you only wish there was actually a sense of humour involved (at one point Yo-Landi is in bed with Chappie, Morecambe and Wise style, but it’s left at that). Deon (Dev Patel, pouring milk on his cardboard) has come up with the robot cop A.I. programme, much to the chagrin of Vincent Moore (Hugh Jackman, who I’m guessing took the part solely to sport a ridiculous mullet and short shorts), whose Moose programme (ED209, basically) is rejected by CEO Michelle Bradley (Sigourney Weaver, in the second successive case of Blomkamp getting a great actress and furnishing her with a lousy role).


Nothing about this office environment makes any sense. That Deon isn’t on the board after creating a smash hit robot police force, that Vincent is able to get up to no good at every turn (don’t they have an HR Department?), that Michelle is so hopelessly short-sighted she can’t perceive of any uses for either Vincent’s metal mammoth or, most nonsensically, Deon’s revelation that he really has created A.I. (“You’ve pitched me a robot that can write poems” she says, waving him away). She’s a moron.


Then there’s the strange anti-Robocop ethos running through the set-up, which is contrary to about 90% of such fare that puts humanity first; Vincent’s design has a human operator (it’s like a Jaeger!) but he’s the bad guy. It’s the guy behind the autonomous killing machine who’s right (although only so much, Deon is a nerdy square, which means he can’t ever be up there with Chappie’s surrogate mommy and daddy, Die Antwoord). This kind of backward logic reaches its most absurd extreme during the climax, in which – clearly forsaking any last vestiges of plausibility – Chappie uploads the dying Deon into the body of another robot. How does Deon react? He doesn’t bat a metal eyelid. This, despite the rational approach seen in the Robocop series (including the remake), that messing with one’s flesh and blood self would have untold psychological consequences (if you didn’t just plain lose it).


I don’t know, perhaps the He-Man reference is supposed to indicate the level of internal logic Blomkamp is working by, but even by Masters of the Universe standards this doesn’t make a lick of sense. Die Antwoord decide to abduct Deon because he must have a remote control to turn the robots off? It’s like this has been scripted for the Children’s Film Foundation, just with added dismemberments. At one point Ninja leaves Chappie in a rough neighbourhood to fend for himself and learn it’s a hard world. It doesn’t compute, particularly since Chappie barely makes it back and the robot is crucial for Ninja to pull off his robbery.


None of this might be so bad if Chappie was an endearing and loveable creation. He isn’t; he’s plain annoying (as motion captured and voiced by Sharlto Copley, never backwards in drawing attention to himself), be it playing the frightened infant or strutting gangsta poses; he’s only palatable during the opening section when offering more Robocop-esque delivery.


Blomkamp seems (I emphasise seems, as what the hell he’s up to is probably known only to him for certain) to be saying something about our freedom or lack thereof to be who we need to be, with the good and bad fathers (Ninja and Deon, but which is which?) pulling him in every which way to get what they want (Deon tells Chappie to nurture his creativity, not to kill, and to be himself, then starts dictating what he has to do). At the end, Yolandi’s consciousness is ready to be downloaded into a new robot form, a triumph for machines over flesh, and there isn’t the slightest doubt that she is to be rewarded for… being a good mother?


Ninja and Yo-Landi are both terrible, as if that needs saying. The former comes across as a particularly inept Albert Steptoe, just a tattooed version with designs on being a gangster. The latter, an excitable eight year old in an adult’s body with a voice to match, is just very odd, and intensely irritating. God knows what Jackman’s doing in this, although he does get to deliver the one funny line (“Come on, you little gangster!” Vincent gloats as he deals destruction via the Moose bot).


The effects are impressive, of course, and Blomkamp can be relied upon to deliver a sterling bit of action; there’s a freeway heist, the Moose on the rampage, and a final sequence where Chappie gets angry, lifted straight out of Murphy arresting Clarence Boddicker. His design, complete with ears, reminded me a bit of Green Rabbit from the Marvel Star Wars comics. Well, just the ears really.


Apparently Blomkamp has two sequels in mind, but it’s probably safe to say (I hope so, anyway) that they’re as likely as his District 9 sequel.  I really hope someone rewrites whatever gubbins he’s come up with for Alien 5 but given Sir Ridley’s rewrite input on Prometheus was less than reassuring, he probably thinks its dynamite stuff. Make no mistake, Chappie’s a bad movie, but it’s an expertly made bad movie, and its sort of hypnotic for how overwhelmingly bad it is. Meanwhile, if you want to see a half decent recent A.I. movie, you could do worse than check out Automata.


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…

Why would I turn into a filing cabinet?

Captain Marvel (2019)
(SPOILERS) All superhero movies are formulaic to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly greater. The key to an actually great one – or just a pretty good one – is making that a virtue, rather than something you’re conscious of limiting the whole exercise. The irony of the last two stand-alone MCU pictures is that, while attempting to bring somewhat down-the-line progressive cachet to the series, they’ve delivered rather pedestrian results. Of course, that didn’t dim Black Panther’s cultural cachet (and what do I know, swathes of people also profess to loving it), and Captain Marvel has hit half a billion in its first few days – it seems that, unless you’re poor unloved Ant-Man, an easy $1bn is the new $700m for the MCU – but neither’s protagonist really made that all-important iconic impact.

Basically, you’re saying marriage is just a way of getting out of an embarrassing pause in conversation?

Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994)
(SPOILERS) There can be a cumulative effect from revisiting a movie where one glaring element does not fit, however well-judged or integrated everything else is; the error is only magnified, and seems even more of a miscalculation. With Groundhog Day, there’s a workaround to the romance not working, which is that the central conceit of reliving your day works like a charm and the love story is ultimately inessential to the picture’s success. In the case of Four Weddings and a Funeral, if the romance doesn’t work… Well, you’ve still got three other weddings, and you’ve got a funeral. But our hero’s entire purpose is to find that perfect match, and what he winds up with is Andie McDowell. One can’t help thinking he’d have been better off with Duck Face (Anna Chancellor).

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

Our very strength incites challenge. Challenge incites conflict. And conflict... breeds catastrophe.

The MCU Ranked Worst to Best

Do you read Sutter Cane?

In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
(SPOILERS) The concluding chapter of John Carpenter’s unofficial Apocalypse Trilogy (preceded by The Thing and Prince of Darkness) is also, sadly, his last great movie. Indeed, it stands apart in the qualitative wilderness that beset him during the ‘90s (not for want of output). Michael De Luca’s screenplay had been doing the rounds since the ‘80s, even turned down by Carpenter at one point, and it proves ideal fodder for the director, bringing out the best in him. Even cinematographer Gary K Kibbe seems inspired enough to rise to the occasion. It could do without the chugging rawk soundtrack, perhaps, but then, that was increasingly where Carpenter’s interests resided (as opposed to making decent movies).

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…

Only an idiot sees the simple beauty of life.

Forrest Gump (1994)
(SPOILERS) There was a time when I’d have made a case for, if not greatness, then Forrest Gump’s unjust dismissal from conversations regarding its merits. To an extent, I still would. Just not nearly so fervently. There’s simply too much going on in the picture to conclude that the manner in which it has generally been received is the end of the story. Tarantino, magnanimous in the face of Oscar defeat, wasn’t entirely wrong when he suggested to Robert Zemeckis that his was a, effectively, subversive movie. Its problem, however, is that it wants to have its cake and eat it.

Do not mention the Tiptoe Man ever again.

Glass (2019)
(SPOILERS) If nothing else, one has to admire M Night Shyamalan’s willingness to plough ahead regardless with his straight-faced storytelling, taking him into areas that encourage outright rejection or merciless ridicule, with all the concomitant charges of hubris. Reactions to Glass have been mixed at best, but mostly more characteristic of the period he plummeted from his must-see, twist-master pedestal (during the period of The Village and The Happening), which is to say quite scornful. And yet, this is very clearly the story he wanted to tell, so if he undercuts audience expectations and leaves them dissatisfied, it’s most definitely not a result of miscalculation on his part. For my part, while I’d been prepared for a disappointment on the basis of the critical response, I came away very much enjoying the movie, by and large.