Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
BMS
Mar 11, 2009

by FactsAreUseless


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1535108/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Stars:
Matt Damon
Jodie Foster
Sharlto Copley

Elysium was released August 9, 2013, and directed by Neill Blomkamp (most recognized for District 9, but also worked as a 3-D animator for shows like Stargate SG-1 and Smallville.).

The story takes place in the year 2154, and features a civilization that is divided by wealth. The wealthiest individuals live on a giant space station known as 'Elysium', and are privy to all sorts of luxuries; not limited to, but certainly the most important of these is the "Med-Bay" which can cure all known illnesses, as well as prevent aging. Being an Elysian citizen is the definition of posh, however if you're one of the majority stuck on Earth...well basically, to quote Ron Perlman's character from Alien Resurrection, "Earth....man what a shithole.". Well, that quote sums it up, or one could simply visit Detroit, and the same point would be made. Earth is essentially run by the Elysians, who enforce the harsh laws with police robots, and view the people living on the planet as second class citizens.

To quote a segment from the IMDB page:

"When unlucky Max is backed into a corner, he agrees to take on a daunting mission that, if successful, will not only save his life but could bring equality to these polarized worlds."

Elysium has to date scored a 6.7 rating on IMDB, and a 61 on metacritic. Needless to say, it is overall seen as quite a step down from Blomkamp's previous movie, District 9. The movie has garnered just about every opinion under the sun, from stating it is extremely racist, a blatantly transparent political statement on the current healthcare/"1%" debate, to having it's plot deemed to be disjointed at best, and full of holes.

Honestly, I enjoyed the movie quite a bit, but I can't argue that the way the story is delivered was pretty lackluster, but given that, I was still able to follow clearly. I found the action sequences to be quite great, no crazy space lasers or anything, but some decently interesting ideas being tossed around concerning the tech, and it looked pretty drat good.

Concerning the plot, which is probably the biggest thing to discuss, there's plenty of holes to cover and quite a few things that feel like they should somehow relate to the story, but aren't tied in correctly, or fleshed out in anyway. Delacourt's death for instance.

The actors themselves did a good enough job, Matt Damon and Jodie Foster, certainly not my favorite actors by any means, but gave a performance that was by far convincing of the role. However, it's fairly obvious to me that Sharlto Copley, (lead actor of District 9), stole the show. His presentation of the character Kruger made for an interesting villain, and he played the bad guy well.

The soundtrack fit the scenes great, and was composed by the, for the most part, as of yet unknown Ryan Amon (is now working on the soundtrack for Blomkamp's next film "Chappie", which Sharlto Copley is also acting in).

Regardless, I'm interested to see some of the other opinions of people that have seen this, and hopefully be able to discuss some of the plot problems/loose ends, and maybe even figure out that some of it is actually explained in someway, albeit very, VERY vaguely!

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Neo Rasa
Mar 8, 2007
Everyone should play DUKE games.

:dukedog:
The unused-in-film implication that Kruger is so crazy because this movie's events aren't the first time he's been revived and that he's kept away from Elysium because he's gone through 250 years of this poo poo is so cool.

This movie hit all the right notes for me personally. I loved the little details like the chunk of hair/scalp on the old interface they use on Matt Damon, the movie looks amazing, and was great sci-fi in that it basically showed things as they are today but in a different setting to let us be more open to it. I like District 9 more overall but didn't really have any major problems with Elysium, I know it has plot holes but nothing really stood out to me while watching it enough to make me care about them more than what was actually going on.

One common criticism of the film on the internet (when the movie first came out at least) I don't get is how the villains are too cartoony, are too mustache twirling and exaggerated in their evilness. Are people really that blind?

I really like the robot line "I cannot arrest a citizen of Elysium" at the very end. Between the nature of the ending and the line it says a lot about how the much of the profit the 1% makes off us is based around otherization and making us hate each other in a short amount of screen time. The idea that medical care today is a thing that is withheld and sold as a commodity (in the US at least) is disgusting. Law enforcement only gives a poo poo about you if you're really low on the totem pole or raise too big a stink, etc.

Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 19:12 on May 10, 2014

Anonymous Robot
Jun 1, 2007

Lost his leg in Robo War I

Neo Rasa posted:


One common criticism of the film on the internet (when the movie first came out at least) I don't get is how the villains are too cartoony, are too mustache twirling and exaggerated in their evilness. Are people really that blind?

What am I blind to, exactly? Kruger was a cybernetic ninja rapist who loved to boast about how he was going to tear the protagonist's family apart.

My issue with this movie was that it was ideologically craven. It purports to be a film about class struggle, and for the first twenty minutes or so, it really is that and does it very well. Not long before they go into space, though, it loses all of its gumption and settles for resting the evils of global capitalism upon the shoulders of a singular corrupt politician and her psycopath henchman. Where do the androids, the industrial enforcers of capital (with their breathtaking spectacle of destruction VFX) go? They disappear, substituted by a personal, individual, human enemy, only to return at the end as the function of inherited power- a de-facto election. This is (unsurprisingly, given Elysium's Hollywood pedigree), a bourgeois capitalist narrative framework. It's possible to accomplish the film's vision in this framework, but it's a really difficult task, and the movie ultimately fails to do so. That's why so many people bristle at the supposed cop-out of an ending.

If Elysium were intellectually honest, it could never have ended with a compromise, but instead- in one way or the other- a conquest.

Mean Bean Machine
May 9, 2008

Only when I breathe.
Movie was dumb as gently caress. Blomkamp should let other people write his movies, he comes up with interesting concepts and ideas but his characters are paper-thin and the dialogue is often cringeworthy. Honestly I feel like a lot of D9's flaws were disguised by the mock-documentary format, and playing it straight this time really made the ridiculousness stand out. Wagner Moura and Sharlto Copley, two actors I usually like, were awful here, both hamming it up like loving crazy.

Neo Rasa
Mar 8, 2007
Everyone should play DUKE games.

:dukedog:

Anonymous Robot posted:

What am I blind to, exactly? Kruger was a cybernetic ninja rapist who loved to boast about how he was going to tear the protagonist's family apart.

My issue with this movie was that it was ideologically craven. It purports to be a film about class struggle, and for the first twenty minutes or so, it really is that and does it very well. Not long before they go into space, though, it loses all of its gumption and settles for resting the evils of global capitalism upon the shoulders of a singular corrupt politician and her psycopath henchman. Where do the androids, the industrial enforcers of capital (with their breathtaking spectacle of destruction VFX) go? They disappear, substituted by a personal, individual, human enemy, only to return at the end as the function of inherited power- a de-facto election. This is (unsurprisingly, given Elysium's Hollywood pedigree), a bourgeois capitalist narrative framework. It's possible to accomplish the film's vision in this framework, but it's a really difficult task, and the movie ultimately fails to do so. That's why so many people bristle at the supposed cop-out of an ending.

If Elysium were intellectually honest, it could never have ended with a compromise, but instead- in one way or the other- a conquest.

I think the point is that it's saying the first step needed for the system to change at all is for the individuals that actually do the heavy lifting in the system (the cops/robots/medical software here) realize the power they have over the small group of people that own them. On the one hand we have our military in Kruger who is too far gone mentally because he's an over militarized weapon himself who loves his work just like we're trained to do.

On the other hand we have the robots who are an obvious stand in for an indifferent law enforcement. When that larger population is swayed at the end the small group of humans from Elysium with them feel powerless. They aren't, they're still who they are and still in their position, but just the notion that "hey, these minority folks that do all our work for us are citizens?!?" is shattering to them. I did not see this as a cop out for that reason, the "movie's vision," to me was less that the system needs to be destroyed but rather, to paraphrase Malcom X, make the guys at the top actually admit the knife is there.

My own ideal might be that I flip a switch and suddenly everything I talk about wanting in D&D happens but I think the movie is more realistic in that the entire conflict of the movie revolves around them getting recognition as human beings. I didn't think the way they delivered this was really backing down from anything. I mean should it have ended with that line and then we could have a four hours sequel where all of these changes are signed off on by the council of rich dudes or whatever?

HUNDU THE BEAST GOD
Sep 14, 2007

everything is yours
Sharlto's sleazy technobogan mall ninja is such a great goddamn villain. I love the idea of it being Idiocracy played straight.

Anonymous Robot
Jun 1, 2007

Lost his leg in Robo War I

Neo Rasa posted:

I think the point is that it's saying the first step needed for the system to change at all is for the individuals that actually do the heavy lifting in the system (the cops/robots/medical software here) realize the power they have over the small group of people that own them. On the one hand we have our military in Kruger who is too far gone mentally because he's an over militarized weapon himself who loves his work just like we're trained to do.

On the other hand we have the robots who are an obvious stand in for an indifferent law enforcement. When that larger population is swayed at the end the small group of humans from Elysium with them feel powerless. They aren't, they're still who they are and still in their position, but just the notion that "hey, these minority folks that do all our work for us are citizens?!?" is shattering to them. I did not see this as a cop out for that reason, the "movie's vision," to me was less that the system needs to be destroyed but rather, to paraphrase Malcom X, make the guys at the top actually admit the knife is there.

My own ideal might be that I flip a switch and suddenly everything I talk about wanting in D&D happens but I think the movie is more realistic in that the entire conflict of the movie revolves around them getting recognition as human beings. I didn't think the way they delivered this was really backing down from anything. I mean should it have ended with that line and then we could have a four hours sequel where all of these changes are signed off on by the council of rich dudes or whatever?

Our readings of the film differ pretty cleanly along ideological lines. In the ending,(if I'm remembering right) Damon's character is recognized as the president and the androids- the literal machinery of the state- protects him, quickly followed by medical aid and capital being dispatched to the Earth. This is an election, and an American liberal fantasy. The "right person" just has to get in office and welfare and civil rights will flow through them. But that's not how it is. The system is rotten to the core- emancipation can never come through capitalist democracy.

Honestly, "my Elysium" would've resembled The Battle of Algiers a good bit. It's maybe not fair to ask for the film to be an entirely different movie, but the one we got was hollow and disheartening, so I guess it's no big loss. I wish it actually traded in the imagery it presented rather than flinching back.

Neo Rasa
Mar 8, 2007
Everyone should play DUKE games.

:dukedog:

Anonymous Robot posted:

Our readings of the film differ pretty cleanly along ideological lines. In the ending,(if I'm remembering right) Damon's character is recognized as the president and the androids- the literal machinery of the state- protects him, quickly followed by medical aid and capital being dispatched to the Earth. This is an election, and an American liberal fantasy. The "right person" just has to get in office and welfare and civil rights will flow through them. But that's not how it is. The system is rotten to the core- emancipation can never come through capitalist democracy.

Honestly, "my Elysium" would've resembled The Battle of Algiers a good bit. It's maybe not fair to ask for the film to be an entirely different movie, but the one we got was hollow and disheartening, so I guess it's no big loss. I wish it actually traded in the imagery it presented rather than flinching back.

See I didn't take it this way because Damon's character dies. The original intent of the program was to have all the power of the system put into one person's hands. I saw that as more of an election as we know it in the US than what we got because Delacourt makes arrangements for it via bribing and otherwise manipulating a few people at the top. Some corporate executives decide ____ should be in charge so it happens. Nothing actually changes because until the end of the movie we see a system where the robots run everything the same way no matter how much Delacourt and Patel may argue and have their own groups of sycophants who think they'll change anything. The actual voting process is superficial even in Elysium itself once too much power is given to that robotics company (I am stupidly not remembering the name of William Fichtner character).

When Damon uploads the program it resonated with me not because the robots are now nice to everyone and everyone gets free healthcare, but because it's saying that to even get close to that point the racist, otherization mindset that capitalism thrives on needs to be wiped out, otherwise it doesn't matter how much of the system you change or destroy. We had slavery, "got rid of it" but really just modified it into sharecropping, "god rid of that" but really just modified it into the US prison and corporate farming systems, repeat forever until people stop seeing each other in a caste system based on where they were born or what they look like.

There's a happy ending in the movie itself, but I didn't take it as an implication that such a thing is currently possible in the real world, just the opposite.

I'd hesitate to call Elysium a war movie though. I don't think it's the film's fault that it doesn't conform to specific aspects of the genre, especially when Battle of Algiers, while using composite characters, intentionally strives for a realistic portrayal of suffering on both sides (and is an excellent movie for it). With the US at a point where more people see the gulf and reasoning that causes stuff like this to happen all the time I don't think it would even necessarily be in good taste to do so given how the rest of the movie plays out. I found it more realistic that the other side, rather than truly suffering, the worst thing that happens to them is they argue with each other and retire to their individual huge tracts of land. Things only get violent as they manipulate the system to get more and more consistently malicious.

Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 20:36 on May 10, 2014

James Hardon
May 31, 2006
It sucked.

General Dog
Apr 26, 2008

Everybody's working for the weekend

Neo Rasa posted:


My own ideal might be that I flip a switch and suddenly everything I talk about wanting in D&D happens but I think the movie is more realistic in that the entire conflict of the movie revolves around them getting recognition as human beings. I didn't think the way they delivered this was really backing down from anything. I mean should it have ended with that line and then we could have a four hours sequel where all of these changes are signed off on by the council of rich dudes or whatever?

They literally institute universal health care with the flip of a switch. That's insulting to both sides of the argument. The movie has nothing to say except, "hey, why haven't we done this yet?" in the most strawman-y terms possible. Install Marxism, problem solved.

Uncle Boogeyman
Jul 22, 2007

Dissapointed Owl
Jan 30, 2008

You wrote me a letter,
and this is how it went:
Goddamn, was that script a let down. I love Blomkamp's aestethic, I love his visuals, I loved the actors, but I absolutely hated that script.

And the fight sequences were horrendously shot.

I really wish it'd been a better movie, because I love the look and craftsmanship going on.

Uncle Boogeyman
Jul 22, 2007

I feel like District 9 was the big "discovery of a visionary new genre auteur" moment and Elysium was the big "whoops, just kidding" moment.

BMS
Mar 11, 2009

by FactsAreUseless

Anonymous Robot posted:

That's why so many people bristle at the supposed cop-out of an ending.

If Elysium were intellectually honest, it could never have ended with a compromise, but instead- in one way or the other- a conquest.

Oh I agree 100% with this. The ending was probably the biggest disappointment for me. I guess one could argue that Blomkamp left it "open ended", in that poo poo probably fell apart quickly (which it would.), but that's requiring the viewer to infer A LOT from an ending that basically states, welp, everybody is a citizen now, so now they have access to the med-bays and luxuries of Elysium, all will be well with the world. Completely wouldn't be the case. either the Elysians would wind up correcting the new programming, or the various gangs that ran the Earth, would simply invade Elysium and gently caress poo poo up even more (most probable).

To be quite honest, when I say I enjoy this movie, it's only when I DON'T try and relate the story it conveys to anything that is actually happening in the world now. Not at all what the director intended, but still. There's a lot of movies I tend to do this with, especially in the sci-fi genre. Just keep it's story to it's own specific universe, and leave the real one and it's relations out of it.

Even doing that, the ending was poor.


HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:

Sharlto's sleazy technobogan mall ninja is such a great goddamn villain. I love the idea of it being Idiocracy played straight.


Neo Rasa posted:

The unused-in-film implication that Kruger is so crazy because this movie's events aren't the first time he's been revived and that he's kept away from Elysium because he's gone through 250 years of this poo poo is so cool.

Personally, the first time watching this film, I thought Kruger was just a mediocre villain that was your average batshit merc. Nothing stellar. It's a shame, because given the backstory and poo poo that goes along with the Elysian characters (in an interview it's stated Delacourt is 108 years old, and Kruger was supposedly born in the 1970's). There is SO much that could have been done to flesh those characters out in that respect, and actually develop them a substantial amount. Knowing all the information, the characters and their motivations make a lot more sense than what you gather from the movie alone. The problem with this, is that it's a pretty bad thing when you have to find outside information, other than what's in the movie, to make most of the lead characters and their attitudes make any sort of sense.

Another thing that I've questioned, is Delacourt's death. Kruger stabs her in the neck and tosses her in with Frey, who tries to help her, but Delacourt refuses stating something along the lines of "No, no more". This is a perfect example of how the lack of in film character development makes this scene confusing as hell, and with just a LITTLE bit of backstory, could have been fleshed out to be a defining moment for the character. Basically what I mean is, was her motivation for not wanting help because she was actually repentant of her actions? Or something as simple as "No, I'd rather die, instead of being helped by this person that is so far beneath me", or was she just afraid consequences she'd face if she lived? Things like that, that could have served either as a major redeeming point for the character, or just a final piece of info that cements the character as a "true, stuck in their ways, villain". Instead we have to infer all this, and it just feels incomplete.

Which leads me to believe, that this would probably make a much, MUCH better novel, if written properly, than a movie.

But still, it was fun to watch, and I had a good time with it. For me, in the end, that's what counts!

James Hardon
May 31, 2006
I can't decide if Ghostbusters, Pacific Rim or Elysium is my favorite movie but I love endlessly talking about each of them with equal enthusiasm.

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010
I remember seeing some artwork for the film where the Space Coyotes got attacked by a rail riding Cyber-Dog/Fighting Robot/Sniper and it turning into a big battle. I guess it would have made the space poors a little more ambiguous (instead of being essentially peaceful and just wanting to use the med-bays)
In fact, all the artwork I've seen is amazing. It's kind of a pity it didn't make it into the movie as it would have been the most cyberpunk thing ever.

Neo Rasa
Mar 8, 2007
Everyone should play DUKE games.

:dukedog:
I think even Kruger was going to transform into a huge cyber-bear going by the concept art as like a final boss battle form.


BMS posted:

Another thing that I've questioned, is Delacourt's death.

Is there any pre-release footage of Jodie Foster on the blu-ray or something? I found it a bit weird too, apparently her entire role was re-shot shortly before the film was released or something? It makes me wonder if they had this in mind or were even considering excising the character completely and focusing more on Kruger/Patel/etc.

SuperMechagodzilla
Jun 9, 2007

NEWT REBORN

Frackie Robinson posted:

They literally institute universal health care with the flip of a switch. That's insulting to both sides of the argument. The movie has nothing to say except, "hey, why haven't we done this yet?" in the most strawman-y terms possible. Install Marxism, problem solved.

The fictional conceit of the Law as a God-OS illustrates that truly universal democracy is not inconceivable but, in fact, quite simple to conceive.

In a world where the Law is not an OS, seizing control of the state apparatus would take more than one person, but this utopian Idea is not any more complicated.

It's this Idea that the film is illustrating: true democracy can only come from the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is not, however, an instruction manual; it's allegorical.

Anonymous Robot posted:

Our readings of the film differ pretty cleanly along ideological lines. In the ending,(if I'm remembering right) Damon's character is recognized as the president and the androids- the literal machinery of the state- protects him, quickly followed by medical aid and capital being dispatched to the Earth. This is an election, and an American liberal fantasy. The "right person" just has to get in office and welfare and civil rights will flow through them. But that's not how it is. The system is rotten to the core- emancipation can never come through capitalist democracy.

That's actually not at all what happens. Damon is a radical Christ figure who becomes the incarnation of the system. When he dies, the system dies with him. The result is the total destruction of the bourgeois dictatorship of liberal democracy, and the implementation of the dictatorship of the proletariat (in christological terms: the holy spirit guarded by the heavenly host, aka the Kingdom of Heaven).

Anonymous Robot
Jun 1, 2007

Lost his leg in Robo War I

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

The fictional conceit of the Law as a God-OS illustrates that truly universal democracy is not inconceivable but, in fact, quite simple to conceive.

In a world where the Law is not an OS, seizing control of the state apparatus would take more than one person, but this utopian Idea is not any more complicated.

It's this Idea that the film is illustrating: true democracy can only come from the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is not, however, an instruction manual; it's allegorical.


That's actually not at all what happens. Damon is a radical Christ figure who becomes the incarnation of the system. When he dies, the system dies with him. The result is the total destruction of the bourgeois dictatorship of liberal democracy, and the implementation of the dictatorship of the proletariat (in christological terms: the holy spirit guarded by the heavenly host, aka the Kingdom of Heaven).

The idea of an AI system being a truly representative leadership is an interesting one- it hearkens to a command economy and the centralized distribution of the USSR (which was actually quite accurate before corruption and infighting destroyed it), as well as some of the loftier projects of Salvador Allende. However, I don't think it has a lot of bearing on the content of Elysium, given the little that we see. The simplicity of the system that we do see, which is, as described above, basically a "fix problems on/off" switch, doesn't bother me as much as it does some people. It would be stupid for them to go at length into showing how such a process worked. But what we do have changes the tone of what is happening dramatically, and actually makes the conclusion cruelly parodic.

Where do you get the impression that proletarian rule has been established in any meaningful or lasting way? It seems to me that the system created at the end of Elysium is only stable for as long as it takes the human police to batter down the doors.

The Christ imagery in Elysium isn't subtle, but there's a crucial piece missing; there is no resurrection, no fulfillment of faith. Maybe you consider the dispersal of the medical pods to be parousian imagery. For reasons I've described prior, I don't buy it.

SuperMechagodzilla
Jun 9, 2007

NEWT REBORN

Anonymous Robot posted:

Where do you get the impression that proletarian rule has been established in any meaningful or lasting way? It seems to me that the system created at the end of Elysium is only stable for as long as it takes the human police to batter down the doors.

The Christ imagery in Elysium isn't subtle, but there's a crucial piece missing; there is no resurrection, no fulfillment of faith. Maybe you consider the dispersal of the medical pods to be parousian imagery. For reasons I've described prior, I don't buy it.

The imagery at the end of the film is of a host of angels descending upon the Earth. In addition to the fact that there's no reason to anticipate their failure - we see them effortlessly subdue some corrupt liberal cops - the point is that they should win. Why shouldn't they? It is fairly clear that there still many counter-revolutionaries like President Patel that will have to be dealt with, so it's not an 'instant-win button'. The tone is upbeat not because everything is instantly solved, but because things are on the right track.

This goes back to the heavenly host: Max does not literally re-incarnate, but we see the Last Judgement and the institution of the Kingdom of Heaven. Max 'returns to Earth' as the holy spirit, which is the community of believers - the universal citizenship.

SALT CURES HAM
Jan 4, 2011

Anonymous Robot posted:

If Elysium were intellectually honest, it could never have ended with a compromise, but instead- in one way or the other- a conquest.

It's been a while since I've seen it, but it didn't seem like a compromise to me at all. It seemed like a pretty clear-cut conquest, actually: through becoming citizens, the proletariat have essentially dismantled the system of Elysium and used its tools to rebuild it as an egalitarian system. The citizen/non-citizen divide is the film's allegory for being one of the richest in America and being one of its proletariat, not an allegory for literal citizens and non-citizens; Max flipping the switch to make everyone a citizen is essentially the same as if America's poor rose up and took all the rich's toys for themselves.

BMS
Mar 11, 2009

by FactsAreUseless

SALT CURES HAM posted:

Max flipping the switch to make everyone a citizen is essentially the same as if America's poor rose up and took all the rich's toys for themselves.

Yeah, but the problem with this, is human nature. You'd wind up having the same situation, if not WORSE, because when the citizens of Earth took the Elysians poo poo, you'd eventually end up getting a handful of gangs that would wind up controlling it all, instead of every poor person having a chunk. Spyder's gang wasn't the only one, and given the way history has shown us, unless you were a relatively important member in one of the gangs, you'd still be poo poo out of luck. At least with the Elysians running it, the gangs were in the same situation.

Basically the ending, vague and cheery as it is...is really bleak as gently caress if you think about it for a second.

SALT CURES HAM
Jan 4, 2011
That's not really what I'm arguing, though. You're taking issue with the concept of a populist revolution in general, I'm taking issue with the assertion that this film is portraying a center-left US-liberal fantasy of revolution through compromise.

Ungoal
Mar 13, 2014

by XyloJW

Mean Bean Machine posted:

Movie was dumb as gently caress. Blomkamp should let other people write his movies, he comes up with interesting concepts and ideas but his characters are paper-thin and the dialogue is often cringeworthy. Honestly I feel like a lot of D9's flaws were disguised by the mock-documentary format, and playing it straight this time really made the ridiculousness stand out. Wagner Moura and Sharlto Copley, two actors I usually like, were awful here, both hamming it up like loving crazy.

Not only that but they should've been at least slightly more subtle with the incredibly forced political overtones; seriously, the producers/director made this film with thought of the audience being loving retards in mind. Having literally everyone on Elysium be white while having 90% of the people on Earth be either brown or black was just cringeworthy. And yes the Kruger guy was just obnoxious as gently caress and you could just tell that the actor playing him was trying too hard during his "crazy spasms/speeches" scenes. I can't comment on the ending of this because I walked out once the villain died (the second time :lol:).

Plot wise, it had an interesting concept. But of course in this day and age the executions of originality usually suck rear end.

SALT CURES HAM
Jan 4, 2011

Ungoal posted:

Having literally everyone on Elysium be white while having 90% of the people on Earth be either brown or black was just cringeworthy.

Why, too close to reality for you? Like, I don't want to be like SMG and accuse you of bias because you don't agree with me on a movie, but you're aware of how this comes off, right?

Accretionist
Nov 7, 2012
I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES

Ungoal posted:

Having literally everyone on Elysium be white while having 90% of the people on Earth be either brown or black was just cringeworthy.

You're cringing at Mexico being full of Mexicans.

exquisite tea
Apr 21, 2007

Carly shook her glass, willing the ice to melt. "You still haven't told me what the mission is."

She leaned forward. "We are going to assassinate the bad men of Hollywood."


I hate this movie, not so much for the film itself, but for all the embarrassing opinions I've read surrounding the discussion of it, to the point where I feel it was engineered specifically to provoke the most excruciatingly dumb statements out of human beings from all political persuasions possible.

Zzulu
May 15, 2009

(▰˘v˘▰)
I really didn't like this movie. It was pretty dull and I absolutely didn't care about a single character in the movie. The pacing was weird and the dialogue was weird, the villain was wasted and the action scenes too short

FlamingLiberal
Jan 18, 2009

Would you like to play a game?



Dissapointed Owl posted:

Goddamn, was that script a let down. I love Blomkamp's aestethic, I love his visuals, I loved the actors, but I absolutely hated that script.

And the fight sequences were horrendously shot.

I really wish it'd been a better movie, because I love the look and craftsmanship going on.
Yeah this is what I took away from it. It looks great, and clearly there was a lot of thought put into it, but the characters are paper-thin and Jodie Foster's character in particular is pretty wasted here. She gets virtually no development, and little screen time in the end. Damon is fine, but he doesn't have much to work with here. I wish we had a little more of the backstory on how all of this happened fleshed out just a bit more, since that ends up more interesting than what actually goes on here. It's a serviceable film, but I don't think it works as well as District 9. I will be interested to see how his next film is, since it's going to be different from the previous two.

SuperMechagodzilla
Jun 9, 2007

NEWT REBORN

Zzulu posted:

I really didn't like this movie. It was pretty dull and I absolutely didn't care about a single character in the movie. The pacing was weird and the dialogue was weird, the villain was wasted and the action scenes too short

Weird movies are good, actually.

HUNDU THE BEAST GOD
Sep 14, 2007

everything is yours

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

Weird movies are good, actually.

I heartily endorse this post.

Mean Bean Machine
May 9, 2008

Only when I breathe.

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

Weird movies are good, actually.

Except when they're not.

Strategic Tea
Sep 1, 2012

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

The imagery at the end of the film is of a host of angels descending upon the Earth. In addition to the fact that there's no reason to anticipate their failure - we see them effortlessly subdue some corrupt liberal cops - the point is that they should win. Why shouldn't they? It is fairly clear that there still many counter-revolutionaries like President Patel that will have to be dealt with, so it's not an 'instant-win button'. The tone is upbeat not because everything is instantly solved, but because things are on the right track.

This goes back to the heavenly host: Max does not literally re-incarnate, but we see the Last Judgement and the institution of the Kingdom of Heaven. Max 'returns to Earth' as the holy spirit, which is the community of believers - the universal citizenship.

Yes, but in real revolutions it's the establishment of a new government (that functions at all, let alone delivers socialism) that is difficult. In the film this is reduced to 'press butan', and the long term challenge is to murder deal with the remaining counter-revolutionaries.

Essentially, the real stumbling block of political change is handwaved away and replaced with more fighting the good fight against The Enemy. It's practically a revenge fantasy.

Elysium's message seems to be that utopia itself is easy to build, and all we need to to is remove bad people who stand in its way for no reason (not even selfish ones, really). And it's damaging; some people genuinely seem to think you can just apply revolution to problem and let that tedious 'governance' stuff sort itself out.

Chairman Capone
Dec 17, 2008

My critiques of Elysium are basically the same as Anonymous Robot's. However, much worse for me was that it was a really boring, lazy script with terrible dialogue and exposition.

SALT CURES HAM
Jan 4, 2011

Strategic Tea posted:

Yes, but in real revolutions it's the establishment of a new government (that functions at all, let alone delivers socialism) that is difficult. In the film this is reduced to 'press butan', and the long term challenge is to murder deal with the remaining counter-revolutionaries.

Essentially, the real stumbling block of political change is handwaved away and replaced with more fighting the good fight against The Enemy. It's practically a revenge fantasy.

Elysium's message seems to be that utopia itself is easy to build, and all we need to to is remove bad people who stand in its way for no reason (not even selfish ones, really). And it's damaging; some people genuinely seem to think you can just apply revolution to problem and let that tedious 'governance' stuff sort itself out.

This is a valid reading of the movie, but not really what I took from it. The stuff you're talking about is well outside the scope of the movie, which is largely focused on the revolution itself; the actual bits of society getting better take up maybe the last couple minutes of the movie. It's not saying that utopia will suddenly be easy to build, just proposing that revolution is a valid first step.

BMS
Mar 11, 2009

by FactsAreUseless

SALT CURES HAM posted:

That's not really what I'm arguing, though. You're taking issue with the concept of a populist revolution in general, I'm taking issue with the assertion that this film is portraying a center-left US-liberal fantasy of revolution through compromise.

Ah, perhaps I did misread your comment. That's what I get for checking the thread out at a little after 2 in the morning! My apologies.


exquisite tea posted:

I hate this movie, not so much for the film itself, but for all the embarrassing opinions I've read surrounding the discussion of it, to the point where I feel it was engineered specifically to provoke the most excruciatingly dumb statements out of human beings from all political persuasions possible.

Yeah, I'm going to have to agree with you here for the most part. Discussing the plot, and what it's meant to deliver is fine. However, (and this isn't just limited to this thread mind you but nearly every other discussion I've seen of this movie on the internet), I've seen discussions of that delve off into some pretty weird tangents.


FlamingLiberal posted:

Yeah this is what I took away from it. It looks great, and clearly there was a lot of thought put into it, but the characters are paper-thin and Jodie Foster's character in particular is pretty wasted here. She gets virtually no development, and little screen time in the end. Damon is fine, but he doesn't have much to work with here. I wish we had a little more of the backstory on how all of this happened fleshed out just a bit more, since that ends up more interesting than what actually goes on here. It's a serviceable film, but I don't think it works as well as District 9. I will be interested to see how his next film is, since it's going to be different from the previous two.

Exactly. The actual delving into the characters to understand them, let alone actual development, is pretty nil. I'd certainly be interested to see if there were any major plot changes near the end of production, as it seems like that may be the case here for the mostly disjointed way the characters are presented. (I believe Neo mentioned that Jodie Foster's character role was basically reshot near the end...so who knows.)

Periodiko
Jan 30, 2005
Uh.

Accretionist posted:

You're cringing at Mexico being full of Mexicans.

A third world of color, and a first world inhabited by white people? Don't stretch my suspension of disbelief too far, movie.

SALT CURES HAM
Jan 4, 2011

BMS posted:

Yeah, I'm going to have to agree with you here for the most part. Discussing the plot, and what it's meant to deliver is fine. However, (and this isn't just limited to this thread mind you but nearly every other discussion I've seen of this movie on the internet), I've seen discussions of that delve off into some pretty weird tangents.

Eh. It really kind of comes with the territory, given that the movie is basically about a violent Marxist revolution portrayed sympathetically and was released primarily in a country that largely has no clue what Marxism even is other than "BAD THING." When you don't have the proper frame of reference to interpret a movie, you end up with some weird poo poo sometimes.

e: And yeah, if you thought Elysium was Blomkamp's "whoops, just kidding" moment, I kinda wonder if we watched the same movie. It's not as deep as District 9, and it's very very unsubtle about its politics, but it's really a drat fun movie; just looking at it purely as an action movie rather than a political tract, I'd only put it a hair behind Dredd.

SALT CURES HAM fucked around with this message at 21:40 on May 11, 2014

Blood Boils
Dec 27, 2006

Its not an S, on my planet it means QUIPS

Uncle Boogeyman posted:

I feel like District 9 was the big "discovery of a visionary new genre auteur" moment and Elysium was the big "whoops, just kidding" moment.

I love both, the only real difference is that one focuses on race and the other on class. Which of course are connected issues.

This affects the endings: the ambiguity of the first is because there will always be an racial/cultural Other, although certainly there is hope to overcome those divisions, there will always be different people who freak us out with their differences. The second is a clear victory, since universal healthcare are such unambiguously good thing, which is really easy to achieve, provided people stop doing what selfish myopic rich losers say.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Ungoal
Mar 13, 2014

by XyloJW

SALT CURES HAM posted:

Why, too close to reality for you? Like, I don't want to be like SMG and accuse you of bias because you don't agree with me on a movie, but you're aware of how this comes off, right?

Funniest post in this thread.

  • Locked thread