“Avengers: Age of Ultron” is a worthy successor to “Avengers”.

Sequels. One of the toughest types of films to pull off. They truly are a very delicate balance. Their existence is determined by the success of the film before it and thus, they are expected to retain those elements that made it successful. The flaw in this, of course, is that too often they are also criticised for repeating those same elements. Comedies are criticized for using the same jokes, action thrillers for using the same plots, etc. Super hero blockbusters, however are probably the most difficult.

Not only do you have to make the film better, you have to avoid falling into familiar patterns as well as please a rabid fan base who have likely read the original comic source material and will hate the film if it deviates even slightly. Now that IS a generalization and I don’t want to tar all comic fans with the same brush. Still, this illustrates the unique challenges that go into this sort of film making.

Adding to the mix is a growing social awareness of representation in film and *why* it is important to represent characters beyond the stock white male action hero. People are actively voicing their desire to see other types of people on screen in lead roles such as women, people of colour, LGBT characters and characters with disabilities and this is an awesome thing. I am one of these people so I understand the frustration when some of these stories fall short of the mark. I mention this because Joss Whedon, the director of Avengers: Age of Ultron is a man who has made it very clear through his body of work that he is a feminist that believes highly in the importance of strong, well written, and well rounded female characters. His career has been built on this feminism and desire for representation.

The first Avengers was one of the most successful films of all time. Joss’ challenge was then to make a sequel that could top it, stay faithful to his fan base, AND the Marvel Cinematic Universe that was built around him in the previous films, not to mention maintain pace with the television show “Agents of Shield”. Yeah, no pressure there.

As Joss himself said in an interview “the moment you declare yourself politically, you destroy yourself artistically”. I fully understand what he meant when he said this and the reaction after the film’s release shows this statement to be more than true. Amid accusations from fans (as well as people simply with an axe to grind against Whedon), he has been accused of abandoning his “feminist cred” with this film due to how Black Widow’s character was handled (more on this later). A joke made by Tony Stark also received a lot of ire (in which he attempts to lift Thor’s hammer and when doing so declares that if he rules Asgard he will re-institute Prima Nocta). I find this to be particularly hypocritical since most of these criticisms came from social media and blogs. A lot of those same blogs turned around to praise other films that make far worse jokes, such as Pitch Perfect 2 in which a Guatemalan character tells the girls that when she was 9 years old, her brother tried to sell her for a chicken. I don’t know about you, but I have far more of an issue with a joke about sex trafficking than I do about a joke that centres around an ancient rite that may not have even existed.

That being said, the point of even mentioning this is to highlight just how difficult a task Whedon had ahead of him with “Age of Ultron”. In my view, he succeeded with this film. Are there problems with it? Absolutely! There were problems with the first film as well. Despite this, it is a good movie and makes for a highly entertaining two and a half hours.

“Avengers: Age of Ultron” picks up largely where the last film leaves off. The team are fighting together to take down a Hydra base and retrieve Loki’s sceptre. Upon doing so, Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) and Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) ask Thor (Chris Hemsworth) for permission to study the sceptre for three days before Tony’s big party. Mere scientific curiosity  takes a back seat when Banner and Stark discover inside the sceptre lies a super computer more alien and powerful than they have ever seen. What follows is a pretty familiar story – a type of “Frankenstein”-like tale, if you will. In an ill fated attempt to bring about “peace in our time”, Banner and Stark try to use the sceptre to implant an artificial intelligence into one of Tony’s suits as a peace keeping measure. The AI system, upon seeing the task ahead of him, realizes that the only way to achieve peace in our time, is by wiping out all of humanity – starting with the Avengers.

Ultron (James Spader) achieves sentience during a party that Stark hosts, takes them by surprise, thus revealing to the other team members the extent of Banner and Stark’s experimentation. Ultron escapes, and manages to recruit two “enhanced” humans that Hydra had been experimenting on using their axe to grind with Tony Stark as fuel. The twins Pietro and Wanda Maximov (Aaron Taylor Johnson and Elizabeth Olsen), have their own journey in the film culminating in them joining the Avengers along with a second Stark creation called The Vision (Paul Bettany). The final line-up is present in the cinematic battle of good vs. evil.

The Good:

1. The chemistry between the ensemble cast. A cast this large can be very difficult. Allowing for each character to have enough screen time and fit that into the overall plot arc is hard when you have only a few characters to work with. “Age of Ultron” features at least seven main characters, all of whom have their own personal character arcs. The balance with which this was done is incredible, not to mention the chemistry within the cast itself. It’s no secret that Joss loves a good ensemble cast and while he may not have chosen all his actors personally, he knows what drives each character and how to get the best performance out of them. No team member is superfluous and each has something important to do that fits the overall plot line.
2. The performances. These are grown adults in superhero outfits. Some of these outfits look quite silly and yet unlike DC (whose heroes seem almost apologetic about their costumes), the actors own their characters and bring a seriousness to it as well as a sense of silliness. The fact that they are wearing capes does not take away from the drama of the film or the fun for the audience. The performances are strong, nuanced and in some places quite powerful. Robert Downey Jr. masterfully portrays Tony Stark who manages to walk the line between peace maker and megalomaniac. The effects of the battle of New York in the first film are still with him and they drive his desire to protect the world from the next alien threat they may face. The same is true for Scarlett Johansson who picks up as Natasha Romanov – the Russian former assassin on her own journey for redemption. The first film dealt with Romanov joining the Avengers in an attempt to erase the “red in her ledger”. Whedon only gave us a small glimpse of her character but it was more than enough thanks to his writing and her acting. She may, in the hands of a lesser actress, have come across as your typical “strong female character” ™, who kicks butt, takes names, and shows zero vulnerability, emotion or character depth. Don’t get me wrong, I LIKE seeing female action heroes, but too often they are reduced to the type of character who runs through the movie beating up bad guys in skin tight cleavage bearing costumes, quipping jokes and never cracking a smile. That is not Romanov. Her character is tough, yes, wears tight leather, yes, but is also allowed to be soft and occasionally weak. She is full of pain, regret, and flaws – like any well written character in fiction. Johansson manages to highlight all these facets of her personality within the short time frame allotted. James Spader also did a very good job as Ultron. I was more pleased with him than I thought I would be given that he was playing a crazed robot. I didn’t expect the level of depth that I saw in his character and liked the way that his acting, dialogue and even way of speaking seemed to mirror a darker side of Tony Stark – like the worse aspects of Stark’s personality magnified. Other performances are worth noting, but if I continue to discuss them all, I will take up far too much space. Suffice to say the cast was well chosen and ALL of them hit their mark.
3. The dialogue. Typical, wonderful and Whedonesque, the key reason I always enjoy one of Joss’ projects is the dialogue. He can do wonderful things with the words chosen for his characters. He shows us through his characters words, who they are and what they want. Ultron has a very specific personality that is half Tony Stark and half something else. The twins might not have much screen time, but we are able to feel their pain through the description Piotr gives at the beginning of what Tony has done to him (however inadvertently). Tony’s quips and jokes are spot on, and the dialogue between Widow and The Hulk is touching. He shows the teamwork and friendships the characters have formed through his dialogue as well, allowing us to see how far they have come. The beginning scene is very illustrative of his when Tony says “shit” and Captain America (Chris Evans) admonishes him for his language. Tony fires back with “did Cap just say ‘language’?” which eases the tension. All this is done WHILE they fight showing us the easy comradery the characters have developed as they work as a team. The joke makes its way throughout the film reminding us each time that they are a team at the core and they will get through this. That is the mark of a good writer.
4. The theme of the film. The first film focuses around the team coming together and overcoming their differences in order to work as a team. This film begins with a scene that showcases how they have managed to do that at the beginning with the fight to reclaim Loki’s sceptre. It’s fun to see them having figured out how to fight as a unit, the friendships and easy comradery, but of course that can’t last. While the first film might have been concentrated on how to get them there, this film focuses on the crisis that occurs when they are confronted with a monster of their own creation. This time it’s not just an outside enemy that they have to face, but their own inner fears and demons. A good reason why the inclusion of Scarlet Witch works so well is that her powers cause them to fall apart from the inside. We get an excellent insight into what each of them fear and how that fear affects the team dynamic. This is something Joss has always done very well and this is no exception.
5. The concern that is shown for human life. This is something that continually pisses me off with superhero movies – the big battle sequences often destroy massive amounts of property and kill countless civilians and the heroes don’t tend to seem too concerned about it as long as they get their bad guy. DC is particularly guilty of this (Man of Steel, looking at you!), and it’s frustrating as hell. Not so with Avengers. Both the first film AND the second film make it a point that human life is the priority over all else. The first film showed the team creating a perimeter in New York City and evacuating the civilians to the best of their ability. They made it their goal to confine the battle to that area and contain the damage to minimize casualties. This is heightened in the second movie in several different spots. The scene at the beginning where Tony sends his drones to evacuate the city, the scene where he brings out the Hulk busting armour and scans a building that is about to come down for vital signs and of course the entire battle sequence in Sokovia at the end is entirely built around saving people and minimizing casualties.
6. The scene with Tony Stark’s party. Awesome. Just awesome. It’s one of the few times we get to see them relaxed and having fun. It’s the stuff fanfiction is made of. Is it fan service? Yes, but it’s awesome fan service.
7. The relationship between Hulk and Black Widow. Yeah it got a lot of controversy. People claiming that by giving her a love interest, they are somehow denying the strength of her character and I can see the logic in it to an extent. She IS the only female member of the team and therefore is rather (unfairly) expected to represent all aspects of the female experience. This would be a difficult task for any character. Arguments have been made that by giving her a love interest, the story is then more about her romance than it is about her redemption. Again, I can see it to an extent, but for me, the romance WAS about her redemption. It was about both her and Bruce Banner – both people isolated by society and both people who believe their actions in the past have made them monsters. It makes sense that widow would gravitate to the one person who couldn’t even begin to judge her for what she has done. But it’s more than that. She wants to save him because in saving him, she believes she is capable of saving herself. She is worthy of forgiveness. I thought it was nuanced and very well done. The characters have mad chemistry and I don’t think it diminishes her as a character to fall in love. I think it shows yet another layer that I hope will be explored when (please let it be when), she gets her own movie.

The Bad:

1. The action sequences/3D. I did not feel the 3D was necessary for this film. Some films I can see the justification of it, but for this one, the only justification I could see was the desire for Marvel/Disney to suck more money out of our pockets. I know there are sometimes non 3D showings, but they are few and far between these days and we wanted to see it in the VIP theatre which was ONLY 3D. I get a migraine from 3D and my eyes never quite focus on the image properly. Nothing bothers me more than a movie pointlessly put in 3D. The action sequences felt overly long as well and a bit bloated. That’s something I never expected to say about a Joss Whedon film, as normally I find his pacing to be second to none, but in this case I felt that a lot of the sequences went on far longer than they needed to. One scene in particular that stands out for me as being far too lengthy is the scene in which Tony is using his Hulk Busting Armor (called Veronica) in order to stop Banner from destroying everything. It felt as if this scene dragged on with almost no end in sight and since it wasn’t really all that necessary plot-wise, it quickly became quite boring.
2. The pacing. This kind of ties into the action sequences being far too long, but it is worth mentioning. The scenes I most enjoyed in the film were the scenes that allowed the characters a little downtime between giant bloated action sequences. These could have been placed better however, and I felt that a lot of the movie dragged in places. I know that Whedon’s original cut of the film was over 3 hours long, and while I am glad they cut it down, I do felt that some of the wrong material was cut.
3. The scene with Thor and the mystical pool of holy water or whatever the hell it was. I get it – Marvel wanted this scene there, but it felt REALLY out of place. It felt totally shoehorned in and kind of silly.

Overall this was a solid action/adventure superhero story with great dialogue, characterization and a perfect cast. Is it Joss Whedon’s best? No, not by a long shot, but it IS awesome. While I think it’s a shame that Whedon won’t be involved with future Marvel films, I am excited to see what he can do with his own material as well as full creative control.

Guardians of the Galaxy is part Firefly, part Avengers and ALL awesome!

In the past decade, Marvel has shown itself to be a force to be reckoned with. They have made movies that not only perform like mad at the box office, but that also have the quality to legitimize the millions they are raking in (unlike some films that shall remain nameless *coughanythingproducedordirectedbyMichaelBaycough*).

There have been a lot of articles already talking about how Guardians of the Galaxy was a major ‘risk’ for the studio, and I am sure it felt that way for those in charge of green lighting it, given the fact that it didn’t have a known quantity of heroes within the pop culture lexicon to back it up. Oh, sure the Guardians are characters within the Marvel Universe, but most of the film’s target audience (which is everyone) will not know that. These are characters that will be known only to the few hard-core comic geeks and for everyone else to discover.

Which is what Marvel was banking on.

Well, that and their brand which has now solidified itself.

I don’t want to take away from the film’s genuine quality (it is an incredibly well made film), but part of its success (and the reason why I don’t think making it ever entered into the realm of risky) was that Marvel has become known for taking characters that the mass audience may not have heard of (Iron Man) and turning them into house hold names almost over night. They have an incredible team of writers and film makers who know how to craft well told stories and bring these characters to light.

But more than that, they know how to make them FUN. This is something that seems to have been forgotten when it comes to super hero films, and something that thankfully Marvel has held onto all along.

Superhero movies used to be looked upon by the general movie going public with a healthy degree of scorn and ridicule (and for anyone who has ever seen “Batman and Robin”, you can understand why). Films like “Batman Begins” and its ilk may have changed that perception (showing that yes, you can have Oscar-worthy performances in a film about a man who dresses like a giant Bat), but the downside is that then became the formula.

Dark and gritty superhero + angsty storyline + 3D and a lot of explosions = profit. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Too many of these films have felt like ordeals to be endured rather than something to engage its audience in. Can you remember the last time you ran out of the theatre after seeing a superhero movie and just went, ‘THAT WAS SO MUCH FUN!?’

OK, I can – it was “The Avengers”. And “Serenity”. And that’s what “Guardians of the Galaxy” is able to capture here – a sense of fun, silliness, irreverence, but also of genuine characters facing real difficulties and fighting for something they believe in.

It’s not a bad thing to take inspiration from those who have come before you. Too many times we may dismiss something as derivative (and sometimes it is), but by doing that we fail to see the love that these films may be showing for their predecessors.

“Guardians of the Galaxy” is one such film. It takes the space-opera essence of Firefly and combines it with the teamwork and ensemble strength of the “Avengers” (both coincidentally Joss Whedon films) and adds its own hilarious twist in the form of a group of extremely unique characters and a killer sound track from the late 70s and early 80s.

Chris Pratt plays Peter Quill (or Starlord – a nickname he appears to have given himself). He is taken from his home on Earth by a giant spaceship at a young age right after losing his mother to what we can only presume was cancer. The only items he had with him at the time were his walk man containing a cassette tape titled “Awesome mix volume 1”. This tape is his only connection to home and the music on it forms the sound track, not only for the film, but for the character’s journey as well. It gives us a glimpse into who he is as a person.

As an adult, he seems to have become an outlaw who “finds” items for those that commission them and sell them to the highest bidder. At the beginning of the film, we see him on some distant planet attempting to steal what can only be described as a small metal ball. He is soon confronted with people determined not to let him get away with it. We later learn through his attempts to sell the item that it is far more dangerous than he knew and he is soon the target of an assassin named Gamora who has been hired by her master Ronin (the film’s main bad guy) to get the item back.

As a punishment for betraying those he was working with and intending to sell the item himself, a bounty has also been placed on him causing two other characters – a mutated raccoon by the name of Rocket and sidekick, a tree named Groot – to go after him, determined to collect the reward. When all four are captured by the planet Xandar’s government and thrown in a high security prison we see them start to gell and the plot begin to take shape.

In the prison, we are also introduced to Drax – an inmate who lost his family to the fanaticism of Ronin and is looking for revenge.

As the four characters come to realize how dangerous the orb they have stolen is, they are forced to put aside their differences and work as a team to keep Ronin from using it to destroy an entire planet.

The Good:                                                            

1. The soundtrack. Most often, soundtracks are chosen without much care or attention. Need a sad song? Stick a current pop ballad in there – any will do. Every now and then, however a company comes to realize just how powerful music can be in helping to tell a story. This is definitely the case with Guardians of the Galaxy. The tape cassette that Quill carries around is his most important possession and each song is used at the precise moment where it is needed for maximum emotional impact. From the beginning scene where he is dancing on the planet before stealing the orb, to the juxtaposition of “Hooked on a Feeling” as the guards tazer him, each and every note hits just the right emotional resonance. The use of music is not lazy, and yet they don’t rely on it to completely tell the story either. The songs chosen also reflect the visual scheme of film which helps to create the atmosphere. It is a brilliant balance and extremely catchy to boot
2. The look of the film. In keeping with the sound track, director James Gunn has crafted a film that looks and feels as if we are stuck in the best parts of a 70s space opera. It had the potential to come across as cheesy or cheap looking, but instead manages to hit the perfect blend of nostalgia and beauty to make it work. The colours are rich and vibrant, the costuming gritty and worn. The ships look as if they have been flown through space and back and the set design is incredibly well done – bright and colourful, noisy and chaotic. Again this is where I am reminded a bit of “Firefly” in its use of colour, space and design.
3. The running time and pacing. Something I often complain about is films being given an overbloated running time that ends up forcing the movie to drag on. Usually it’s because of action scenes that take up a good 75% of the movie, while the plot itself occupies about 25%. With films like Transformers 4, that ratio is more like 90% overblown action sequences to 10% actual plot and exposition. It’s difficult to get the balance right between keeping the film exciting and entertaining and giving the characters enough “down time” to get to know them and their motivation. The mistake that is usually made with pacing is to throw the characters in at the deep end and keep them running the whole time without allowing any time for character development. This film keeps the pace frantic, but also gives the cast time to come together as a group. This is especially difficult with ensemble casts and usually results in an extremely lengthy running time. Gunn eschews that here, by keeping the action scenes tightly controlled (not too long, nor too short) and allowing the characters pauses for emotional development. Some of the most moving scenes take place during those moments – Peter’s loss of his mother at the beginning is especially moving as is Rocket’s angry outburst at Drax midway through the film. Doing this allows us the time to actually care about these people and really bond with them.
4. The blend of the ensemble of characters. A big problem with ensemble casts is giving each enough attention to make their story mean something. Arguably, Peter Quill is the main character so in any other action film, his story would dominate the screen. However, in this case, Gunn is able to give equal amounts of screen time and character development throughout the story to really care about each of the characters. Some obviously are given more development than others (I wanted more Gamora), but the balance is so so difficult that I think he manages to do an excellent job here. Each character’s story is interesting, moving and relevant to the plot. We are given enough information on Groot and Rocket’s friendship for example to have our hearts break right along with him when he sacrifices himself to save the others at the end. “We. Are. Groot.” SO moving.
5. Casting. I could write a paragraph or more about each actor and how they are all so brilliantly chosen, but that would make this WAY too long. Suffice to say that Gunn and company knew what they were doing when they saw the talent in Chris Pratt as Starlord. Not only were they launching a franchise of Marvel characters that were barely known to the general public, but going with an actor to helm the franchise who had only been in a handful of films in secondary roles or voice acting. It must have been incredibly tempting not to go with someone more ‘bankable’, but thankfully they didn’t because Pratt has a brilliant sense of comic timing and is able to evoke the perfect balance of emotional pathos and humour that his character needs. Bradley Cooper voicing Rocket was an inspired choice as well as he is probably one of the most realistic CGI characters in a film I have ever seen. I was even pleasantly surprised by Dave Bautista’s performance as wrestlers do not always make reliable or good actors. It’s a big difference between being a performer and being an actor. Bautista managed to have a good sense of comic timing, even if his attempts to be dramatic were a tad over the top.
6. The balance between drama and humour. It’s difficult in films like this to find a consistent tone between dark heavy drama, and light hearted adventure comedy. Often times films lean very heavily one way or another and it becomes easy to forget that people go to see movies to escape. Yes, we want to see emotional depth and drama, but we also want to have fun with it. We want to walk out of the theatre feeling refreshed and energized, not sad and defeated. Man of Steel and other films of this ilk make the movie going experience feel like an ordeal rather than a fun experience. Remember when Superman represented hope? Me either. But these guys do. These guys have brought back the fun and excitement of going to the theatre. There are moments that genuinely tug at your heart (Groot’s death, Peter’s mother’s death, Rocket’s outburst, their ‘circle’ conversation) but they are balanced with moments of humour, fun, and youthful vibrancy.

The bad:

1. To be honest, almost nothing was ‘bad’ about this film. It was an almost perfect movie going experience, but if I was to pick one thing I wish the film had more of it would be Gamora’s back story. Again, this ties into running time concerns and the balance between the ensemble cast, but as the only female within the group, I would have liked to know more about her past. She is introduced as a henchman of Ronin’s and an adopted daughter of Thanos (the big baddie that Ronin is initially working for). Throughout the film we are given bits of information about her such as that she has been working for most of her life as an assassin for Ronin/Thanos. Which is why when she declares her intention of betraying them we as the audience want to know more. She gives us a bit of insight during her conversation with Peter, but we still don’t know what the tipping point was. Why now? Was it just the money the buyer was offering? Was it something more deeply emotional? What kinds of things did she suffer at the hands of Thanos? And what kinds of horrors did she herself commit to make so many hate her? I guess it’s just something they will hopefully address in a coming sequel (please oh pretty please!)

Overall, the film was one of the most satisfying experiences at the theatre I have seen all year. It was brilliantly crafted, beautifully filmed and wonderfully acted. It’s sad that I have to go from reviewing this to my next review – Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles….sigh.

“Edge of Tomorrow” is a smart, funny, hero quest narrative that is quite enjoyable as long as you don’t think too hard.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Like many of Tom Cruise’s sci fi efforts lately, I went into this film not expecting much. Almost all of his recent films have had promising concepts but have ultimately fallen flat for one reason or another. It’s not even that they are necessarily bad films, but rather ultimately forgettable. Last year’s “Oblivion” was so lackluster, I couldn’t even be bothered to review it.

 

Part of it is Cruise himself. Most of his projects are ego boosting, explosion laden, action epics with little or no actual substance to propel them. Cruise chews his way through the scenery stopping to pause and wink at the camera before blowing up the next bad guy. That can be fun for a while, but eventually it gets old. Cruise passed his sell-by date for those types of films in the early 90s so it’s no surprise that audiences are growing increasingly bored with the action hero shtick. It’s slightly baffling to watch studios repeatedly throw money at Cruise with these Vanity projects only to have the box office reflect the audience’s ambivalence.

 

The numbers for Edge of Tomorrow however, tell a different story and it’s not difficult to see why. The film is fun. Unlike “Oblivion”, it doesn’t make aspirations at high concept sci fi. Rather, it takes a familiar plot device and twists it into a ‘man vs. aliens’ hero quest that is a witty and enjoyable two hours, despite the problems with plot and Cruise.

 

The films succeeds not because of Cruise, but despite him which is rather par for the course with anything he does these days. It is the writing, and the supporting cast that keeps the film fun and fresh, especially Emily Blunt.

 

The plot is your standard humanity vs. aliens sci fi action film. Humanity has been attacked by an alien scourge called Mimics. They are able to anticipate mankind’s actions and have won battle after battle spreading across Europe. It all looks pretty hopeless, except for one small victory at Verdun which has given them cause to hope that victory might be possible.

 

Tom Cruise’s character is William Cage. He is a major in the US army who has not seen a single day of combat. His job is to be the PR guy and “sell” the war, and it is one he is apparently quite good at. When a high ranking General asks him to go to the front to record humanity’s victory Cage attempts to run, an act of cowardice that gets him busted down to the rank of Private and shipped off to the front as a deserter.

 

His first taste of battle ends with him being killed by a mimic much larger than the others and it is this death and the mixing of their blood, that gives him the power to tape into their power and “reset” the day a-la ‘Groundhog Day’.

 

However that is where the similarities end. Through a series of trial and error he eventually manages to save the life of Sargent Rita Vrataski, the soldier responsible for the victory at Verdun. Her own experience being able to reset the day causes her to instruct him to find her when he “wakes up”. In doing so, he discovers that the mimics are all connected to one giant organism called an Omega, which has the power to reset the day every time it feels threatened and therefore ensure their own victory. Vrataski had that same ability until she received a blood transfusion after the victory at Verdun, so she is the only one capable of understanding what Cage is going through.

 

What results is a fairly standard hero’s journey storyline in which she trains Cage and prepares him for the final battle in which they must destroy the Omega and stop the cycle from repeating.

 

It’s a fairly standard plot with no real surprises, and yet it still manages to remain entertaining. Blunt is impressive as Sargent Vrataski, and the humour of the day repeating itself keeps it from getting old.

 

So what worked and what didn’t?

 

The Good:

 

1. Emily Blunt’s character Rita Vrataski. I am simultaneously heartened and disappointed with the way her character is handled in this film, but I will start with the reasons I enjoyed her. Emily Blunt gives an excellent performance as a war hardened soldier who refuses to sit back and watch. Despite the fact that she dies in almost every incarnation, she resists the cliché of becoming the damsel that Cruise must save. She could have easily been reduced to the role of simple love interest, but the film gives her something to do. Even when Cage has made the transition from coward to hero, she maintains her own sense of agency and power. It may be ‘his’ story, but she doesn’t allow herself to simply be Cage’s cheerleader.
2. The humour. The only thing that keeps this film from becoming the typical Tom Cruise action pic is the wit that is infused into the script. Director Doug Linman is able to write a script that not only utilizes a clichéd plot device but manages to make it funny enough that it doesn’t get old or tired no matter how many times he repeats the day. In some ways it’s cathartic to watch Cruise get killed over and over again.
3. The pacing. Though the ending is a bit weak the film is nicely paced overall. This is especially difficult given the concept which has all the potential to become very tired very quickly. The film has a somewhat lengthy running time but never feels too drawn out which is surprising.
4. Tom Cruise as a coward. This really only works for the first half of the film, but it is a refreshing enough departure from his normal roles as action stud that it makes it tolerable to watch.

 

 

 

The Bad:

 

 

 

1. Emily Blunt’s character. Despite how progressive the film is in terms of her narrative, it is somewhat disappointing that her character never really goes anywhere. She exists solely to drive Cruise’s character forward in his quest. She is better trained, stronger, and far more capable than his character and yet it is ultimately his story that takes precedence. It would be nice for once to see a film in which the opposite were the case and I would quite happily watch a film about her own story prior to the film at Verdun as I feel it would make a far more compelling narrative. As a character she is more interesting to watch and as an actress, Blunt is clearly more talented.
2. The ending makes no sense. It’s one of those time travel paradoxes, but the final solution to the film doesn’t make complete sense. It really only matters if you are super picky about plot, though so the best thing to do is not think about it too hard.

 

 

 

Overall it is an amusing action adventure film in which Tom Cruise isn’t horribly insufferable. That alone is worth the $11.50.

 

Despite the ‘teen’ story line, there are no faults in “The Fault in Our Stars”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The other night my husband and I found ourselves in an hour long line up to get into a film surrounded by scores and scores of pre-teen and teenage girls. No, it wasn’t “Twilight” or “The Hunger Games”, but it was a film that has just come out adapted from a young adult novel – a trend that is making a LOT of money.

Like both of these film franchises (as well as “Divergent” and many others), the film featured a young female protagonist. Unlike those aforementioned film franchises, this one did not deal with dystopian futures, revolutions or sparkly vampires. Instead, this film (and the novel that sparked it) dealt with the topic of cancer in a way that was both new and as timeless as it gets.

Let me say that I enjoyed the film immensely, and for more reasons simply than the fact that it tugs on your heart strings (more like rips them out and stomps on them actually). So few directors and producers it seems know how to properly adapt a novel into a film that it is a breath of fresh air when it does happen.

The plot is very simple. Hazel Grace Lancaster is your typical teenage girl, except for one thing – she has terminal cancer. The cancer takes the form of various tumours in her body and she carries an oxygen tank around with her to help her breath as he lungs are frequently filling up with fluid.

The fact that she is dying is apparent right from the start. Although the doctors have found a drug to help keep the fluid in her lungs at bay for a while, there is no doubt within the narrative that the cancer will eventually claim her and cut her life very short.

The characters in the film (including Hazel herself) are all operating under the umbrella of this impending future (or lack thereof), so it is no surprise that she appears depressed at the start of the film. Against her wishes, she is forced to attend a support group in the basement of a church in which she meets a boy her age named Augustus Waters.

He too was a “cancer kid” but has been cancer free after having his leg removed 14 months previous to the narrative. He immediately becomes interested in Hazel, and although she is extremely flattered (and clearly interested back) her hesitancy is tied to the fact that she knows she is dying, and will only end up hurting those around her when she goes.

Obviously being a teen film, the two of them fall in love despite those odds. And obviously being a film about cancer, the plot revolves around death. The twist comes with it being Augustus who succumbs to his illness leaving Hazel behind to cope with the loss of her first real love.

The narrative is one that isn’t new, however it does manage to touch on some issues about illness and death that don’t always get a lot of visibility in film or in print. This review is going to be an overwhelmingly positive one, as I fully believe it was a nearly perfect film adaptation to a popular novel. Here are the reasons:

The Good:

1. Shailene Woodley: Like Jennifer Lawrence this girl has TALENT. She may have got her start on one of the worst television shows on the planet, but she has since managed to prove herself in roles that have allowed her to demonstrate the full range of her ability. I don’t even like comparing her to Lawrence as the two are very different, however the successes of their two teen franchises ultimately invites those comparisons. She manages to give Hazel Grace Lancaster a maturity and gravitas that does not let us forget throughout the film that she is dying, while still maintaining the voice of a teenage girl experiencing her first love. Her performance in the film is extremely nuanced, as she is able to portray through thought, feeling and expression her fears and doubts about what will happen to those she loves around her when she dies. She does this with sensitivity and humour which avoids getting too schmaltzy, even when the plot might go that way.
2. The sub plot concerning “An Imperial Affliction”: In the novel (and film), Hazel’s character starts out depressed and unable to bring herself to participate in the world. The only thing she does take comfort in, is a novel called “An Imperial Affliction” which is narrated by a girl her age who is also dying of cancer. It might seem obvious that this novel would appeal to someone with the disease, but Hazel is quick to point out that the book she loves is not a ‘typical cancer book’. We soon learn that what she means by that is that it doesn’t talk down to the reader about the illness, nor does it offer up a happily ever after ending. It simply ends abruptly (presumably when the narrator herself dies). It might be odd to imagine how a young girl dying of cancer might take comfort in such a story, but this helps us to understand who Hazel is as a person. It gives us insight into how she deals with the reality of her illness –and that is by not shying away from it. She takes comfort in the way “Anna” the character faces up to her illness, and learns to live with that kind of honesty – even when the others around her cannot. It also shows us that the thing Hazel truly fears is not dying, but rather what will happen to those she leaves behind. When Hazel finished the novel, she confesses in the film that she wrote to the author of the novel (a character by the name of Peter Van Houten) numerous times trying to find out what happened to the rest of the characters (Anna’s loved ones) that are left behind after her death. Although Van Houten never responds (until Gus manages to get in touch – more on that later), it is Hazel’s need for closure that helps us really understand her. It is this sub plot that really adds depth into what might otherwise be a pretty clichéd story. When Gus eventually does get in touch with Van Houten and they travel to Amsterdam to meet him, Hazel is excited to finally get the answers she has craved. It is clear she feels that these answers will help her to reconcile her own feelings about leaving behind those she loves, but unfortunately (as with the novel and life itself) those answers and that closure never come. Instead, Van Houten turns out to be a miserable angry alcoholic man who verbally attacks the children when they press him to find out what happened. We later find out it is because his own daughter died of cancer. It is Hazel’s response to this (and Woodley’s performance) that really brings out the ugly truth of cancer. People die and those they leave behind are sometimes emotionally destroyed by it and sometimes not. Van Houten is the thing that Hazel most fears – the person she is afraid her parents will become in the wake of her death. He is the reason she is reluctant to let Gus in in the first place (well not him specifically but the fear of what he represents). It’s brilliantly done because in the end when Van Houten attempts to make amends for his actions, Hazel rejects him, realizing she will never have the answers or the assurance she needs. It’s a beautiful part of the story and one that is adapted brilliantly by the director.
3. Isaac’s eulogy: I know that Hazel’s eulogy for Gus is supposed to pack the most emotional punch – and don’t get me wrong, it should come with a tissue warning, but it is Issac’s (Gus’ friend who loses his eyes to cancer) speech that is truly touching. It could be because of the circumstances of it. Maybe it’s the performance from Nat Wolff, or the fact that his character has already been through so much, but this particular moment in the film was one I found truly genuine, touching and thoroughly heartbreaking
4. The actual adaptation of it: Most films that are adapted from novels suffer in the process. A novel is a very different medium from a film, and many times you get film crews or writers that can’t properly translate that written story into a visual story. The Harry Potter films are an excellent example of that with some films being done very well, and others leaving out crucial plot and character development for the sake of “action” or special effects. This film however managed to maintain the pace as well as to keep the needed character development and plot development that allows us to get to know these characters and fall in love with them. Are there things left out? Yes, absolutely. But the film is so deftly interwoven, that you truly don’t notice what isn’t there until you actually have to give some thought to it which is the mark of an excellent adaptation.
5. The scene where Hazel climbs the stairs in the Anne Frank house. Simply brilliant. Again Woodley demonstrates her talent here. We can see Hazel experiencing a myriad of emotions. This is right after they discover how horrible a person Van Houten truly is and although it isn’t explicitly stated, it is obvious that Hazel desires to see the Anne Frank house because she relates to her tragedy. Her determination to surmount that barrier in spite of her illness is a direct reaction to the helplessness she feels at the hands of Van Houten. It is wonderfully done here – understated yet very clear.

The Bad:

1. Pretty much nothing, but if I had to point out one scene I would have liked to see, it would be the scene in which Hazel is approached by a young child who inquires about the oxygen tank and the plastic bits in her nose that help her breathe. It is a beautiful moment that really highlights what Hazel has to deal with on a daily basis. She is polite to the child – even taking the time to explain her illness, but it very much showcases how divorced she is from the normal teenage experience. I know this was shown in deleted scene format during the Thursday pre-screening, but I would have liked to see it added. 

Overall it was a beautiful film and the fan experience within the theatre was also quite unique. It is films like this that truly show that women are indeed an audience that is worthy of making films for, and I hope to see more of them.

 

Despite problems with the third act, ‘The Amazing Spiderman 2’ lives up to its name!

 

I will admit upfront that Spiderman has never been my favourite super hero. He’s kind of in the middle. I like him far more than Batman (SO sick of gritty angry antiheroes and Spidey is FUN damn it!), but not quite as much as Superman (my absolute fave).

That said, the previous Spiderman films were never huge draws for me. I respect Tobey McGuire as an actor and love a lot of what he has done, but his Spiderman films were (to me) just too cheesy. Don’t get me wrong, there can be good cheesy – that’s the kind that KNOWS it is cheesy and works with that, but the problem was those films seemed to take themselves too seriously.

This has not been a problem with the reboot, however. That’s not to say they don’t have serious storylines in them (like many superheroes, Spidey is “orphaned” and has to deal with issues of guilt over the loss of his Uncle), but there is also a high degree of unabashed cheese. They KNOW they are campy and they have no problem embracing that camp.

At its heart, Spiderman is the story of a kid leaving adolescence and entering into adulthood. That is the real story here. Not the villains and the webslinging, but the pains and difficulties in leaving childhood and entering into adulthood. It is there that makes Spiderman different from his other two main counterparts. Batman and Superman are by and large stories about grown-ups. They might have the odd flashback or two, but there adolescence has made them the men they are. Peter Parker has yet to become the man he is meant to be and yet he is having to deal with a lot of very adult problems.

These installments have managed to keep that teenaged sense of fun about them, while at the same time weaving into the film some very real stories with very real consequences. The cast is fantastic and the villains first rate. However, despite the brilliance of it, it suffers a bit in the third act.

My usual break down (complete with Spiderman 2 drinking game!)

The Good:

Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone: Not only is the chemistry off the charts here, but these two actors are truly at the top of their game. Garfield has a perfect mixture of ‘aww shucks Aunt May’ boyishness and teenage angst. He is conflicted without being melodramatic. He is angry without being whiny. He is funny without appearing cruel. While Tobey McGuire came off as goofy more often than not, Garfield is more believable as a teenager (even though neither actor was in their teens). Stone as well does a fantastic job as Gwen Stacey. She has FAR more to do here than fawn over Spiderman or let herself be rescued constantly. In fact, in many ways she is facing the same demons as Peter (through the loss of her father in the first film). Both are dealing with it in different ways, however she does not exist solely to dote over Peter or bug him about being Spiderman. She insists on coming with him at the end of the film as only she has the knowledge of how to reset the power grid. She tells Peter how to keep Electro from destroying his web shooters. In short, she is integral to the plot – not just there to kiss him upside down in the rain. This is something most superhero movies fail to do well – specifically DC whose female cast members tend to exist only to be moved around as the plot dictates.

The Supporting Cast: Particularly Sally Field as Aunt May. We are almost 100% certain that she KNOWS what Peter is up to and Field plays it beautifully. The scene where she breaks down and tells Peter that she has been keeping information about his father from him because he is HER son is too brilliant and heartbreaking for words. It is probably the most moving scene in the film. She is so genuine and his reaction is perfect. She raised him from boyhood and as such considers him her son. It is a perfect adoption metaphor – often times children of adopted parents want to learn about their birth parents and the pain the adopted parent might experience letting go is very real.

Jamie Fox as Electro: Just done really really well. He manages to show us a character who is isolated and mentally unstable. A man who truly longs for someone to notice him and when that someone happens to be Siderman, develops an obsession that takes over his life. It’s a metaphor on the obsession society has with celebrity and how some vulnerable individuals can end up becoming dangerous stalkers when that object of fixation disappoints them in some way.

The Humour: This movie is FUNNY. It is sad, and exciting as well, but at the heart of it, it is FUNNY. It really encapsulates the exuberance of youth. Even though the premise is entirely unrealistic (a teenage kid being bitten by a radioactive Spider and becoming a Superhero), how Peter responds to it is very true to how I think most teenage kids would respond. Let’s face it, most of them would think that it was just SO COOL. They would have fun with it. They would revel in it. They would show off. They would mock their foes. They would be cocky and assured – convinced of their own immortality. All of that is here. And it makes it a hell of a lot of fun.

 

The Bad:

The 3D: It’s no secret that I am not a fan of 3D at the best of times. Occasionally it is used well, but most times it is there as a money maker and this film is no exception. I could see no practical use for it and the constant slow-mo shots of him swinging through the streets of New York got real old, real fast. (More on that later with the bonus drinking game!)

The Length: This isn’t so much a complaint about the length as it is about the third act itself. The film’s pacing was absolutely perfect up until the defeat of Electro. If the film had ended there with Peter supposedly agreeing to go to England with Gwen (and the possibility of Harry Osborn out for revenge as a cliff-hanger) it would have been a perfect film. As it was, the film had already hit the 2 hour mark so ending it would have felt right. Instead, there is a second climactic battle in which Gwen is killed and Peter is left mourning the loss. So much is made in the film of his fear of losing her (as well as the guilt he feels for not being able to save her father) that this could have been a really interesting storyline if it were its own film. How does Peter cope with the loss of the first woman he ever loved? How does that guilt weigh against all the others he failed to save (Gwen’s father, Uncle Ben, etc.) How can he ever be Spiderman again? I know they tread that same ground in the McGuire films, but I feel that the Garfield franchise would have done it far better justice. Besides which, instead we get a poorly paced final 20 minutes in which he angsts about her death for a little bit until some moron kid puts himself in the path of some random villain forcing him to come to his rescue. And just like that, Spidey’s back in business. To me, that was not only a bit of a cop-out, but not a very good send off for Gwen who I feel deserved a bit better. That said, the first two thirds of the film more than make up for it for me.

Bottom line: The film was FUN. It was sad, it was exciting, it was just fun. You came out of the theatre HAPPY, which is something it seems like DC is afraid to do for its audience. Despite my enjoyment however there are a few other little mini nitpicks that I had that didn’t exactly detract from my enjoyment, but certainly are something I could affectionately mock. With that in mind I present to you, my own bonus:

The Spiderman 2 Drinking Game:

Instructions: Take one shot every time the following occurs on screen –

1. There is a slow-motion 3D shot of Spidey flying through New York City.
2. Someone says the word ‘amazing’ (referencing the title ‘The Amazing Spiderman’).
3. The Spiderman theme can be heard (either on Peter’s cellphone, being whistled, etc.).
4. The SONY logo appears SOMEWHERE on the screen (you would be drunk probably after the scene in Times Square, but hey….)
5. Peter breaks up with Gwen “for her own good”, then gets back together, then breaks up…
6. Aunt May makes a sly reference to knowing that Peter is Spiderman
7. Someone discovers his true identity
8. Down your drink when Stan Lee appears.

Kimberly Pierce’s remake of “Carrie” proves ultimately pointless in its modernity and underwhelming in its execution.

 

Re-makes are an interesting cinematic phenomenon. A film gets made, that ultimately becomes enough of an icon in cinema history that other directors want to take a crack at and thus the remake is conceived. Occasionally, these attempts to update or modernize older films do quite well for themselves. I can think of a few examples – most notably the 1990s version of “The Thomas Crown Affair” that well surpass the original in their vision and scope. This is not always the case and many times (as is the case with “Carrie”) the remake falls completely flat.

What then, is the appeal of re-doing something that has already been seen as a classic work of cinema? Is it hubris to think that you can do better than the likes of Hitchcock and others? Is it because the name alone will draw in crowds no matter how bad it is? Is it the money? I assume it is many of the above, and most of the time, these poor remakes are done by unknown directors looking to cash in on the film’s already existing fan base. After all, many of these people will see it anyway – if only to find out how bad it is.

I held out hope that “Carrie” would be different, if only for the fact that the director was Kimberly Pierce who expertly crafted the film “Boys Don’t Cry”. Given her perspective as a female director and the underlying issues of emerging womanhood in the film, I thought it only logical that “Carrie” should have a director with a uniquely female gaze.

Brian DePalma’s original film was incredibly well made, no doubt about it, but the male gaze that permeates the film is hard to ignore – especially in that beginning shower sequence. I have difficulty watching that opening sequence because it puts you in the position of a voyeur and given that these girls are meant to be teenagers in high school, it feels incredibly perverse. That is likely the reaction he meant to instill in the audience (either that or he was just one pervy dude himself), yet still it disturbs me. Pierce cuts the time of the scene down and does not show as much (likely because of that first reason as much as the fact that the lead actress is a minor) but very little else is done to alter the film from its original format.

And that is the key problem here. A remake (in order to be good) has to bring something new to the table – a fresh gaze, a new way of telling the story. The only real difference to Pierce’s remake is that it has been updated from its original 1970s setting to 2013. Unfortunately, that is a change that only hinders, rather than helps.

The plot is the exact same as the DePalma version (though she incudes some things not originally addressed in his version). I haven’t read Steven King’s original novel so I can’t speak to how much of that is part of the source material (though I am told much of it is – including Sue Snell’s pregnancy).

The basic plot remains the same and focuses around Carrie White (Chloe Grace Moretz), a senior in high school who has been isolated and secluded her entire life by her religiously fanatic mother (Julianne Moore).

At the very beginning of the film, we see just how different Carrie is when she gets her period in the shower and, because she has never been taught what it is, freaks out. The other kids taunt and make fun of her, throwing tampons at her in the shower and further adding to her trauma. It is only when their gym teacher Miss Desjardin (Judy Greer) arrives and breaks it up, that she is able to explain to Carrie that what is happening is completely normal.

What isn’t normal, however, is the telekinetic abilities that Carrie begins to develop as a result of her emerging womanhood coupled triggered by heightened emotion and fear. The bullies are punished, but their ringleader – a spoiled rich girl named Chris (Portia Doubleday) – refuses to admit any wrongdoing and further blames Carrie when she is banned from attending the Prom. Some sympathy is shown towards Carrie in the form of popular girl Sue Snell (Gabriella Wilde) and her boyfriend Tommy Ross (Ansel Elgort). Sue attempts to make up for what she did to Carrie by forgoing her prom and getting her boyfriend Tommy to take Carrie.

Just as Carrie begins to believe that there is hope for her to fit in and have a normal teenage life, a cruel trick is played on her at the Prom resulting in a disastrous, bloody and deadly climax.

Although the performances are decent for the most part, this film never fully reaches its potential for a few key reasons.

The Bad:

1. The fact that it is set in 2013. This in and of itself is not a problem – many older films are given the modern update and work quite well for it. The problem with updating the time period, is that much of what happens in the original film (and novel I suspect) is very much a product of the 1970s atmosphere. The shower scene is a perfect example of that. I could believe that in the 1970s it was possible for a young girl not to have much information on her body or what changes it was going through. Lord knows, sex education was not exactly common place in public high schools and that sort of information was generally up to the parents to impart to their kids. Knowing what Carrie’s mother is like, we can understand why she had no clue what her period was or what was happening to her. Her fear makes logical sense – anybody who didn’t know better would think they were dying if they started bleeding from the genitals and didn’t know why. I assumed there would have been some changes to that scene or an explanation as to how Carrie could have gotten that far without knowing what her period was in 2013. The closest they got was the hint that she had been homeschooled for a time. That doesn’t work for me. Yeah she might have missed out on it being homeschooled, but it is quite obvious in the beginning of the film that she has been in the public system for quite some time and yet she has no knowledge of her period? In a modern day high school in 2013?? Even if her Mom demanded she be removed from sex ed for religious reasons, she would not have been able to avoid that information. Not in 2013. In 1976 maybe, but not now. I had hoped that Pierce would offer some logical reason as to how or why she didn’t know and/or changed the scene all together, but instead we get a half-hearted home school comment and that’s it. Also, in that same scene in the DePalma version, Miss Desjardin slaps Carrie in order to get her to come out of her hysteria. In the 70s, I can see this making sense but in 2013 there is no way a teacher could get away with slapping a student (for any reason) and not be severely reprimanded and/or fired. I can see why Pierce attempted to keep the shower scene as it is crucial for plot development, but the slap wasn’t necessary and did not make sense in a modern context. It might seem nitpicky, but the solution would have been to keep the film’s original time setting or change the beginning completely to something that might have made more sense. The only real “update” she makes to this scene is that she has the girls film themselves tormenting Carrie and puts the video on the internet (no doubt an attempt to comment on the trend of cyberbullying).
2. Carrie’s discovery of her powers. In the original film, Carrie’s powers only manifest themselves in times of great stress or emotional difficulty. The same is true for Pierce’s remake, with the exception of the fact that Carrie starts to recognize that she is the one responsible for these outbursts and not only begins to research her powers, but to develop and learn to control them as well. By doing this, it completely changes the tone of the final scene as well as the way we view her character. It is clear towards the end that Sissy Spacek’s “Carrie” knew what she was doing to an extent, but did not really have control over it. This is because the powers came from a place of anger, fear, rage and humiliation. They were born out of these emotions and took on a life all their own. Chloe Grace Moretz’s Carrie on the other hand, practices with them until she has complete control over them. She uses her powers to physically subdue her mother and as the final scene unfolds, the death she rains down on her classmates is completely deliberate and emotionally detached. Spacek’s destruction during the infamous Prom scene came from a purely organic place – a place of rage and hate and swirling emotion too large for her to handle. This updated Carrie on the other hand knows exactly what she is doing which takes away some of the impact that scene has and definitely does not allow us to feel any sympathy for her later on when she showers and cries and expresses remorse for her actions. They were originally a crime of passion – a metaphor for the monstrous coming of age that all young girls go through. The horrors of puberty multiplied by a million. All that metaphor and subtlety is gone from this version and when Carrie breaks down afterwards we aren’t sure what to feel. Her actions were too deliberate and her intent too cold and calculated to warrant the sympathy that the film asks of us. So we are just left to sit there, waiting for the inevitable conclusion.
3. The almost identical screenplay. There is very little that has been changed or altered from DePalma’s original screenplay. It is shot for shot almost completely identical with one or two minor alterations (such as Sue Snell’s pregnancy) and of course the cyberbullying element. Unfortunately, if you are going to remake a film like this, you need to be able to bring something unique otherwise it is just a carbon copy without the magic of the original to hold it in place. Pierce does not give us any new perspectives which is a shame because she is a good film maker. I read somewhere that she attempted to change how the story was told by giving it to us from Carrie’s perspective as opposed to the original which told the story from the perspective of how the other kids saw Carrie. This was intriguing, but never really followed through on. I never once got the sense that I knew any more about what Carrie was thinking or feeling, except for when she was practising the use of her telekinetic ability.
4. The performances – some of the actors I felt were miscast here notably Judy Greer and Portia Doubleday. Doubleday’s Chris comes across not as a selfish spoiled bully, but as a borderline sociopath which I don’t think is what they were going for. And Greer’s portrayal of the gym teacher is too sympathetic. The original Miss Desjardin attempted to help Carrie, but you could tell (especially at the beginning) that she was somewhat annoyed and disgusted by her as well. There were scenes where she demonstrated visible annoyance at Carrie’s lack of awareness of the world, which made her death make some degree of sense. Greer’s portrayal came across as too genuine and caring causing us to wonder why Carrie would deliberately kill her, but let Sue Snell escape.

 

The Good:

1. Some of the other performances such as Julianne Moore. She is probably the only performance in fact that was spot on and excellently done. The added scene at the beginning of Carrie’s birth gives further insight into a character that was mentally ill, and psychologically warped. We have far more of an understanding of where Margaret White comes from and some of the added touches from Moore (such as the cutting/self harm) added a new level of depth to the character. We actually see a genuine bond between mother and daughter (despite the evil things she does to her child).

 

All in all however, the film was rather underwhelming and the direction slightly disappointing. I don’t think I will watch this version again. 

“Prisoners” is a moody thriller/morality tale that will hold you captive long after the credits roll

 

Going into this film, I really didn’t expect much. The media had not really hyped the film at all, and the trailers marketed it as a run of the mill mediocre thriller that would probably just fill the gap of movies coming out between the summer blockbuster season and the Oscar season.

What I got was a film that – while more shocking than some horror films, did not sensationalize, but rather used the violence to ask more probing questions from the characters as well as the audience.

It is a film that uses the content and the material to spur thought and discussion. It is a film that is difficult to categorize into a genre because there is a bit of everything – horror, torture, mystery, morality tale, thriller, etc.

It is a film that will have you asking yourself ‘what would I do’ and maybe not liking the answer that you come up with.

It is directed by French Canadian director Denis Villeneuve, but set in the Northeastern United States.

Hugh Jackman and Maria Bello star as Keller and Grace Dover, parents of two children. Terrance Howard and Viola Davis play Franklin and Nancy Birch also parents of two and it is at a thanksgiving gathering at their house that both parents’ young daughters – Joy and Anna go missing.

Jake Gyllenhall also appears as Detective Loki, who has been assigned to try to find the children and bring them home. The only lead he has to go on is the information provided by the two older children who inform their parents that the kids were seen earlier in the day playing on top of an RV parked outside someone’s house. The driver of the RV – a mentally handicapped man named Alex Jones (Paul Dano) is swiftly arrested and questioned, but ultimately must be released due to insufficient evidence.

Pushed to the brink, filled with desperation and convinced that Jones knows where his children are, Keller takes matters into his own hands, kidnapping him from his Aunt’s custody and torturing him to try to find his children.

The film could have easily delved into the territory of gruesome sensationalistic violence with a premise such as this, however Villeneuve manages to successfully avoid this by weaving an intricate mystery plot within it that also manages to delve deep into the psyche of all the characters involved.

The Good:

1. The Cinemetography. This film is brilliantly shot. It is moody and bleak in terms of surrounding and atmosphere – mirroring the characters’ emotional states through the film. The sets are real – you can tell that they spent time filming on locations and they actually serve to help bring you into the film in a way that digital and green screen cannot. I cannot emphasize enough just how much the landscape contributes to the emotional tone of the film. Villeneuve chooses to drain almost all the sets and outdoor shots of colour, giving us the feeling of desperation, urgency, heartache and anger that is simmering beneath the surface of the characters at all times. It is bright and harsh and angry and absolutely stunning. Clearly every attention was paid here to detail and that is something that isn’t as common in film anymore.
2. The music. Going along with the cinematography, the score music here is appropriate but not overwhelming. Too often the temptation is to make the score music so over powering that it tells the audience how to feel at any given moment. Many films don’t trust the actors’ performances or the scripting enough to let the audience get there on their own. Not so here. The music here serves to subtly enhance the emotional tone of the film without overwhelming you.
3. The intricate plot. Along with the emotional and moral questions the film raises, the film also contains a very well pieced together mystery plot. As I said before, it’s part moral tale, part thriller, part police procedural. I will try to avoid spoilers as much as possible, because figuring out the answer to who took the children and why is part of the experience of watching the film. As Jackman’s character wrestles with his own conscience over what he is doing, Gyllenhall is busy trying to solve the case and we the audience are taken along for the ride. The film assumes the audience is intelligent as it refuses to give away the answers. We learn via clues and hints what is going on just as Detective Loki does. Some will figure it out sooner than others (I put it together about ten minutes in), but that doesn’t make it any less entertaining. It’s not a disappointment (as other films tend to be) if you “guess the twist” – rather it adds to the suspense of the tale and creates a very effective sense of dramatic irony as you watch and wait for the other characters to catch up.
4. Hugh Jackman. He is absolutely brilliant in this film. He is no stranger to academy award nominations, but this film is one that could easily see him secure an Oscar. He is a man facing the possibility of losing his child, and that fear and anger has driven him to do things that we can only hope we might have the strength to say no to. This could have come across as very ham fisted and clumsy in the hands of a lesser actor. Jackman’s character commits acts of unspeakable brutality against the man he believes responsible for the loss of his child. Despite the fact that we should, the audience does not hate him. We are repulsed and appalled by his actions, but at the same time empathetic and sympathetic towards him. We want him to stop, but, like Franklin and Nancy Birch, we instead choose to turn away from the situation, hoping in our hearts that his actions will be justified by eventually yielding information as to the whereabouts of his children. It is a performance from a man who is not unlikeable – who appears to be no different than any other father and Jackman forces us to ask ourselves if we too wouldn’t do the exact same thing if it meant the life or possible death of our child. His performance is visceral and incredibly intense. There are moments when his rage and his fear and desperation almost vibrates off the screen – where we feel almost as keenly as he does the urgency of the situation. It is this transference that allows us to forgive some of the most terrible actions and it is this transference that breaks our heart – especially during one particular scene in the film.
5. Jake Gyllenhall. Also no strange to the Academy, it would not be a surprise if this film yielded two Oscars for male performances, as his is also superb. Though the writing and scripting is excellent for each character, Gyllenhall’s talent and skill easily takes it to a completely new level. He is the kind of actor that can disappear completely into a role and make that character come to life. Loki, like Dover is not a perfectly likeable character. There are points when he appears unsympathetic – almost heartless towards the Dover’s situation. It’s through Gyllenhall’s performance that we see this is just a way of the character protecting himself. We understand just how weary he is of seeing this kind of pain and how diverse the reactions from the victims are to it. He is tired, but incredibly determined. I have always enjoyed Gyllenhall as an actor and feel that he has done some truly excellent films in the past (Brokeback Mountain, Donnie Darko), but I truly think this is his best performance to date.
6. The attention to detail. As I said, the performances and writing is expertly done, however it is the details added to each character that make this film feel truly real. None of the information supplied to us about Dover is without a purpose. We know from the beginning that he is not only a family man and devoted father, but a survivalist and a bit of a control freak who believes in leaving nothing to chance. We see him bond with his son over a shared hunting trip, but we also see the uncertainty in his son’s eyes telling us that maybe Dover’s intensity is a bit too much. We see when Detective Loki enters his basement just how obsessed Dover is with having full control over any given potential situation and threat to his family. This informs the character’s actions in a big way. A man like this would not be able to sit idly by and let someone else look for his child. A man like this would need to take control over the situation and actively do something about it. A man like this would latch onto the first piece of evidence given – however thin because he would need to believe that he had some control over things. You don’t have a basement full of survival gear if you are someone who can easily trust others to handle a time of crisis. We also know just how much he is relied upon BY his family and that also tells us why he goes to such extremes. When their daughter goes missing, his wife not only falls apart by taking to her bed and using sleeping pills to get her through the day, but she actively blames Dover for giving her a false sense of safety. These words are incredibly harsh, but they tell us a lot about why he felt he needed to do what he did. Here is a man who is used to being viewed as the protector of his family. He is used to being prepared for any and all emergencies. These are all important pieces of the puzzle when it comes to the character of Keller Dover.
7. The “solution”. Without giving away the ending, I will say that the answer to the mystery is not difficult to figure out if you watch the clues that the film provides you with. It’s not a disappointment if you figure it out before Loki does, because it fits together so well and makes logical sense. The ending, while a bit frustrating is also necessary.

The Bad:

1. The female characters. This is my only real criticism here and I will amend it by saying that for the purpose of the story it is one I can somewhat look past. There are really only three women in this film (not counting the kids who are taken and the teenage daughter who really doesn’t appear much). They are the two wives of course and the suspect Alex Jones’ Aunt. Putting the Aunt aside, the two women are largely ignored within the story. Keller’s wife Grace (played by Maria Bello), as mentioned before spends the majority of the film in her bed sleeping and/or stumbling around in a drugged daze wearing her housecoat and sniffling into tissues. Viola Davis appears a few times but not nearly as much as I would have liked her to as her character was truly interesting. I hesitate to criticize too heavily on this however, for a couple of reasons. The main reason though is that it is very common in films that involve child kidnappings and/or murders to see the story focus be entirely around the mother ignoring the father almost completely (“Eye For An Eye” being a perfect example). This feeds into that mistaken societal assumption that women are ultimately more “caring” as parents and/or their attachment is greater to their children than that of the father. I like it when I see a film that focuses on a father’s anguish as well. The second reason I hesitate to criticise too heavily is because even though it bothers me to watch Grace Dover fall apart in the film, I have to remind myself that the character they have written is someone who is directly responding to a situation that is juxtaposed and gives reason for her husband’s response. They are BOTH damaged people here and in ways they are both unlikeable. I would have liked to see more to do for these women (as is too often the case with almost all of Hollywood) but at least I can understand why this was the case.

This will never be a mindless fluff film that I can just pop into the DVD player and switch off to. It’s far too complex and heavy in terms of its subject matter for that. You really need to be in a specific place to view this film and that’s OK. It doesn’t make it any less disturbing or any less brilliant.

 

 

“The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones” is a mortally awful film.

 

Since I started this blog, this is the second novel to film adaptation I have seen in theatres. The first was “World War Z” and I opted not to write a review for that one because I hadn’t read the original source material. I had however, read all of the Mortal Instruments novels (don’t judge me I work in a high school) and I will be the first to admit that the source material this film was based off of is hardly great literature.

That said, the books were entertaining enough and I was really far more excited about the casting choices for the film than anything else. Predictably, they turned out to be the only positive part of the entire experience.

This film was not just a bad adaptation, it was overall a bad film. Period.

It was painful just how awful it was and that is really saying something considering their target audience. Given the popularity of YA novels being made into films, you would think that Hollywood would have the formula down pat. Certainly the successes of “Harry Potter”,  “The Hunger Games” and even “Twilight” have proven the viability of these franchises on screen.

However, despite a built in teenage audience, this film has tanked at the box office compared to its peers and having seen it, it’s not difficult to see why.

The story is fairly standard for YA. Inspired not-so-subtly by the Harry Potter franchise, Cassandra Clare has “created” a world in which demons roam the Earth and the only people who can fight them are Shadowhunters – people created from the blood of angels who can choose not to be seen by the Mundane (muggle?) world if they choose.

Except one night, at a night club, a so-called “Mundane” does see one and thus begins the story.

Clary Fray (Lilly Collins) is a teenage girl who, after witnessing a demon attack finds out that she is actually a Shadowhunter as was her mother before her. It is right as she makes this discovery that her mother is attacked and kidnapped and Clary, along with her best friend Simon (who has an unrequited crush naturally) must go after those responsible and try to get her mother back.

To add to the love triangle, you have the Shadowhunter that Clary first witnessed kill a demon – a teenage boy named Jace (Jamie Campbell Bower) who is naturally attracted to Clary as well and willing to help her try to find her mother. The rest of the story revolves around the developing relationship between these characters, as well as their attempts to stop a man named Valentine (Voldermort?) who had long been thought dead from collecting various items that could destroy the world they live in.

It is a predictable and very simple piece of fiction, so it is very difficult to see why it was so poorly adapted.

The Bad:

1. The plot – or should I say lack of plot. It’s a familiar complaint to make when viewing a film adapted from a novel to say “they cut stuff out”. It’s something I try to avoid, because the very nature of adapting a work from novel to screen demands that material be cut. Usually, when this is done, it is superfluous scenes and/or character building material that tends to be cut in favour of keeping key plot points intact. Sadly, this was not the case in this version. The plot was the first sacrifice made – to the point in which it became virtually impossible to understand what was going on in the film if you hadn’t already read the novel series. This is beyond bad film making because it immediately eliminates anybody from the target audience who hasn’t read the books. Not only was the basic plot altered to a place beyond recognition, but the key events in the climax as well as the ending itself were removed. This is a problem as the ending of the first novel is such that it immediately feeds the plot for the second. I am unsure how they will continue the series in film given how the ending was changed so drastically.
2. The script – again, I am aware that the novels aren’t exactly Shakespeare to begin with. However, the script for this was beyond atrocious. The dialogue was so campy that if the film wasn’t actively trying SO hard to be serious and dramatic, you would swear it was satire. The actors – bless them – have done their best with what little they were given to work with, but that admittedly really isn’t much.
3. The length – the film is long, but almost nothing actually happens. It felt like the director, in an attempt to try to mimic the popularity of the “Twilight” franchise, made sure the film focused most heavily on the love triangle to the exclusion of all else. The problem with that is that the “Twilight” Franchise was ALL about the love story between Bella, Edward and Jacob. It WAS the plot. The Mortal Instruments series (while not terribly well written) do have far more going on in the books than simply the love triangle. The fact that director Harold Zwart eliminated almost everything that had nothing to do with said romance made the film come across like a 130 minute checklist of romantic scenes – one after the other with very little to tie them together. It was like a hamburger without the actual meat. Very tedious to watch. Even the teen audience was bored.
4. Speaking of said romance – the romantic chemistry between the leads was just NOT there. Individually, the actors are all very talented people. I have seen Lilly Collins perform well in other films and I absolutely adored Robert Sheehan in the British television series “Misfits”, so I know they are capable of better. I think in this case it was a mixture of clunky direction, poor scripting and scene choice. There is very little “evidence” given in the film to justify the characters’ interest in each other so by the time the two leads get to their first kiss, the audience is left thinking ‘where did that come from’? All the lead up and tension that existed within the novels is all but gone here leaving a skeletal framework that doesn’t hold up even with the exceptional cast.
5. The uselessness of the female cast including the female lead. This is something I notice in almost every film, (indeed it’s systemic in Hollywood) but it is particularly problematic in this film, as the franchise is helmed by a female lead. In the novel series, Clary (while not a ‘fighter’ the way the other characters are), propels the plot through the search for her mother, and by extension her memories and her past which are all tied into her family history with the main villain which is revealed as the plot progresses. The problem (as I mentioned before) is that Zwart and co. decided to remove all that pesky “plot” stuff in favour of romance leaving Clary very little to do other than to follow Jace and the others around with her mouth hanging open looking confused. It’s frustrating, but even more frustrating is seeing the only other female character in the series – Isabelle Lightwood – reduced to almost nothing when it comes to the film itself. She has a couple of snarky one liners, but otherwise is used primarily as background fodder with very little agency of her own. The male characters of course drive the action, and while many of their back-stories are not terribly well developed either, they at least get the screen time.
6. The villain. Valentine is cheesy as hell in the novels – but he is also written with a motive and purpose that does attempt to make a political statement. It’s not as complex and nuanced as “The Hunger Games” or even the “Divergent” series, but Clare does attempt it. All of that has been removed here and what we are left with is a villain who is simply hungry for power and control. All of the other motivations that his character had (which of course also tie in very heavily to that pesky thing called the PLOT) are gone. Sadly it doesn’t leave Jonathon Rhys Meyers (another fantastic actor woefully under-used here) much to work with.

The Good:

1. The cast. And the caveat that I will put in here is that many of them are good IN SPITE of this film. As I said before, the only positive thing about this film is that they actors in it are brilliant (or have been) in previous roles. Lena Headey (who plays Clary’s mother), is on fire right now appearing in television and film series’ such as “Game of Thrones” and “Dredd”. Robert Sheehan (as Simon) made people sit up and take notice with his incredibly complex portrayal of a character named Nathan in the British series “Misfits”. Lilly Collins has also done a decent job in previous endeavors like “Mirror Mirror”. It was quite a disappointment to see such a well put together cast, with almost nothing to work with. It does not do them justice and much like a work night out at the local karaoke bar, it’s a somewhat painful experience that leaves you watching while feeling embarrassed for them.

I came out of the theatre having read all the novels and STILL feeling confused as to what I had just seen. That doesn’t bode well for the future sequels in the franchise – especially if they decide to go with a different director.  

Lee Daniels’ “The Butler” is an incredibly well written and well acted tour though 20th century black history.

 

The civil rights movement is a period in history that has been examined many times in different films, from the recent Jackie Robinson biopic “42” to earlier efforts like “To Kill A Mockingbird”. In many cases, these films have been deeply moving examinations of what it was like to be African American living in a very difficult period of modern history. However, there is a tendency for some film makers to exploit this period of history for the sake of making poorly written, over the top, emotionally melodramatic “Oscar-bait” blockbusters.

“The Butler” certainly could have fallen into that category were it not for the fine writing, direction and superb performances by the principal cast.

It is a film based on a true story about a man named Eugene Allen who worked as a Butler for the Whitehouse for several American Presidents beginning with Eisenhower and ending with the Regan Administration. Through his unique position, we see the events of the civil rights movement unfold. But it’s less of a story about the major events in history, and more of a story about a man, his family and the struggle to find his identity as a person and as a black American during a very turbulent period.

Though a lot of dramatic license was taken with the personal details on the character, apparently everything shot in the White House actually happened.

The film follows the character (re-named) Cecil Gains from his humble beginnings as a “house negro” in the late 1920s. We watch as he obtains a position working for a wealthy hotel company, and then eventually a position as a Butler for President Eisenhower.

Through his position as Butler, Gains is able to provide a comfortable life for his wife and two young boys – something not many African Americans were able to do in the 1950s. They are not rich, but well off enough that Gains is able to pay for his oldest son Louis’ University education.

His son leaves for University right at the time the civil rights movement really starts to heat up and despite his father’s fears, he is soon deeply embroiled within the movement itself – a confident of Doctor Martin Luther King’s, despite his father’s objections.

As it spans his life, and various presidents we see how Gains deals with the challenges of the events unfolding around him as well as his marital difficulties, growing estrangement from his son, death of his other son and his own reconciliation on what it means to be a black man in the United States.

I truly enjoyed the way this story was told. It took these massively life changing events and gave them focus – a lens with which we could view them through and come to our own conclusions. In many ways, we the viewer are in the same position as Cecil is – watching and observing but not interacting with the events that are occurring.

The Good:

1. Forrest Whittaker’s performance. He was outstanding in this film. His portrayal of Cecil Gains was understated, yet incredibly powerful. As a “house negro”, his character is taught early on to adopt “two faces” when serving. One is the face that he shows when doing his job – the other, the truth of who he is. There are moments during the film in which Gains stands behind watching as various Presidents make decisions that directly inform or shape his life, and family’s future. Some of these decisions are quite impactful (specifically one in particular in which Nixon orders that the members of the Black Panthers – a radical Black power group that his son had become involved with – be hunted down). He manages to make the audience feel his pain and anguish, while at the same time maintaining that “mask”.
2. Oprah Winfrey’s performance. Absent from acting for quite a while, Winfrey makes her presence felt here in a big way. Her character could easily have come across as intensely unlikeable. She spends a good part of the movie unhappy with her husband’s long hours, and even has a brief affair with their sleazy neighbour out of frustration and anger at her husband. Still, Winfrey manages to convey a sense of humanity in her character that keeps her from coming across in too negative a light. She shows us the portrait of a woman who is undoubtedly flawed, but also someone who is dealing with real pain and heartache and is ultimately sympathetic. Neither one of the characters is demonized and that is entirely down to the strength of the performances.
3. The father/son dynamic. Ultimately the film is a ‘who’s who’ of major events in history. But the main draw is less in line with the major historical events and more tied into the smaller, more intimate struggles between Gains and his oldest son Louis. The contrast between the two sons is juxtaposed with the idea of the Butler having two ‘faces’. Gains’ behaviour throughout the film is unassuming and hopeful. He sits back throughout the civil rights movement, allowing the events to unfold around him. He wants change, and hopes for it, but doesn’t want to be the one in the middle of the turmoil, making it happen. He is the face of the serving man. Docile and placid, not allowing you to see what goes on beneath the surface. His son Louis on the other hand, is the metaphor for the struggle within – the struggle I suspect every African American felt at least to some extent during the period. Against his father’s wishes, he involves himself very heavily in the civil rights movement, refusing to sit back and wait for change. He gets himself arrested, is beaten and abused, but still he presses on. The unrest between him and his father, mirrors the turmoil Gains likely feels as he wrestles to come to terms with what he believes. It isn’t until the end of the film when Gains is taken out of the serving man’s role and is allowed to see what he looks like from the outside (as he is invited to a State dinner by President Regan as a guest, not a servant), that he begins to realize just how he feels about his place as an African American. It is only then that he can reconcile those two sides of himself – and begin to repair the relationship with his son.
4. The supporting cast – particularly Cuba Gooding Jr. and Lenny Kravitz. Fantastic performances from them as well – definitely worth noting.
5. The use of music and costuming, as well as age make-up. The decades and passage of time was observed quite well through these techniques. Music was used sparingly but was done well when it was used (often times with films like that, the soundtrack just overwhelms the film in an attempt to signify or establish the decade). Ditto for costuming. I was relieved at how well the age make up was done, as usually this is the first thing that takes me “out” of a film. Age make up is incredibly difficult to make believable (especially if the actor is MUCH younger than the age they are portraying) so it is something I am quite wary of and was done well here I think.

The Bad:

1. The revolving “cast” of Presidents. Don’t get me wrong, I love the actors that made appearances in this film as various Presidents – but not in these roles. I feel that too many MAJOR names in these parts detracted from the ‘realism’ of it and ultimately made it feel less authentic. I especially feel this because most of these actors bore a barely passing resemblance to the men they were supposed to be playing. Robin Williams was OK as Eisenhower (though again looked nothing like him). John Cusack was terrible as President Nixon, ditto for James Marsden as Kennedy. They came across more as silly caricatures than actual depictions of U.S. Presidents. Much as I love Alan Rickman, his attempt at an American accent and portrayal of Ronald Regan was almost embarrassing. The only real possible exception to this would be Leiv Schreiber’s portrayal of President Johnson. It felt like they hired these big names to up the star count and for no other reason.

 

Ultimately, I felt it was an excellent film that managed to showcase a powerful moment in modern history and do so authentically. We are invited to experience the emotions and events as the character does and through his eyes which is a very unique perspective. 

Neill Blomkamp’s sophomore effort “Elysium” attempts to deliver a politically relevant message which gets buried under numerous plot holes and poor writing.

 

This was one of the summer films I was really looking forward to and while I wasn’t quite as disappointed (and angered) as I was by “Man Of Steel”, this is definitely a film that I expected to be much better than it was. I admit this was because of the success of “District 9” – a sneaker hit sci fi film that was both original and subtly political. Blomkamp delivered a successful metaphor for apartheid in the aliens-come-to-earth storyline set in South Africa. He avoided the use of big name actors, choosing instead to go with the actors that really served the role and the atmosphere of the film. I don’t think he expected it to be as critically well received as it was at the time, and maybe that is the problem he has had with “Elysium”.

Often times when it comes to musicians or film makers that have a breakout hit, the pressure is then on for the follow up to be bigger and better than the original. That’s tough to do, and I think in this case, Blomkamp got caught in the Hollywood blockbuster trap of big budgets, big names and big explosions.

Unfortunately that left little room for decent writing and a plot that made sense. Maybe he figured that since he had Matt Damon and Jodie Foster that wasn’t as important?

It’s a shame because the plot of the film was something that looked like, if handled right, it could have been a real success. Capitalizing on the Occupy movement of the past year or so and the growing resentment between the lower class 99% against the wealthy 1%, this film aimed to make a statement. Unfortunately, the statement ended up being something along the lines of “all rich people are evil greedy jerks, and all poor people are well meaning heroes – even if they do have lengthy criminal records”. Granted, I am not going to argue against the idea that corporations and governments are ultimately only in it for themselves, but the heavy handed approach with which the message is delivered doesn’t do them any favours.

The plot, as I said, is pretty basic. It is the year 2154 and you have your two classes of people – the “haves” and “have-nots”. Earth’s resources were pretty much used up to the point where the planet became over populated and barely liveable. The “haves”, left the ruined Earth and built a man-made paradise on a space station where they went to live called “Elysium”. On Elysium, there is no sickness, no pain and no poverty. It is a Utopia in which the world’s elite live, free of the pain and strife suffered by the poor.  And they are determined to keep it that way. So determined, in fact, that only “citizens” of Elysium are allowed up there and they police the space quite severely. Any attempts to illegally immigrate to Elysium are met with deadly force by the governments, and Elysium’s secretary Dalcourt played by Jodi Foster. Matt Damon is an orphan named Max who grew up in the slums of Earth but dreamed of Elysium. As an adult, we see he has become a criminal who is trying desperately to reform, but having difficulty under the brutal police state Earth has become. His attempts to hold down a steady (legal) job come to a head when he is dosed at work with lethal radiation that would see him dead in five days, unless he can somehow get up to Elysium and sit in their little magic med bay chairs to receive a cure.

His childhood friend Frey (played by Alice Braga) has her own desperate reasons for wanting to get up there – her daughter is dying of cancer. She too needs the medical services that can only be found on Elysium. Max conspires with a group of criminals/freedom fighters to get him up to Elysium by stealing information they hope they can trade for access. Their attempt to steal covert secrets from a wealthy citizen lands them in more hot water than they realize and Max is soon carrying information in his head that could bring the entire system crashing down – and save himself, Frey’s daughter and everyone on Earth in the process.

The Bad:

1. Matt Damon: Don’t get me wrong, I think he is a fantastic actor who has been in a lot of really good films. Given the right part, he can be excellent and I have a lot of respect for him. However, he is wrong for this part on a number of levels. His character is supposed to be an orphan growing up in the Latin American slums. As a child, we see he dreams of Elysium and forms a friendship with another young orphan girl named Frey. He steals things according to him, so that he can save for a ticket to Elysium. Despite his poverty stricken surroundings, the young boy is hopeful, idealistic and innocent. His adult self is a reformed criminal attempting to go straight. It is obvious through the area he lives in as well as his extensive criminal record, that he is no longer the innocent child we see in the flashbacks and yet Damon’s performance seems about as hardened as whipped cream. He comes across more like someone who regularly attends PTA meetings, than someone with a violent past living in the ghetto. His every man likeability which has worked well for him in films like “We Bought a Zoo” is what works against him here. His character needed to have more of an edge – we needed to believe that this is someone who has made some serious mistakes in his life. Adding a lot of tattoos do not change the fact that he appears like the kind of guy for whom a traffic violation is about as serious as things get.
2. The ‘white saviour’ ideal: Damon’s character grows up in what appears to be a Latin slum. So why then, did Blomkamp and co. not cast an actual Latino for the part?? Everyone around him is Latino and they all speak Spanish as a first language. It would make more sense for Damon’s character to be Latino. The choice to cast Damon might not have been intended this way, but by choosing to go with a white male for the part, they perpetuate the idea that only a white male saviour can liberate the downtrodden minority poor from their fate. Indeed, this is exacerbated by the end of the film when Damon’s character literally sacrifices himself so that the people of Earth may become citizens of Elysium. If you are going to make a political statement about illegal immigration (and there clearly is a link with this film and what is going on with the borders of Mexico and the U.S.,) then the hero needs to be Latino, otherwise the message that is being sent is that of white superiority. Hollywood seems to love to whitewash all their hero figures and this is no exception. It’s a shame because the illegal immigration parable was probably the only aspect that was done relatively well.
3. The use of women: Once again, I find myself counting the female characters in the film and then asking myself whether or not they actually had ANY usefulness to the film beyond the function of ‘damsel’. Sadly, in this case, not really. We have three female characters in this film (and unfortunately three is a relatively large number for films like this which are regularly dominated by an almost all male cast). Of these three women, only occupies any sort of position of power – however, that position does not last very long. Her character might hold a powerful political position, but she isn’t very bright and her major mistakes in the film lead to one of her minions double crossing and eventually killing her. This wouldn’t have been a problem if the writing were a bit better. Unfortunately she is written as such a cardboard mustache twirling villain that it is hard to take the film seriously (and sadly Jodie Foster’s talents are completely wasted here). It’s almost like the director was afraid that a smart, capable and ultimately incredibly bigoted and corrupt female politician wasn’t exciting enough as a villain so they decided to replace her halfway through with a maniacal, insane and incredibly violent male character. After that happens, she is officially tossed into ‘damsel’ territory alongside the character of Frey (who literally spends the bulk of her screen time captured and trying to protect her daughter). She, and her daughter make up the other two female characters and of course their position in the film is to give Damon’s character something to fight for beyond himself. Leads you to start asking questions – questions like “why couldn’t Damon’s character be played by a woman?” What about the character needed to be inherently male? Or are we just so used to seeing male characters (and white male characters to boot) in these roles, that we don’t even consider any other alternatives??
4. Matt Damon’s robot thing that he wears. This bothers me. Why? Well, I know this is a really nitpicky thing, but it kind of drove me nuts. They attach this robotic enhancement to him via drilling into his back and his skin. This was meant to help give him extra strength to fight (since the radiation was destroying his body). OK, I’m on board with that so far. However, theoretically, if he was to save himself, he wouldn’t BE dying any longer and he would be stuck with this apparatus drilled into his body, correct? Well, then wouldn’t it make a hell of a lot more sense to attach it to him in such a way so that if he DID survive, he could change his shirt every day? They literally attached it so that there would be no way he could get his shirt off without removing the apparatus which is permanently attached. It really bothered me.
5. The plot holes. There were a lot, but the main one that stood out for me was the attempt to “overthrow” the government on Elysium. Foster’s character Dalcourt is frustrated by the government’s refusal to let her destroy anybody who attempts to land on Elysium illegally. She wants full power over the entire system, so she enlists the head of the company that possessed the contract to program all the computers to help her. He tells her that he can easily reprogram Elysium so that she can take control (essentially rebooting the system). This is the information that eventually gets stuck in Max’s head. What bothers me about it is how easy it is. One corporation has the power to reboot their entire society and put anybody they want in charge?? REALLY? There are no other security protocols? They have handed all of their safety over to a guy whose contract is almost up and has literally no reason not to do what he’s asked to?? It just seems like a really faulty system. And if it was that easy, why hadn’t anybody else tried it before???

The Good:

1. Sadly, not a heck of a lot. I was rather disappointed on many levels with this film. I will say the visuals were quite well done – Blomkamp does have a way of showing the beauty in poverty. The visuals of Elysium also nicely done. It is a paradise to be sure, but there is a darker edge to it that he manages to convey throughout the position of it as well as the scenery. It’s a little too pristine, a little too clean and a little too green. It sits, out in the darkness isolated in a way that does not say paradise.

 

Ultimately, this film was a flop. I am hoping that Blomkamp’s next effort is not quite so star studded as this one was.