Escape to the Movies: Elysium

[Baldr]

Have you heard Blomkamp's bullshit story on how this movie idea came about. So he and a friend went to Tijuana Mexico "for the night". When the interviewer asked why he said "for fun". He and his friend went to a bar and when they walked out two Federales arrested them. They took their money and passports. Then threw them in the back of the car and started driving for about 30 minutes. Then they open the doors and let them go. Then he started comparing that experience to the movie. When the interviewer asked how they got out, Blomkamp said they "walked for two hours". Then the interviewer asked again, saying they had no idea where they were and no money "how they get out?". Blomkamp got up and walked out on the interview.

 

[DJShire]

I saw the trailer for this twice when I (oddly enough) went to see Pacific Rim in IMAX 3D (going to see it in SD for the 2nd time....so 4 times in total....sometime later this week). I immediately hated it, for the "We....live on Earth...the privileged....live on Elysium". Great way to completely and utterly alienate a lot of people, including THE PEOPLE THAT MADE THE MOVIE. I really hate heavy-handed messages like this, and I'm tired of the rich white people being evil for being rich white people. Just because you're rich doesn't make you evil, and just because you're poor doesn't make you good. Never forget which economic class the most robberies, rapes, and murders can be tied to.

So yea, not seeing this, and going to remind everyone that's going to see it that it is limousine liberal topical wanking from a director that doesn't know how to tell any other stories.

 

[piinyouri]

District 9 was about as subtle as a brick, but still a fantastic sci-fi film, so I really have no choice but to see this.

 

[RTK1576]

So, the arguments flying around here are:

1) You're not allowed to make a movie about the rich vs. poor division unless you are poor yourself (and therefore can't make a blockbuster movie), otherwise it's hypocrisy (unless you side with the rich).

2) You're not allowed to make a movie with a social message if I don't agree with it, or else it's "heavy-handed," which apparently automatically makes it bad story-telling.

3) The only good kind of sci-fi is the kind that doesn't remind you of anything in your life.

4) Bob shouldn't have an accent. Damn you, Bob, for having an accent.

5) Bob shouldn't promote anything in a video he makes, despite putting it at the end of the video, and you having a pause button.

6) Atlas Shrugged is just misunderstood.

I'm sorry, but many of you are just plain ridiculous.

 

[Fearzone]

If you can get past the heavy-handed political alegory there are some good parts, but I couldn't. It was just too much and what it was trying to sell was too inane.

The first part was like: "Oh, its going to be THAT kind of movie. Great."

The middle part was: "Well this is pretty cool... I might still like this movie."

Then the last part was: "Oh jeez they gotta be kidding."

Me and my friend left wishing we had gone to Wolverine instead.

 

[FFHAuthor]

Not interested. I hate sci-fi being the go-to genre for movies with some kind of cheap political commentary.

The best sci-fi never comments on current society, but instead creates a new one.

Agreed.

It's better to inspire people to better things rather than berate them for the present. Give me the messages in Star Trek and 2001 over District 9 or this tripe any day.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Funny. Bob's cheering this movie on while other reviews I've read are canning it. Time gave it 2+1/2 stars out of 5 and it only gets a 47% on Rotten Tomatoes.

Uh...is this another case where Bob's inner fanboy leaves him giddy and oblivious to problems? You may recall how he said the Captain America might be "the best movie ever". Bob has as much of a track record for going overboard liking certain directors or movies as he does for reflexively hating others (I never listen to Bob when he talks about JJ Abrahm's work, anymore).

Has anyone else seen this movie? If so I'd appreciate your opinion on it.

EDIT: The 47% at Rotten Tomatoes has changed to 67% as more reviewers weighed in their opinions.

I saw it last night. I didn't like it. It has the subtlety of a sledgehammer. It was also inconsistent in what it wanted to do. It basically turned into an action movie from the 2nd Act until the last bit of the 3rd Act. I'd recommend waiting for it to be on NetFlix or rent it if you want to see it.
Edit: And no, my not liking it wasn't politically motivated. I'm an advocate of universal healthcare.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

So, the arguments flying around here are:

1) You're not allowed to make a movie about the rich vs. poor division unless you are poor yourself (and therefore can't make a blockbuster movie), otherwise it's hypocrisy (unless you side with the rich).

2) You're not allowed to make a movie with a social message if I don't agree with it, or else it's "heavy-handed," which apparently automatically makes it bad story-telling.

3) The only good kind of sci-fi is the kind that doesn't remind you of anything in your life.

4) Bob shouldn't have an accent. Damn you, Bob, for having an accent.

5) Bob shouldn't promote anything in a video he makes, despite putting it at the end of the video, and you having a pause button.

6) Atlas Shrugged is just misunderstood.

I'm sorry, but many of you are just plain ridiculous.

1+2: Both of these are completely off base because no one is saying that anyone "shouldn't be allowed" to do anything, but I can understand why some people find the idea of Matt Damon, a multi-millionaire actor who lives in a $15 million mansion, starring in a movie in which he's the champion of the poor. Also bear in mind that Damon doesn't exactly shy away from getting involved in political and social issues, and thus he contributes to the "limousine liberal" stereotype (ie. the hypocrisy you mentioned).

3: Not in the slightest, but what generally isn't good sci-fi is when it takes complex issues with a lot of grey area and boils them down to ridiculously simplistic "good vs. evil" plots, in this case good=what the director agrees with, and evil=what the director doesn't agree with.

4: I don't really care one way or another, but it is strange how sometimes he seems to have absolutely no accent, and other times he sounds like an extra from "The Town".

5: No opinion one way or another, it's his show, he can promote cheese whiz for all I care.

6: We could fill up about 7 message boards talking about Atlas Shrugged, so I'm not even gonna open that can of worms.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Quite liked the movie. Not as good as District 9, but that's not a bad thing. Sci-fi stuff is still up to par, but a little bit more establishment of the setting and tools in play would not have gone awry, especially given the relatively short length of the movie. Specifically, other than greed, I'd love to have a reason why the medical technology wasn't made accessible. Was it costly, was it highly resource consuming, was it just a giant middle finger to anyone who wasn't rich and white (or the three Asian people and one Arab guy), what is it that keeps this sweet, fancy tech from being passed around like a bottle of whiskey at an Armageddon party? It's a good movie, and a pretty damn good action flick alongside all the science fiction that's front and center, but it would have been a good deal better if it had taken more time to let us in on some of the details of the world.

And I want that AK mod in games. Seriously, why haven't games had that? There's no good excuse.

 

[Zetona]

Having just seen this movie, I thought there were some plot holes and inconsistencies which made the story somewhat unbelievable:

Spoiler: Plot Holes That Spoil Things

Every house on Elysium around which anything important to the plot happens is empty. The heroes always seem to enter a house that's been put up for sale when they need healing; in a gated community with a fairly stable population, would there really be so many extra houses?. Plus, not one house has any level of security?all you have to do is bust the glass near a doorknob and you're in, no sweat.

If every house on Elysium has a med-bay, why does Elysium have so many ships loaded with med-bays? And would it have killed them to send a few down to Earth before the end of the movie?

Earth technology has fallen miles behind Elysium technology, yet the computers are wholly compatible?

How come Elysium has no built-in defenses of any kind, and must instead rely on agents stationed on Earth to shoot down undocumented vessels? And why agents instead of automated antimissile platforms?

Some spoiler-free inconsistencies:

There was some clever product placement in the movie, with several present-day luxury brands appearing on Elysium. Earth, meanwhile, apparently makes do with 140-year-old Macbooks and GMC/Nissan cars (which still have their product logos firmly attached!)

140 years in the future and people still use ID cards to open doors even though everyone has a genetic tag of some sort?

I still generally liked it. It's really good-looking (surprised Bob didn't really mention this; the detail is really astounding at times) and the action scenes are great. Unfortunately, the story is rather dumb, both because of the plot holes and because the telling and message felt quite on the nose at times, and I left the theater thinking, "why didn't Blomkamp just make a sequel to District 9 instead?"

 

[RTK1576]

So, the arguments flying around here are:

1) You're not allowed to make a movie about the rich vs. poor division unless you are poor yourself (and therefore can't make a blockbuster movie), otherwise it's hypocrisy (unless you side with the rich).

2) You're not allowed to make a movie with a social message if I don't agree with it, or else it's "heavy-handed," which apparently automatically makes it bad story-telling.

3) The only good kind of sci-fi is the kind that doesn't remind you of anything in your life.

4) Bob shouldn't have an accent. Damn you, Bob, for having an accent.

5) Bob shouldn't promote anything in a video he makes, despite putting it at the end of the video, and you having a pause button.

6) Atlas Shrugged is just misunderstood.

I'm sorry, but many of you are just plain ridiculous.

1+2: Both of these are completely off base because no one is saying that anyone "shouldn't be allowed" to do anything, but I can understand why some people find the idea of Matt Damon, a multi-millionaire actor who lives in a $15 million mansion, starring in a movie in which he's the champion of the poor. Also bear in mind that Damon doesn't exactly shy away from getting involved in political and social issues, and thus he contributes to the "limousine liberal" stereotype (ie. the hypocrisy you mentioned).

3: Not in the slightest, but what generally isn't good sci-fi is when it takes complex issues with a lot of grey area and boils them down to ridiculously simplistic "good vs. evil" plots, in this case good=what the director agrees with, and evil=what the director doesn't agree with.

4: I don't really care one way or another, but it is strange how sometimes he seems to have absolutely no accent, and other times he sounds like an extra from "The Town".

5: No opinion one way or another, it's his show, he can promote cheese whiz for all I care.

6: We could fill up about 7 message boards talking about Atlas Shrugged, so I'm not even gonna open that can of worms.

1+2: Not true. In fact, you just proved my point.

When you don't agree with the message a story is promoting, the easiest way to devalue the message is to attack the messenger. In this case it's "Hollywood types with money talking about poor issues." What, only poor people can star in movies where they champion the poor? Only starving actors can make points? Only people who don't get involved with social and political issues can say things?

It's a cheap nonsensical argument. It'd be like saying that because you're not a teacher, your opinion about what to teach in public school has no merit.

3: Would you say 1984 and Brave New World are terrible books? They both display the nature of good and evil as "what the author thinks" by taking elements of our world and turning them into frightening extremes (much like this film, go figure). And any storyteller who doesn't risk saying their mind is a storyteller that might as well not even say anything.

Grey area? Sure, if you want to play it safe.

4: There were several people complaining about it, so if you don't care, great. It really shouldn't matter at all (though someday I'd like him to just be himself and let his true accent be free).

5: And yet many complain nonetheless.

6: Agreed.

 

[Sporky111]

Just once I want to see a rich vs poor movie where the poor people are the villains in it.

Like have some giant disaster happen and the poor people resort to cannibalism of rich people who they blame.
Just for variety's sake at least.

The Lion King. The Hyenas were the oppressed lower class. They were cast out for being greedy and taking too much from the lions, and when Scar gave them a position of power after his coup they destroyed the Pride Lands. It's not really a "rich vs. poor movie", but I think it's interesting.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

1+2: Both of these are completely off base because no one is saying that anyone "shouldn't be allowed" to do anything, but I can understand why some people find the idea of Matt Damon, a multi-millionaire actor who lives in a $15 million mansion, starring in a movie in which he's the champion of the poor. Also bear in mind that Damon doesn't exactly shy away from getting involved in political and social issues, and thus he contributes to the "limousine liberal" stereotype (ie. the hypocrisy you mentioned).

So, what is the hypocrisy there?

Are liberals not allowed to be wealthy? The "limousine liberal" stereotype has always been pretty much bullshit, a trope used by right-wingers to discredit liberalism without having an actual argument with any substance.

I think the issue here is that many liberals manage to be financially successful, but the right-wing can't accept this, because liberals are supposed to be dirty hippies, and the idea that liberals can manage their finances successfully is a kind of heresy, so the only rational explanation (for such irrational people) is that liberals are either corrupt, or hypocritical. Never mind the fact that liberalism isn't actually anti-wealth, that's just a narrative made up by those who oppose it.

 

[NeedsaBetterName22]

I think the issue here is that many liberals manage to be financially successful, but the right-wing can't accept this, because liberals are supposed to be dirty hippies, and the idea that liberals can manage their finances successfully is a kind of heresy, so the only rational explanation (for such irrational people) is that liberals are either corrupt, or hypocritical. Never mind the fact that liberalism isn't actually anti-wealth, that's just a narrative made up by those who oppose it.

Actually, this could be the case for some, but it's also the case that they're, you know, actually corrupt. Not that conservatives don't use tax shelters to exploit the broken U.S. tax code, but let's be frank here: in the case of Matt Damon, there's been some controversy over how some of his music investment schemes are pretty much tax dodges. And bear in mind, this is not unusual behaviour in Hollywood, most actors have some kind of tax shelter, especially if they have agencies handling a lot of their finances. And a lot of this is perfectly legal behaviour as well. The fundamental problem is more moral: when you're constantly arguing for an increase in tax rates while exploiting a broken tax code you're the very definition of hypocrite, regardless of your success. I'm just saying, I'll take 'Hollywood liberals' seriously when they call for tax reform so they can stop exploiting the U.S. tax code. Because there's a lot of people who live there that fit Matt Damon's tax bracket definition (makes more than $250,000 and doesn't start new businesses) of rich who deserve it. And a 50% rate won't matter if they can just exploit the code so they don't pay their 'fair share'.

And in the case of Damon he kind of regularly shoots himself in the foot. He's not doing himself any favours when he frames school choice as 'brainwashing' and then puts his kids into a private school because public schools don't offer up 'progressive education'. I don't have a problem with him putting his kids in a private school because he can afford it, I have a problem with him trying to limit the education options of people with less wealth than him, THEN doing the ol' 'it's all about the children' routine.

 

[Rythe]

As oft mentioned, the movie was about as subtle as your choice of large, blunt object.

It was also very meh, with completely forgettable characters. I don't understand the hype around Kruger either. He was very average as not over-the-top villains go. The 'I get my rocks off my killing, mayhem, and taking advantage of women; plus I have an accent' sort, done straight and to the point. So I really don't get why people would be enamored with the character or the actor's performance as said character. Maybe because he and Jodie Foster's roles were the only ones given any real time to try and be something in the entire script?

The pacing and editing was often far too fast to give any moment real weight or meaning, and the one time it did slow down, they basically ripped off the ending to Gladiator without doing any of the work beforehand that might make the audience care enough to sit through it. Did I mention that what was left of the movie after all the hamfisted propaganda was only an incredibly basic 'chosen one' plotline? In a sci-fi movie of all places...

Sigh.

And going back to that lack of subtlety - this is the main reason the movie was meh. They tried to force a message, and in kowtowing to that message, broke any bit of internal coherence the narrative might otherwise have. The plot and the portrayed world were also turned into something incredibly stupid because of it. There is wisdom to the notion that sci-fi worlds must be internally consistent or they'll annoy more people more of the time. Elysium ignored that notion.

Very pretty sci-fi imagery though.

PS: I stopped subjecting myself to Bob for a lot of good reasons, but now and again curiosity combined with subject matter gets the best of me. This is one of those times, but I still put an end to it maybe halfway through the video after having gotten little and expecting less from what I didn't watch.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

1+2: Both of these are completely off base because no one is saying that anyone "shouldn't be allowed" to do anything, but I can understand why some people find the idea of Matt Damon, a multi-millionaire actor who lives in a $15 million mansion, starring in a movie in which he's the champion of the poor. Also bear in mind that Damon doesn't exactly shy away from getting involved in political and social issues, and thus he contributes to the "limousine liberal" stereotype (ie. the hypocrisy you mentioned).

So, what is the hypocrisy there?

Are liberals not allowed to be wealthy? The "limousine liberal" stereotype has always been pretty much bullshit, a trope used by right-wingers to discredit liberalism without having an actual argument with any substance.

I think the issue here is that many liberals manage to be financially successful, but the right-wing can't accept this, because liberals are supposed to be dirty hippies, and the idea that liberals can manage their finances successfully is a kind of heresy, so the only rational explanation (for such irrational people) is that liberals are either corrupt, or hypocritical. Never mind the fact that liberalism isn't actually anti-wealth, that's just a narrative made up by those who oppose it.

Actually, taken as a whole, liberals, on average, make more money than conservatives (suggested reading, "Who really cares", by Arthur Brooks).

Regardless, the difference between the two is that conservatives with money don't usually scream for the Government to give more money to the poor, while liberals with money do. So this begs the obvious question of (we'll go back to Matt Damon) "if Matt Damon cares so much about the plight of the poor, why doesn't he sell his $15 million house, move into a $1000 a month studio apartment, and give away the rest of his money?". No one asks Mitt Romney that question because he's flat-out said that he doesn't believe in income redistribution.

 

[Snooder]

Wow, I'm glad I decided not to watch Elysium then. I mean, when I first saw the trailers, I was pretty sure it was going to be ham-fisted and unsubtle, but I was hoping against hope that the guy who did District 9 would figure out a way to make this allegory more nuanced and less dumb.

See, the thing about District 9 was that by having aliens as the oppressed populace, we actually can understand a bit about how the fear of the 'other' can lead people to do bad things. And for the most part, the humans aren't portrayed as cartoonishly villanious, just greedy, misguided, scared or selfish. You know, like normal people. I mean, it's a question of "if a scary alien mothership landed tomorrow, how would YOU react?" You'd hope that you'd be liberal and welcoming, but if they were 8 foot tall violently stupid shrimp monsters who can't communicate or integrate into society, well, it's kinda hard NOT to dump them in a ghetto. And the ensuing abuses just sorta flow from that initial difficulty in assimilation.


In Elysium's case though, the one thing that really has to be asked is: If all the rich people got together and built their awesome space paradise, why don't the poor people, or at least SOME of the poor people get together and build another one? Or at least reverse engineer or reinvent the magical healing box that everyone wants so badly.

 

[ImSkeletor]

Funny. Bob's cheering this movie on while other reviews I've read are canning it. Time gave it 2+1/2 stars out of 5 and it only gets a 47% on Rotten Tomatoes.

Uh...is this another case where Bob's inner fanboy leaves him giddy and oblivious to problems? You may recall how he said the Captain America might be "the best movie ever". Bob has as much of a track record for going overboard liking certain directors or movies as he does for reflexively hating others (I never listen to Bob when he talks about JJ Abrahm's work, anymore).

Has anyone else seen this movie? If so I'd appreciate your opinion on it.

EDIT: The 47% at Rotten Tomatoes has changed to 67% as more reviewers weighed in their opinions.

Oh no, a persons review doesn't fall in line with an average. How could someone like a movie more than other people. Better fix his brain chip so he can rejoin the hive mind.

 

[Deathfish15]

Something about the setting is telling me to not watch this movie. I'm guessing it's the same "all of government/leaders are evil" theme that District 9 brought as well. Not even every Nazi was pure evil, yet future government employees are all evil,(District 9 examples) willing to perform autopsies on living subjects and use aliens as target practice for reasons...unknown other than to show just how evil they are? Although, from just the trailers, I don't understand why Earth is so shit, do they explain that? Do all geniuses move to Elysium at birth? Does global warming cause everything to turn into a desert? Why are there no future hospitals on Earth, if there are so many willing patients?

To answer some questions...

First to address D9:

District 9 was about a company, MNU, and not a government. That company was the #1 weapons manufacturer in the world. They were researching aliens anatomy to try to find ways to use their gene-encoded weapons. And yes, the guys decided to be 'evil' and kill one with their own weapons (probably to test the weapon's effects on the aliens?).


Elysium questions:

Spoiler

The first part of the movie explains Earth's conditions. The year is around 2125 -so roughly 113 years into the future- and Earth is going to shit due to overpopulation combined with pollution. Genius has nothing to do with living on Elysium, only blood & money; there are even 'smart' people working the engineering lines building robots at the facility that the main protagonist works at. Earth does have a hospital at which the supporting actress works there. It becomes a center plot point that is visited twice during the movie. However, hospitals on Earth have none of the tech that is being horded by the rich/greedy on Elysium.

D9 was about big companies using their position to try to exploit a group unable to help themselves, only to be undone by one of their own employees from the inside out. Good over Evil (but without the Prince, Princess, and Dragon).

Elysium was about totalitarian Governments using their power to keep the poor down and the wealthy into a secluded paradise. A product of the system, a poor person by the name of Max goes about ways of turning the system back on itself so that the Government tools used to keep the poor down are changed so that they in turn help the poor.





On topic of Elysium, does anyone know WHY America came to be? It came to be because the Crown was taxing colony citizens out the ass for the smallest things, the last straw being tea (Boston Tea Party ring a bell, anyone?). The colonist were pissed that their money wasn't really going for "goods", but was tacked on money so that the royal tools in England could have more powdered wigs to wear at the royal ball.

Fast forward 237 years. What is America's state right now? Hmmm...taxes on practically EVERYTHING (if your state doesn't have sales tax, then it has income tax). But, every time a Walmart opens up in your local area, they get tax breaks and other enjoyable 'perks'. Even better is our system REWARDS companies to outsource to other countries for the sake of tax dodging and storing money overseas. Once again people are being pinched of money at every step of their lives for the sake of Governments and rich; Capitalism has basically shot the founding father's idea of a great country in the head, Lincoln style.

 

[crimson sickle2]

*snip

Thanks for the clarification about Elysium and the correction about D9! Though I still can't fathom how Earth has turned to such shit when they have enough resources to build robots, but not enough to build the stuff on Elysium. The fact that there is only one space colony is also confusing, with how nations are now and how boastful the rich are, I figured there would be a space colony for every moon in our solar system before the centennial anniversary of the first one, give or take a few depending on each colony's size of course. I don't really see how the second half of your comment is on topic at all though, it seems like you're just venting about American politics. I agree Elysium is blatantly critical of the country's policies, but do taxes have anything to do with it?