Escape to the Movies: Elysium

[tmande2nd]

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.

 

[RedDeadFred]

A Hollywood triple-A production involving plot elements of class struggle?

Oh, this will get ugly...

Oh it has... I think a lot of people have made a trip over from R&P (I have vowed never to go there but it seems that it has found me here) specifically for this movie. I don't understand why if a movie's message isn't subtle, people immediately think it's shit. Can people really not just go with it and enjoy the movie for what it is? Hell, I didn't agree with a certain part of the message (I'm not going to say which part because, like the R&P forum, someone will jump down my throat over it) but I wasn't going OMG stahp hitting me over the head with this message. Besides, it's not like the movie painted all of the upper class as evil. The President seemed like a fairly amiable guy.

 

[crimson sickle2]

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?

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Nothing on Planes? I wasn't expecting a full review of it, but I thought maybe it would at least get a post credits joke.

I have no interest in seeing Elysium (because I'm poor and have to pick and choose my movies very carefully, I've only gone to see 4 movies so far this year) but I do remember seeing the trailer for this and finding something interesting about it. Glad to know it was alright.

Also does anyone else find it incredibly odd that a lot of the things that people seem to just insult MovieBob over are the same thing that Yahtzee does, but no one seems to complain when he does it, in fact they often celebrate it. Whether it's plugging his book (and hey, the special announcement wasn't just a book plug, guys. It was to plug a special signing, since when is that not allowed?) calling a movie lowest common denominator, using that to insult the audience (how often has Yahtzee actually called people twats or cunts for liking a certain game?) or letting his bias get in the way of things?

If you don't want an opinion based show to be covered in personal opinion, than stop watching it. It's not a hard concept.

Yahtzee is using a persona for comedic value. Bob is just being Bob.

 

[Username Redacted]

We're never gonna get that Battle Angel Alita movie, are we? :'(

Nope This pretty much killed it, just as Promethius killed The Mountains of Madness one.

I wouldn't say never because James Camerson seems like the type to give zero fucks about what others think and/or want. That said it's probably pretty close to never as Avatar made too much money to not try to cash in on. Hell, Cameron's IMDB page has writing credits listed for Avatar's 2-4. -_- I, given the fact that I don't particularly like most of what he's done recently, am not super thrilled that James Cameron is the one holding the rights to Battle Angel.

/sigh! I actually don't mind the idea of Cameron making Battle Angel Alita. Yeah he seems like a bit if a jerk, but the man does have an incredible eye for and timing with these types of movies. And I love that Cameron is one of the last of the big genre filmakers that has not succumbed to washing everything out with blue and orange digital color correction. Love or hate Avatar for the acting dialog and story, but the filmmaking in it is spectacular.

I cry because it will at a minimum be years before we see such a movie. Can you imagine if it could be in production now using the girl from Pacific Rim? Or the chick that played Yukio in The Wolverine?

Unless a movie's special effects are shitty enough to actually be a serious distraction then I don't really care how pretty something is. 'What Dreams May Come' is one of the most gorgeous movies I've ever seen but it's story is such garbage that I've never managed to finish watching it. Also looking at James Cameron's IMDB page it's been 19 years since he wrote, directed or produced anything that I give a fuck about (True Lies, 1994) so I'm not exactly a big fan of his work.

Regarding the casting of Alita from what I heard was that the plan was to use the technology that eventually went into making the blue wankers in Avatar to have her be a digital character and then to have pretty much everyone else played by real people. So no worries (probably) about what actress is cast for Alita rather hope that whoever they have doing motion capture is good at their job.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

I literally could not watch that review because I can't handle the Bawstin accent.

I appreciate the Boston accent's return. It's a great accent, and it's way better than when he tries to cover it up.

What I did not appreciate was that the "special announcement" touted at the beginning of the episode just turned out to just be a book signing. Did we really need to be told twice that Weirs Beach, New Hampshire is beautiful? Does he get paid by the New Hampshire Tourism Board to say that?

 

[Aardvaarkman]

When I first heard about this movie, I'd considered going to see it. However, the more I hear about it, the less I want to, because it sounds like it's going to be Avatar levels of heavy-handed, left-wing preaching about illegal immigration and ecenomic disparity among social classes. God forbid they take it with an even hand and, I dunno, handle both sides fairly with a message like "some say the economic system is unfair and keeps people from making their lives better in order to benefit the privileged few...but others think that you can get ahead and the fact that some don't succeed is just an unfortunate, but unavoidable fact of life and trying to homogenize prosperity is going to be about taking away what some have rightfully earned and giving it to those that haven't earned it."

It's sad that I think I can say without fear of disagreement that we're not likely to see a movie with that kind of message anytime soon. Instead we're going to keep seeing movies where the message is where the only people who are successful and rich are the dishonest and those born into privilege and that successful, wealthy people have no virtues because they're all selfish and cruel.

Possibly because that message would make no sense? The vast majority of the wealthy have not worked hard to earn it, they simply inherited it because they were born in the right place at the right time. And they do tend to be selfish and cruel to those who they consider lesser than them.

The majority of the the world's population is poor, and they work a lot harder than the entitled wealthy people do. While the wealthy are actively trying trying to hold them down. Have you ever seen how most of the more fortunate members of "society" treat the service workers who are vital to their indulgent lifestyles? You almost definitely have, but probably never noticed.

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

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

I saw it this afternoon. It was pretty decent. Very similar to District 9 in tone and feel. I'd personally give it a 7/10. It's a little self-righteous, it's a little light on the 'action' for a summer action movie, and I didn't think the political message it was trying to get across was all that relevant in the end. I still enjoyed the movie though.

 

[Luminous Chroma]

You know -- and this is just based on the information presented in the review -- if "the one percent" can just up and move to a space colony removed from the rest of humanity where they never have to work again, and the result is that everything goes to hell down below... doesn't that kind of validate the ideas presented in, of all things, Atlas Shrugged? You know, where all the rich people pack up and move to Rapture Galt's Gulch and everyone else is like "Oh noes, the people who actually knew how to run things are all gone, whatever shall we do?" because apparently "the 99 percent" are all idiots who need to be led by the hand by their, ahem, intellectual superiors.

OT, but I'd like to comment on the reference to Atlas Shrugged because, as usual, it's being misrepresented.

The setting in Atlas is a semi-dystopian world where things are going steadily to hell. Those responsible for the dystopian status are, by and large, the wealthy and powerful. The problems arise not because they're wealthy, but because they're greedy, selfish, cowardly and short-sighted. Those who suffer the most are the middle and lower classes. Several of the wealthy characters are vile enough to intentionally inflict misery upon the less fortunate in order break their spirits, strengthening their own power and influence as a result.

The characters who flee to Galt's Gulch are inventors, industrialists, artists, actors, and assorted others who want nothing more than to lead free, productive lives. Not all of them are rich or even unusually intelligent. They aren't the so-called One Percent, they don't rule vast empires or command armies of downtrodden slaves. They're normal people who decided not to live beneath the heel of a jackboot. By escaping to the Gulch, they've effectively gone on strike from the corrupted world. Those left in the world outside Galt's Gulch are encouraged, by John Galt himself, to go on a similar strike. By doing so, they're able to force the corrupted infrastructure to collapse, paving the way for reconstruction.

The point of Atlas is not, as so many people seem to think, that the rich are inherently superior.
The point is not that poor people are stupid and require the rich to lead them by the hand.
The point is not that life is only worthwhile if you're rich.

The point is that freedom and individual rights are the cornerstones of life and happiness, regardless of how much wealth they produce. Yes, a lot of the characters are rich, but that's because their professions (industrialists, physicists, philosophers, politicians) provide a necessary vantage point for what's happening to the world over the course of the story. You could tell the same story from a ground-level, as Elysium partially does, but it wouldn't be as effective.

 

[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.