Elysium

Matt Damon stars in the Sci-fi/political thriller Elysium, Neill Blomkamp's follow up to District 9, along with Jodie Foster as Elysium's Secretary Delacourt and Sharlto Copley as the main villain Kruger. Is Elysium on par with Oscar nominated District 9? Absolutely NOT! Not even close but it is still a solid sci/fi entertainment. It is a more conventional film than its predecessor, which I was not expecting from Blomkamp.

The film starts of very cliché and gave me some eye roll moments but it quickly picks itself up from reaching into mediocrity. They way it does this is by evoking political messages through out the film in relevance with today's society. Questioning our handling with immigration, military power, our health care. Which I found to be important in this film. Obviously me and Blomkamp share each others political stance. For anyone else it might seem like its trying to oversell its message.

I felt most of the cast were very under used. Jodie Foster's character really didn't have much to work with. She was just there to move the plot forward. Matt Damon served his purpose as the lead but by no means of the imagination is this one of his best performances. They were all over shadowed by Sharlto Copley. My God, is he great as Kruger! Right away we are introduced into this provocative-sociopath with no regard for human life. The story really needed this kind of menacing character. He is by far the film's best positive. Another negative aspect of this film would be its pacing. When we are given emotional scenes they don't stay long enough to settle and doesn't give that emotional impact you were hoping for.

Like District 9 it delivers on the the beautiful imagery. Using the very best Weta Workshop has to offer. From its big guns to the human-like robots, to the space station of Elysium. The action set pieces were just as exciting as its predecessor. The film really manages to capture all its budget on screen. My biggest issue comes from the excessive use of shaky cam. It was used when the characters were simply walking to the action sequences. I felt ninety percent of this film was shaky cam. Which got me a little dizzy since I ,unfortunately, got to sit in the very front of the theater. That might have something to do with it as well.

Neill Blomkamp has established once again that he can compete with the best Directors of the genre films. Elysium shows more flaws than his first film but they are overwhelmed by its positive aspects, to me at least. It was not a disappointment and it was a solid popcorn entertainment and a smarter than average sci/fi film.

Good surprise that this Elysium, after the promising District 9. Neill Blomkamp confirms his know-how in the framework of a US blockbuster. Here is still at work an interesting subject, with contemporary resonances. The film is also beautiful, whether it is the shots of the earth with this devastated mega-city where poverty and assembly line work reigns, or the shots of Elysium, the space station for the rich who live in a sanitized world, filled with greenery, where there is no more disease, and who exploit the poor earthlings for their profit.

The subject is not original and has been treated many times, but here the production benefits from the latest digital techniques: on this level the film is a success. And the direction of the actors is also very good: Matt Damon is very good. Sharlto Copley is still impressive in a crazy role.

Good surprise then that this dystopia is far above the average of the basic science-fiction super production (I include superhero movies as science-fiction).

Elysium

Elysium is at one point disappointing and at the other it is fine. It's a Dystopia which does not look like it could be too far away from the present. The longer you think about it, Elyisum already happens everywhere, and Neill Blomkamp is a South African native, so it becomes clear, that the message is about poverty and money in the future. The difficulty making such a future logic and scientifically well, is obvious, and it is not completely convincing. There lies the main problem of a sci-fi movie. You make either a starwarsy fairy tale or you have to make it very, very believable like the director's much acclaimed "District 9".

Plotwise it reminded me of "Wall-E" (which was better), "Oblivion", "Escape from NY" and some anime type plots . The story was very predictable from the beginning and for my taste, it could have been made completely PG 18 in terms of violence, to make it darker and more grim. Now, it looks a bit indecisive. The actors were fine, especially the less known, like Copley, Luna and Moura. Jodie Foster is great here, reminded me a bit of Tilda Swintons performance in "Michael Clayton". Matt Damon is a good actor, but he's a bit overused lately. In comparison to "Pacific Rim" it's clear, why the audience is more happy with Del Toros skyscraper-style movie: it's pure entertainment, reality is far away and the violence is very mild - you hate it or you love it.

To sum it up, I was well entertained by this. I liked the strong hints of real present problems. I disliked the predictable way the story unfolds, the overall mixture of action and violence and some illogic details. I definitely want to see more movies by Blomkamp and so it gets my 7.0.

* No middle class just poor v rich.

* Enslavement but not quite. Society is run by a combination of warlords and CEOs. Zero political consciousness.

* Gig economy assassins. But even they live in squalor.

* Cyberpunk + trash aesthetic. Iraq war aesthetic across the whole world.

* Nothing works because why would you want it to, when you're stuck below? Meanwhile super advanced microchips.

* The robots while they don't violate Asimov's principles, they're really passive-aggressive and catty.

* The ghetto robot interface surgery. High tech microchip heists. Hacker culture is the one thing that did advance but they're limited by seemingly 1980s computers they have to scrap together.

* The comedy of Matt Damon's leading man stoicism reacting to all of this zaniness, demoralization, and hopelessness.

* (The big thing the film is missing a VR component to make life bearable below, giving some people the sedative illusion of a false Elysium. Like... WHAT IF you could wear a goggle over your eyes that shows the same busted up world except everything is green and beautiful, and everyone has deepfake smiles.)

* Most interesting is the poor v rich spend all their time plotting and fending each other off. Consider the discomfort that both their views are each other.

* Dysgenics on Elysium. Ie, it's not the geniuses who built Elysium but their grandkids who grew up there ruling it, making its destruction inevitable. 'Good times create weak men' etc...

* There is still spiritual consciousness but only below.

* Above is no utopia. They are not particularly more educated or gifted, but susceptible to primitive coups, corruption, bureaucracy. You kind of feel bad for them as being born there is being trapped, they're unprepared for any sort of reality.

* Opposite down below the most resilient survive and scrap by through friendship and brotherhood. Creates some kind of American revolution feeling.

I feel that there should be a series with this universe that explores the down vs up, because they struck prophetic gold on the whole thing. Plus it is epic. The flaws that were glaring back in 2013 feel minor compared to how incredible the production and concept is.

This sort of thing is already happening on earth, and has been for a long time, the wealthy elite fencing themselves off from the poorer in society, and hoarding all the wealth for themselves. So this is a very real possibility.

The film is excellent, with great performances from Matt Damon and Sharlto Copley in particular, Jodie Foster is good if somewhat unused, as is William Fichtner, heavily using CGI though, but it looks very realistic CGI.

Well directed and paced, and action scenes done well, overall a very good Sci-Fi movie.

The current 6.6 average rating seems a bit low to me, it is worth an 8 out of 10 at least.