REACH FOR THE STARS... "ELYSIUM"

I wonder if Neill Blomkamp was at all nervous when he rolled Elysium out? I don’t say this because he is (or may have been) incompetent as a director. He is not. We all saw that as clear as day in District 9. In fact that is, in a nutshell, the problem. District 9 was categorically awesome. Most of the planet agreed. Anything he did after that was bound to be compared to it, especially since they have, visually speaking at least, such similar premises. And I mean heck, the similarities are not just visual, if you turned your head and squinted slightly, you could argue that he had simply replaced the aliens of District 9 with “non-citizens” in this film. Now I’m not saying that Elysium is a bad film, it definitely is not. But I do wish he had done it BEFORE District 9, not after…

But what is this Elysium of which we all speak? Well, in the late 21^st century, the world has been devastated by disease and poverty. So much so that the rich and wealthy (the 1%, as it were) have moved to a space station in the sky called Elysium. Here the elite live the high life (see what I did there ?) and enjoy many benefits, not least that of an almost magical medical system which allows them to stay young and beautiful almost indefinitely. I mean, it’s not immortality, but it’s darn close. Darn close. But all that is just on Elysium you see. On earth, people get ill, suffer and die the way they always have – we can’t have the plebs getting their dirty paws on this technology, right?  Anyway, Max (Matt Damon) is an ex-con and orphan who lives on earth and can only dream  of ever going to Elysium one day (because, as you may have guessed, it ain’t all that easy to become a citizen of Elysium).  But one day, just as he is genuinely trying to turn his life around a freak accident at work leaves him with a matter of days to live… There is one thing that can save Max now : the medical attention available on Elysium. With days left to live, Max is ready to take on any risk to get to Elysium… But his efforts will start a chain reaction that will threaten to shift the entire balance of the world he lives in…

Now, this film gets a lot of things right, I have to say, because Blomkamp is, like I said, a very talented and capable director. I especially love the fact that we have a strong female villain in the shape of Jodie Foster. She plays Delacourt (and I don’t know if it’s a dig in the ribs to old conventions or a genuine re-birth of the phenomenon but our elitist villains are mostly French or French-speaking) the Defense secretary who has her eyes firmly glued to the president’s seat. In the proceedings Delacourt has what we generally term “male characteristics” – she is ambitious, decisive and although she is up to her neck in political scheming (but that’s more because she is a politician and less because she is a woman if you see what I mean) she does not so much as bat an eyelid as she orders two shuttles full of innocent civilians (innocent civilians who are trying to sneak over the border into Elysium… Oh wait does that remind you of something?) to be shot and annihilated. So brownie points for reversing gender roles.

But now onto the social commentary. Because this is mainly what Blomkamp is “all about”.  But the film would have fared so much better if Blomkamp had actually done something artistic to put it across as opposed to make something that very strongly resembles his own rather brilliant previous film and a typical Hollywood action  / sci-fi film and tack on some social commentary. Ok, I’m being a bit harsh here but seriously… There is virtually nothing original about the film at all… It even has a surrogate family unit:  Max, his love interest and her daughter. I mean ok, fair dues, the family unit does NOT come together at the end and the villain is the victim of her own political scheming and not our hero but still… Yes there are some very good original notes in there but at the end of the day I saw this as Blomkamp taking a huge step back. And given the success of District 9, I don’t understand why… I mean never mind how much the “world” in Elysium resembles the shanty towns in District 9. Never mind the fact that they repeated the marketing tactics they used for District 9 too… (You must have seen the “no aliens” stickers when district 9 came out right? Did you catch the spoof ads for vacancies in Elysium? I saw a few on the tube myself ) Do you know what it felt like to me? Blomkamp reckoned we “didn’t get” his message the first time. So he “dumbed it down” and re-stated it. And, much like watery soup, it still tasted ok but for those of us who were a fan of the real thing we kinda wanted a decent meal. And we were kinda looking forward to tasting something new. I mean the least Blomkamp could have done is to leave the soup well alone and wait a bit if he couldn’t think of something new… Ok I may have run a little too far with this analogy but you get the picture… 

TOE-CURLING TERROR :"PANIC ROOM"

Ok, embarrassing confession time. I almost saw this film in cinema years ago. I walked out in the middle. It is one of about 3 films I have walked out of, because , a true film fan as it were, I am always curious as to what is going to happen in the end, even though the film is not “going well” for me. I remember I was with friends at the time; we all seem to have agreed… Although to be fair, I don’t exactly remember what our objection was. But at a guess, it may just have been that the tension just got to us. This, people, is one of the most “toe-curling” films I have watched in a very, very long time… But then again, with David Fincher at the helm, I honestly cannot expect anything less.

Newly divorced Meagan (Jodie Foster) and her sassy teenage daughter Sarah (Kristen Steward – otherwise known as Bella Swan, this was long before the Twilight saga of course) have just moved into their new home – and what a home it is too! Snapped up at a bargain, it is a three story house that once belonged to an eccentric millionaire. It comes equipped with all the mod-cons but also an elevator and a Panic Room. Now for those of us who didn’t know, a panic room is a high security room you can lock yourself in if intruders break in. There is no way in for the intruders and you have a secure line, not connected to the main landline in the home, you can call the police with. Except of course, if you are Meagan and forget to hook up the line. This does not come in handy at all when, on their first night there, intruders break into the house and Meagan and Sarah, terrified, lock themselves in the panic room. There are, however, two problems. Firstly, Sarah is diabetic and there is no insulin in the panic room either so unless they can somehow get out  and get to her medication, she will die. Secondly, these aren’t any old robbers who will just go through the family possessions and leave. They are looking for something very specific, and as luck would have it this thing is hidden in… You guessed it. The panic room.

As a side note, I just want to add that the intruders are played by Jared Leto, Forrest Whitaker and Dwight Yoakam (country music star and a damn good actor in case you hadn’t heard of him).  Now, if there is one thing Fincher is an absolute master of, it is thrillers. The tension creeps up on you so quickly and so inexorably, you are on edge pretty much from beginning to end, even in the sequences when you can pretty much guess what will happen next because, you know… I mean what if it doesn’t? This is compounded by Fincher’s mastery of the “in the meanwhile” type shots. You know, when you are told and shown, in various ways what two different groups in the film are doing at the same instant, that kind of thing always gives me the chills, especially if it is used as well as Fincher uses it. I watched this film as part of a personal project more than anything else and never, ever, in all my born days did I expect to enjoy it so much. It left me, as most Fincher films tend to, mentally exhausted and in need of watching something you know, simple. Easy to follow. Just to rest my brain – and my cardio vascular system. If you want a movie to make your evening fly by, this is the one folks – go right for it!

A MATTER OF LIFE, DEATH AND "A VERY LONG ENGAGEMENT"

I know we did say that the theme of this week was death. And yet, I hear you cry, this is a romance! What the blazes is it doing here? Well, I reckon it fits. First of all, a lot of it is set during the First World War, in the trenches. And honestly, history teaches us that it doesn’t get much more death filled than that. But apart from that, this is the story of Mathilde, who refuses to believe that her fiancée is dead – even though there are multiple clues to the contrary. So it kind of fits. Death is constantly present, hovering over us, even though the theme of the film is love. Does it prevail or not, however? Ha ha. As if I’d tell you… =) For Mathilde and Manech it has been true love from the very start. Since they were children. So when the authorities come to fetch him away to go to the Somme in 1917, it is truly heart-wrenching but they know their love is strong and will keep them going over distances and difficulties. Come 1919, Manech has not returned. Official reports make it quite clear he is dead. Soldiers claim to have witnessed his death – or something pretty close at any rate – as he was left to die with four other men in no man’s land for self-inflicted wounds. Mathilde, however, knows otherwise. She and Manech are connected. If he were dead, she would know. Thus starts an amazing journey, searching for the truth. Mathilde seems to be seeking to overcome death itself but the question is, is she simply being overly hopeful? Or is her heart actually leading her to a truly amazing truth? This film is another brilliant example of the story, the director and the actress fitting together almost perfectly. Audrey Tatou, who a few years before the film had carved out a bit of immortality for herself as Amelie is extraordinary. The role suits her very well, as she needs to be a bit “extraordinary” like Amelie, yet Tatou manages very well to combine this quality with a more serious note that is demanded by the film. In this 20th century fairy tale, she is a very realistic and very believable, sympathetic character. As for Jean-Pierre Jeunet, the director, I am well on the way to becoming one of his greatest fans. What I admire him for most is his ability to give a fairy-tale / other-worldly feel to every single set he touches. And he makes it work. It is the same quality but slightly different every time, and in my book it is this ability to keep the basic quality while adapting ever so slightly to fit the situation that makes an artist great and Jeunet (and Tatou incidentally) have this quality by the bucket-load. We are all told how impossible to imagine the horrors of trench warfare are. I think this is exactly why Jeunet is such a good choice as the director of this film. He is able, I would say, to convey the “unrealness” of it all without falling into melodrama or clichés. The trenches he creates, the story he tells are so horrible they are actually completely believable. And probably, though very few people alive today would know for sure, quite close to what actually happened. In the same way, the love between Mathilde and Manech is so extraordinary it is quite believable. After all, falling in love is one of the most unbelievable things possible. And this is possibly why it is so hard to find really good quality love films that are not “gooey” or clichés. This, I am glad to say, is one of them. P.S. I had spotted the odd celebrity face here and there throughout the film but it was only when I was preparing to publish this and saw the whole list "en masse" as it were that I realised how monumental the cast actually was. See how many of them you can spot, some of them are just side characters :)

"CARNAGE" IN ALL BUT THE PHYSICAL WAY

As you know, if I’m doing a mixed bag, I try and vary the contents as much as possible. You know, make it pretty much something for everyone. That’s why I was glad when this one crossed my path. I’ve always admired Polanski as an artist, even though I have to admit there is a very questionable side to him as a person. But like I’ve always said, leave that to one side and concentrate on the art, because no matter what you think of him as a person, he is one HECK of a director. A fact that he has proved once again with this film. It all starts out as a tiny incident really. Zachary and Ethan are two little boys who have a fight in the playground. It ends a bit rougher than expected, Zachary hitting Ethan in the face with a stick, resulting in Ethan losing a tooth and sustaining damage to a second tooth. The parents get together to sort this situation out; they want to be “adult” about the whole affair. But what starts off as a very civilized conversation between two – admittedly different – couples; soon takes a very strange turn. As time goes on though, it becomes obvious that it is not really so much about the differences in the couple’s lifestyles. True, Ethan’s parents - Nancy and Alan Cpwan (the legendary Kate Winslet and Christopher Waltz) are a power couple, both firmly ensconced in the business world and Zachary’s parents, Penelope and Michael Longstreet (the equally legendary Jodie Foster and John C. Reily) are the more liberal writer /artist types but this in itself is not the problem. The problem is much deeper – not between the couples but in the couples. As the tense situation continues fault lines begin to appear in the first perfectly smooth veneers and dirty laundry within both couples, along with the real faces under the masks begin to get aired. Which is when the real carnage begins… Ok, first up a technical note or two about this film. If you settle down to watch it you will very quickly pick up on the fact that it is actually adapted from a play (God of Carnage by Yasmina Reza to be precise). Thus it uses a minimal number of settings; in fact 90% of the film takes place in the Longstreet’s living room and the whole story is driven mainly by dialogue, not action. Now you may find that daunting as a film initially. But luckily the dialogue is very witty and both easy and enjoyable to follow. And plus of course there is the difference made by the actors actually delivering the lines – I mean take a look at that cast! The concentration on dialogue is, in my opinion, a good thing here because it brings so much great talent to light in the shape of the four actors. Plus, another good thing if the idea of a dialogue driven play /film daunts you is that it is not actually that long – so you don’t have that much to be scared of if you’re not used to the whole thing. But honestly, I reckon anyone with any kinda taste for cinema will enjoy this one. It is very witty, very clever, ok, admittedly it’s as dark as pitch as far as comedy goes but hey… It’s also a very good consideration on adult relationships and life. You really do not want to miss it.

ANOTHER MIXED BAG: TAXI DRIVER

This was a funny film to watch… Almost unrecognizably young Robert De Niro, Jodie Foster on the verge of “being discovered” and Martin Scorsese doing his thing”. Though, as I write this another thing struck me, this was all thirty years ago of course, Martin Scorsese was pretty young too… I’m sure he hoped this film would become legendary but I wonder if he had any concept as to the legend it would become… Hmm, I’m sure there’s a quote on that somewhere… ; ) This was another film I kept meaning to watch but like so many of the great classics fell through black holes… I sincerely hope you haven’t taken as long as I have to get round to this one, and if you have, now is a good time to make a detour…
Travis Brigs (Robert De Niro) is (as the name of the film suggests) a Taxi driver. He is a taxi driver from choice, not necessity. He can’t sleep at night and therefore he works the night shift. He keeps to himself but he has strong ideas, like most people who are 26. He doesn’t really care who stops him but he hates the “scum” that dirty the city and hopes a rain will come to “wash it all away”. He’s slightly obsessive about things (like a girl who works at a party campaign headquarters he falls in love with) and slightly restless (he wants to “really do something” but is not sure what) but he’s basically a normal guy doing a dead end job. But time goes by, his ideas start getting bigger and bigger and when on top of all that eccentric patrons start giving him strange ideas as well, Travis is pushed well and truly to the edge. And if his basic good nature (buried deep beneath various obsessions and strange thoughts) keeps him from falling over entirely, it isn’t going to take much to push him over either…
“Are you talking to me? I don’t see anyone else in the room, are you talking to me?” we’ve all heard this one somewhere, right? I mean, you might not even know which film it’s from but you’ll know the line and you’ll know it was Robert De Niro. Funnily enough, that wasn’t my favorite moment of the film… No, I like the bit right at the end, when he pretends to shoot himself in the head three times. A wonderful touch, seeing as you physically CANNOT shoot yourself in the head three times. I can’t quite describe how it made me feel but it was cross between admiration and being spooked out… And then of course there’s Robert De Niro. We see a lot of him in Hollywood blockbuster romantic-comedies these days (no offence but I’m guessing the only purpose they actually serve in his career is paying the bills) but it’s great to see the master at work. And of course to see true talent in action… Travis’s part contains a delicate balance of psychology and action and De Niro pulls both of brilliantly… Jodie Foster (who appears later on in the plot) is also good and I am always slightly “creeped out” to see actors and actresses we know today when they were so young… Taxi driver, a stab at society and a cry from a generation who was looking for its place in the world… Worth watching more than once, this one…

THE ACCUSED

Ok, now for a bit of time travel. All the way back to 1988. Oscars ®. Ok, anyone know who won Best Actress that year? No cheating mind! Yes? No? Give up? Jodie Foster. One of my favorite actresses by far, so naturally I was curious. A pretty interesting story too – so I decided to take a look at it…
The afore-mentioned story goes as follows: Sarah Tobias (Jodie Foster) is a waitress who lives in a trailer park with her drug-dealer boyfriend. One night, after a particularly unpleasant fight with said boyfriend she goes to a bar to chat to a friend and blow off some steam. At the bar she has a few drinks, smokes some grass and flirts a little. However her antics take a wrong turn and she ends up being gang-raped. She runs to the police determined to drag the men through the courts, however there is a problem. The men in question are “fraternity” guys with “connections”. She is a penniless waitress who was drunk on the night and who is known to usually have a few drinks too many. Thus the D.A.’s office, that is meant to protect her, doesn’t consider her a “strong case” and will not stand by her like they should. Sarah, along with the assistant D.A. assigned to the case must use courage and wits if she wants to stand up and be heard..
Now, the story is your common or garden courtroom drama. It’s interesting as I think it gives an accurate enough picture of the system and a woman’s place in the system in the 80’s. Speaking of the 80’s the film is sooo 80’s you can’t help but notice it. The characters. The way the story progresses. The editing. The rapists and the “spectators”. Dear Lord, the hair and costumes... But what makes this otherwise rather ordinary film extraordinary is Jodie Foster. Her performance as Sarah Tobias, down and out as far as society is concerned but determined to have what is owed to her simply shines through. Sarah is not a character you can necessarily “bond with” that easily... But of course the storyline and Ms Foster’s extraordinary performance make her entirely real...
However, I must hasten to add that one Jodie Foster does not make a masterpiece. The film is good but not brilliant. It’s still pretty damn exciting though – definitely make the time for it...