Elysium- Back in 2009 Director Neill Blomkamp came onto the big screen with District 9 and caught just about everyone off guard. Not only was it a great bit of sci-fi action, District 9 packed quite the punch as a twist on apartheid in South Africa and similar historical events.
Elysium takes the same “action with a message” approach but with a far more relevant topic: immigration. Earth has gone to hell and everyone of means escaped to the space station known as Elysium, where money can buy you anything. Example: in home med-stations capable of curing cancer in a matter of moments.
Blomkamp’s years as a 3D animator on shows such as Smallville and Stargate SG-1 have not magically vanished. Elysium is a visual achievement across the board. The overpopulated and dilapidated Earth is a site to behold.
Visuals and creativity are a big part of sci-fi, and while Elysium nails both, it fails in the story department. Protagonist Max (Matt Damon) is merely okay and supported by a cast which never gets fleshed out as much as needed. Love interest, Frey, (Alice Braga) is not so much a character as a motivation for the ex-con and semi-selfish protagonist. Appearing and then inexplicably vanishing makes her development nearly nonexistent. And that’s precisely why the overarching message fails. With little to no character investment, it’s a hollow allegory. The final moments are clearly meant to be emotional, but I sat there questioning “that’s it?”
What I found most interesting about Elysium’s political ramifications was not actually in the movie. It’s the criticisms on the lack of subtlety. Folks, can we really afford to beat around the bush? And why do allegories always have to be subtle? The Crucible is as subtle as Phil Robertson's religious views, but it still receives praise. If you have something important to say, then say it. Be blunt if necessary and, get your point to hit home.
My expectations for Elysium were high- I’ll gladly admit that- and disappointment can often skew one’s vision. There is no mincing of words here. Elysium is slips within the 6.5/10 range. The action has its moments and it can be visually stunning, but the story falls short of driving home what should be a relevant and sympathetic tale.
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug: Often times when a book makes the transition to another medium there are those who criticize because the movie, show, or whatever isn’t an exact retelling. Lord of the Rings fans are notorious for this. Especially in regards to one Tom Bombadil, despite his lack of relevance to the central plot. I for one, am not amongst such a crowd. If it’s good, it’s good. So long as the liberties taken are not so bold you could hardly call it by the same name, I’m not going to cause any fuss. Hell, I rather enjoyed what was added to The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.
So it should be surprising when I say The Desolation of Smaug’s biggest issue is straying too far from the book.
The Hobbit is not a traditional sequel by any stretch of the imagination. Sure, Bilbo’s finding of the ring and subsequent use is important, but it takes a back seat to the real story. That being a tale of adventure and dragon slaying. And there’s the major issue. DoS isn’t quite sure if it’s The Hobbit, or a proper prequel to LotR.
The first third overstays its welcome or is made irrelevant by the lack of a proper conclusion in the remaining time. If you’ve caught any pre-release buzz, obviously Legolas has made his return despite not being in the books.There’s this weird dwarf/elf love triangle between him, Tauriel (another addition), and Kili that only serves to detract from other events. There’s a sizable scene focusing on the orc, Azog, who then disappears well before the halfway point. It’s these inconsistencies which lead to a schizophrenic film, but the real offender is Gandalf’s portions. For much of the movie he spends time trying to piece together Sauron’s return. While initially interesting, there’s a reason why it was never explained what Gandalf is up to in the book. We know this tale. It’s the LotR. If you’ve seen The Fellowship of the Ring, you know Gandalf was hard at work exposing Sauron’s return. Have some faith in the audience to be able to pick up on something so obvious; no need to tell the same story twice.
Once the party arrives at Laketown things are more focused, and a coherent plot actually begins to form. Wouldn't you know it’s because most other nonsense is dropped in favor of actually being a Hobbit movie. Best of all though is Smaug. Bilbo’s initial encounter with the infamous dragon was always my favorite part of the book and it's captured quite well. The cat and mouse conversation is taut as could be. Even the additional action added is enjoyable, as is much of the action of the entire film. Obviously anytime Legolas is on screen is guaranteed to delightfully stabby.
Is The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug bad? No, it’s fairly enjoyable, but nowhere close to the quality of other Tolkien-universe films. There are some major issues I’m sure will continue into the final piece of the trilogy, but they didn’t destroy my interest in seeing things through to the end.
No comments:
Post a Comment