Category Archives: Matt Damon

Movie Review: Elysium

Leave a reply

Futuristic sci-fi films wouldn’t be much fun if they imagined the best possible scenario for the future. “Elysium” might be one of the bleakest versions of Earth’s future shown on screen.

It’s approaching the end of the 21st century, and Earth has become extremely overpopulated. Mankind is plagued by disease and pollution. Los Angeles, where the film is primarily set, looks like a third world country. The sleek, electronic buildings that lit up futuristic Los Angeles of “Blade Runner” are nowhere to be found. The tallest buildings we see are nothing but carved out skyscrapers now filled with shantytown homes.


Not everyone is doomed, though. A select few get to go live in Elysium, which is a utopian space station suspended above Earth that looks like a giant recreation of Beverly Hills. Everyone on Earth watches Elysium in wonder while nobody in Elysium can bother to ever look down at the place they once called home.

Max (Matt Damon), who for some reason is the protagonist, dreamed about going up to Elysium ever since he was a little boy. Now, he’s a grown up and he’s still stuck on Earth. He’s one of the lucky few to have a job, which he trudges to everyday while getting pick pocketed by a swarm of people speaking assorted languages (mainly Spanish).

“Elysium” is no easy place to get to. The hardline Secretary of Defense (Jodie Foster) won’t let any illegal civilian step aboard the space station. She is so insistent on this that in a particularly disturbing scene, she releases a series of bombs on a group of ships filled with innocent people.

The space station is almost too good to be true. Not only does it look like the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, but it even has machines that can heal anything from broken bones to cancer. Max gets lucky and ends up in the middle of a freak nuclear accident that gives him only a few days to live, unless he goes to Elysium. Now, he has a real excuse to get up there.

“Elysium” is the second film from South African director Neil Blomkamp. Blomkamp wowed me in 2009 with his debut feature “District 9.” “Elysium” is not perfect, but it’s not fair to call it a sophomore slump. It is filled with great ideas that unfortunately aren’t fully elaborated on. The most disappointing part is to see this nearly fully realized world go to waste. The film is called “Elysium” and Max spends so much time wanting to get there, yet so little is seen of it. Also, the idea of a Los Angeles that looks more like Mumbai is fascinating to me and I would have loved more of it, or even a more expanded view of what the rest of the world looked like at that time. A futurist should be as particular about details as a historian is.

Perhaps some of the universe building troubles stem from the story. “Elysium” is bogged down by a heist plot that boils down to computer hacking on about the same level of silliness as “Independence Day.”* What made a dystopia film like “Children of Men” so great is that exploration of the world was part of the story. “Elysium” limits itself to cold, gray corridors and the insides of rocket ships.** Not to mention that for an action film, “Elysium” has very little action.

Everyone involved in “Elysium” is doing the best they can, especially the actors, who deal with some weak material. Max feels like a generic action hero when Damon is capable of so much more. Not to mention, his love of Frey (Alice Braga), which should be the heart of the film, ends up being quite hollow. Yet, Jodie Foster manages to do a lot with a little and ejects her villain with icy apathy towards the struggles of others by using so few words. The real show stealing performance though comes from Sharlto Copley as the wild card Kruger. This is a complete turnaround from his aloof hero in “District 9.” He crafts a villain who is sometimes funny but can also be frightening just by the way he looks at you. If anyone from this proved to be leading man material, its Copley.

Looking back, “Elysium” at least gives you enough to paint a decent idea of what humanity is like at the time. You just have to look very closely at the small snippets. The best example comes after Max is arrested by two robot cops and then goes to police headquarters, only to go and talk to a voice box. This felt farcical yet totally plausible. “Elysium” shows a future where people are fractured because of lack of communication, whether that’s because technology has replaced most jobs or rich white people have decided to create their own planet. Had “Elysium” explored this more it would have transcended originality and been flat out revelatory. Instead, like many other blockbusters that try really hard to be important, “Elysium” just ends up with a jumbled message.

*I call it silly just because “Independence Day” came out at a very different time for computer technology. Let me just clarify how much I love “Independence Day.”
**No offense to rocket ships.

Movie Review: True Grit

2 Replies

“True Grit” begins like any other Coen Brothers movie: with a pretty image set to mysterious background narration. Is this going to be another typical Coen experience? Not exactly.

“True Grit,” the rare western that actually takes place during the days of the wild west, is told in a fittingly traditional fashion. This is quite a radical departure for a pair of directors known for constantly pushing the storytelling envelope. However, that is part of the reason this film feels so interesting. Despite being a remake of an adaptation of a book, it still manages to remain unique.
I may not be the best person to review this movie, as I haven’t seen the original version of “True Grit,” nor have I read the book. Maybe that won’t matter, as those who have seen the original film claims it has little to no resemblance to the latest version.
Regardless of the version, “True Grit” takes place in what looks like somewhere between Colorado and Montana in the late 1800s. Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld) is a young girl looking to hunt down Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin), the man who ruthlessly killed her father. To pull this off, she hires Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges), a one-eyed, former U.S. Marshall with a reputation for shooting things and chugging whiskey. Accompanying Cogburn for the kill is the often hot-headed, yet wise LaBoeuf (Matt Damon), who’s name shouldn’t be confused with the name of a certain actor from “Even Stevens.”

But, I digress. While Cogburn and LaBoeuf set off to find Chaney, they reluctantly let Mattie join. What follows is a long journey through the American West that leads to much danger and self-discovery.


It is very easy to go ahead and dismiss “True Grit,” as many others have been doing. Most say the Coen Brothers are capable of much better than this, and that is true. They are capable of making films that become cult classics, and others that go onto win Best Picture. “True Grit” will probably do neither. However, that doesn’t stop it from being a solid, highly entertaining movie.

While “True Grit” wasn’t as amazing a collaboration between the Coen Brothers and Jeff Bridges can be, it reminded me how much I missed the western genre. The genre hasn’t necessarily died, it has just gone in a new direction, often telling tales that take place in the modern day (i.e. “No Country for Old Men,” “The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada”). There hasn’t been a truly great “old” western since “Unforgiven” in 1992. Perhaps the success could spur a much needed rebirth in the genre.


What I found interesting about “True Grit,” something one would rarely see in a western outside of the 1960s, was some subtle commentary, or at least cognizance, of racism. There definitely wasn’t supposed to be a big point made out of it, but it’s good to see every once in a while the acknowledgment of Native Americans, and how poorly they were treated.

Despite how different this film is from other Coen Brothers films, this is unmistakably their film. There is that distinct focus on the landscape, highlighted by Roger Deakins’s breathtaking cinematography. There is also that attention to the little details that distinguish them from all other filmmakers. This is one of the few westerns I’ve seen where the characters actually talk appropriately for the time period. Those accents may be impossible to understand, but a little historical accuracy never hurt anyone.

A great Coen movie is also about its characters. And that, “True Grit” has a lot of. Despite what the commercials will make you think, Rooster Cogburn isn’t quite the main character. The film is really about Mattie Ross. Without the right actress, Ross could’ve just come off as whiny and annoying. But in her debut, Steinfeld nailed it. In a way, she resembles the performance of Hit-Girl in this year’s “Kick-Ass”: she is smarter and more skilled than her superiors but in a way, overcompensating for her young age. In a world full of illiterate southerners, her knowledge outshines everyone around her. She is this film’s Marge Gunderson.


I’m sure though that the reason any devoted Coen Brothers fan saw this movie was for Jeff Bridges, seeing as the last time the directors and the actor collaborated, “The Big Lebowski” was created. “True Grit” lacks the wit and twisty intelligence “Lebowski” offers. Nonetheless, it proves that this is a collaboration that works. The directors have a certain vision in mind, and the actor follows it perfectly.

Bridges shows in “True Grit” that he is one of those actors that has gotten even better with age. In “True Grit,” he shows what kind of performance he is most capable of: the outsider who is aware of his isolation from society, but celebrates it while ignoring all of his possible flaws. In his transition from Dude to Rooster, he trades joints for rolled up tobacco, and has no problem doing so.

Really the only performance I had any problem with in “True Grit” was that of Damon. He is usually a fine actor; one who is always watchable. However, it seems like here he was barely trying to pull of an accent. That is a shame, because when he gets into his roles, he can be truly extraordinary (see “The Informant”).

I want to celebrate “True Grit” for what it is rather than what it isn’t: an extremely solid piece of entertainment that may not outshine the rest of these directors’ body of work, but certainly outshines many of its contemporaries. I am not going to forget “True Grit” for a few small things; like that little amazing scene when Mattie bravely crosses the river. It is also hard to forget the weird things, such as the man dressed in full bear costume, or the other man who communicates through farm animal sounds. Why were these things included in the film? Who knows. The best parts of any Coen Brothers film are the parts left unexplained.

Movie Review: Invictus

Leave a reply

After seeing “Invictus,” I thought of a scene in “Barton Fink” where a greedy studio executive informs Fink his wrestling picture won’t work because the real drama takes place in the ring, not outside of it.

Somehow, “Invictus” manages to strike a rare balance of both; making the action in the story as intense on the action on the field. Then again, I expect nothing less from Clint Eastwood.
“Invictus” comes entirely from a true story. It is slightly a biopic on Nelson Mandela (Morgan Freeman). However, it’s not a rise and fall story of his entire life. Instead, it tells of the years when he became president of a post-Apartheid South Africa. Once Apartheid ended, all of the country’s racial tensions had not ended. To reunite the torn country, he looks for help in the most unlikely place: South Africa’s rugby team. In order to reunite the country, he befriends the team’s white captain (Matt Damon) and inspires the team to win the World Cup. Here is where sports and social conflict collide.
You could call “Invictus” a mix of two very different genres: inspiring biopic, and inspiring sports flick. It manages to be unconventional, but not necessarily groundbreaking in both. As a biopic, it manages to show its subject as an amazing person without necessarily deifying it. As a sports flick, it manages to be uplifting without being schmaltzy. Of course, this shouldn’t come as a surprise, as the film is directed by Eastwood.
Even at the age of 79, Eastwood remains as alive and energetic as he was at 29. Here, he shows off his talent for amazing, simple human interactions. Some philosophical life conversations that take place in the movie feel similar to those in say, “Million Dollar Baby.” Meanwhile, the brilliantly shot rugby sequences feel as engrossing and brutal as a real game of rugby. Eastwood puts in the same energy of mastering the technique of a rugby game as he did with a battle sequence in “Letters from Iwo Jima,” a boxing match in “Baby,” and a shootout between gunslingers in “Unforgiven.” Simply, this man can do anything.
Another man who can do (or in the case, play) just about anything is Freeman. He’s the first person that comes to mind when I think of a good candidate for Mandela, and here he proves why. He doesn’t just play Mandela, he is Mandela. Any person who doesn’t know a thing about Mandela will walk out of this movie understanding why this man deserves a movie. He underlines his amazing quality of forgiveness, but also his outgoing, always humorous personality. His performance goes along with the screenplay, as he plays Mandela as not just an inspiring public figure, but also a man could faint from too much work, and a man who could also have family problems.
The film’s other star, Damon, gives something of a mixed performance. While he gave a career best performance earlier this year in “The Informant!” this performance is a slightly bigger challenge, as the South African accent is a hard one to nail. Sometimes, he gets it right. Other times, it leans towards Australian with a mix of American. Damon is a talented actor, and I admire him for trying. However, his imperfect accent didn’t serve as a distraction from the film’s higher points.
“Invictus” might just be the perfect sports movie for this day and age. It’s one of those films that provides both makes you face reality, and allows you to escape it. It engrosses you in the power of the game, but it also uses the game as a way to represent South Africa’s social problems. It represents the power of something as seemingly insignificant as a sporting event as being one of the greatest uniters of all. It is also a great sports flick for the way the game is shot. Eastwood puts you inside the huddles, forcing you immediately inside the action. Meanwhile, each kickoff is incredibly suspenseful. Even if you know the outcome, you can’t help but feel like you don’t.
Only someone like Clint Eastwood could get away with showing one of the most significant turning points in modern human history through sports. Here, he has also shown his new world view, which is leaning away from the depravity of mankind and leaning toward the idea of how even one life can inspire so many. The title “Invictus” comes from a poem that Mandela read during his years in prison about man triumphing over his soul and his destiny and in the end, conquering great obstacles. “Invictus,” like Mandela himself, will inspire many, and leave no audience member unmoved. This is one of the year’s best films.
Below is a picture of the real Nelson Mandela with the real Francois Pienaar

Movie Review: The Informant!

1 Reply

The poster for “The Informant!,” at first glance, reminded me of the poster for “The 40 Year Old Virgin.” Not only did both include two overly jolly men, but there was just something about them that made me happy every time I looked at them. Like the poster for “Virgin,” there was something so incredibly funny, and so incredibly strange about the poster for “The Informant!” that I just had to see it. It turns out, the movie is both of these things, in ways different than you might imagine.

“The Informant!” is based on the true story of one of the biggest (and weirdest) financial frauds in American history. However, it tends to take its history quite lightly. After a title card informs us that the film is based on a true story, we are treated to the sentence “So there.” Off the bat we are being told to expect nothing short of a comedic version of true events.
The corporate fraud focused on in the film is that of the major price fixing [Editor's Note: Please, don't make me try to explain what that is] that took place in the early 1990s at the Illinois food processing company Archer Daniels Midland (ADM). The seemingly innocent biochemist turned businessman Mark Whitacre (Matt Damon) becomes an informant for the FBI, who looks to bust the company. However, agents Bob Herndon (Joel McHale) and Brian Shepard (Scott Bakula) soon realize that Whitacre’s ineptitude might get them into more trouble than they could have ever imagined.
Commercials for “The Informant!” have made it out to be purely comical. While the film is hilarious at times, it’s not as much as a comedy as you might expect. While director Steven Soderbergh could’ve taken this exact same story and turned it into a dramatic, suspensful thriller on the level of “The Departed” or his own “Traffic.” Instead, he twisted it around and turned it into a light-hearted, comedic thriller with serious undertones. I’m happy he decided to take this path. Had the film been more serious, it probably would’ve seemed much less original.
Parts of “The Informant!” feel like a tribute to the great film noir of the past. Everything from the opening credit font, to the tangled web lies, feels right out of the paranoid thrillers of the 1970s. Meanwhile, the somewhat jazzy musical score could be traced all the way back to “The Maltese Falcon.”
Maybe the greatest reward the film gives is the pleasure of seeing Damon play Marc Whitacre with complete scrutiny. Damon pulled a De Niro for this performance and gained over 30 pounds to fully embody the everyday schlub that Whitacre truly was. In his performance, Damon is funny at all the right moments, tricky at all the right moments, and serious and self reflective at all the right moments. But most importantly, he always looks like he’s just having a good time in the role. When it doesn’t look like an actor is having a good time in a comedy, you know you’re in trouble. Damon looks like he’s having a blast.
Making up the rest of the ensemble are many comedians who now seem to be slipping into more dramatic roles. McHale, who started this week off good with his first real acting job ever in “Community” scores once again, getting one of the film’s biggest laughs with just a small facial expression.
While some perceive the humor to be a little smug and condescending, I remain a firm believer that in a smart film, structure relates to function. And here, the function is to almost give us the feeling of how overly smug some of the men must’ve been, thinking that even as they drew themselves closer and closer to being caught, that they remained invincible. Also fascinating is Whitacre’s narration. It doesn’t really do much to enhance the story or give us background details, it is basically just a stream of consciousness. It gives us a feeling of what goes through Whitacre’s head everyday. However, some of these details may actually be important. Or they may not. Maybe they’re just leading us into a big trap. The truth never is what it seems.
As the great line in “Some Like it Hot” goes: “Well, nobody’s perfect.” “The Informant!” certainly isn’t. It doesn’t really get interesting until the FBI gets involved, and often times its not as funny as it thinks it is. But it was one thing: really entertaining. It is so rare that you see a movie like “The Informant!” that provides the audience entertainment in a sophisticated and adult way. It is hip, yet it is also versed in the classics. It provides a history lesson without putting its audience to sleep.
But after all is said and done, you know what the funniest part of the film is? The fact that the real joke of the film is on you.
Recommended for Fans of: Sex, Lies, and Videotape, Catch Me If You Can, Wall Street, Traffic, The French Connection, The Maltese Falcon, Chinatown