Category Archives: Sharlto Copley

Movie Review: Elysium

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: The A-Team

I hate the existence question. This is when a critic ponders why the movie being reviewed even exists. Every movie has a purpose, whether it is to entertain, provoke thought, or simply steal your money. However, when it comes to remakes of old TV shows, I feel it is totally appropriate to ask, “why must this exist?”

For proof of this, I turn to “The A-Team.” No reason, really. Studio must’ve needed a script quickly and didn’t feel like coming up with a new idea. This movie is a result of Hollywood’s continued lack of ingenuity.
“The A-Team” reminded me a lot of those times when you walk up to a group of kids and one of them says some weird word. Once everyone starts laughing you say, “what’s so funny?” Then, some kid responds by saying “inside joke.” You feel uncomfortable not understanding what is going on and even more annoyed that some joke is so important that it can’t be shared with the rest of the world.
This leads us to the film’s opening. Even though it introduces every single character, there still seems to be something lacking from the backstory. The only way to truly understand what is going on is to have seen the 80s TV series. But who has time for that?
Anyway, our film begins somewhere around the American-Mexican border. While under some intense kidnapping conditions, we meet the team. There’s the cigar smoking Hannibal Smith (Liam Neeson), the wily Lt. Peck (Bradley Cooper), mentally disturbed Murdock (Sharlto Copley), and conflicted killer B.A. Baracus (Quinton ‘Rampage’ Jackson).
That whole opening scene becomes pretty much pointless, as the film suddenly transitions eight years later from Mexico to Iraq (I guess director Joe Carnahan thought it went better, since both places have sand). Despite so many successful missions, nobody in the military trusts the A-Team because, hey, this is a Hollywood action film. The team is sent on a covert mission to stop some bad business involving counterfeiting Iraqi money. They are setup for murdering a general and wrongfully imprisoned. The rest of the film is them proving their innocence and finding the real bad guys.
What follows is a fairly ridiculous assault on the brain. If the explosions don’t get you, then the extremely twisted (and not in a good way) story lines will. “The A-Team” wants to be a film that relies on twists for good storytelling. The only problem is that it relies on many rather than a few. Sometimes, they occur so closely together that they get tangled. Other times, they just seem to have no reason to be there, except to be really annoying.
Not only does it try to handle so many twists, but it also tries to tackle so many stories. It wants to be both a continuation of the show and an origin story. I can’t speak for how it made fans feel, but all I can say for people new to this story is that it left us in the dark. Should this film even be taken as a serious drama, or a comedy?
At this point, I shouldn’t really expect much story. However, I do expect some production value. While the film certainly looked like it had a budget, it doesn’t look like much of it was used wisely. The film opts for the typical, shaky-cam shot action sequences. Why do action directors love shaky-cam? It creates more nausea than thrills. Have we become so A.D.D. that even a shot that lasts more than two seconds feels long?
Most of the action feels like video game violence. Everything else is so poorly edited that it often feels more like an extended trailer than a feature length film. It just puts “A-Team” into part of this horrible trend of mainstream movies that seem to be marketing products and sequels over actual stories.
What continues to annoy me about the film is some of its underlying smugness. That’s probably because of Carnahan, who also directed “Smokin’ Aces.” “Smokin’ Aces” did Tarantino much worse than it actually thought. Likewise, “A-Team” does corny 80s action much worse than it thinks.
Despite this litany of problems, the film manages to find a few bright spots in the ensemble. Neeson and Cooper just seem to be playing Neeson and Cooper. While it’s hard to ever complain about Neeson’s acting, it’s time for Cooper to find a new character. But it was the other half of the team that was most engaging. This is only Copley’s second performance, but he already knows what kind of an actor he wants to be. He brought to Murdock the same dimwitted charm that made Wikus both so likable and hatable in “District 9.” Jackson does a great job playing Mr. T about as well as Mr. T ever could. His character is also the closest the film comes to creating a sort of satire of a certain archetype.
What “The A-Team” ultimately represents is a death of creativity in Hollywood. It also shows that the moviegoing audience has suddenly lost interest in good ideas. Why couldn’t the inspired take on 80s action in “MacGruber” take hold but the uninspired mess based on an 80s TV show could? For those looking for just a good throwaway experience, this is your movie. For those wanting action with a little more watchability, “Inception” is just a few weeks away.