Wednesday, 30 October 2013

Iron Sky

Lowdown: The Nazis haven’t been defeated, they just retreated to the dark side of the moon.
Review:
There are many reasons why Iron Sky will leave a lasting impression on me, chief among which is the fact it turned out to be the first movie I ever got to watch on Netflix. The other reasons probably matter more: this is a movie flogging a crazy idea, a movie that’s crazily works its way through to making a very viable statement. Crazy is the key word, because even defining Iron Sky’s genre is a tough call: is it science fiction or is it a comedy?
We discover the truth about the Nazis right from the start, when American astronauts land on the dark side of the moon and find themselves confronted with that age old nemesis. A nemesis that, even on the moon, wears those classic goggles, leather jacket and submachine gun we associate with World War 2 films.
One astronaut, James Washington (Christopher Kirby) survives and is taken captive, which gives us an opportunity to catch a glimpse of the contemporary Nazi machine. This includes the lovely and naïve schoolteacher Renate (Julia Dietze), her ambitiously Nazi man to be Klaus (Götz Otto), and even the current Führer (Udo Kier). The men are not particularly impressed by the fact this astronaut they caught is black, but they are impressed by his smartphone: it is powerful enough to run their spaceship of ultimate destruction, with which they can make a comeback and conquer the earth.
The only problem? The smartphone’s battery ran out, and they don’t have a charger cable. Now, in order to fulfil their plans, they have to infiltrate the earth and put their hands on a USB cable. It won’t be easy: opposing them will be the American female president and all the might of her marketing/propaganda department.
The above is just the beginning. Iron Sky goes deep into the crazy as it progresses, sometimes crazy funny but too often just plain silly. On the way it borrows scenes/cliches from plenty other science fiction movies and then some. One can easily dismiss it on the basis of its silliness and lesser special effects than the average Hollywood blockbuster, but I won’t. Sure, there is plenty of room for improvement; but in that razor edge equation dealing with whether the end justifies the means or vice versa I will go with the former on this one, because what Iron Sky is trying to tell us is worthy of its silly means: it tells us that, when looking ourselves in the mirror, our society did not learn much from its escapade with the Nazis. In other words, unless we do something quickly, we are doomed.
Best scene: The head of the US government marketing team (Peta Sergeant), the only government group that actually does something, reproduces that famous scene from Downfall where Hitler goes crazy. Very well done!
Overall: A good idea goes a long way even if the execution occasionally stumbles. I liked Iron Sky for its originality and daring and I’m giving it 3.5 out of 5 stars.

Saturday, 26 October 2013

Fast & Furious 6

Lowdown: Good people with fast cars beating bad people with fast cars.
Review:
It’s not often that I feel the need to defend me watching a particular film, but Fast & Furious 6 is such a case. As in, why did I bother wasting my time in front of a film that I know with quite a lot of confidence, even though I only caught snippets of its prequels and never watched one of them from start to finish, to be pathetically silly?
My excuses are two. First, there is nothing wrong with the occasional mind numbing that comes with the likes of a Fast & Furious. Call it catharsis from the grinding daily routine. And second, it’s not me; it’s my son. As in, we watched the trailer while he was sick and we ran through a movie trailer marathon on our Apple TV. He got very excited with the prospect of an action scene featuring fast cars battling a tank, so we progressed through watching the entire scene in YouTube (through a video that must have infringed every copyright and user agreement ever conceived, but yeah, I cared a lot). And now that the movie itself became available for proper viewing at home, that was the next possible escalation.
You might stop me at this point to ask what a six year old is doing watching a movie that’s rated for humans older than twice his age. The answer is that I do my own classifications: I do not see much harm in my son getting occasionally exposed to that most evil of words, “fuck”, which seems to be the classification board’s most dreaded nemesis. It’s the violence that counts, and Fast & Furious’ type of violence - people driving cars in so improbable a way it feels more like a video game - is perfectly fine for the video gamer that happens to be my son.
Anyway… Being that I don’t know much about the series, it was surprisingly easy to figure out what’s going on in Fast & Furious 6. Essentially, we have ourselves a gang of criminals (but good Christians) who made their money robbing things with fast cars, led by Vin Diesel. They did their thing already and now they’re retired, living out of USA law enforcement reach in all sorts of exotic locations. On the other side of the ring we have a carbon copy gang that is now doing its round of robbing. For reasons the movie never bother clarifying, the former are goodies and the latter baddies; so when fast cars are used in an exotic robbery at Russia, American law enforcers (now taking care of Russian law enforcement too, obviously) led by Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson come knocking on Diesel’s door for help, offering amnesty as a reward. Because, you know, the only way a gang of robbers with fast cars can be stopped is with another gang of robbers with fast cars. Let’s make a film or six out of that!
Adventure follows. A silly adventure, because things don't make sense and the laws of physics are defied left and right. For example, did you know that falling off a high speed car would get you killed, but jump off a high speed car to land on another car and you'll be perfectly fine (whether that destination car is stationary or not is of no consequences in the F&F world of physics)?
The resulting film does feel a lot like James Bond. Not only do we have men being machos, good looking women playing various support roles, cool cars and gadgets; we also have an adventure that moves about a world connected by one theme - wherever one goes, Americans are the ones that call the shots. Oh, and arguments are settled either by standing firm and looking tough/cool, or with some sort of a car chase.
Best scene: That tank vs. cars chase on a Spanish highway doesn't make the slightest of sense, but it is exciting.
Funniest scene: At the end of the day, our heroes - people who do not hesitate to kill, to rob and to put the public around them in danger - join hands for a Christian prayer to commemorate their upcoming meal. That's religion in a nutshell for you.
Overall: This mind numbing nonsense with fast moving cars does not deserve more than 2.5 out of 5 stars.

Thursday, 24 October 2013

Star Trek Into Darkness

Lowdown: Wrath of Khan reincarnated.
Review:
Back in 2009, Star Trek provided a rather feeble excuse to reboot the original Star Trek story, with Kirk, Spock et al. And now it’s time for the reboot's sequel.
You know what the formula for a sequel is, right? Don’t bother thinking too much, just press the pedal harder. And that’s exactly what Star Trek Into Darkness brings, from the silly opening action sequence that is so full of things that don’t make sense till the credits come up more than two hours filled with things that make no sense later. It also happens to be a collection of exciting action scenes delivered in a very exciting package filled with cutting edge special effects.
The story doesn’t try to tell us anything new. Essentially, Into Darkness is a reboot of The Wrath of Khan: a super human, now denounced by the rest of humanity on account of his disregard for his inferiors, comes back to take revenge. As things pun out, the crew best positioned to stop this Khan is “ours”: a newly demoted, now promoted Captain Kirk (Chris Pine); the Spock with whom our captain is always in disagreement (Zachary Quinto); the beautiful Uhura (Zoe Saldana) doing the token female role whose most interesting contribution is its romance with Spock; Bones, the doctor in charge of reviving dying characters (Karl Urban); Scotty, the engineer who always complains but then delivers (Simon Pegg); and the Starship Enterprise, the one spaceship that's always there.
Together our heroes will uncover deceptions and traitors in our midst. They will even sort things out after a very September 11 like attack. But while this all things happens, the viewer that bothers to think will not be able to avoid reflecting on the massive lack of sense throughout. 
There are positives to Into Darkness other than it being exciting. If you recall your Wrath of Khan, a major character dies at the end of proceedings in order to save the Enterprise entire. That character is later revived, through rather feeble excuses, in the sequel The Search for Spock. Into Darkness twists things around when it comes to that major character dying (I will leave you to determine how original its approach really is), but spares us when it comes to that character inevitable revival. As in, we do not have to wait for the sequel; revival is immediate, even if it is done in a manner as contrived as organised religion. Indeed, finding a cure for death was never less appreciated than in the world of Star Trek.
Overall: For better and for worse, Star Trek Into Darkness is the perfect manifestation of what passes for a popcorn movie during 2013. In other words, highly entertaining bullshit. I give it, rather reluctantly, 3 out of 5 stars.

Friday, 18 October 2013

Oblivion

Lowdown: An Adam & Eve crew looks after an earth devastated by aliens.
Review:
In the near future, earth is attacked by aliens. They start with the moon, whose destruction causes massive earthquakes, and move on to earth. Eventually, the earthlings win through use of their nukes, but at the cost of their planet. Humans have fled to Titan, and only a two person crew made of scout Jack (Tom Cruise) and operator Victoria (Andrea Riseborough) remains behind to ensure Titan gets its supply of earthly energy. The two have a fight on their hands, though, because although supported by killer drones those nasty aliens are still out there to put up a fight.
A film that requires the dictation of an exposition along these lines is off to a bad start. Indeed, there isn’t much more for me to say about Oblivion’s plot that wouldn’t bloop the hell out of this movie for you. So I will go right ahead to the criticism.
By no means can it be said Oblivion is original. Plot elements are heavily borrowed from others, most notably from Moon and then from Matrix and even Independence Day. Then there is the not so slight problem of too many things not making sense that is coupled with the problem of combining too many coincidences to support the suspension of disbelief. No, I am not finished yet: there is also the problem of the audience being actively deceived as to the true nature of things. I can accept Tom Cruise deceiving himself, his personal track record there speaks for itself; but why trick us?
Throw in a complete waste of acting talents like Morgan Freeman and Nikolaj Coster-Waldau (better known as Jaime Lannister) and I’m positive you would concur: just like director Joseph Kosinski previous film, Tron Legacy, Oblivion is a science fiction tell full of missed potential. On the positive side, though, M83 provides a nice soundtrack to proceedings, albeit a far cry from Daft Punk’s work on Legacy.
Last, but not least, I have to add I am sick and tired of films that regard “the world” to mean “the USA”. Our Jack is limited in his scope of travel to radiation free zones, which in this case means – don’t hold your breath – New York. What a surprise! I was sure he’s going to find himself lost in Africa. Hollywood is not doing itself any favours with its Americanism.
Favourite scene:
As critical as I am of Oblivion, it still has to be said there are pretty entertaining sci-fi elements throughout. One of those depicts Jack approaching the ruins of a tower, ready for any surprise that may come as he examines things through the scope of his assault rifle upon entering the structure.
The look and feel reminded me so much of a specific Mass Effect mission I could not avoid savouring every second of it. Alas, our Shepard did not find his Liara there (although in another very Mass Effect like scene he does).
Did I mention too much of Oblivion feels like it's been borrowed from elsewhere?
Overall: As much as I like these big time science fiction movies, and as much as I appreciate those that go beyond humans shooting aliens and vice versa, Oblivion is simply too flawed to matter much. 2.5 out of 5 stars.

Monday, 14 October 2013

Griff the Invisible

Lowdown: It’s not easy being a modern day Sydney superhero.
Review:
Would you believe there is a living breathing superhero in contemporary Sydney, or at least in 2010 Sydney when Griff the Invisible was released?
That superhero Griff (Ryan Kwanten) is something special. During the day is a lowly accountant, a nerd that’s routinely abused by the guys he shares office space with. At night, however, our lone wolf tracks the dodgy with the latest equipment, puts on his G suit, turns invisible at will, and beats the crap out of all those who mean harm. Alas, police as well as residents treat our Griff like a vigilante: instead of being thankful they are scared; instead of welcoming his actions they hunt him down.
Things get more complex when his brother Tim (Patrick Brammall, recently on ABC TV via Upper Middle Bogan) comes to town and visits Griff; but he cannot be allowed to know too much. Even worse, when Tim introduces Griff to Melody (Maeve Dermody), the girl he recently met, Griff can immediately tell she sees right through him. How can a superhero perform under such conditions?
Quickly we find out there is more to Griff than meets the eye. As in, this movie about a superhero with amazing invisibility capabilities is more than just a superhero movie. I won’t go into details and ruin it for you, but at the bottom line Griff the Invisible is a movie that tells us it is alright to be different. Perhaps even much better than simply being ordinary.
In order to deliver its message, Griff the Invisible employs the eccentric and the dark. There are a lot of bullshit statements being aired to the level of plain weirdness, and the whole thing is obviously a low budget affair. Does it matter? Well, if you’re going in expecting some sort of an Australian answer to Batman and Superman, you will be severely disappointed. If, however, yours is an open mind willing to take in a bit of the eccentric, Griff the Invisible can be quite charming. A film that dares going where most others won’t. A movie that shows the superhero theme can take viewers much further than it usually does.
Overall: Granted, Griff the Invisible is weird. But why should that be a problem? 3 out of 5 stars.

Thursday, 10 October 2013

Mass Effect: Deception by William C. Dietz

Lowdown: More adventures for the characters from previous Mass Effect books.
Review:
Hard to believe, given the scope of discussion here revolves around a video game, that a book can create as much controversy and antagonism as Mass Effect: Deception. This fourth, and thus far last, in the series of Mass Effect books (the previous entries are Revelation, Ascension and Retribution) was denounced by fans and later modified for consistency’s sake. Most notably, it was not written by Drew Karpyshyn, author of the previous trilogy, but rather by William C. Dietz. Were the fans right to criticise? Were the modifications able to fix the damage? I did not have much in the way of expectations, but given I had a few days to wait out prior to the release of a new book I was highly anticipating I decided to go for the easy intermediate read and give Deception a go.
Despite the new author, the plot continues from shortly after the third book in the series and revolves around familiar characters. This implies things are set in the period between the Mass Effect 2 and 3 games; however, unlike the previous book in the series, Commander Shepard is not mentioned in the proceedings.
We start off with David Anderson and Kahlee Sanders presenting their findings regarding Cerberus’ attempt to recreate Reaper technology before a sceptical Citadel Council. Nick, their teen biotic prodigy, uses the opportunity to run off and join a biotic underground movement set on Omega. And, in parallel, the biotically talented and previously autistic teen Gillian, travelling with the quarians in the company of previous tutor Hendel, gets to learn of her father’s fate and decided revenge is due on Cerberus. That leads her to Omega, too, where the Cerberus assassin Kai Leng is lurking.
For multiple reasons, there is not much point for further account of the plot. First, because there is not much point to the plot; it is essentially a collection of thrilling action encounters of the type that’s too predictable and cliché filled. Second, and more importantly, because the plot does not seem to lead us anywhere.
What do I mean by a book that goes nowhere? I mean a book where major characters die "just like that". Sure, people die for no particular reason all the time; yet no one writes a series of four books about them. What is the point of a long spanning space opera career if it is to end in such a dismal manner? My feeling was that the book simply chose to dispose of any of the series’ characters that did not make it through to Mass Effect 3. That conclusion leads me to assume the purpose of Deception is therefore to set things up for Mass Effect 3, but then again did Mass Effect 3 need any further introductions? I argue it doesn’t. I argue all we already knew all we needed to know about the relevant characters through the previous books in the series. Thus it is clear: Deception serves no purpose in the Mass Effect canon.
There is a difference between serving no purpose and subtracting from what has already been achieved, and Deception crosses that border. Most noticeable is its departure from previously set literature standards. As in, it is written in a bland, too simple a way. I’ll put it this way: quality wise, it feels as if I wrote it with my limited vocabulary and all rather than a writer who knows their trade.
More troubling to series fans are the inconsistencies. I believe I was reading the modified version of the book, as opposed to the original, yet I could not but feel amazed at Gillian’s miraculous recovery from the autism plaguing her in previous books (achieved entirely while secluded from human society on a remote quarian ship, no less).
So yeah, the action was a bit of fun if one puts one’s mind in gear for reading trashy book. Was it so good as to make reading Deception worthwhile, though? Simply put, no.
Overall: A pointless, redundant book if ever there was one. 1 out of 5 stars.

Wednesday, 9 October 2013

Warm Bodies

Lowdown: The relationship between a zombie and the girl he saved.
Review:
As hard as it may be, it is important to try and see things from the other side’s point of view before condemning them. That is one of the lessons one can learn from Warm Bodies, an unusual zombie movie about an unusual zombie.
Yes, that cataclysmic event has happened and now most of the human population turned into mindless zombies. Yes, the remaining humans have to fend for themselves in horrible conditions: they live in a walled society and have to send scouts to scavenge the hostile outside world. But it’s not that great on the other side: our zombie for the duration of Warm Bodies (Nicholas Hoult, the kid from About a Boy and later Skins) isn’t exactly happy either. He can’t remember much of his past, only seeming to recall his name starts with R. He’s annoyed at being slow moving and slow thinking, too. He envies the living.
A zombie got to do what a zombie got to do, and in one of their feeding expeditions R’s group encounter a group of young scouts. R eats the brains of one of the guys, thereby inheriting his memories. These include memories of love for Julie (Aussie Teresa Palmer), also amongst that scout group being eaten. R won’t let the same fate happen to his now loved one; by helping Julie pretend to be a zombie and teaching her the zombie shuffle, he manages to sneak her back home with him. Alive. Home, in this particular case, is a now abandoned airliner at a zombie infested airport.
The begging question is, of course, “and now what?”. Which is exactly what Warm Bodies explores in a very entertaining, witty, manner. I don’t want to ruin it, but I will say that any suspicions you might have by now as to Warm Bodies’ originality would turn out to be true. Yes, it digs into its genre’s archives, but not half as much as classic horror movies do; this one is more of a romantic comedy that just happens to be set in a Romeo and Juliet type scenario that happens to be set in a zombie post apocalypse. Note the Romeo and Juliet analogy is not out of place, as a lot of the tension comes from the zombie community’s difficulty of accepting a living person into their ranks on one side, and the living’s total rejection of anything zombie on the other (as embodied by the character of the human leader, portrayed by John Malkovich).
The result is a movie that achieves two things. First, and as mentioned, it demonstrates the need to see things from the other’s side. And second, it demonstrates the glories of the living and the synergy that happens when the living interact with the living. For if common ground can be found between zombie and human, then surely common ground can be found between human and human. Between warm bodies.
Best scene: A rather depressed R informs us of the dull nature of zombies and his yearnings to be more like the living, able to interact with one another and explore the world. Cut into a pre apocalypse scene where we see a group of humans roaming about a shopping mall, each focused on their individual smartphone screen.
Overall: I thoroughly enjoyed Warm Bodies, both as sheer entertainment and as a fine example for how simple cinema can effectively deliver worthy messages. 4.5 out of 5 stars.

Saturday, 5 October 2013

The Gatekeepers

Lowdown: Interviews with six former Shin Bet heads.
Review:
As running jokes at work have it, I am an Israeli secret agent on some exotic assignment at Australia. This implies others should be wary of me. The fact evolved separately on different occasions implies this is no laughing matter; on account of looking different and behaving differently, people are intimidated by me. Either that or their sense of humour is universally suffering. On my part I will say that my actual interactions with genuine Israeli Mossad/Shin Bet agents have left me unimpressed: to put it politely, I wouldn't be inviting any of them to dinner.
The qualities that make one work at such organisations do not make one a nice person to hang out with. The problem is probably magnified when discussing those who made it to the top of the food chain with the Shin Bet, as The Gatekeepers has: it interviews six former heads of the Shin Bet (essentially, all living former heads) and discusses events taking place with their organisation, either under their command or previously, from 1967 till today. 1967 is an important junction in Israeli history because that was when the Six Day War took place with Israel conquering the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. That was when Israel became a conqueror and an occupier of more than a million people.
Accompanied by old videos, photos and computer enhancements of old photos we basically hear those former Shin Bet heads talking (in Hebrew) for a bit more than an hour and a half. They discuss the adjustments their organisation had to make upon Israel assuming ownership of the occupied territories, the rise of the settlements, the number 300 bus incident, and both intifadas. The beauty of the affair is in the common themes raised by all six: the lacklustre nature of the politicians giving the orders, never managing to miss an opportunity to avoid peace; while on the other hand they acknowledge becoming more aware of the other side's plight so that while they were all in charge of doing awful things to Palestinians they also developed some soft spots. In other words, their unique position as head of the Shin Bet had turned them into lefties arguing, one by one, that Israel should just sit down and open an honest dialog with its Arab neighbours. Either that or forever live on its sword.
The sad part of this insight is that due to the former insight concerning the nature of politicians this will never happen. In other words, The Gatekeepers is telling us - straight from the horses' mouths - why the Arab/Israeli conflict is ongoing, why we should not expect to see it solved any time soon, and why the whole affair is a sad tragedy. In taking us through this eye opening journey, presenting us with the evidence along the way, and then delivering us the inevitable conclusion, The Gatekeepers renders itself a top class documentary.
On a higher philosophical plane, The Gatekeepers suggests why humanity in general is unable to contend with problems that are obviously there and for which the solutions are known. Think global warming, for example: the same failures that have Israelis killing Palestinians and vice versa are having the whole planet walking fast towards a point of no return that could well see civilisation as we know it collapsing. All the while, by focusing on the short term tactics rather than the strategic solutions, our gatekeepers are failing to protect us.
Favourite scenes: I don't know if "favourite" is the right word, but fact of the matter is that I have intimate familiarity with some of the subject matter. Seeing these matters discussed now, with the benefit of hindsight, makes it clear my years with the Israeli army have been nothing but folly. A waste of some of the best years of my life.
Overall: A mesmerising, in the bad sense of the word, documentary. There is a lot to be learnt from The Gatekeepers; I doubt anything would change, though. 4.5 out of 5 stars.

Wednesday, 2 October 2013

Elysium

Lowdown: To save his life, a man must don a cyborg suit and head for an orbital station where the rich and powerful reside in isolation.
Review:
Nowadays it’s all but impossible for cinemas to offer a superior experience to that of good home theatre. Barring specific exceptions that can be counted using a single hand, the home offers much better potential for quality sound;  and flat screen TVs and projectors can rival the envelopment experience offered by your average multiplex’ image. Cinemas are down to marketing themselves on the basis of exclusivity, something I personally don’t care much for when all I need is wait 3-6 months for that “next best thing” to arrive at my home environment. Melbourne’s Astor Theatre defies that equation, though.
This old theatre has never been converted to a multiplex. It still has the proper lobby, it still has a huge hall, and it still has a huge screen – just like the cinemas I grew up on. However, it’s up with the times when it comes to quality projection and sound (eclipsing, IMHO, that of the supposedly superior Melbourne IMAX). I haven’t been to the Astor for years, pretty much since I became a parent. Last week I got the opportunity to rekindle an old flame and with good material at that: a proper science fiction movie, Elysium.
In all honesty I did not know much about Elysium prior to attending the cinema. However, it did not take long at all for me to realise this is another piece of science fiction filming by the guy behind District 9, Neill Blomkamp: the styling (and many of the actors) are too similar.
Set some 40 years from now, it tells the tale of a crumbling and overpopulated earth that was left to rot by the wealthy as they moved themselves to a heavenly space station, Elysium. From there they control the world harshly using a massive army of robots while the citizens of the earth provide the cheap labour required to support their ostentatious lifestyle. This setup leaves us following two key characters and plenty of supporting acts: on one hand there is Elysium security chief (Jodie Foster), while on the other we have a guy fighting hard to keep his earthly job at the factory in a world where hardly anyone can get a job (Matt Damon). The latter tries so hard he ends up on the receiving end of a massive dose of radiation that would leave him dead in a manner of days. His only hope is to go "upstairs" to Elysium and cure himself through one of the devices each household there has: a scanner that fixes all diseases at the atomic level. Just think what one of those devices could achieve down on earth were the elitists allow it to be deployed there!
Getting up there is not easy, though. The Elysiumites have a tendency to blow uninvited visitors up. They also have earthly agents (Sharlto Copley, of District 9 fame) that are very well armed to help with their dirty work. Besides, our hero is weak and sick. A cyborg like suit he acquires, that amplifies his muscles, offers him a starting chance.
At its core, Elysium is a tale of class wars. On one hand there's Elysium, the land of plenty, that doesn't want to share; on the other hand there is earth, with its poverty, ill health and unemployment. We all cheered when Matt Damon gave those evil bastards a taste of their own medicine, but come on: who are we really barracking for? Australia just voted to "stop the boats". And who are those boat people? They are the exact likes of Damon's character, living in even worse conditions, who seek to come to a land where they could get health services and lead a decent life. All the while Australians buy themselves more clothes and gadgets than they could ever need, made with the blood of those digging up the minerals making up the batteries to the blood of the zero paid Chinese factory line worker. If you want to catch a glimpse at the baddies from Elysium, all you need to do is take a look at the mirror.
Class wars aside, there is an action movie there. It's a spectacular action movie, made even more spectacular through the Astor's huge screen and decent sound. It's nice and all, but it ain't as good as District 9; while the earlier movie proved to be nothing like anything we've seen before, Elysium is a movie we've seen many times before. Perhaps not in a semi apocalyptic future setting, but definitely in more ways than none. It is often predictable in the sense of "given that we are now in the middle of the second act, it is time for the hero to suffer a setback". These problems are not severe, but they're definitely noticeable.
It is a pretty safe bet for me to say I will remember Elysium mostly for its depiction of a very likely future. Perhaps it won't happen in 40 years time, but between global warming, overpopulation and technological improvements implying the lesser skilled do not stand a chance of getting a job in a capitalistic society, either our children or our grandchildren will have to face the same problems Damon's character does. Unless, of course, we wake up to start sorting this world of ours. With the recent election of Tony Abbott, I do not hold my hopes up high. Not from Australia, not from the rest of the world.
Overall: Grand science fiction that tells us a lot of the world we currently live in. A predictable story. Important lessons. A mixed bag overall, but I'm a sucker for big time science fiction so I will give Elysium 4 out of 5 stars.