Elysium (2013)

I was a fan of Neill Blomkamp's debut, "District 9." While it was as subtle in its social commentary as a flare gun fired off in an elevator, it did its job quite well and was a fun action film despite the overly shaky camera. After seeing his sophomore feature, "Elysium," I get the feeling that "a fun action film that is too jittery with the camera and too telegraphed with the social justice angle" is going to be a common phrase heaped upon Blomkamp's filmography. To be fair, there are a lot worse things that you could say about a movie, so don't feel like that's writing the guy off. He's looking to have quite the career ahead of him as a director.

The film takes place in the future, where the Earth is a barely habitable, overcrowded wasteland, and the rich live in a space station called Elysium, which looks a lot like The Citadel from "Mass Effect." It's a paradise that has everything you could possibly want, including perfect health and essentially immortality as they possess this crazy technology that instantly cures anything wrong with you. Anything. Seriously, at one point a dude gets his face blown off with a grenade, but since his brain is stilling functioning they just strap him in there, it reconstructs his head, and he's fine. It even keeps his beard. Basically it's that thing from "The Fifth Element" that reconstructs Milla Jovovich. Anyway, the rich are quite happy up in Elysium, and like to kill anyone who tries to smuggle themselves onto there.

Dah dah dah dah dah...dut dut...dut dut...

Meanwhile everyone else on Earth lives in squalor, including Max (Matt Damon), a reformed criminal who's just trying to save up enough money to one day make it up to Elysium, a dream that is a pathetic long-shot at best. When an accident on the job leaves him with five days to live, he kick-starts his dream by rejoining the criminal world to make it up to Elysium and their life-saving medbays. During his quest he finds himself in the middle of a struggle that could mean the end of Elysium's isolationist policy, and the salvation of countless millions on Earth.

Man, Nerf used to be awesome back in the day.

The film is a thinly veiled but well deserved middle finger to the overly wealthy, and it's not subtle with it at all (like, AT ALL), but the characters are well written enough and believable enough to pull the story off. While Jodie Foster's performance as Delacourt, the main villain for most of the movie, may come across as slightly over-the-top in her wickedness, it can't be said that her actions as the head of security on a place like Elysium didn't make sense, as did the actions of pretty much everyone else in the film. Even the setup probably wouldn't be that far off from reality, if the technology was there. Compare that with crap like "The Purge," which took place in a land where nothing made sense. With a story like this which is actually fairly plausible, the whole lack of subtlety aspect seems less and less important when you consider that at least for once it's well done social commentary.

While Matt Damon and the rest of the cast are all fine, the guy who steals the show was Sharlto Copley as Kruger, a mercenary working for Delacourt. I really like Copley as an actor, and here he's this off-the-wall psychopath who goes through everything that's around him like a sweaty wrecking ball, sneering in his barely decipherable Afrikaans accent. He's a delight to watch. He almost seems like he belongs in another movie, actually. He's way too much of a Bond Number Two henchman for this. But he is difficult to understand.

"Oy inno gwanna kill 'im dee boyke."

"...I'm sorry boss, you're gonna boink what?"

Like "District 9," the story builds up the majority of the first half of the film before being a straight up action flick by the mid-point. Some may call that a slow straight, but decent characterization is nothing to roll your eyes at. And when it does fire up all of its cylinders, "Elysium" is a hard-hitting, violent romp that has enough "OH DAMN" moments to satisfy the action fan. Like I said earlier, the camera does tend to drift to the shaky side of things, but it's dialed back a bit from how distracting it was in "District 9."

Overall this one was pretty satisfying. It's not going to reinvent the wheel or even be remembered with any great reverence, if remembered by many at all given a couple years, but it's a decent entry into the annals of the Sci-Fi/Action genre. And while it may be doomed to be lumped in with the many, many films that are just like it in terms of plot and quality, that doesn't make it bad. It just makes it "A Sci-Fi/Action Movie." And you've seen those before. If you want to see another one, hey, try "Elysium." It's decent.

Check out the trailer for "Elysium!"

THE BOTTOM LINE - A competent and satisfying film for those who are in the mood for some distopian sci-fi. Sharlto Copley is the main attraction, and makes it worth watching even if the rest wasn't anything too mind-blowing. It's a little awkward in how overt it is with the social commentary, but that doesn't mean it's not completely correct in what it's saying. That goes a long way.

Casa de mi Padre (2012)

Oh Will Ferrell. Will, Will, Will. You are such an enigma to me. On one hand, I can't stand you. I loathe your films. I find you painfully unfunny. Your schtick of simply yelling very loudly at inopportune moments like some over-caffeinated, borderline mentally handicapped man-child in an attempt to be humorous causes me physical pain.

On the other hand, "Anchorman" and "Stranger Than Fiction." What the hell, Ferrell? Every time you get me this close to boycotting you, you come out and make an incredible film that injects some hope into me that perhaps, if I dared to have the audacity to believe, you might actually start making good movies. Then another 3 or so years go by, you make a dozen movies that are all crap, and just when I've just about given up all hope again, "Everything Must Go."

Why do you continue to make me suffer through all your crap to get to the good stuff, Ferrell? Don't get me wrong, I'm overjoyed whenever you give me a fantastic movie like "Everything Must Go," but the horrible, horrible things you make me suffer through to get to that point, man! It's just outright cruel. And the worst part is when I can see the vast dip in quality ahead of me, right when I'm coming off of one of your good films.

Before seeing "Casa de mi Padre," "Everything Must Go" was the last of your movies I'd seen, which had left a pleasant, minty aftertaste on my palette. Now, in front of "The Dark Knight Rises," I see the trailer for "The Campaign," staring you and one of the only people I find more irritating than yourself, Zack Galifianakis. And that movie looks ATROCIOUS. That looks "The Ballad of Ricky Bobby" bad. Is this the start of another 3 to 4 year long streak of terrible for you? WHY DO YOU MAKE ME SUFFER SO?!?!

I guess I can't really blame him too much. He keeps making these movies because, well, why the hell wouldn't he? People love them. A Will Ferrell comedy is pretty much guaranteed money in the bank. And despite the fact that he is a shockingly good dramatic actor, when he does serious stuff, it bombs. Such is life. It just makes me sad when I see talent so wasted. I really do want to like Will Ferrell, because the things I like him in, I really like him in. Seriously, some of the roles he's done I consider Oscar worthy. I keep coming back to it, but his performance in "Everything Must Go" was unforgivably ignored in the 2011 Academy Awards. At least a nomination. Something to encourage him to continue making quality films.

So finally getting to the point with today's film, "Casa de mi Padre." I was cautiously intrigued by this film simply because of the fact that it was different, or at least appeared different. And of course, based on his track record, different is usually better for a Will Ferrell movie. The fact that it was entirely in Spanish I felt was a ballsy move that, perhaps, would mean that it was one of those better Will Ferrell films.

Oh, by the way, it's completely in Spanish with subtitles and everything. You 90% of the American movie-going public who whine and complain and refuse to watch a movie based on that fact alone can just stop right here and not watch it. Just know that I don't really think less of you for refusing to read subtitles. I just feel sorry for you.

Sorry, that's my snob moment for the day. Might not happen again till the next time.

Nice high horse you got there, Will. I gots me one o' dems, too.

Anyways, although I respect the hell out of Will Ferrell and the makers of "Casa de mi Padre" for even making a film like this, I can't in good conscious say it was worth it. "Casa de mi Padre" was just not good. In fact, I'd call it outright bad. This is not, however, for the reason most people would assume. The fact that it was in Spanish didn't kill it, although it may have hurt it a little. No, what killed it is the fact that it's another one of those "half-way" comedies. It's a movie that isn't funny enough to be a comedy, but is too goofy to be a drama.

Let's talk first about the comedy. Most of the gags are one of two jokes: either the film draws attention to the fact that it's really cheap, or things take an inordinately long time to end, such as people laughing over a stupid comment for far too long, or ending a tense conversation by saying "goodbye" for like 5 minutes. There's also a weird running gag where Will Ferrell is terrible at rolling cigarettes. What is funny is subjective for everyone, I realize that, but that just seems to me to be the laziest kind of humor, especially the "low budget" kind.

"Oh look. They are obviously in front of a matte painting. How hysterical. You going to do anything with that? Make a comment about it? Acknowledge it? It's just there? What's the joke? That's it's cheap? That's not funny in of itself. There needs to be a joke associated with it."

There are two examples I can immediately think of for movies that did the "cheap equals funny" thing right. The first one was "Black Dynamite." Now that movie was a parody of notoriously cheaply/poorly made movies, specifically "Dolomite," and there were scenes where they acknowledged the cheapness. Now, they didn't go all forth-wall obliterating with it, they would just have maybe a moment when Michael Jai White would have a boom mic get a bit too close to him, get in frame, and he would spare a quick, annoyed glance at it. That also fits into the infamous "wandering boom mics" so prevalent in "Dolomite."

See, that's a joke. It's not side-splitting, but it's an actual joke. If they had just had the boom mic drift into frame, it's not really funny, is it? It's just pointing out that the production value is in the toilet. If, because of the cheapness, it affected their acting or something, then it moves into the "gag" territory.

The second example, probably a better one, would be "Monty Python and The Holy Grail." I don't think I even need to remind you of coconuts. See, there they worked the cheapness of the movie into an entire bit that is one of the most memorable in a film where nearly every line could be etched in stone as a monument to comedy. Not only did the other characters acknowledge the fact that they were using coconuts to substitute horses, but it lead to an entire discussion about where in Mercia they would have possibly gotten their hands on tropical coconuts in a temperate zone.

God, I wish I was watching " ¡Three Amigos!"right now.

The second kind of joke in "Casa de mi Padre," the thing about taking way too long on something, or extending a gag way past the point of absurdity is for me a pretty tricky thing to do right. It's really only worked a few times that I've seen, one of which is the gag which pretty much started the whole thing: Sideshow Bob stepping on the rakes on "The Simpsons."

That was a masterful bit of comedy, and really is the best example of the "slightly funny becomes annoying becomes confusing becomes absurd becomes hysterical" thing, which is the basis of the whole gag. "Mystery Science Theater 3000" also had a bit in their "Devil Fish" episode when Mike and the Bots mockingly laugh over the end credits to the point of hyperventilation for what seems like a good 2 minutes straight, and it's quite infectious. And while I hate to give credit to a show I despise, Peter grabbing his knee on "Family Guy" was great. Seeing what happens after the evil laughter peters out in the first "Austin Powers" movie is also brought to mind.

It really doesn't work here, for some reason. While seeing Will Ferrell and his friends laughing over some really really unfunny statement for a very long time does have a certain instinctual effect of eventually putting a smile on your face, it's really just like spreading a yawn. It's not that you necessarily want to, it's just that you can't help it when someone next to you does it. I think the reason it works in the other examples was that it was taken so far over the top that the absurdity of it hit with much greater impact. "Casa de mi Padre" keeps those jokes relatively low key, which was probably a mistake.

I also have to bring up the fact that while I appreciated them making a film in Spanish, I think it may have hurt the comedy a bit. Timing is a really import thing in comedy, if not the most important thing, and if you have to read something, no matter how fast of a reader you are, the timing is going to be a bit off. It may not matter greatly in every case, but it's a tricky thing that, while it may not have hurt always, it certainly didn't help. Just food for thought on that one.

I'd also like to address tone for a minute. It was really surprising to me that for a comedy, this has some obscenely dark stuff in it. In keeping with the style of the Spanish soap operas which they are parodying, there is a whole lot of violence and killing going on, and I don't know if it's supposed to be funny or not. If it is supposed to be taken funny, they sure could have cut back on the drama and tragedy a bit.

Oh that's hilarious...

There are scenes which could have been spliced into "The Godfather" with how dark and brutally violent they are, especially a scene where like 30 people get mowed down with machine guns at a wedding, all in operatic slow-motion, with blood spraying everywhere. It's actually a very horrible, emotional scene which in a legitimate drama would have been quite powerful. And of course, let's not forget about the flashback where you find out that, as a child, Will Ferrell accidentally shot and killed his mother while trying to save her from two rapists.

You know? Funny!

That scene is played for serious, by the way. I don't care whether or not it takes place in front of a cheap backdrop - they have a dim-witted but well meaning 5 year old shoot his mother with a rifle as she's struggling to escape two men trying to rape her. No amount of cheap set design and sepia-tone filters to make it look old-timey can make that funny. I really question this film's sense of priorities when it comes to tone, because that stuff bummed me out, man, and I have a dark sense of humor.

While I've said a lot about "Casa de mi Padre" sucking, there were two things about it that I really liked. The first thing was a character trait Diego Luna gave to Will Ferrell's brother Raul, which was that he is constantly drinking and smoking. And I mean constantly. There isn't a moment where he doesn't have a drink in his hand, which is always changing in between shots.

 This guy was awesome.

While that doesn't sound necessarily funny, when he reaches into the aether to pull out a whiskey on the rocks in the middle of an intense gunfight, takes a drink, and then starts shooting again, I had to laugh. Even when he's in the middle of his death scene, doing his best Willem Dafoe from "Platoon" impression as bullets carve him up in slow-motion as operatic music swells, he is still taking sips from his glass, being sure not to let it spill. It's pretty hysterical.

The other thing I really liked was a scene that had me laughing really hard. It happens right as some coyotes are about to fight a stuffed white lion (don't ask). The movie suddenly stops, and in a very "Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked" moment, a letter from the second assistant director appears on screen to apologize, because while what they filmed was the most amazing footage they'd ever seen, they can't legally show us. The apology goes on to include coked-up tigers and people getting eaten. It's a great bit of writing, and it was the only part in the entire movie where I was laughing out loud. A lot.

Funniest part of the film.

I've talked a lot about a movie that I really didn't like much at all, so I guess that's a victory in my favor, since I actually found something to discuss. I think the worst thing about it is that while I respect Will Ferrell for doing something different, the fact that this movie not only failed to make its money back in the States but also sucked leads me to believe that it will be even less likely he'll take more chances. And taking chances is usually what results in him making a decent film. Damn.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Casa de mi Padre" is a very weird film, and I respect it for being unique. I respect the hell out of it. But it wasn't good. It's not funny, with the exception of that one bit with the apology, and it's overall way too dark to even be charming. And as a drama it would fail because of the goofiness, despite the grim subject matter. Perhaps you need to be a huge Mexican soap opera fan to really "get" it, but somehow I doubt that would help much. Skip it.