Saturday, 12 April 2014

Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014) Movie Review

This week, I traded in my Canadian citizenship, put on some red, white and blue and sprinted to the local cinema to catch Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014) starring Chris Evans and Scarlett Johansson. It's directed by Anthony and Joe Russo.

With this sequel, our hero finds himself working for the global agency known as S.H.I.E.L.D. It's intelligence work and not straight up military service, so Cap routinely finds himself at odds with the upper management of S.H.I.E.L.D. and some of their more clandestine operations. This also puts him at odds with Natasha Romanov (Johansson) also known as the Black Widow. To make matters worse, there's a new antagonist in town called The Winter Soldier who looks vaguely familiar to our man Cap. A series of events puts Cap on the run with Widow in tow, trying to unravel a mystery while also dodging the various baddies.

First off, I should mention, I was not a fan of the first Captain America movie. The second lowest grossing movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (only Ed Norton's The Incredible Hulk (2008) made less), Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) was boring and trite. A period piece steeped in sci-fi, it had major pacing issues throughout. It had it's moments, but most of those were supplied by perennial villain and overall badass Hugo Weaving. Sadly, Weaving has let it be known that, even though he's still under contract to Marvel, he has no intentions on reprising the role of the Red Skull.

What we're left with is a sequel that seems to have examined everything that didn't work with the first movie and jettisoned most of it in favour of a modern day political action drama that borders on the darkest of the recent Marvel films.

In a welcome change from the goofy antics of a lot of Marvel stuff these days, this movie is downright dour. Gone is most of the levity and lighthearted ribbing. In fact, in it's 1 hour 50 minute run time, there's nary a joke to be found.

The biggest issue with the film, however, is the hero himself. This isn't entirely Chris Evans' fault as the character of Captain America is so one-dimensional, it's hard to add any depth to it. If there was one word to describe the character and Evans' portrayal of him, it would be "affable". In fact, he's so damned affable it gets annoying after a while. I'm not saying they need to darken him and make him an anti-hero, but surely we could have him take some risks and break the mold every now and then. At no point in this movie do you ever have to wonder what Cap will do in any given situation. He's the same guy in or out of the costume. A veritable Clark Kent who never actually turns into Superman. It makes for little depth and precious little drama when you always know what the character is going to do and can never die.

I also took issue with Robert Redford, which is a shame as I'm a huge fan. He's wasted in this role. Given very little to do other than to attend board meetings, Redford never really gets a chance to shine and seems to be mostly phoning it in throughout.

Further to that, there is entirely too much exposition going on in some facets and not nearly enough in others. The main plot in regards to S.H.I.E.L.D. is spelled out and explained ad nauseam to the point where you wish people would stop talking and just get on with it. This actually creates some pacing issues in the second act. The Winter Soldier, however, is left shrouded in so much mystery that I walked out knowing almost nothing about him or how he came to be, which left me not really caring about the character one way or the other.

On the plus side, Johansson is great in her role as Black Widow. She has more to do in this movie than she had in Ironman 2 and The Avengers combined. She's the perfect foil for Cap with her questionable methods and motives. She's also insanely easy on the eyes, which definitely helps.

Newcomer Anthony Mackie also shines as Sam Wilson/Falcon. A chance meeting with Cap early in the movie followed by some shared war stories later on make the pairing of the two completely believable. It gets a little bromancy at the end, but Mackie mostly plays it straight and plays it very well.

As to the overall plotline of the movie itself, it seems like it wants to take some chances and risk a little more than most of the safe Marvel movies we're used to. And it does. However, in my oh so humble opinion, it doesn't take enough of them. I won't spoil anything for you. All I'll say is you won't need any tissues nor will you need a roadmap to figure out where it's all heading.

3.5 Stars
Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)
Reviewed by The Bitter Critic on Apr 12 2014
Rating: 3.5

Thursday, 6 March 2014

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times: A comment on the current state of television

These are some very weird times for TV. Allow me to elaborate.

The absolute very best and the absolute very worst TV shows that have ever been produced and aired are being produced and aired right now.

This duality leaves us in a bit of a pickle. We can't really say we've made strides forward and progressed to great TV when the worst of the shows keeps dragging the average down. For every Breaking Bad, there's a Toddler's and Tiaras. For every The Wire, there's a Cake Boss. In fact, I'm willing to bet there are more bad TV shows being produced than good TV shows right now.

Now here's where it gets a little odd.

In a lot of cases, the same people are watching both types of shows.

Weird, right? I know people that watch shows like Breaking Bad or Mad Men or Boardwalk Empire and not only love them but recognize them for the truly brilliant pieces of drama that they are. But they also watch shows like Jersey Shore or The Bachelor or Duck Dynasty. These latter shows offer nothing to the collective culture of our generation. Yet there they are, being produced, broadcast, and watched not just by the lowest common denominator, but by bright intellectuals and everyone in between.

I know what you're saying. "Oh, Bitter Critic. These are just guilty pleasures. I know they're bad but I watch them anyway". It's a fair point. But at the end of the day, you're a viewer and you're providing ratings. You're helping to keep them on the air. Without viewers and ratings, these shows wouldn't exist. I'm talking about the kinds of shows that bring us all down by their very existence. The only way shows like Here Comes Honey Boo Boo are going to stop getting made is if people stop watching them.

Please don't misunderstand me; this isn't a plea for everyone to stop watching bad TV shows. Watch whatever makes you happy. I'm just fascinated by it. The sheer breadth of scope between the great shows and the terrible shows should make the division between those who watch the high end and those who watch the low end much more distinct. That distinction just doesn't seem to be there.

Having said that, it's obvious that we're living in the golden age of television. I don't think anyone can deny that.

For example, more and more actors are starting to realize that on TV, they can tell a much richer, more comprehensive story. A story that dwarfs any movie simply by being able to tell your story over hours and hours of television. Thus you end up getting shows like True Detective on HBO that stars two Hollywood heavyweights the likes of Woody Harrelson and Matthew McConaughey.

Or you get shows that start to blur the line between Hollywood movies and TV programs. A show like Game of Thrones with it's epic grandeur, massive scope and cast of thousands.

But then I'll be at a buddy's place and he's tuned to A&E and a commercial comes on for a new show called Bring It. The show, as much as I could gather, seems to be a "reality" show about little girls doing competitive cheerleading and their overbearing, living-vicariously-through-them mothers going with them all over the country. As one mom in the promo said "This isn't competition. This is WAR". After sitting through this promo, two things popped into my mind. The first was that I was never going to get that 30 seconds of my life back. The second, and more important of the two, was what in the hell happened to the "A" in A&E? Doesn't the "A" stand for Arts? Where's the art in putting together such catastrophically bad TV shows?

I'm not looking for a solution here. I'm not looking to judge anyone either. We all have our vices.

I'm kinda curious, though. What if the reason we haven't had any contact with alien life up until now is the fact that they saw an episode of Real Housewives of [insert city here] and realized that our culture would have nothing to offer them?

Monday, 10 February 2014

Rush (2013) Movie Review

This week, I strapped on my 5-point harness (ok, my seatbelt), put on my racing helmet (ball cap), did some cool foot-hand-clutch-gear-shifty-stuff (which is weird as I drive an automatic) and raced to the video rental store to check out Rush (2013) starring Chris Hemsworth and Daniel Brühl. It's directed by Ron Howard.

Rush (2013) is, at it's heart, a fairly simple film. It tells the true life story of the 1970's Formula 1 racing rivalry between British born James Hunt and Austrian born Niki Lauda. There are, of course, deeper layers to the film. At it's core, though, it really comes down to the racing and the commitment these two men made to the "sport".

According to the still alive Lauda, the film is a very accurate retelling of events. This is a refreshing change from the norm in Hollywood where you get to see things like "inspired by" instead of "based on". Ultimately, though, this ended up being the weakest point in the film for me.

But first, let me heap a little bit of praise on it. It's beautifully shot, well acted and incredibly easy to follow. Hemsworth turns in his best performance to date. I hadn't seen Brühl in anything prior to this, but loved his performance as Lauda. The movie plays out exactly as you'd expect with Hunt and Lauda starting their rivalry early in the film and chasing each other throughout. There's never a time where the film gets so deep or complex that you can't follow what's happening. The locales are shown off to great effect and the racing footage itself is nothing short of amazing.

There we go. Now I'll feel better about picking what's left apart.

My biggest issue with this film is the lack of a protagonist. The portrayals of Hunt and Lauda are, apparently, spot on. That being the case, you should count yourself fortunate that you weren't hanging around either of these guys in the mid-to-late 1970s. Hunt is a self-destructive, pretty-boy jerk who treats everyone around him as a means to an end. He laughs in the face of danger while throwing up all over it. Bedding woman after woman, all while married to the beautiful Olivia Wilde, Hunt takes almost nothing seriously. He's self-centred and self-destructive. You can't root for him just because he's good looking because he's such a d-bag. Lauda, on the other hand, is the exact opposite (a point I'll get to in a minute). He's the smartest guy in the room and he makes sure everyone always knows it. Smug, arrogant, even the other characters in the movie call him an asshole throughout. He spends all his time looking down on anyone he feels is inferior and makes everyone else feel stupid for even existing. It doesn't help that his face resembles that of a weasel's.

So where does that leave us? A movie about two guys who are competing for a racing championship and an audience who doesn't want to see either of them win it.

Granted, director Ron Howard tried to turn it around somewhat later in the film. For me, it was too little too late. By the time the final race was underway to determine which of these two competitors was going to take home the trophy, I just didn't care. That's not to take away from the performances. As I said, they were spot on. But you can't spend 3/4 of your movie making me hate your two guys then try to win me over with the same 2 guys in the final 30 minutes. It just didn't work for me.

I mentioned the fact that Hunt and Lauda are opposites. This is readily apparent early in the film. Unfortunately, Howard must have thought we wouldn't pick up on this as he spends way too much time driving this point home. Not only does he establish this during the individual story arcs of Hunt and Lauda, but nearly every single interaction between them (of which there aren't really that many) takes the time to reinforce their wildly different outlooks on life. By the end of the film (yes, there's even one more scene at the end to drive this fact home), I was saying in my head "Yes, we get it. They're opposites. Please stop trying to make this extremely simple point."

For me, these two issues, nickpicky though they might be, took me out of the movie more times then I'd like to admit. It didn't detract from the technical aspects of the film. It just killed all the emotional payoffs for me.

All in all, a good film and an accurate record of what happened. And that's about it.

3 out of 5 stars

Rush (2013)
Reviewed by The Bitter Critic on Feb 10 2014
Rating: 3

Thursday, 6 February 2014

The Rivalry to End All Rivalries: Marvel Vs. DC

I know, I know. It's supposed to be a movie review blog. I just had to get my two cents in on this particular issue, though, as it's becoming more and more prevalent as it relates to the movie going public as a whole. Bare with me while I ramble on for a bit.

I remember a day, not that long ago, when you couldn't be a fan of both Star Wars and Star Trek. You had to pick one. No, really. You did. Oh, you could appreciate them both. But you had to single out one or the other. If you were a Star Wars guy or gal, you had to put it to the Star Trek guy or gal in your social circle. They, in turn, would need to expound upon the merits of their choice and explain to you why your choice was crap. Around and around we'd go.

These days, you get to say you like both as long as everyone agrees to hate Jar Jar.

I'm starting to see a similar trend developing with fans of the Marvel movie universe and the DC movie universe. For the uninitiated, let me give you a brief rundown.

Marvel and DC are the top two comic book publishing companies in the market. There are several smaller outfits putting out books as well, but most of the big guns are housed at these two companies.

Marvel Comics has brought to life heroes like Spider-Man, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man, The X-Men, The Avengers, Captain America and more. Mostly in the game since the early 1960's, they have spent decades dominating the comic book market.

On the other side of the fence, there's DC Comics. Since the 1930's, they've created such heroes as Batman, Wonder Woman, The Flash, Green Lantern, Aquaman and more. They put together the first team of heroes and called them the Justice Society of America. In short, DC was the first to put out a comic book with a guy in tights and a cape stopping crime and saving the world. They called him Superman.

Ok, that's your brief history lesson of comic books. A couple of things to note, though. While these two companies compete for the same market share, they are constantly bouncing talent back and forth between them (writers, artists and the like) and, more importantly, have actually worked together and co-published comics starring heroes from each company on several occasions. They seem to have a healthy respect for each other's work.

Now, on to the movies (I swear, I'm getting to the point of this article).

Supeman the Movie was released in 1978. It was the first big budget superhero movie of the modern era and it was a smash hit. Several sequels followed (the first one better than the original, the rest all dreck) and likely lead to Tim Burton getting his hands on Batman in 1989. And then that was a smash hit. It also followed nearly the same formula as the Superman franchise with 3 sequels, though this time each was weaker than the last. At this point, Warner Brothers (the parent company of DC Comics) let both of these properties have a rest from the big screen and turned to other projects. Enter 20th Century Fox.

Fox put out X-Men in 2000. No, not Marvel. Fox. See, Marvel had actually sold the movie rights to several of their properties throughout the years, never dreaming they would actually be getting into the business of making movies themselves. Properties like The Punisher, Blade, The Fantastic Four, The X-Men and, their flagship and most popular character, Spider-Man were sold off to other movie studios who developed those properties into (mostly) success movie franchises. X-Men was the first to market and set the tone for what was to come.

Marvel, to their credit, saw where the winds were blowing and decided to capitalize on their large catalogue of B and C list heroes by making individual movies, starting with Iron Man in 2008, to introduce these characters to the general public. Fans ate them up. Since then, Marvel has built a cohesive movie universe where several heroes have been brought to the silver screen in their own franchises, then all brought together to battle evil alien invaders in The Avengers in 2012. And oh, how the money rolled in.

DC, on the other hand, is owned by Warner Brothers. This means that every single character that's ever appeared in a DC comic is available to WB to build a franchise around. That's 75 years of publishing history with, literally, hundreds if not thousands of characters to choose from. So, naturally, they've only ever really tried to build around Superman and Batman. In 2005, DC rebooted the Batman franchise with Batman Begins. Directed by Christopher Nolan, it was a fresh and realistic take on the origin of The Caped Crusader. Both financially and critically successful, this lead to two sequels, both earning in excess of a billion dollars each worldwide. Thinking they'd cracked the formula, DC tried to reboot the Superman franchise as well with Superman Returns in 2006. It didn't go so well. A rather dull movie, the film failed to score great reviews and, more importantly, didn't exactly light up the box office. Green Lantern in 2011 also failed to connect with audiences.

Now it was back to the drawing board. And they drew up Man of Steel in 2013.

Man of Steel is the first in a connected series of movies for DC. Similar to Marvel, DC wants to team up their heroes on the big screen and watch some serious dollars roll in. Man of Steel only had Superman in it, but hints were dropped throughout that our plucky hero wasn't alone in the tights wearing business.

Man of Steel 2, it was announced, would have Batman starring alongside Superman for the first time on the big screen. Soon, Wonder Woman was added to the mix. More rumours abounded that other heroes might also make an appearance. Should it be successful, this would put DC right beside Marvel with a big movie universe starring several of their heroes all connected.

And the fans were outraged.

For reasons that still escape me, we're right back to the whole Star Wars vs. Star Trek thing again. The majority of fans (yes, I'm generalizing) are split right down the middle, hating one while loving the other. To those fans, I have one simple question:


Both of these companies publish comic books. Both of these companies are spending ridiculous amounts of money to bring those comic book heroes and villains to life on the big screen. While I understand they're competing for your dollar, why is it up to you to hoist the flag and champion one or the other? Why can't we, as fans of the genre as a whole, love both?

As a movie reviewer (delusions of grandeur be damned), I try to take the time to read movie news and rumours as they're published along with fan reaction to said same. No other genre has so completely divided the fan base like comic book movies. There are people absolutely hating Man of Steel 2 and Avengers 2...and those movies haven't even begun production yet.

In their blind loyalty to their particular product or brand, they can't see the good in the other. Ever met someone that only drinks Coke and refers to Pepsi as something akin to liquid death? That's the kind of people I'm talking about. Personally, I don't taste much difference between the two (I've taken the Pepsi challenge half a dozen times and I think I'm around 50/50) and enjoy both.

I love watching dudes and dudettes running around in tights kicking other dudes' and dudettes' collective butts. Do I really have to slap a label on my forehead, only cheering for one side or the other?

Don't get me wrong. I haven't loved every movie produced from comic book source material. Far from it. But I haven't singularly loved or hated any of them just because of who was producing them.

To the fandom, I say this: Let each film stand on it's on merits. Don't blindly follow one company or another like sheep. Make up your own damned minds.

Friday, 31 January 2014

Doctor Who: What's in a name?

This week, I finally got the chance to catch up with everyone's favourite time traveling problem solver. No, I'm not talking about Inspector Spacetime. I'm talking about The Doctor.

When I say catch up, I mean I binge watched the entire series on Netflix. From Eccleston to Tennant to Smith and now to Capaldi. I'm only talking about the 2005 revival of the show. 

A few things have struck me about the show and some of the ramifications of the plot lines. I thought I'd share some of them with ya. Be warned, though; if you're not a Whovian, there are spoilers ahead!

Foremost among my observations deals with The Doctor's true name. In 50 years of the show being on the air, it has never been revealed. In fact, in this last season (or series as the Brits call it), it became a major plot point. They even went so far as to call one of the last three episodes "The Name of the Doctor". A lot of folks were convinced they were finally going to give us the name of our favourite Galifreyan. Alas, it was not meant to be. Nor will it be meant to be. Like, ever.

The real conundrum here is the fact that the name has remained hidden for 50 years. There is absolutely, positively no way you can ever reveal it now. Not only would it likely end up being a let down after five decades of build up but, more importantly, where would you go from there? It's the last great secret on the show. To reveal it would be to end all the intrigue and suspense and have nothing to follow it up with.

That's why this past season really surprised me that the show runners made it a central plot point. I understand that the show is called Doctor Who, so it's natural that you'd be asking yourself the same question. As a throw away, it's a cute line (sort of like "It's bigger on the inside"), but using it as a plot device simply hems you into a corner and ties your hands together. You can't reveal it, so why bother building up to it as though you can and will?

Which leads me to my next question. Who actually knows his true name? So far, on the show, the only character that has flat out said they know it is River Song. We thought we were going to see the scene where the Doctor tells her his true name on the day the two got married. Turns out he said something else to her entirely. I'm not saying there may not be some future episode where some incarnation of the Doctor tells River what his true name is, but I can't imagine the circumstance or the reason he would.

Who else might know? Well, what about the other Time Lords? They've shown the rulers of Galifrey on a few different episodes now. They even address him directly and yet they still call him The Doctor. Same with The Master. So what's the deal? Do Time Lords adopt some kind of nickname or moniker early in their lives then assume it as their identity, making everyone refer to them as such? If that's the case, what is the point of having birth names at all? And what would make them so earth-shatteringly important?

I'll be the first to admit I'm not well versed in Who lore. I caught the show on TVO when I was a kid whenever it was on (the Tom Baker era), but I remember very little of it. Some of these questions may have been dealt with during the Classic series. If so, I invite you to drop me a comment and set me straight.

I've got more Who to discuss, but I think I'll save it for next time.

Saturday, 7 December 2013

Gravity (2013) Review

This week (actually, a few weeks ago), I strapped on my space suit and moonwalked down to the local cinema to check out Gravity (2013) starring Sandra Bullock and George Clooney and directed by Alfonso Cuaron.

Gravity takes place in space. That's pretty much the plot synopsis right there. Bullock and Clooney are working on a satellite when all hell breaks loose. It then turns into a fight for survival.

Even that synopsis is too long. I could sum up this film in two words:

Absolutely beautiful.

Visually this is, hands down, one of the most stunning pieces of film you will ever see. The movie starts off in space and stays there for the duration. Some of the laws of space are even observed. Most notably, the lack of any sound. This means that, while all this crazy destruction is going on around them, all you hear is Bullock and Clooney talking and breathing in their own suits. Oh, and the soundtrack...

Steven Price did the soundtrack for this movie and it's brilliant. You go in expecting grandiose, orchestral music to accompany the sci-fi space setting. You don't get it. What you get is some amazing ambient tones and music that manages to get you exactly where you need to go to appreciate the scene in question without bashing you over the head with it. It's a truly unique approach and a welcome surprise in a movie that was full of them.

The special effects are not only top notch, but they seem nearly impossible. In the past, when a movie wanted to simulate weightlessness, they'd send the cast and crew up in a plane ironically called the "vomit comet". It's the same plane used by NASA to train it's astronauts. It does, in fact, render everyone and everything weightless, but only for a brief period of time. Apollo 13 is a good example of a movie that utilized this feature.

For Gravity, however, the vast majority of the film takes place in a zero-g environment. You get long, beautifully shot takes of Bullock and Clooney blissfully floating around completely weightless. I scratched my head trying to figure out how it was done. I won't spoil the experience for you, but I actually had to look it  up to see how they did it. If you'd like to know, you can too!

That's not to say all is well. While the movie is very tightly edited at 91 minutes in length and is largely wall-to-wall action and adventure, it suffers greatly from a lack of backstory and character development. I appreciated the sequences and the non-stop pacing, but I found it difficult to root for anyone in this film. I don't know them. As I said, the movie starts off with them already in space and just stays there. No flashbacks. No long pieces of exposition about past experiences (save one that isn't very long nor is it very impactful). Just them. In space. Fighting for their lives. Pulse-pounding? Absolutely. Did I much care about either of them? Not really.

The film is a triumph of visual effects. It's a groundbreaking movie much the same way Star Wars and The Matrix were when it comes to showing off just what someone can do with technology and imagination. It's a bit of a shame about the characterization, but you'll barely notice it since you won't leave the edge of your seat once the debris starts to fly.

4 out of 5 stars
Gravity (2013) Review
Reviewed by The Bitter Critic on Dec 07 2013
Rating: 4

Monday, 9 September 2013

Elysium (2013) Review

This week, I put on my jumpsuit, shaved my head and skipped on down to the local theatre to see Elysium (2013) starring Matt Damon and directed by Neill Blomkamp.

The film tells the story of Max DaCosta (Damon), a down-on-his-luck guy who, after an accident at work brought on by negligence by the supervisor, has only 5 days to live. His only hope for survival are the medical facilities on the sub-orbital space station Elysium. The catch? Elysium is extremely well guarded (apparently) and only meant for the rich and wealthy while the rest of the sweaty masses live on a disease-ridden and overpopulated Earth.

If you're expecting another film like Blomkamp's directorial debut and Best Picture Oscar nominated District 9 (2009)...a taut, gritty, political drama about class separation that just happens to have a sci-fi're going to be sorely disappointed.

My assumption here is that, with all the good will District 9 (2009) garnered, Blomkamp was basically given a blank cheque and told to write and direct whatever the hell he wanted. And boy does it show.

There's enough wrong with this movie that I simply can't dedicate entire paragraphs to every point. I'm going to have to just give you the quick and dirty bullet points instead. 

WARNING: Here there be spoilers
  • Sharlto Copley is ridiculous as the lead bad guy. He's so over the top he makes other movie villains seem downright Shakespearian by comparison.
  • Matt Damon seems half asleep throughout most of this. I know he's supposed to be sick near the beginning of the movie, but he just never seems to engage with the audience. Most of the time, I just didn't much care what happened to him.
  • Jodie Foster is absolutely dreadful. She sounded like she was trying to effect some kind of an accent, but I have zero idea what it was supposed to be, other than terrible. Her motivations were sketchy at best and never really fleshed out. Her death (I warned ya!) not only comes as no surprise, but it's handled very poorly.
  • I hope William Fitchner was paid very well for his role in this film. Not only is his character utterly useless, but it's so cardboard thin and cliched I cringed every single time he was on the screen.
  • It's over 90 minutes before Damon's character actually gets to Elysium. Let me say that again. It's over 90 MINUTES.
  • Damon's underworld contact on Earth is a guy named Spider. Spider has a rather thick accent. Spider is a very fast talker. This means I didn't catch fully two-thirds of what Spider was saying most of the time.
  • Neill Blomkamp can only shoot a film with two types of cameras; a slow-motion one and an extremely shaky handheld one. Neither was flattering to this film. It's like Ang Lee and Paul Greengrass had a baby and that baby grew up to be an old person with palsy and that old person with palsy was operating the camera most of the time.
  • Jodie Foster's character asks William Fitchner's character to make her a program that will put Elysium under her control. Fichter even labels her plan as a "coup". Somehow, when this one program is run, it actually does the exact opposite of that thing, making everyone everywhere a citizen of Elysium and sending help out to the entire Earth. What?
  • And then there's the suit. You've seen the trailers. You know Damon gets strapped into this suit looking dealie that appears to give him super powers and is the key to getting on to Elysium. Only it's not. The suit almost never comes into play. It also doesn't do anything to help him get to Elysium. It kinda gets used in a couple of fights and it ends up storing this mystical, magical program (like a really painful USB stick) and that's about it.

To summarize, this film looks terrible due to the shoddy camera work. The plot is laughable, the action is sub-standard and all the high ideals put forth at the beginning of the film end up taking a back seat to the horrible cat and mouse act between Evil Copley and Boring Damon. You don't need to see this film.

1 out of 5 stars
Elysium (2013)
Reviewed by The Bitter Critic on Aug 09 2013
Rating: 1