The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Note to self - you can't catch fire... or throw it

                                  It wasn't long after this that the Nazi's fired their fashion designer

DIRECTOR: Francis Lawrence

CAST: Jennifer Lawrence (no relation), a load of men that aren't good enough for Jennifer Lawrence, one of seven psychopaths, the mother of JD's child, the head of Scientology, Kiefer Sutherland's dad, the pervert from The Lovely Bones, baboons, fog and blisters ... 

PLOT: It's the second adaptation in Suzanne Collins' immensely popular series of books, and with Katniss Everdeen (Lawrence) trying to get over the fun of the first film, she's invited (forced) back for more Hunger Games brutality when a selection of the previous winners are pitted against one another.

The biggest issue that the makers of the The Hunger Games: Catching Fire had to go up against was producing a different enough story than Gary Ross' adaptation of the first novel. It would have been easy to become The Hunger Games 2.0 instead of its own film by just showing another competition of predominantly adolescents offing each other whilst trying to keep the BBFC from losing their shit. Not only did Francis Lawrence make Catching Fire its own film, he made it the better film.

For the first half of the film's arguably overlong duration some viewers may feel agitated. Instead of watching the aforementioned competitors fighting to the death which took up the vast majority of the time in last year's prequel and became what it is now famous for, we get a wider exploration of the themes and the problems that mare the District's of Panem and are delivered an engrossing and compromising character study, including a further insight into a love triangle and dystopian social and political commentary that may not be subtle but is certainly most welcome. 

This is a franchise that has been conceived and birthed during the Twilight era but the important difference is that it has some added weight... and context, intelligence, heart, and overall genuine talent, really.

                               The Stig had to find another job after Top Gear's eventual cancellation

But as with the predecessor, despite the fact that the cast are all exceedingly impressive (even the worst Hemsworth brother is quite good), the biggest draw to the film is Jennifer Lawrence. She holds the camera and our attention with ease with her effortless likability and her flawless ability to throw herself head first into any role that comes her way. With any other actress, her character could come across as droll and joyless, but Lawrence's charisma and willingness to grasp the low key emotional scenes as well as the high-octane scenes so firmly has made it so that Katniss Everdeen has become her own beast, almost her own creation; if you read the novels now you envision Lawrence, and nobody would rightfully complain about that. 

As with the second half of the film, the actual Games themselves, it is a step up from the first. There are more challenges other than the enemy "tributes", a further reliance on teamwork and surviving against the elements, some of which when listed out on paper sound absolutely ludicrous but actually work out very well onscreen. The quality direction and cinematography, combining with the great performances, makes the Games a evermore growingly tense viewing throughout, with small hints that suggests which direction the emotional climax and the remainder of the franchise is going to go in, but is thankfully never too obvious for less active audiences. 

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is a much more confident affair than its prequel. The unstoppable force that is Jennifer Lawrence grabs the role with both hands and the overall arcing story of Suzanne Collins' novels can no longer be backhanded by the ignorant as a mere knock-off of Battle Royale. It's become much, much more than that. The next two instalments, the novel Mockingjay which is being split into two films, will be a further test to translate to screen, but with the sustained talent of everyone involved, there's no reason that this unlikely phenomenon cannot continue to take the box office by storm.

* * * * 

Gravity (IMAX 3D)

"Ground control to Major Tom..."

                                                 "Aaarrrgggghhhhhh- ooo, a penny!"

DIRECTOR: Alfonso Cuarón

CAST: American middle-class woman that cares about black people and a man who stares at goats...

PLOT: During a spacewalk, Sandra Bullock's Dr. Ryan Stone and George Clooney's Lieutenant Matt Kowalski are detached from the Hubble Space Telescope after they collide with debris, thus kickstarting their struggle to get home.

Now that I've caught my breath, what follows is a series of words and grunts that will try and do justice (and probably fail) to not only one of the best films of the year, nor merely one of the best science-fiction films of all time, but one of the best films of all time. 

Alfonso Cuarón previously said, and it's unclear as to whether or not he was joking, that he wanted to actually make Gravity in space, but studios (rightfully) wouldn't take him seriously due to the cost and the possible dangers for the A-list duo. Something for the future, maybe? Luckily that doesn't matter for now, though, as you could easily be tricked into thinking that this was genuinely filmed in space. The first few minutes could even pose as a documentary - albeit a stunningly cinematic one.

Bullock's and Clooney's performances are both magnificent; true tests in what actors will go through to capture performances so realistic. Often having to act on their own, Bullock puts in the performance of her career, and Clooney is a safe bet as usual, the sort of charismatic and calm voice you would want up there with you if you were to put yourself in the same predicament. 

But despite all of this, Cuarón is the real star. His vision to create something so monumental is both audacious and inspiring; not many directors would have been so far-reaching, but if anyone was to pull it off it would be the amazing Cuarón, who went as far to invent new shooting equipment with his production team in order to recreate what was existing in his mind. The first ten minutes or so is one continuous shot that will be enough to make many a viewer feel queasy, and accompanied by the fantastic CGI, you will be drawn into the film from there on in. This is a technical dream that will confuse not only film fans, but also filmmakers, prompting head scratching and question asking.

And that isn't all. Cuarón also manages to make the most impressive 3D film, ever. James Cameron needs to take a shit on his own face after seeing this, because there is not a better film at utilising the third dimension to such awe-inducing effect. Even with almost $150 million short of Avatar's budget, Cuarón and his effects team has set the bar high and proved that 3D may not be a gimmick after all. If 3D films looked this good all of the time, then it would be the preferred medium to view films. I for one cannot imagine seeing Gravity in two-dimensions (in fact, I could live with never seeing it again, as a television screen at home will never live up to the same expectations). See it in IMAX if possible because it really puts the grand scale of things into perspective; there were times when I was so engulfed by the narrative that I could imagine myself to be up there with the astronauts, especially in the opening scene.  

                                                     "No, this isn't Ellen Ripley..."

Some viewers have gone as far to criticise the constant dialogue coming from Bullock throughout the film despite the fact that she is often on her own. Defense is due for Cuarón and his son, as this choice is the correct one. It isn't expositional, it's sometimes character development, but it's always to add further feeling to the film. Imagine yourself in the protagonist's position: on your own in space, trying to survive a mountainous situation, with nobody to speak to. It's only natural that you would constantly speak to yourself in a bid to keep yourself sane, to keep yourself from giving up. Most people speak to themselves every single day when they are alone and performing the simplest of tasks. If you're trying to survive a cataclysmic event in outer space, you're going to keep on fucking talking to yourself.

And it's this feeling of isolation that serves the film so strongly. Never has there been a film that has represented space as true (I would imagine) as this - beautiful, peaceful, and very frightening, dangerous and empty, which is further highlighted by no diegetic sounds of rubble and objects colliding, accompanied by an almost perfect score that is unfortunately, only now and then, a little too overwhelming, namely in the final shot. But there's no cutaways to Houston, no cutaways to loved ones watching news reports, no cutaways to Earth. We stay with our protagonist in every single shot; this is our journey as well. Show future astronauts this film and they may very well question their career choice there and then.

Everything about this film is brave: the performances, the technicalities, the use of effects, and the beautiful cinematography and camerawork that incorporates unflinching long takes and POV shots that exists alongside the third dimension perfectly. Cuarón and co. deserve all of the plaudits. Believe the hype. See this before it exits the cinemas, there is literally no other way to witness it. This is what cinema is made for.

* * * * *

Thor: The Dark World

"Oh, for Thork's sake!"

                                                             Brains... or braun? 

DIRECTOR: Alan Taylor

CAST: James Hunt, the Black Swan, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Hannibal Lecter, Bootstrap Bill, Nelson Mandela, Doctor Who? and a pair of boobs...

PLOT: With Loki imprisoned for kicking seven shades of shit out of New York City, all seems to be well in the Nine Realms... until Christopher Eccleston's hideous Dark Elf decides to kick seven shades of shit out of the universe.

The second 'Phase 2' Marvel movie since The Avengers, Thor: The Dark World had a lot to live up to having to follow up this year's monumentally successful and entertaining Iron Man 3. With Kenneth Branagh, director of Thor's first solo outing, out of the realm and replaced by esteemed US TV drama director of quality shows such as Game of Thrones, Boardwalk Empire, and err, Sex and the City? you would put your money on the franchise being in safe hands.

Aside from the irritating pair of boobs that is Kat Dennings, and the equally irritating score that accompanies the light-hearted scenes on Earth (of which there are a fair few), and the, at times, weak editing and pacing, Thor: The Dark World continues to do justice to Marvel's cinematic master plan, offering comedy (most of which comes in the final confrontation), impressive action sequences (of which we needed more of), and charismatic performances from the ever-reliable and enviable Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston (of which we can't get enough of).

It could have been a lazy, but safe bet, to simply have made this Loki: The Dark World, as Hiddleston's career-marking character does show up before Thor even does; but instead he serves as an intelligent narrative device, rather than the entire narrative itself. We await Hiddleston's arrival into the action-fold with excitement, but it doesn't come until the halfway mark. Unsurprisingly, once that halfway mark is hit, the film excels and gets a lot more interesting. At the end of the day, we couldn't really give a monkey's shit about all of the 'sciency' exposition that tries to explain fictional happenings, all we want to do is watch Thor hit people with a hammer, and Loki charm his way into subconsciously manipulating all of the male viewers to question (or cement) their sexuality for almost two hours.

                                                                      Hammer time!

Unfortunately, the other main reason as to why this Thor adventure doesn't quite live up to its predecessor, other than the Branagh's solid direction, is the villain. As with the majority of superhero films, the ones with the best villains tend to stand out. You don't watch The Dark Knight for Christian Bale's in-need-of-a-Soother Batman, you watch it for Heath Ledger's stunning portrayal of The Joker. 

And although Loki still isn't necessarily a stereotypical hero, his threat and presence as the main antagonist is sorely missed. Christopher Eccleston's hideous Dark Elf, Malekith, isn't given enough screen time and his motivations aren't as clear or interesting as Loki's engaging backstory. Malekith seems to wreak havoc for havocs sake. A villain that wants to destroy the entire universe lacks any hint of empathy and we cannot see why he would want to do anything that he does. You'll end up missing Loki's wise-cracking ways and fabulously evil costume.

Overall, the film is better when hammers are being swung and effects are being fully utilised, namely when we get to see a lot more of Asgard. Where Branagh's 2011 Thor was arguably better when people were talking and joking with its comedic fish-out-of-water story, this one often falls flat and is much funnier during the climax that gleefully dots around London and the rest of the universe. It seems as though the antagonist should have been given a more credible backstory instead of Hemsworth's and Portman's forced romance, and the strange love triangle that is born with it which doesn't even have its surface scratched. Had Eccleston's evil-doer been given the full works, and a more solid script that didn't feel as if it needed saving by Joss Whedon towards the end of production, this could have been one of the best Marvel films yet.   

* * * ½

Captain Phillips

'Captain Birdseye, do you copy?!'

                                                   "Wilson!!!!!- damn, wrong movie" 

DIRECTOR: Paul Greengrass

CAST: Woody, the slut who loves John Malkovich, and the best talent Somalia has to offer...

PLOT: Based on the 'true' events of Captain Richard Phillips being kidnapped by Somali pirates in 2009, this film offers us an insight into how the incident unravelled.


Unless you were living in a hole in 2009, or you more realistically just don't pay any attention to the news, you will probably know the outcome of this entire film, as is the problem with adaptations that are based on real events. But despite this, Captain Phillips is never short of suspense or excitement, as Paul Greengrass toys with your adrenaline whilst Tom Hanks simultaneously manipulates your emotions, both combining to create a fiercely effective storytelling duo.

Neither individual lets one another down. They are the main players, here to tell the story of bravery and resilience with a hint of social and cultural commentary in both the US and Somalia without being too preachy. Cynics may be worried due to the casting of Tom Hanks - an actor who's American as apple pie and a main player in the US single-handedly winning World War II (WITH NO HELP WHATSOEVER), but this is never played out as a gung-ho film trying to recreate Bourne-ish thrills out at sea, it is instead a contained thriller that will keep you on the edge of your seat.

There's no urgent phone calls to the president, it's simply three parties - Phillips and his crew, the Somalian pirates (led by their brilliant captain and Somalian acting newcomer Barkhad Abdi, a dark horse for awards season), and the US Navy, whose importance isn't felt until the final act. There's no heroes and villains; much like real life it is just a story of two different men and their relationship during times of desperation, both of whom are at the core, fighting for survival. There's no dialogue to pander to its audience, Hanks doesn't try to convince his captors that they are the same as him. They're not and everyone knows it - different cultures, different backgrounds, different lives. Ultimately, though, one goal: survival.

And this is where the film really does excel. Nobody is demonised and nobody will question your morals if you at times feel inclined to side with the pirates. Their backstory, like Phillips', might be short, but it's all you need to see. They have to do this, regardless of whether they want to or not. Just as Phillips constantly tells his crew "everything is going to be ok", so does Somali captain, Muse (cool name). Thankfully Team America would never have to get involved in this situation, there's no explosions, no fantastical fist fights, or cheesy one-liners about who will be the victor. Everything is believable and plays as if this is exactly the line of events that happened in reality. Its realistic enough to make you sea-sick.

                                   "That boat is getting extremely loud and incredibly close"

Tom Hanks may constantly prove that he'd never lost form throughout the duration, reminding us that he's still one of the best actors in the world, but it's important to remember that the man behind the camera is just as important during Captain Phillips. Greengrass directs with a real sense of urgency, putting you right on the decks or inside the lifeboat, providing you with a suspenseful cocktail mixing excitement with terror. As Muse tells Phillips that he doesn't want anyone to get hurt, we pray that he's telling the truth.

With all biopics, there is always going to be controversies. There will always be people telling different stories and denying the events on-screen. Regardless of any of this, Captain Phillips stands as one of the best films of the year, signifying when two of the most talented and exciting individuals in cinema teamed up and made sure that there wasn't a dry eye in the house as the overwhelming journey leaves you gasping for air.

* * * * *

Filth

It's the sound of da police...

                                                        Fun for all the family

DIRECTOR: Jon S. Baird

CAST: Hippy Professor Xavier, Billy Elliot, a Jew at the world cup final, funny name Poots, village of the year obsessive, Moaning Myrtle and Billy Elliot's dad...

PLOT: You'll be asking how Detective Sergeant Bruce Robertson (McAvoy) ever got this far in his career during the adaptation of the same name from Trainspotting author Irvine Welsh, chronicling the efforts of the filthy, STI riddled, inhumane, hallucinating, immoral pig as he heads a Christmas-time murder investigation whilst attempting to cheat his way to a promotion.


Anyone that knew absolutely anything about the source material before the film was released wouldn't have been blamed for scratching their heads regarding the casting of the immensely likeable James McAvoy as the protagonist(?) of this potentially mental-scarring film for anyone whose mettle isn't up to the test of seeing a supposedly respected police officer blackmailing an under-aged girl into giving him a blow-job and then criticising her technique and comparing it to a "cheese-grater".

That morally obscene event happens fairly early on in the film and it doesn't get any sweeter when exploring the seedy sides of Edinburgh. But for people whose only knowledge of the film before the viewing is only that of the trailer and a short synopsis, you may be surprised to find that Filth also has a more serious dark edge to it, as all of the injustices are met with equally downbeat and harrowing repercussions.

This isn't simply a straight-up comedy watching McAvoy get his kicks from harassing witnesses and his co-workers (a superb cast featuring Jamie Bell and his on-screen dad in Billy Elliot, Gary Lewis), using copious amounts of cocaine, and indulging in hardcore pornography and erotic asphyxiation; it's also a dark and demented exploration of a broken human spirit being haunted by terrifying hallucinations and a frightening Jim Broadbent as his bulbous headed doctor. In one scene you will be keeling over with your sides splitting, in the next you will feel guilty as the phenomenal James McAvoy (quickly becoming one of the most exciting and unpredictable actors in the world) picks at your emotions and molests them one at a time and, against the expected style of the film, genuinely makes you feel for a complete wanker.

And it's a good thing that Filth director Jon S. Baird and McAvoy succeed in doing this else the film would be borderline unwatchable, apart from those that are literally affected by nothing. It could be clever marketing, but more than likely completely coincidental, that its release came so close to World Mental Health Day, because if it wasn't for the consequences and the justification of evil acts and exploring Sergeant Bruce Robertson's tortured soul, this film would merely exist to provoke with bad taste. The only better time that this film could have been released would have been to mentally scar your Christmas this fall.

                                                       Merry fucking Christmas

Aside from the dirty plot, this is also a terrifically made film, shot brilliantly giving a Hollywood-like feel to proceedings. Some may wonder why the cinematography was given the glossy treatment instead of taking on a more gritty visual style, but it could be read as Robertson's highly perched ego constantly giving himself more importance and credit than he deserves. Accompanied by a fantastic soundtrack which bi-polarises the subject matter, it all gels together perfectly. Albeit with a strange, disgusting gel that you wouldn't want to touch despite its ability to intoxicate.

Don't be surprised to see fellow audience members making their way towards the exits early on. Even if your resolve is tested too, do stick with it, as this is more than just crude behaviour, graphic sex, and Scotsmen swearing, it's much, much more than that.

* * * * ½


If my blog is not giving you enough of a movie fix, then maybe you should check out the Take3 podcast, in which myself, John Brown, and James Conibear discuss film news and reviews - check it out for free on SoundCloud by following the link below:

https://soundcloud.com/take3-podcast/03-10-13 

Prisoners

Not starring Wentworth Miller, Vinnie Jones, or Morgan Freeman

                                        Jackman had just watched Scrubs for the first time

DIRECTOR: Dennis Villeneuve

CAST: Van Helsing (lol), the Prince of Persia (lol), an actor from There Will Be Blood, Little Miss Sunshine and Looper (respect), black actress of the moment, the original War Machine, the new Evelyn O'Connell, and Mickey Ward's mum...

PLOT: When the BBFC's opening warning begins with telling you 'this film includes themes of child abduction', you know you're not in for a skip in the daisy field. In a remote US town, 'Keller' (Jackman) and 'Franklin' (Terrence Howard) have their daughter's kidnapped. With little faith in 'Detective Loki' (not Tom Hiddleston; Jake Gyllenhaal) and the rest of the police force, we see first-hand what depths father's will drop to in order to find their loved ones...


  
With the digital age and infinite knowledge and anticipation of the future directly at your fingertips, these days it isn't often that a film that you know very little about comes out of nowhere to completely blow you out of your shell. Despite the fact that the director is relatively unknown (not for long, surely), the calibre of acting talent on show would suggest that this would be many cineaste's one to look forward to of the year. Other than the odd recent trailer I had no idea of the film's existence. And due to the film's seemingly bland title (which will become more appropriate as the film rolls on) I had no intention of seeing it because of the false belief that it would be yet another conventional 'whodunnit' thriller that luckily managed to nab a few great actors with a high pay cheque.

But thanks to rave reviews and hushed Oscar buzz making Prisoners a dark horse for awards season, I thought I'd give it a shot and was subsequently shocked to the core in the best possible way. It opens in relatively recognisable fashion, introducing the families, the themes of religion and masculinity, and applying sound character development to let us know that these are neighbourly folk living a simple life in a remote little US town.

However, things quickly turn sour and the two young girls go missing, and from there on in you are hooked, wrapped around the little finger of Villeneuve and his brilliant cast, and just like that you are along for the ride. Albeit a long ride, it's the sort of narrative involving characters that are layered enough to warrant a television series, but instead, and thankfully due to the quality, this is a film that may be long, but it is never boring. You forgot to take a piss before the showing, you're two hours in, half an hour to go, and your bladder can't seem to hold out. Don't worry, your brain isn't letting you go anywhere - you'll sooner leave a puddle on your favourite seat at your local cinema.

There is only one moment in the film when it feels as if the story is going to peter out and lose its hard-hitting hook that occurs roughly three-quarters of the way through. But the film is quickly and expertly rescued and it soon dawns on you that the slowing of pace was used as a narrative device. Kudos to the fine acting, especially from Gyllenhaal who will struggle to ever top this career-cementing performance, for making sure that you don't lose faith before the powerful and gut-wrenching final act.

                            Gyllenhaal was desperately looking for a product that would tame his hair

One of the most impressive things about Prisoners is its balance within understanding. Many crime thrillers fail with the narrative, either being too simple that it bored audiences or too complicated that it angers and disengages audiences. Prisoners instead manages to ride the fine line directly in the middle - nobody that is actively viewing the film will be lost, yet nobody who believes themselves to be a genius and a film addict will feel that the plot spoon feeds them.

Prisoners puts the word thrill into thriller. When you see quotes such as "Edge of your seat stuff" on a DVD case, they're often lying. The following is not a lie - this is literally edge-of-your-seat stuff. There will be many a moment that you struggle to breathe and holding on for dear life. Most mystery thrillers you work out maybe halfway through, but this has you clueless right up to the final few scenes. You find out when our protagonist's find out. That's not to say that the conclusion doesn't make sense, or that the clues weren't there. They were just dealt with so well that we had as little of an idea as 'Detective Loki'.

This is also helped by the technical aspects and the execution of the film. The cinematography is beautiful in the bleakest way imaginable. The rain hammering down onto the ground, the murky, filthy locations, the detective with his own demons - it all rings true of old film noirs and it works a treat. It may be missing a femme fatale and characters chain smoking, but Prisoners is what it is, and instead utilises certain looks and feels if and when it chooses.

But at heart this is also a character study. As mentioned there is the religious and masculinity-obsessed father (Jackman), the job-obsessed detective with demons in his closet (Gyllenhaal), and the weird, ugly, child-obsessed suspect (Dano). You think that you'll know all of these characters, and you probably do. Yet you won't know them in the way that you think you do. Let the battle for shelf decorations commence!

Prisoners is by far the surprise of the year, and it is doubtful that any other film will come out of nowhere like this one and punch you in the brain and the heart in such a violent fashion for quite some time. If you're British but still consider Django Unchained a 2012 film, it's very difficult to look past this as the film of the year so far. This will stay with you long after the opening credits and then some. You will feel exhausted and overwhelmed; as if you've just stepped off the best rollercoaster in the world.

Perfection has never felt so seedy.

* * * * *

Elysium

"Where are the fucking prawns?"

                                                     'Maybe I should grow my hair...'

DIRECTOR Neill Blomkamp

CAST: Zoo owner, Clarice Staling, and South African "Howling Mad" Murdock...

PLOT: After getting a full blast of radiation poisoning, 'Max' ("Matt Damooooon") decides that he must get to a medical bay to cure himself of said poisoning. The only issue is, said medical bay is on a spherical space station inhabited by the rich that absorbs Earth named 'Elysium'... said.

Expectations were obviously high for Neill Blomkamp's follow-up to the critically acclaimed 'District 9'. These high expectations were then escalated when the explosive trailer for 'Elysium' arrived and promised more thunderous action sequences, selfish intentions and vague political commentary. All of the above were certainly delivered, but not quite to the same standard as 'District 9' treated us to. This doesn't seem as adventurous or fresh, it instead touches on formula in an attempt to appeal to more mainstream audiences. But some films will never be bettered, and when you could argue that Blomkamp perhaps peaked too soon in his directorial career, if you remember not to compare the two films, which can be quite difficult, then you will have a wholly enjoyable time at the cinema.

But despite aiming for a wider audience, with the lack of a verite filming style and a score that often rings out like 'Inception', what I was thrilled to see was more accounts of extreme violence and exhilarating action sequences with wonderfully destructive futuristic weaponry from Blomkamp, something he thankfully can't seem to leave behind. The violence is at times unflinching and quite shocking, usually delivered to us by the thorn in Matt Damon's side - the brilliantly deranged Sharlto Copley as a mercenary named 'Kruger' on the hunt for Damon's mechano-man. Copley is the purest sort of evil; an example of complete psychopathy that has no reasoning behind it. Whenever he's on the screen the tension and the excitement is turned up, anticipating awesome action and brutality. Jodie Foster's villain is child's play in comparison, despite being satisfyingly pretentious.

However, despite the fact that you will probably root for Copley, that's not to say that Damon doesn't deliver a good performance. As always, he's exceedingly likable and can handle himself well in the fight scenes, which will come to no surprise to 'Bourne' fans. It's a new look for Damon - with the slap head and a lot more stacked than the leaner 'Bourne', but this is your typical reliable Damon performance. His character doesn't have the most surprising arc throughout the narrative, but sometimes keeping a character's story simple is as good as applying complicated motives - the fight for survival is the most primal and important to anyone.

                                                      'Maybe I should get a haircut...'

The socio-politcal messages are thin, probably so as not to alienate too many viewers. The rich vs poor is spelled out, but other aspects could be read into more - such as the fact that inhabitants of 'Elysium' mainly speak French, and inhabitants of LA speak a lot of Spanish. But 'Elysium' is here for the fun - how else can it not be when your favourite character will be the deliciously evil 'Kruger'? Much like 'Elysium' itself, this serves as a fantastic joyride of escapism. 

Everything combines to make this a satisfying science-fiction romp; but what really stands out is Blomkamp's impressive visual style, some of which will remind of 'District 9'. It's dirty and dusty, making the futuristic Los Angeles look like a frightening realistic mix of Rio de Janeiro and his birthplace of Johannesburg. Blomkamp manages to keep most of the techniques and aspects intact that made 'District 9' a modern science-fiction classic. 

'Elysium is a much more formulaic and generic outing from Blomkamp, but it never lacks talent, excitement and entertainment, cementing him as one of the most promising directors about today. It might not be the best film of the year, but it's certainly one of strongest blockbusters, adding a lot of heart and a bit of brains to the summer's cinematic proceedings. Plus, how often do you get to root for a villain who is as purely evil as Copley's 'Kruger'?

* * * *