Categories
movie

[Movie] Victor Frankenstein

I’ve been curious about this film ever since the first trailer made my friend David Annandale‘s soul shrivel up into a black little cinder of pain. To me it seemed to be trying to hit a lot of similar notes to the Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes movies. Which I actually like.

I was right, by the way. It’s very much got the same feeling to it, and about the same level of faithfulness to the original source material. (Also, the same sort of yes we are basically begging the fangirls to write slashy fanfiction FLY MY PRETTIES, FLY dudes being just a bit gay for each other but with a hefty dose of plausible deniability feeling.) And I did like it, though not to the extent that I’ve liked the two Sherlock Holmes movies. Part of this may be because James McAvoy and Daniel Radcliffe are quite cute, but they ain’t RDJ and Jude Law. Sorry, boys. But I also had some problems with fundamental parts of the film.

I will note for full disclosure, I have not read the original book, Frankenstein. I am also not an aficionado of the old movies like my friend David. So in a way, this makes me far more forgiving of this new version of Frankenstein, because major deviations that might be painful to truer fans would just hop right over my head. (On the other hand, I’m a huge Sherlock Holmes nerd, and I still love the Ritchie movies, so. I’m obviously not stuck on faithfulness to source material.)

On the good side, there’s a lot that I liked about Victor Frankenstein. The movie purports to be a sort of prequel to Mary Shelley’s story; it’s about the meeting of Victor and Igor and their initial forays into playing god, while Igor romances his fellow former circus performer Lorelei (Jessica Brown Findlay) and Victor tries to dodge super Christian Scotland Yard Inspector Turpin (Andrew Scott). Igor and Lorelei are particularly adorable at each other. Electricity is used in non-recommended ways, culminating in a lightning storm at a Scottish castle belonging to Victor’s rich and skeezy patron Finnegan (Freddie Fox).

Daniel Radcliffe makes the most soulful, constantly worried Igor you could ever imagine. He’s got a serious case of Elijah Wood eyes going at times. James McAvoy chews on the scenery with great vigor, and it’s generally appropriate to the partially unhinged, megalomaniacal Frankenstein. The banter is decent and amusing, and Igor’s reactions to Victor’s histrionics are on-point. Considering he’s really the viewpoint character for the film, I think Victor, No. Victor, WHY would have been a perfect title.

The movie’s a bit action-y without making either man into random martial arts experts. The interesting visual device for the film is overlays of anatomical drawings, showing how Victor and Igor are viewing people and the configuration of their bodies. It’s a bit like the process-oriented fighting that RDJ’s version of Holmes does, something that gives you insight into the way the character looks at the world. And while McAvoy and Radcliffe don’t quite have the level of chemistry that RDJ and Jude Law have, they’re not doing too bad. I really enjoyed Lorelei as a character as well, from her taking her chance to live her own life with her gay nobleman as cover, to her being a point of moral strength for Igor–but she was also effectively the only woman in the movie.

While there’s plenty of action and humor that have been worked into the story, it leans more toward its source material in the sense that it still tries to ask some big and important questions. There are threads in the movie about religion versus science, the line between a good friendship and an abusive one, guilt, what it means to give life, and spiritual debts. The unfortunate part is that the film never quite ties any of those threads up in a satisfactory way, perhaps not quite brave enough to draw any firm conclusions one way or the other. Perhaps the best explored yet most frustratingly unfinished of these was the relationship between Victor and Igor; Igor believes Victor to be his friend, and Victor is a good friend–as long as Igor does what he wants. As soon as he begins to express doubts or stand up to Victor, he’s treated to browbeating and reminders that he owes his current much improved life to Victor and Victor alone. (In effect, making Igor as much one of his creations as the monsters, at least in Victor’s mind.) Lorelei even points out to Igor how this is not really friendship, and Igor does seem to make the journey toward standing up to Victor. Unfortunately, that journey never reaches a conclusion. And while I feel like everyone turned it decent performances, McAvoy’s sometimes strays so far over the top that he becomes comedic in a way I don’t think the film intended. Witty banter, yes, but cringing because Victor is literally frothing at the mouth? Likely not. Other aspects of the story I have some issues with, I’m putting below the fold because there are major spoilers associated.

It’s generally a fun trip, and if you like that kind of movie, you’ll probably like this one as long as you don’t mind some gore in the form of dead practical effects monsters reanimating into much less convincing CGI and attacking people.

Going to go into some spoilers now to discuss a few aspects of the story I have thoughts on.

Categories
movie

[Movie] Secret in Their Eyes

The first movie I thought about when I got out of Secret in Their Eyes was Prisoners, interestingly enough. I think because Secret in Their Eyes is the movie Prisoners kind of wanted to be–a story about the destructive power of revenge without getting sidetracked by an unnecessarily convoluted mystery investigation.

The movie jumps between 2002 and 2015. In 2002-land, Jess (Julia Roberts) and Ray (Chiwetel Ejiofor) are agents in the counter terrorism task force in LA, at a time when paranoid citizens are buying duct tape and tarps in bulk because they’re afraid of terrorists. Claire (Nicole Kidman) is the new assistant DA in the same office. Jess’s daughter is found, raped and murdered, and Ray tries to find the killer, Marzin (Joe Cole), who turns out to be the snitch that another agent in the task force is using to track alleged terrorists in a nearby mosque. Marzin gets away with it, and in 2015, Ray returns from New York city, convinced he’s found Marzin (now under an assumed identity) and dedicated to this time, bringing him to justice. He finds Jess still in the police department and aged prematurely, and Claire the new District Attorney and climbing fast.

It’s a very well put together film, with the jumps between 2002 and 2015 building both the mystery and the character relationships that define the ending. Kidman and Ejiofor are both absolutely excellent, which shouldn’t really be a surprise to anyone’s who’s seen either of them in a movie. But Julia Roberts just steals the show with her performance. It’s also striking that she’s actually allowed, in the film, to look like a plain, grief-stricken woman, who has been aged by her grief. There was a deft hand with the makeup in this one, and I appreciated it. I also appreciated, by the way, what a solid friendship was depicted between Jess and Ray, with all the sexual tension saved for Ray and Claire. There’s a moment early on, when Ray tells Jess, “You’re being a dick.” And she returns. “Thanks for not being sexist. A sexist would have called me something else.”

I was charmed.

It’s an excellent film with excellent acting in it, but definitely not a happy film that’s going to leave you feeling good. It’s disquieting, if not in quite as vile a way as, say, Nightcrawler. It’s an exploration of the reality of thwarted passion and thwarted justice, and what it does to people who live with it.

I want to dig into the themes of the film a little more because there’s a lot of meat to it, so spoilers are going to happen now. But it’s not just about revenge, it’s about the nasty undercurrent of the counter terrorism efforts of the last decade plus, and about the passion that motivates people to continue.

Categories
movie Uncategorized

5 Indie speculative films you should watch, no excuses

All (except one, sadly) of these are Hugo Eligible in 2016. Just sayin’. And you literally have no excuse to not watch them. They are available online, streaming, for less than the price of a movie ticket. Links are to the trailers on youtube.

**I cannot speak for availability outside the US. Input from readers in other countries welcome.

  1. Ex Machina – available from Google Play, iTunes, PS Store, and others for $4.99. I’m sticking my flag in this one and calling it the best science fiction movie of 2015. You have no excuse if you consider yourself a fan of the genre. (My review at Strange Horizons.)
  2. It Follows – available for $4.99 basically everywhere. Look, this movie is excellent and scary as hell, and I’m recommending it despite the fact that I really don’t like horror movies. (Totally Pretentious podcast episode for this movie.) [Sorry to report that this film technically is not Hugo eligible for 2016 because it released in festivals in 2014.]
  3. What We Do in the Shadows – available for $9.99 on a multitude of online streaming services. This is a mockumentary about vampires living in New Zealand, and absolutely hilarious. Swearwolves!
  4. Infini – available for $3.99 from Google Play, Vudu, Youtube, and Amazon. Currently on Netflix for free with subscription. Fucked up space zombie alien thriller that I needed a hug after.
  5. Turbo Kid – available on Vudu and Google Play for $6.99. I reviewed it in the first issue of Mothership Zeta. Sparkle unicorn BMX apocalypse, DO NOT SAY NO.
Categories
movie tom hiddleston

[Movie] Crimson Peak: Love and Monsters

Buckle in, kids. I have thoughts.

First, a generally spoiler free quick review. (The spoilers will be coming hard and fast later, never you fear.) I’ve seen this movie twice now, and I like it more on second viewing than I did the first time around. Which is to say that I enjoyed it enough at time one to want to see it again, but this second time I was able to pick up so much more detail and richness, I’ve really gone from like to love.

Crimson Peak is a gothic romance in which innocent and violently orphaned budding writer Edith is romanced by Baronet Thomas Sharpe, overseen by his unblinking and intense sister Lucille. It’s obvious from the beginning that the Sharpe siblings are up to no good, the real question is how deep the corruption goes. When Thomas brings Edith home to Allerdale Hall, a house that’s a near-living embodiment of director Guillermo del Toro’s aesthetic and rotting austerely from the inside out, she must unravel the mysteries of Thomas’s recent past in order to survive her own future. She’s helped, for certain values of help, along in this endeavor by the numerous female ghosts that haunt Allerdale, but the true horror is not found with the dead, but the living.

The cast–Mia Wasikowska as Edith, Jessica Chastain as Lucille, Tom Hiddleston as Thomas–is what makes the movie. Edith acts as an excellent foil for Lucille and Thomas and a catalyst for internal struggle and development. The movie’s aesthetic has the richness we’ve come to expect from del Toro, an exemplar of the literary gothic that I personally love to witness but cannot stand reading, since I find the dark depths and layering visually appealing but impenetrable and normally overwritten in prose. With a less compelling cast there could have been a style over substance problem; the story of the movie and its purported mysteries aren’t really that twisty or terribly mysterious. The strength is in the characters and their relationships, and between the acting and visual delivery, del Toro has put together something that adds new depths to old tropes.

(And let’s face it, you could cast Tom Hiddleston as a Great Old One in a Lovecraft movie and I’d come out of it saying, “Well, but what about the inner life of Shub-Niggurath, Black Goat of the Woods With a Thousand Young?” Damn the man and his puppy dog eyes. He made me like Coriolanus, for fuck’s sake.)

And this is the part where we get into the SPOILERS. Do not continue if you wish to remain unspoiled. I’m going to break this up into loose, non-sequential sections.

Categories
movie

Initial thoughts about Crimson Peak

It’s late and I’m tired, but I did get to see this movie today. I also definitely want to see it again, so I can properly take notes and pay attention to the details more this time around.

I think I’ve seen on Twitter, some back and forth over if Crimson Peak is a horror movie or not. It’s certainly not slasher movie jump scare city, thank goodness. I don’t like those sort of movies at all. But it’s maybe a few steps below something like It Follows, wrapped up in yards and yards of fabric, knives and ribbons into a sharp, unsettling confection.

The main character, Edith, really describes what Crimson Peak is when she’s talking about the fiction she’s written. It’s a ghost story, but the ghosts are a metaphor. It’s the monsters that are real, and grandly so. That’s where the movie takes its most gothic turn, at the monstrous and dark side of love, which is echoed perfectly by the set design. The grand old house rots from the inside out, with its most prominent decorations spikes in endless rows or gilded, all pointing inward.

It’s a gorgeous movie. Of course it’s gorgeous. Guillermo del Toro made it. But I think he’s outdone himself on this one. Between Jessica Chastain’s Herculean effort to not ever blink in the most disturbing way possible, Tom Hiddleston communicating hidden depths of humanity with a look in a character that could rightfully be just one hell of a creepy bastard, and Mia Wasikowska spending over an hour of screen time in terror-induced panic without ever losing my sympathy or getting on my nerves, the cast really knocked it out of the park.

There’s a lot more I’d like to say, but I’m tired and I have a headache, and I’d really like to see the film against first. You should go see it too.

Categories
movie

[Movie] Cooties

I think Cooties was either written by an elementary school teacher, or written by someone who is good friends with one. I don’t necessarily say this because of the basic concept of kids turning into flesh-eating zombies after eating tainted chicken nuggets that are a plain call back to the pink slime scare.  And it’s not even necessarily the unholy glee the teachers show when taking out some of the evil children with makeshift weapons later on. No, what made me think that somewhere in this script lives the experience of a teacher was when I watched the main character, Clint (Elijah Wood) talking to his incoherent, air quote-wielding principal about his “pedagogical style.” Well, that, and when he deals with the obnoxious child named Patriot. (Because he was born on 9/11 you see, obviously sent by God to sit in Clint’s classroom and play with his cell phone instead of paying attention.)

The plot is the same as most zombie movies: zombies happen, people try to survive, and since this is a comedy, hijinks ensue. The twist that this is zombie children versus elementary school teachers isn’t exactly revolutionary, and it doesn’t need to be. It’s setup for a lot of funny gags. It’s also the setup for a lot of very creepy shots, because any horror element is about a thousand times more discomfiting when there’s a kid involved.

Cooties has the same general mix of horror and funny that I saw and loved in Shaun of the Dead, though the humor is less dry and the horror is a little more gory. The characters fighting for their lives against the zombie hordes are generally pretty lovable. We have Clint, who is in denial of the fact that he’s a teacher in favor of his dream of being a writer. He’s particularly funny and painful to watch if you’re a writer yourself, as he tells everyone, a note of desperation in his voice, that he’s a capital-W Writer rather than a teacher and has the kids in his class read his rough draft out loud. (Clint, honey. No.) We’ve all been some shade of that guy for at least a couple minutes of our lives, or known someone who has. Rainn Wilson plays Wade, the self-consciously masculine PE teacher who ultimately relieves his glory high school athlete days by being a team player. Lucy (Alison Pill) seems like a stereotypical first grade teacher until she reveals the seething rage she keeps under her cheery exterior. Nasim Pedrad does an excellent impression of a coherent Sarah Palin as gun-obsessed Rebekah. Jack McBrayer is rather Kenneth-like in his portrayal of Tracy, but considering Kenneth was my favorite part of 30 Rock, I think that’s a good thing. And last there’s the weird, socially awkward genius guy Doug (Leigh Wannell) who turns out to be the funniest out of all of them because he’s got such good foils to play off.

It’s funny, it’s got plenty of fake gore, and it’s got a few tense, creepy scenes without relying on jump scares. As a certified horror wimp, I didn’t find it at all scary; it doesn’t even meet the oog factor of the Cabin in the Woods. But whoever did the sound design for this movie deserves a medal. The sounds they came up with for the zombie kids, roaring and shrieking and over it all a childish giggle, were nothing short of disturbing. The only truly unsatisfying thing about the movie is structure: the plot sort of peters off at the end without even the conclusion of “and then everyone got eaten.” It feels like the story just runs out of steam and stops, its characters and funny ideas exhausted, before an actual conclusion is achieved.

On sober reflection, there are a few things that bother me about the film now that I’m not focused on just laughing at the jokes. The further I get from being in that moment, the more annoyed I get about the movie’s incredibly typical casting decisions. For example, while I know that small towns in the midwest can be incredibly white, Fort Chicken isn’t two stop signs and a Walmart. It’s presented as a reasonably sized town, but there are very few splashes of color: Calvin (Armani Jackson), who is the single most adorable kid I have ever seen in my life, and a black teacher who is the first one to get messily eaten by the students. The janitor, Mr. Hitachi (Peter Kwong) is a certifiable, heroic, garden shear-wielding badass, but he’s also a cringe-inducing Asian stereotype, complete with very broken English. (Really. Why was this necessary?)

What annoys me even more is that in a horror movie that takes place in a freaking elementary school, there are only two adult female characters with major speaking roles. Two. Out of a cast of six teachers, one principal, and two miscellaneous staff members, less than a quarter of the total surviving staff–only a third of the teachers–are women, when women make up over 75% of the teaching staff at US elementary schools.

Look, I’m willing to suspend my disbelief for creepy zombie children infected by evil chicken nuggets. But when the amount of female roles in any given film normally ranges between depressing and downright pathetic, the creative decision involved in making casting yet again all about the men for characters placed in one of the most female-dominated work environments in the country is just insulting.

And of course, one of the major throughlines was tension between Clint and Wade because they were both pissing on Lucy’s leg without any indication of why she might like either of them. Woman as object for men to fight over is a cheap plot device to cause friction between characters. It’s one that I might not even complain about, since men (and people in general!) certainly can be possessive shitheads, if it weren’t done and done and overdone to the point that it’s been standardized. That her relationship status was Lucy’s main role in the plot when the boys have already taken over her workplace just annoys me to no end. And I liked Lucy’s character. When she wasn’t being referee for Clint and Wade the manbabies, she acted as the glue that held the group together. She had some great moments, including getting to tell everyone that she hated them after she finally got fed up with the nonsense.

Ultimately, if you like the zombie comedy/horror thing and you don’t have constitutional objections to zombie kids (and can look past the Mr. Hitachi stereotype), this movie is pretty darn fun and definitely worth a watch. It’s just not funny or well-crafted enough to fight past its structural issues for a more permanent place by Shaun of the Dead on my DVD shelf.

Categories
movie

[Movie] Mr. Holmes

I have been incredibly excited about this movie ever since I heard about it. Sir Ian McKellen, playing an aging Sherlock Holmes? Goodness, yes. You don’t even need to be a giant fan of the detective to want to see that.

There’s a lot to like about the movie. McKellen is every bit as wonderful as you’d expect, and then some, playing Holmes at two different ages, portraying a man who relies on his mind yet battles with steadily worsening memory loss. There are so many layers of humanity, kindness, and regret that he plays out as Sherlock, along with occasionally being the human personification of grumpy cat. The supporting cast does wonderful work as well, particularly Milo Parker as Roger, the boy who develops a friendship and then a quasi-familial relationship with the aging detective. Laura Linney does an amazing job as Roger’s mum, Mrs. Munro, a woman who lost her husband in the war. The familial conflict in there as Mrs. Munro plainly feels she’s losing her son to Sherlock is beautifully and heartbreakingly done. It’s a gorgeous, occasionally funny film with a multi-layered narrative that plays through three timelines.

So yes, it’s definitely worth watching, for the Ian McKellen factor alone–and there’s so much more to it. But my god, the last five minutes made me so damn angry. I honestly don’t feel that I can really discuss what I want to about the movie without massively spoiling it, so be warned. Spoilers start here and continue until the end.

Categories
movie

[Movie] It Follows

Whoops, I thought I’d written something about this movie already. Then I realized that I was probably thinking about the extensive discussion I had with Shaun Duke and David Annandale on the Totally Pretentious podcast. If listening to podcasts is a thing you do and you don’t mind spoilers, I definitely recommend that discussion to you. I don’t really want to rehash too much of it here, so I’m just going to hit the highlights.

A thing you should realize up front is that I don’t generally watch horror movies. I’m a wimp. I lose sleep when things are creepy and I really don’t like excessive gore. So I took one look at the trailer for this movie, and

tumblr_m641p2JoAH1qbl202

Then Shaun hit on my only weakness and asked me if I’d like to be on the podcast episode about it. CURSE YOU, DUKE.

In all seriousness, I owe him a thank you for it. I might have lost a night of sleep over how damn creepy some of the movie was, but I’d also put this one in my top five films of this year.

It Follows is about nineteen-year-old Jay, who gets infected with a sort of sexually transmitted curse after deciding to sleep with her boyfriend. The curse is eerie: an invisible (but tangible) monster constantly walks in a straight line toward whoever has been most recently infected. It kills whoever it catches, and then starts pursuing the next person up on the chain.

The monster is incredibly well done, by the way. It can look like anyone or anything at a given time, an ability it always uses for maximum terror and emotional trauma. And its slow, implacable march brings to mind what made walking zombies terrifying in their own special way when Romero put them on film—though this monster is far scarier in that it’s obviously capable of thought. The go-to assumption is that the monster’s a metaphor for STDs, though I think it’s more specifically a metaphor for HIV. There’s some pointed pill popping by the infected boyfriend at certain points in the film, and the idea that if you keep running, you can stay ahead of the monster even if it will inevitably catch you some day. This runs in line with the new reality of HIV positive in modern America; it’s no longer an instant death sentence if you can afford or get the medication, but a long-term condition.

And of course, the way Jay gets the curse also points me toward reading it as the HIV metaphor. Her boyfriend knows full well that he’s infected, and deliberately gets in her good graces and has sex with her so he can pass it along. After they’ve had sex, he chloroforms her and she wakes up tied to a wheelchair in her underwear (one of the movies first multilevel incredibly creepy scenes) so that he can show her the monster and tell her how to survive it.

Something that really struck me about this movie and still stays with me is that, while you can’t necessarily call something with this concept sex positive, at no point did anyone ever shame Jay for deciding to have sex with her boyfriend. There’s no victim blaming that occurs; the censure is always squarely pointed at the lying shitbag boyfriend, where it belongs.

This movie was filmed in Detroit and brings up some strange juxtaposition between urban decay and the suburbs that Jay lives in, which seem caught in a weird sort of 1980s stasis. Also, the film’s score was very synth-heavy, which made it feel more like an 80s horror film. I was half-convinced that it was a story set in the 80s, except no one had scary enough hair, and all of the kids had modern cell phones, e-readers, and the like.

Maika Monroe does an amazing job as Jay, terrified and desperate and just trying to find a way to survive—with the help of her friends. And the scares in the movie? It’s mostly that slow, creeping dread of watching the monster take its damn time. It’s an implacable sort of fear, punctuated occasionally by jump scares that had me huddling in my hoodie.

Excellent movie. Watch it. You can get it on streaming from a lot of different places for $4.99. Watch it even if you’re a horror wimp like me.

Categories
movie

[Movie] Hitman: Agent 47. Not as bad as you’d expect.

It says volumes about this movie that the praise I can give it is, it’s not as bad as you’d expect. Actually, I think it might edge a toe toward good territory, depending on the criteria you’re using to judge if something is good or not. Action sequences, explosions, a white dude with a decent jaw line wearing a black Italian wool coat and a red silk tie and shooting people? Okay.

Though taken another way, in the realm of video game movies it’s pretty fan-fucking-tastic, helped by the fact that it wasn’t directed by Uwe Boll.

Quick synopsis: 47 is an agent blah blah genetic engineering blah blah perfect assassin blah blah no emotions, designed by a guy named Litvenko (whom I kept misnaming “Vanko” in my notes because that’s how everyone said it, I swear) who then promptly disappeared because he realized designing perfect human killbots without emotions was probably a bad idea. Katia is Litvenko’s daughter and is very good at running away and hiding, and weirdly seems unsure if Litvenko is her dad or not through the first bit of the movie. John Smith (oh THAT’S creative), who is played by Sylar shows up to ostensibly rescue Katia from 47, but actually, he also wants Litvenko the human Cheshire cat who can disappear instantly. Sylar and 47 duke it out in a way that should launch 1000 pornographic fanfics if there’s any justice in the universe, 47 kidnaps Katia, and then the really interesting part of the movie starts. Because 47 reveals that Katia is an engineered super badass like him (43 iterations better than him as a matter of fact). So of course they join forces. Bullets fly and things blow up.

There are actually some things I really, really liked in this movie, enough that I’d actually be willing to watch a sequel as long as it still had 47 (Rupert Friend) and Katia (Hannah Ware) in it. The relationship between the two characters is excellent; even before the big reveal that was already spoiled by the second trailer, they were basically sniping at each other like siblings. It was a different direction than you normally see in “action dude saves woman” movies, and I loved it. See the following conversation:

Katia: What do they want?

47: More of me.

Katia: Why would anyone want more of you?

The older brother/younger sister dynamic just speaks to me on a spiritual level, okay?

I also generally liked the action sequences. They weren’t as flashy as you get in a lot of action movies, and that was all right. They actually did a good job of speaking to character, which often gets lost in the attempt to make things splashy and justify effects budgets. 47 always came across as efficient, no frills, clinical. John Smith always had his giant, insecurity-fueled hateboner for 47 on full display. So that? I appreciated.

And praise be, a movie that kept things short and to the point. 96 minutes, in, out, done. They didn’t have enough there to justify a longer running time, and they didn’t try. So even during the occasionally cringe-worthy expository sections, the movie still moved along at a brisk enough pace that I never found it boring.

On the bad side, there were some definite script-generated problems in there. Some of the bridge scenes between plot points, such as Sylar trying to convince Katia to trust him and help him find her dad, were just awful. Wooden, stilted, nonsensical. There were also scenes that felt weirdly like relics (related to scenes that have since been changed entirely or deleted) scattered around. For example? Katia’s topless swimming scene and the later shower scene. Maybe it was just supposed to be fanservice for the presumed male-dominated audience. But it felt like it was supposed to be setup for some kind of romantic interlude, which was plainly not going to happen thank you. The plot was a bit overcomplicated for what it needed to be (two layers of badguys?) with the “real” villain not introduced until very late, though apparently that’s an inherited video game problem.

Also, I don’t know what kind of drugs they whacked Ciarán Hinds on every time before they shoved him in front of the camera, but goddamn. I could not even understand half the words he gummed out of his mouth.

I’m sure you’ll be shocked to hear that this movie doesn’t come close to passing the Bechdel-Wallace test. (It does, however, pass the sexy lamp test! Surprise!) And if you trust the setting, apparently Singapore is inhabited by a giant population of white men in suits and five Singaporean flight attendants. Also, all the cars appear to be made of brightly-colored plastic.

Hitman: Agent 47 gets a solid Meh+ from me. It’s not a bad way to spend 96 minutes if you want to just turn off your brain while you stuff the carbohydrate of your choice into your food hole. And I’m a sucker for Italian wool.

Categories
movie

[Movie] Chappie

Found this review on my thumb drive and realized that I’d never sent it anywhere or put it on my blog. So here you go, for what it’s worth. Notably less profane than my normal review style because I originally wasn’t writing it for myself.

Note: For the purposes of this review, the character Chappie will be referred to as it in the sense of being a non-human person with no intrinsic or self-identified gender, and additionally no clearly preferred pronouns. (More on the gender question later.) For this case, I beg your indulgence in not reading it as innately dehumanizing or insulting, as is often the case when applied to human persons.

Also, spoilers. Sorry, but the ending is what makes the movie worth talking about.

Much maligned by reviewers, Chappie has perhaps been judged more harshly than it deserves. It’s an incredibly imperfect film about artificial intelligence, consciousness, humanity, and family, but quietly dares to ask much larger questions than Neill Blomkamp’s previous film, Elysium.

Chappie has been compared most often to Short Circuit, a 1986 science fiction comedy movie. The basic concept is similar: robot originally intended for more martial uses gains self awareness, grapples with questions of life and death, and fights to survive against humans that are intent upon seeing to its destruction. And Chappie is pretty funny at times, though arguably not as funny as Short Circuit. But while the bones of the plot are the same, right down to the rather hyper-masculine, military-obsessed antagonist who wants to destroy the robot, the details are in many ways significantly different.

Chappie takes place in a near-future Johannesburg, where police forces have become so overwhelmed they’ve turned to buying gun-wielding, humanoid robots from a corporation called Tetravaal. Engineer Deon (Dev Patel) has designed the police robots, while his jealous rival Vincent (Hugh Jackman) pushes his expensive and far more militarized MOOSE robot. Deon is obsessed with creating true AI, though he receives no support from Tetravaal to do so. Frustrated, he steals a robot scheduled for destruction, intent on loading his AI program onto it as a test. Before he can accomplish this however, he is kidnapped by three criminals by the names of Ninja, Yolandi, and Amerika. They owe a gangster named Hippo twenty million dollars, and in order to pay him back need to hijack and armored car, a heist they believe beyond their ability unless they can force Deon to somehow remotely switch the police robots off. Deon insists he’s incapable of doing that, and instead convinces them to let him put the robot he stole together, loads on the AI program, and then Chappie is born. Due to the nature of Deon’s program, the fledgling AI starts out like a child, learning from its surroundings. The criminal gang refuses to let Deon take Chappie with him or stay, and undertake Chappie’s education themselves with only minor moral input from its creator. Yolandi eagerly takes on the role as Chappie’s mother, while Amerika acts more as an older brother and Ninja as an abusive father figure. As another wrinkle, the reason the robot was originally scheduled for destruction was that its battery had fused to the chassis, and will provide only five more days of power, thus giving Chappie a very set life expectancy. Using Chappie’s fear of death against it, Ninja ultimately convinces Chappie to help them perform the heist and trick it into doing violence with the lie that sticking a knife in someone feels good to that person, and will just make them go to sleep.

After the heist, Chappie realizes that Ninja’s promises that money would save its life were a lie, and hatches a new plan to survive. Using a neural input helmet intended to let humans remotely pilot the MOOSE, it has found a way to back up its own consciousness digitally and save it. Vincent has all the while been attempting to convince the head of Tetravaal (Signourney Weaver) to let the MOOSE loose. He uses a virus to take all of the police robots off line and then sends the MOOSE out to track down and attempt to destroy Chappie. He succeeds in killing Amerika and Yolandi, and grievously wounding Deon before Chappie and Ninja destroy the MOOSE. Chappie takes Deon back to the Tetravaal plant, exacts a non-lethal but thoroughly violent revenge on Vincent, and uses the neural input helmet to transfer the dying Deon’s consciousness into a police robot test unit. Thus saved, Deon quickly transfers Chappie into another nearby robot and then escapes.

While the setup for the plot is very ham-handed—why doesn’t Deon just lie to the criminals? how on Earth is the CEO of Tetravaal so completely short-sighted about the possibilities of true AI? why can’t they just put Chappie’s head on a different robot body? and so on—once the pieces have all been shoved to their necessary positions on the board and Chappie created, the rest unfolds well enough. Outside of Chappie, most of the characters suffer from a paucity of development, with Deon and Vincent particularly underserved. Vincent is a caricature of an antagonist; while South African, he feels like a sketched out model of toxic American masculinity, from his Christianity to his bullying to the fact that he swaggers around with a pistol on his belt. (I do not know enough about South African culture to speak to the accuracy of this caricature in that context.) At one point he even threatens Deon with the pistol, tackling him onto his desk and pressing the barrel against his cheek, and then claims that this assault was only a “joke.” Ninja, Yolandi, and Amerika (the members of the group Die Antwoord) are as far as I can tell playing caricatures of themselves, and aren’t particularly interesting for it. But the star of the movie is Chappie, and we see its progress from infancy to rebellious teenager-hood over the course of the movie.

Chappie as a character is one that a viewer will either find exceptionally endearing or extremely annoying. Well-voiced and acted in a sort of “poor-man’s motion capture” by Sharlto Copley, Chappie speaks with distinctive vocal quirks, and displays the full range of emotions one would expect from a sentient being using tone, body language, and a set of lights that stand in for eyes. The robot is lied to constantly by the humans around it, caught in a tug-of-war between Deon’s egotistical self-righteousness and Ninja’s self-conscious, bullying swagger. Much of the character’s development is seen in painful realization after realization of the lies it has been told, the cruelty and inhumanity of others, and of its own impending death. Chappie’s own emotional core is provided mostly by the inconsistently characterized Yolandi, who on one hand authors Deon’s kidnapping and is perfectly happy threatening to kill him, and on the other reads Chappie bedtime stories and assures it that it is loved despite all emotional crises. It’s the title character’s inner journey that ultimately makes the film and its incredibly rough setup worth viewing at all.

The pay-off for Chappie comes when, wanting to survive, Chappie develops a way to save its consciousness digitally. Considering the earlier discussions that Chappie has with Yolandi about the existence of souls, this is actually a bold statement to be made by writer/director Blomkamp in a time when mind-body dualism is still a hotly debated topic. And it becomes even more pointed, considering Chappie’s greatest opponent, Vincent, despises AI as soulless. That Blomkamp supposes a world in which a sentient robot is able to record the consciousness of a dying human and copy it into a robot body as the dramatic conclusion to his film deserves far more attention than it has received, no matter how much of a hot mess the first two-thirds of the movie may be. Following the ending plot stinger, he’s offering us a fictional world in which humans stand on the precipice of functional immortality, and that is heady stuff.

Another worthwhile and largely ignored question in the film—and in this case, one the director likely wasn’t so interested in asking—has to do with the question of Chappie’s gender. Robots, if sentient, are arguably beings without latent gender, wholly asexual. The robots in the film are nominally coded as male—they’re blue because they’re police robots, they have voices that sound male. But when Chappie is awakened to sentience, there is not anything obviously in its behavior that is indicative of one gender or another—it is wholly childlike. Yet immediately, a male gender is assigned to the robot by all of humans around it, including Deon. Is Deon’s knee-jerk identification of Chappie as male due to an urge to see himself in his creation, an assumption of male as a default gender, or something else? It’s a question worth asking, and one the movie never gets around to, which seems a shame.

The identification of Chappie’s gender comes not from within the character, but is imposed from without by observers who seem in general agreement that it is male, judged by behavior that is at that time purely reactive and not at all coded in one direction or another. The infant personality in the robot is skittish and exceptionally curious, and eager to please. Later we see Chappie play with the items given to it by Deon, one of which is a Barbie-esque doll that it actually styles to look like Yolandi—and then act afraid upon being caught doing so by Ninja. Is this because Chappie believes itself to be male in some way and knows it ought not play with dolls, or far more likely because Ninja has given it ample reason to fear him in general?

In fact, all of Chappie’s more masculine-coded behaviors and ways of speaking are specifically taught to it by Ninja and Amerika in order for it to seem “tougher” and convince it to be more willing to engage in violence and intimidation. With the sole exception of Deon as the token, thoughtful nerd, masculinity in this movie is generally presented as bullying and violent. And while Chappie is willing to engage in the swaggering, arguably to convince Ninja to like it the way Yolandi and Amerika do, the only way it is compelled to actually act intimidating or violent is with lies that use its desire to please its perceived parents against it. In the same way, any apparent acceptance of assigned gender on Chappie’s part seems to come entirely from a desire to please rather than out of inherent identification. Chappie’s final, knowing acceptance of violence when it enacts its revenge upon Vincent is particularly notable on these grounds.

There is an unexpected amount of meat to be found on the bones of a movie too easily dismissed in light of a comedic predecessor. Chappie is worth watching for that reason, if you can handle wading through the repetitive antics of the human caricatures—and deal with the frustration over what could have been.