“What has destroyed every previous civilization has been the tendency to the unequal distribution of wealth and power” in the film “Elysium” directed by Neill Blomkamp wealth and power over powered pristine man made space station called Elysium. Max an ordinary man whom had to decide to either save himself from a lethal dose of radiation, that only gave him five days to live or save everyone down in earth where it was overpopulated and devastated. Including his childhood best friend Frey’s daughter who has last stages of leukemia, in point of her possible death at any point. Elysium’s graphics was really eye catching; I really enjoyed it because the point of the movie was very clear. The overall film I guarantee you will leave you shocked with …show more content…
However, the main characters Max, Frey, Matilda, Spider, John Carlyle and Secretary de la court were magnificent actors. In the 2154 there existed two classes of people wealthy, who lived on a huge and luxurious Stanford torus-style space station called Elysium. The poor who lived on an overpopulated, devastated earth. Meanwhile, ruthless robots policed people on earth. In Elysium citizens lived in a comfortable fresh aired environment. Also, used regularly bed-sized medical stations called med-bays; allowed them to stay free of diseases and injuries. Max goes on mission to look for this famous known med-bay, while at his work station he was found trapped inside a stimulation of lethal dose of radiation pronouncing his death within five days. In desperate measures he looks for the guy who sells tickets to Elysium, Spider. Max doesn’t have the money to travel to Elysium; spider then offers him a risky dangerous mission. His mission was to find John Carlyle and gather all valuable information stored in his brain, without killing …show more content…
It makes it more intense and interesting, For example in the scene where Max encounters with a robot police in the bus stop. That scene turns into a dilemma just because Max gave an attitude to a robot police. I think that they use these dilemmas in between scenes so it gives it a bit of interest into the movie not making it boring. Another example, is when three illegal space ships try to sneak in Elysium and the Elysium space ships fight to their death, meanwhile their fight to keep the illegal ships away; two explode and one makes it to Elysium and the immigrants try to run away from the robot police. A woman and her daughter manage to make it into a med-bay and cure her daughter allowing her to walk again. Lastly, another example is when Max sends Frey and Matilda to search for a Med-bay and Max stayed in search for the Kruger to get rid of him. When he finally encounters Kruger they start fighting for their
One of the main products of this movie that popped out to me was the stars. They all seemed to be great actors even though I only knew one of them. For example, I thought that Ian Michael Smith did a great job portraying Simon Birch. He made the movie cute and funny all at once. I also thought that Joseph Mazello did a great job portraying relatable feelings in the movie. You could tell by his facial expressions what his mood was. All the actors did a great job and I can’t pinpoint one of them who did worse than the
Literature and film have always held a strange relationship with the idea of technological progress. On one hand, with the advent of the printing press and the refinements of motion picture technology that are continuing to this day, both literature and film owe a great deal of their success to the technological advancements that bring them to widespread audiences. Yet certain films and works of literature have also never shied away from portraying the dangers that a lust for such progress can bring with it. The modern output of science-fiction novels and films found its genesis in speculative ponderings on the effect such progress could hold for the every day population, and just as often as not those speculations were damning. Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein and Fritz Lang's silent film Metropolis are two such works that hold great importance in the overall canon of science-fiction in that they are both seen as the first of their kind. It is often said that Mary Shelley, with her authorship of Frankenstein, gave birth to the science-fiction novel, breathing it into life as Frankenstein does his monster, and Lang's Metropolis is certainly a candidate for the first genuine science-fiction film (though a case can be made for Georges Méliès' 1902 film Le Voyage Dans la Lune, his film was barely fifteen minutes long whereas Lang's film, with its near three-hour original length and its blending of both ideas and stunning visuals, is much closer to what we now consider a modern science-fiction film). Yet though both works are separated by the medium with which they're presented, not to mention a period of over two-hundred years between their respective releases, they present a shared warning about the dangers that man's need fo...
I feel that the movie has no weaknesses. This is because even though I had a few things I didn’t like such as the anonymity given, I realised that there was a reason for this which I explained in my strengths of the movie below.
In conclusion, the novel Blindness and the movie Elysium, critic today’s world about healthcare and political system. There were important and common characteristics that they both demonstrated of the dystopian societies. In both the novel and the movie, the citizens live in a dehumanized state and the natural world has been banished and distrusted. These types of dystopian novel/movie show what can possibly happen in the future.
But I thoroughly enjoyed it. I was kept on edge all the way through. I
The book and the movie were both very good. The book took time to explain things like setting, people’s emotions, people’s traits, and important background information. There was no time for these explanations the movie. The book, however, had parts in the beginning where some readers could become flustered.
This film unlike most others on the same topic had no real event to focus on. There was not just one climax or specific scene that the others built up to or supported. I cannot say that I enjoyed it but I do feel it has to a great extent affected me. The only reason I feel that this film is one worth watching is because of the latent message it holds. It very successfully exposes authority and bureaucracy in society. The characters in this film portray people that are either convinced or have been convinced that are crazy.
This is an ironic and unfortunate example of a film that would have really been considered a lot better than it is if it were not for the book upon which it is based. It is clear that the film is strong and that it is well made, but when compared to Shelley's novel, it's really a pretty sad mess. The film by itself is more than able to captivate and impress, but to someone who knows the original story, it is a weak attempt to bring the story of Frankenstein and his monster to the big screen.
Honestly I thought that the movie had such a simple story but at the same time it is so complex. The way it was delivered it was amazing, it's such a moving film. The actor’s were amazing, there isn’t anything I would want to change about this film. I would 100% recommend this movie to anyone, its so inspiring and it really makes you think.
From the silent epic of Fritz Lang Metropolis (1927) to Ridley’s Scott’s spectacular Blade Runner (1982) the connection between architecture and film has always been intimate. The most apparent concepts that connect these two films are the overall visuals of both films and their vision of city of the future. The futuristic city of both Scott and Lang are distinct in their landscapes, geography, and social structure. These two films sought to envision a future where technology was the basis by which society functioned. Technology was the culture and the cities would crumble without it (Will Brooker). Metropolis and Blade Runner uses the themes relationships among female sexuality and male vision, and technology. However, Gender roles and technology seems to be the most important part in both films.
thought a world like the one depicted would be unlikely to ever occur. But, this film may mimic today’s world, offering an eerie glimpse at the course of self-destruction humanity paves with its obsession for technology. As technology progresses, the gap between worlds, the Matrix and reality, draws ominously close.
film was much too serious and I did not like the factor that most of the
...ese improvements may actually cause destruction. The moral of these science fiction models is that there is no such thing as perfect. Without the application of science in the film and the two stories, the same message may not have been portrayed. “Flowers for Algernon” shows how the idea of artificial intelligence may seem perfect to an overzealous scientist, but is actually a fatal mistake. “The End of the Whole Mess” demonstrates how a mad scientist may think he knows how to create a peaceful society, but is terribly misguided when he ends up with mental problems. “Gravity” displays a technologically advanced spacecraft, which ends up being of no use when astronauts need it the most. These three models of science fiction all teach a lesson about the inadequacies of future science and technological advancements and the harmful results they can cause to society.
Although I enjoyed the main portion of the movie, there were some obvious likes and dislikes in my opinion. I believe that I learned from this movie and it helped me understand more of what the people of that time were feeling.
I view this as one of the few truly great movies of all time. I say this because it carries all of the basic cinematic elements that compose a great film. These elements begin with the characters. You can hardly expect to enjoy a movie if the characters are not believable. In this particular movie the characters were not only believable but you could identify yourself a little in one or all of the characters. One thing that can have an unfortunate detraction from even a good movie is anachronisms. The only one I found was a halogen bulb in a light fixture. However, I doubt anyone would notice were they not looking for one. This movie can be enjoyed by even the most mentally devoid of audiences. The reason for this is that most people do not like being bossed around or forced to do anything. It did make me think about how little freedom we actually have in life and how we all need to live just a little bit more.