CHAPPIE

[foxie]

So funny!!

[jo]

The show uploads the first part of Hugh's appearance --

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wqg2HHi2mPs&list=UU8-Th83bH_thdKZDJCrn88g&index=2

[hughmanity]

Ok longtime 0zalots, I need your experienced words of wisdom here. Is it unusual to feel a little "blue" or disappointed when something Hugh is involved with is not well-received??

[foxie]

Yes it is I haven't seen it he seems to lve it I don't think a robot movie would be wildly received he went around this week but they didn't talk about Chappie that much it was just wonderful Hugh I haven't read the reviews but I don't think it was publicized that much!

[jo]

LOL - if you had been here when The Boy from Oz opened on Broadway - that was worse! And Hugh was TBFO, not just a featured role to spice up a storytelling project. TBFO opened to disastrous reviews ( save that Hugh received universal raves) -- and many ( not in the original forum of the Ozalots) was setting it up for a funeral after its initial advance had been exhausted. In the end, it lasted a year ( and closed only because Hugh wanted to move on to other projects - the first one was The Fountain), it broke even albeit practically only with last few shows, it won Hugh a TONY and wide acclaim on Broadway, its closing show was one of the most acclaimed, and it led to his full command of musical theatre ( including movie musicals) and an eventual acknowledgement of his versatility.

Unfortunately, CHAPPIE is not a true Hugh Jackman project, as his role is practically under-written.

What matters is how you react to the artistic creation. Maybe you could share your own reactions to CHAPPIE?

I will post my own impressions later.

But sometimes people do not react in the same way...so one must take the not- so- positives that may differ from one's own views almost with equanimity. Although in my case, it was hard for me to take the negative buzz to Les Miserables

I am almost enjoying the exchanges on IMDB because there is much debate going on. Many of them are Blomkamp fans and are probably even more disappointed with the critics' reaction. I actually looked at Metacritic and the reaction there is more favorable compared to Rotten Tomatoes. One review there, by Peter Travers of Rolling Stones (if that is the epitome of cool) seemed like a lazy review and simply made comparisons instead of judging the film purely on its merits.

[jo]

Sorry to disagree -- but it was a very well-publicized movie! It also opened on more than 3200 theaters!

Its production budget was supposed to be only $ 49 million but some people think that SONY must have spent a huge amount to publicize it. How many medium-sized movies would be promoted so heavily in NYC, in London, Paris, Berlin, Moscow and even Madrid. That costs a lot of money -- especially as Jackman and Weaver wete heading the publicity blasts. How many interviews had Hugh alone given - not just for the press junkets but also on individual visits to radio and TV stations? How many talk shows had he participated in?

There were also TV spots and features on entertainment sites. How many print and online interviews were seen.  His mullet story alone took miles of publicity - LOL! Hey, he even managed to talk to Gus Worland's Triple M radio show in Australia. And there was huge billboard on Times Square!

One would think that Hugh was promoting a new XMEN blockbuster.


Btw, the movie is supposed to lead this weekend's box office -- supposedly a modest $ 15 million. But apart from the negative critical reaction impacting on the movie's box office, this is also still deep winter ( in some places). But I have seen some fans on IMDB posting that they plan to see it again

Jo

[hughmanity]

Appreciate your responses!  They help put things in perspective.  I usually try to see his movies the first weekend out; not sure when I will get to go this time. Will read your impressions with interest.   

[jo]

Here's one IMDB poster reaction --

by
franzferdinand05
» 1 minute ago (Fri Mar 6 2015 18:18:46) Flag ▼


IMDb member since January 2007

Just saw it. Thought it was on par with District 9. Chappie is the most loveable AI ever put on screen.

I really don't understand why so many critics hated it...all the sub-plots merged fluently; the action was intense and very well shot; the Hans Zimmer score was blood pumping; the acting was superb (Yes even Die Antwoord.) And best of all--this film really brings the feels. holy *beep* I must've teared up like 5 times

I choked on a few moments, too

I assume that this poster is at least in his early 20's, if he had been an IMDB member since 2007. So, not a young fanboy's reactions.

Jo

[hughmanity]

Interesting split on RT at this time between critics (30%) and audience (67%)

[jo]

This was an Opening post on the more discerning IMDB board ( Movie AWARDS -- probably the busiest message board on the internet that I have seen). The poster has also been posting on IMDB since 2001.

So I've seen Chappie


by
Alexander_Blanchett
» 1 day ago (Thu Mar 5 2015 10:42:17) Flag ▼



IMDb member since August 2001

I loved it. This year is going to be grande if future classics like that get such an early release. Its far beyond Elysium and even District 9. Neil Blomkamp is the new god of SciFi and although the story sounds extremly familiar to I, Robot it is so much more than that. It has a lot DNA from that movie also a little bit of District 9 and even Transcendence (but in a good way) but it is such a beautifully unpredictable film that is the magic of it.
The cast was fine, although it is Sharlto Copley's motion capture art that of course stays with you in the aftermath of that film. Dev Pate took some nescessairy acting lessons and gave a believable enough performance. Hugh Jackman was great as the baddie and put himself nicely in the background. Sigourney Weaver was okay but they could have done more with her character. Ninja and Yo-Landi Visser were the secret stars of that film, great work. Great soundtrack by Hans Zimmer which was fitting, powerful and well edited action scenes and more soul than most movies lately. Already a gem of the year.

Rating: 9/10

[jo]

Sensible advice from an IMDB poster --

image for user avidnewbie
by
avidnewbie


IMDb member since September 2012

Hey guys, there is no more important critic than the consumer or in this case the viewer. Although critics have often piqued my interest in regards to some obscure films that I may not have otherwise been aware of or some classic films that came before my time, I do not rely on their judgement to determine which films I will watch and definitely not for which films I regard highly. There have been countless examples of movies that were critically bashed upon release only to see the masses make their universal approval a much more reliable statement. Sales and gross revenue is the ultimate evaluation of popular cinema. Art however, is much harder to appraise. What is artistic? What is overwrought? Where does the boundary between realism and artistry need to be clearly defined? Is there a boundary? Ask a million people, get a million different answers.

[alma]

I SO agree with this poster "avidnewbie". Critics? It seems sometimes that they get paid for being negative, or else they get their kicks out of it.
Who needs them?
Heck, I don't let ANYBODY tell me what to like or not. I certainly listen to (or in the case of the forum READ ) opinions from people I respect, but in the end I make up my own mind. Don't we all? That's the beauty of it!
The best part is nothing ever gets Hugh down.

Alma

[jo]

SPOILERS*****SPOILERS*****SPOILERS*****SPOILERS*****SPOILERS*****SPOILERS
SPOILERS*****SPOILERS*****SPOILERS*****SPOILERS*****SPOILERS*****SPOILERS

Je suis Chappie !

Je ne suis pas Chappie !



To me -- those two contradictions reflect the moral resonance of the movie!


This is not a review, just some impressions that I take away from the film. Ironically, I find myself finding it difficult to take the film at face value, that it is only science-fiction! Maybe I should not pass judgment on the story, only on how it was written?

There are movies which even if the story ends sadly can cause a feeling of upliftment ( Les Miserables) of movies that can be difficult to comprehend but once one realizes the strength of its message can be viewed purely as someone else's story ( The Fountain). But when a story resonates strongly on a personal level, one can find it hard to come to terms with its morality.


For little boys -- Chappie is the toy that one wrote Santa for and was the toy that greeted you on Christmas morning. He is the Chappie he dreamed about - a walking, light-emitting, limb-stretching hunk of metal (or plastic) which delighted many play hours. This Chappie may have another brother Chappie and he enjoys the fights that he  concocts in his young mind and to his delighted squeals!  But in all these, his enjoyment is strong because he can "manipulate" how they fight. He can ask his toy robot to do certain things, at his command ( via his remote or simply by manipulating with his hands)... Pity the 4-year old boy who was not allowed to see the movie ( with his parents) because he was too young for the movie -- I almost wanted to hug him as I stood next to them at the local box office!

For teenage fanboys -- he is the epitome of many of his comic book adventure heroes! He can be in any impossible situation and he simply finds a way out. Sometimes he speaks Japanese! In this particular metaphorical film, he would probably want the adventure to continue even with that kind of ending!

For the adult fanboys -- he is the stuff of childhood fantasies...and now is kept silent but imperious in a treasured collector's item box ( not to be opened - because the collector's item loses its value). He probably has the same fantasies as the younger version of the fanboy with regards to breathing the full spectrum of humanity into a man-made creation, through artificial intelligence? It can be very stimulating for the science- or technology-oriented mind.

For the more mature movie audiences -- he is "humanity "personified in this modern metaphor! Chappie represented how a similar being ( the homo sapien kind) is shaped by nature and nurture, assuming that machines can be vested with the same natural qualities as well as by life-changing experiences. The moral /ethical/religious issue then arises - does one want a machine to take on the most primordial quality of a human being -- they call it consciousness in this movie, others call it " the soul". Depending on one's upbringing and the religious faith one is raised in -- one can either be simply curious or be intellectually challenged to see the transfer happen...or one keeps to one's strong belief that a higher being has created us into his own image, complete with a free will and a soul...and we are the only one who can represent his divinity in human form ( " to see another person is to see the face of God").

It is hard to explain more deeply without going into too many spoilers .

But the movie can be viewed as thoroughly entertaining and even quite riveting ( a science-fiction drama in the near future and given how chaotic some of the world's hotspots are, with characters which are fairly  well-etched, and with conflict and its resolution that may please the audience rooting for the human-like robot creature), thought-provoking ( Is chaos really happening by man's deeds alone...and the robots simply the creations to help them solve their conflict problems?), and even raising moral and ethical issues that may characterize the ending?

There is the portrayal of social chaos, with the usual scenes of warfare ( that may please the Avengers or XMEN-thirsty fanboys). There are the childlike scenes of growing up and learning the meaning and vagaries of life. There are the unexpected scenes of humor, because one looks at the awkward way Chappie adjusts ( but which may not draw the same empathy or giggles if he were a real human). There are the moral issues which are interspersed throughout and are presented without the audience realizing that the movie is preaching.

And there is Hugh Jackman- in a very unusual role! But I wish his role had been better-written. Instead of an office goon trying to push his own agenda - Vincent Moore is not even showing any intellectual curiousity on how a scientific breakthrough has been made or fully engaging on the debate of how far a machine can be programmed to absorb many attributes from humans. If he is part of the technology revolution - where is the true techie? If he abhors the true progress of artificial intelligence, why not make a moral case against it? The character is written in a very simplistic manner.

To me, how one feels about the message of the film depends on how one reacts to the ending!



Je suis Chappie (aka "eventually be human)"

Je ne suis pas Chappie ( aka "no way should he be made human")



Jo

[mamaleh]

The NYC Fox 5 TV entertainment reporter, Simone, liked the movie quite a lot. An interview she did with Hugh at the premiere the other day was shown on the 10 p.m. news tonight. Simone said her view was the "opposite" of most critics'.

Variety is now predicting an approximately $15 million weekend.

Ellen

[foxie]

Great review on channel 4 also Fandango saying top movie of weekend and a terrible review in the Asbury Park Press!!Fun seeing Hugh with my morning tea on Channel 4!!!!

[jo]

New estimates place the Friday/Saturday/Sunday box office receipts for CHAPPIE at only $ 13.37.

Deadline analyzes why a wrong initial marketing strategy has misfired --

deadline.com/2015/03/weekend-box-office-chappie-vince-vaughn-unfinished-business-bomb-1

Chappie earned a B CinemaScore tonight, which is exactly what Blomkamp’s previous two films earned. District 9 and Elysium beat their CinemaScore multiple average of 2.9 by generating final domestic cumes that were 3.1X their stateside bows. Even if Chappie repeats that pattern, it’s starting off at a lower B.O. level and won’t see lofty figures stateside. Granted, the film came in cheap, at a studio-reported $49M, but the pressure is on overseas for this title to see any black (Chappie star Hugh Jackman has been a trouper, tubthumping the film across social media during his global stops in Moscow and Germany). Elysium rallied abroad, generating twice its domestic B.O. with a foreign take of $193M.


Sony hit the fanboy/action-genre crowd head-on in its marketing from the get-go, generating early awareness at last year’s San Diego Comic-Con with specialized Chappie elevator wraps at The Hard Rock Hotel. There was 2-minute trailer during Fox’s Gotham in early November. In addition, Sony ran spots during mega TV events including SNL 40th Anniversary, the How To Get Away With Murder finale and the Waking Dead and Better Call Saul premieres. Longer behind-the-scenes featurettes ran as commercials during The Americans, Vikings, WWE Raw and Justified. Chappie was promoted during big sporting events, including the College Football Playoff Championship, NFC & AFC Championship games, NBA All-Star game (as well as regular season), and the Daytona 500. A Chappie Challenge on Twitch targeted at gamers. Twitter impressions reached 50M for the film. RelishMix counts 32M YouTube video views for Chappie, with an above average reposting rate of 16 to 1.

And yet: Despite the great push for the film, many critics who embraced Blomkamp in the past (District 9 posted 90% fresh on the Tomatometer, Elysium 68%) have lashed out at Chappie with a 30% rotten score, finding it derivative of RoboCop, Short Circuit and even Frankenstein. In addition, several distribution and marketing sources told me that Chappie‘s print/billboard campaign completely misfired in transmitting the film’s essence. The title Chappie implies that it’s a kids’ film about a cute robot; having Chappie spell his name out in baby blocks in posters didn’t help either. It sends out the message that the film is intended for a wider, family crowd, not strictly adults. A-list star Jackman was left off the one-sheet/billboard promos (though he is featured heavily in the trailers and TV spots), a decision one insider told me was because “He’s not the star of the film. Chappie is.” Oh.

On hindsight -- maybe the storyline was too simplistic.

SPOILERS*****SPOILERS ahead

Maybe there was too much emphasis in the movie on the roles of the foster gangster parents...

Maybe the role of Deon (Dev) could have been more fleshed out -- the way he programmed the artificial intelligence feature seemed too basic -- that doesn't happen in real life. A program such as that, if that could even be done,  would involve a much larger team and a much longer development period. It is not something even one brilliant system developer could produce overnight. Too simplistic!

Maybe the roles of Hugh and Sigourney should have also had more substance? Especially so that they were asked to pitch in heavily in the media junket, overseas tour, talk show circuit. Sigourney is supposed to be managing a techonology company -- she could not just be sitting on her desk and simply dictating on the public address system. Hugh's Vincent was also a technology guy -- he did design another robot. Can't believe that he had no real intellectual interest in how Chappie was developed ( even if he could insist his robot was the better robot). Bill Gates held on to the Chief Techonology planning job even when he gave up being head of Microsoft. Steve Jobs never gave up the impression that he was heavily involved in the product planning ( and announcements) even when his illness forced him to give up the administration of Apple. Maybe Neill Blomkamp lost the opportunity to add more credibility to his storyline by not adding more realism in the technology-oriented parts of the script? And maybe even in limited roles, Hugh and Sigourney could have played less cartoony characters instead?


Maybe the R rating could have been reworked -- the movie could have toned the extreme violence ( besides the scenes were too long) and edited some of the extraneous scenes with the adoptive gangster parents and how they led Chappie into a life of crime. That lessened the sympathy for the character of Chappie.


Sorry, but maybe the scriptwriting was less than brilliant!


Jo

[jo]

LOL -- I cannot find the link now but there is a feature on MSN about the Jackman dogs via instagram images ( about 20 of them). It said that this feature is in relation to Hugh being part of the new movie release CHAPPIE

Even Dali and Allegra were roped in to help in the marketing

Jo

[jo]

A goofy Filipino journalist ( I don't know what to call him ) named Bogart, with a faux Aussie accent, interviews Hugh. And Hugh seems to be enjoying himself

socialnewsdaily.com/49158/bogart-the-explorer-interviews-hugh-jackman-video/

[mamaleh]

That Bogart is hilarious. Love Hugh's "cheer up" remark at the end.

Ellen

[jo]

One filmsite has great wisdom -- instead of emphasizing the negatives, it "accentuates the positives" !

Five reasons on why one needs to see the film CHAPPIE --

moviepilot.com/posts/2015/03/08/5-reasons-why-you-need-to-see-chappie-270584?lt_source=external,manual

Reasons Why You NEED To See Chappie

by Ian M. Simpson ⋅ Posted on March 8th, 2015 at 7:29am



The last five or six movies I saw in theaters were franchise films, including The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies, and The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1. Even though I wanted to go see Kingsman, I didn't really have plans to see another film until Avengers: Age of Ultron. However, when I saw the TV spot for Chappie, I knew that I had to go see it. Well I finally went today, and while I was skeptical at first, I ended up loving the movie. Unfortunately, not everybody loved it as much as I did, seeing as it lacked in ratings. That got me to thinking: why did I love this movie so much? Well, here are my reasons why!

5. The Humor


Chappie has a very serious tone, with loads of gang-violence and chaos, but Neill Blomkamp's wonderful directing skills throws in choice bits of humor to lighten the mood. Watching hardcore gangsters try to teach a sentient robot how to act "hip" is truly entertaining to watch. It isn't everyday that you hear robots using gangster lingo while chucking throwing-stars like a pro.


4. The Fresh Take


At first, Chappie comes off a lot like Short Circuit. It is the story of a robot that achieves sentience and explores what it is like to actually be alive. The similarities continue as Chappie mimics He-Man in a similar way Short Circuit's Number 5 mimics the Three Stooges, but that is where the similarities end. Chappie is a much more mature take on sentience, with the robot trained for heists and car-jackings while being taught that it is the right thing to do. The robot's struggle with moral values and what is right and wrong makes this film a truly individual piece!


3. The Cast


While the film boasts well-known names like Hugh Jackman and Sigourney Weaver, the bulk of the cast is made up of lesser known names, like Ninja and Yolandi Visser, who make up the South African rapper duo Die Antwoord. Their characters are very dynamic on-screen, and their portrayal is quite unique. Weaver's screen-time is surprisingly minimal, but Jackman delivers a performance that you will hardly see coming!


2. The Action


Chappie has some of the best action sequences I've seen in a long time. From gang-based violence to robots fighting bigger robots, the fighting sequences are thrilling and engaging. A bit of the violence is Tarantino-esque, so make sure you are of a mature age before going to see this film (it is rated R after all).



1. The Moral Lessons


Chappie is brimming with deeper meaning, most obviously in Chappie's favorite book, "The Black Sheep". While his "mommy" reads it to him, she explains what it means to be different, not on the outside, but on the inside. The film also explores the idea of consciousness, as both Chappie and his creator Deon attempt to define and contain it. I can promise that Chappie has a lot more in it than shooting and swearing.


Bonus - The Ending

I'm not going to give anything away, but the ending was amazing. I seriously teared up a little bit, and that's something that I rarely do with movies. The action, the emotions, and the brilliance of the ending is one of the most important reasons why you should go see Chappie.

[jo]

Interview with Kelly and Michael --

www.youtube.com/watch?v=IatYdl5JP74

[jo]

Interesting point of view

Pam Bennett ‏@wildwomantlc · 14m14 minutes ago
@realhughjackman Two of my kids saw #ChappieMovie yesterday and loved it! The 15 year old said a sequel is required!

If kids ( no older than 17) are allowed to rate it, I wonder how they will score it

Btw, in our local review board, it was rated like PG-13.




Jo

[jo]

Hugh suggests a look for Halloween - mullet and khaki shorts

www.fanbolt.com/57908/hugh-jackman-wants-you-to-rock-his-chappie-mullet-for-halloween/

I've already seen a tweet in which the tweeter says he will heed the advice


Jo

[jo]

Very insightful IMDB post ( especially from someone involved in computer science) --

Seriously underrated by reviewers (SPOILERS)

image for user flappsr
by
flappsr
» 8 hours ago (Sun Mar 8 2015 10:54:39) Flag ▼
IMDb member since October 2013


Short version: don't be discouraged by the negative reviews, give it a chance in the theaters and then decide!


Long version:

I get that it's not a perfect movie but i really don't think the reviews are doing this one justice.
Sure,there are some plot holes but it seems people are focusing way too much on that instead of focusing on the good stuff this movie has to offer. Chappie the robot is really convincing and very well developed as he goes from toddler, curious child witnessing the wonders of the world for the first time to facing the harsh reality of life and ultimately becoming conscious of his own mortality and freaking out about it. Also, how the opposing outside influences of Deon as the book worm science guy, Yolandi as the nurturing punk mom and the semi-abusive gangster father figure of Ninja have a believable impact on Chappie's growing up and understanding of the world I found well done and very believable.

Sure, Yolandi and Ninja may not be the best actors in the world (they're not actors after all), but I personally think they play themselves in a way that services the film, with a few exceptions. Blomkamp clearly knew how to direct them and use them in the story and although some may argue they're a distraction and seem "stitched in", I took them as a well deserved dose of levity and color and an interesting couple set to raise a sentient robot.

There were some pretty funny scenes at some point, most memorably the "putting them to sleep" part, that gave the dark and violent 3rd act a much more personal undertone and more power. It's the old "get them to have some good moments so you feel for them much more when the *beep* hits the fan".

But what it boils down to, for me personally, is that this movie takes good SciFi concepts and portrays them is a better way and raises smarter questions about AI, consciousness, mortality and the difference between man and machine way better that any movie I've seen these last years. Certainly better than Transcendence witch was utter garbage.

Also, as a software developer myself, i think this movie does a very good job of keeping itself grounded in reality from a computer science point of view. All the concepts used are things expected to become reality and are being worked on in present. That is what makes it a good SciFi movie first and foremost, mixing in just the right amount of Fi with a substantial amount of Sci to keep it believable.

I'd put it on par with District 9, certainly better than Elysium. In this case I think the negative reviews are doing the movie a disfavor, there's nothing better out anyway, so why not give it a try and see if you like it for yourselves. And even if it bombs, this for me has the makings of a cult classic.

[foxie]

Well it did best of the other new movies this weekend!!