Haha....I don't usually care for what critics say as I was going to see the movie regardless. It was just a question of whether it was worth watching at the Cinema which seems like it definitely is based on the movie going public's consensus. So I am looking forward to being distracted by Hugh Jackman's hairdo tomorrow. ;)

Definitely one of those movies that is best experienced at the cinema :) My computer speakers pump out a great sound, but I've never heard Die Antwoord's music at the volume I heard at the cinema :)

Yes, I do agree. It's very paradoxical that the actual entertainment system induces that if you make something great who encounter success, it's in one way "unfortunate". That's why I 've always hopes when I finally found something I like (and that's rare with recent things), but... it is often a disappointment (but I still usually want to give a chance ^^"). The last was Gareth Edwards with Godzilla for me. I wasn't expecting much of an American version (I love the original Japaneses ones, especially the very first who is a great "classic" movie, and "Final Wars" who is one of my favorites movies). I wasn't expecting a lot, but "Monsters", his previous movie was interesting and rather smart (even if there are some things I didn't liked, in movie, and how he made the movie). But Godzilla was really disappointing (for me, I precise ;)) : some good ideas, some good film plans with nice visuals, but the whole wasn't good. Not really bad, but not good and not interesting (and way too serious for what it was in the end)(I've nothing against a movie taking himself seriously when it's well done ;)).
Sometimes, there is exceptions, that I follow very close. One of my actual "to absolutely watch the new movie if possible" are animated movies from Laïka studios : I don't think they encounter a huge success, but enough to pursue making movies, and each new animated from them is really great :) If you haven't saw any of them, I strongly advice "Paranorman" first, and "The Boxtrolls". Smart, beautiful, and well done movies. But finally, this are exceptions. But that's a good reasons to support them as much as we can when we found one :)

How many movies (and book/comics etc...) are using pieces from (or are based on) other movie/book/comics XD (and without crediting them). In fact, I've the feeling that somewhere, there's always something you can "relate" it with.
Talking about this kind of things, one of the best adaptation of Philip K Dick's work for me is a movie who isn't based on a Philip K Dick novel : the movie "Southland Tales". That's interesting, because often official high budgets adaptations are very bad, and this movie who isn't an official based movie, recreates exactly the same things that you encounter in a Philip K Dick's book (and it is not at all based on one of his book). I believed after seeing it the first time that it was an adaptation ^^"
In conclusion : for me, the important is the result (as long as there is no "full steal" of a work. Using some bases for inspirations... Everyone do it, even sometimes without consciousness).
UEFI..? A successor of the actual BIOS ?

Curious to see what will be your opinion too :)

Oh thank god, I was looking forward to it but was worried about the reception. I'll watch it when I get some time away from the endless amount of homework I have

Yes, influences and references can be traced back in most works but there is a problem when someone like James Cameron touts it as a completely original idea when everyone can clearly see how derivative it is. There is nothing wrong with using familiar story elements but it should be employed with more creativity and a semblance of unique interpretation.

I am happy to report that 'Chappie' has more in common with 'District 9' then 'Elysium', though it is not a rehash as some reviews would have you believe. One of the main influences which even the director openly admitted to was Robocop and in some ways it is a remake or homage as well as the kind of movie that the 2014 Robocop wished it would have been. I was really glad to see Neil Blomkamp return to South Africa as the setting which he clearly knows and represents very well here.

The movie has a much better and cohesive script then Elysium with smartly written dialogue IMO, also the social commentary is once again deftly handled instead of constantly beating you over the head with the message until it becomes a detriment to the experience. Most importantly though Chappie has a lot of heart, so just like in District 9 Sharlto Copley does a great job in making it really easy to empathize and invest in his character. The performances in more then a couple of scenes with Dev Patel's character and Chappie really nudged at my heart strings. Some reviews have deemed Chappie to be an irritating protagonist with a constantly shifting personality which is just absurd. Without spoiling anything you will clearly understand why Chappie behaves the way he does, being a newly born constantly evolving AI with the curiosity of a child.

The idea of "What makes us human?" that the movie provokes is nothing new and influences like Ghost in the Shell as well as Appleseed can clearly be observed where most of them were set in a futuristic fantasy setting . So what makes Neil Blomkamp's take on it really good is the clever way in which he interprets and adapts those thought provoking quandaries of an artificial being into a present day setting that makes it plausible and grounded in our reality. All that being said it is not a perfect movie by any means and some of the side characters could certainly have been more fleshed out as I feel that Hugh's character was pretty one dimensional and Sigourney Weaver's character was just a waste as even an extra could have played that one without anyone batting an eye.

As far as Die Antwoord's Ninja and Yolandi are concerned, they were just playing an even more exaggerated versions of themselves so I didn't find any glaring problems with their acting and the music though featured significantly was not a hindrance to my enjoyment of the film. The central theme of the creation of an essentially new sentient race could have been expanded upon further but there is only so much you can do in an almost 2 hour long movie. The really negative and harsh reaction by the critics for this movie is mind boggling though as it is definitely a really good movie even if its still not as great as District 9. Apart from excessive language and violence that makes sense for the setting, I think part of the reason is that Neil Blomkamp like Christopher Nolan is a genre film maker at heart and strives to make an entertaining kickass action movie that is smarter then the average pop corn summer blockbuster flicks.

tl;dr it is the best time I have had at the Cinema so far this year and I know its still fairly early in the year but everyone should go see this movie if they can. Even though they are very different type of movies I really had a comparatively much better experience overall with 'Chappie' then 'Cinderella' , which although good for what it was I feel got a lot more praise for essentially rehashing the Disney animated classic in live action with a few different beats. :)

Such is the nature of creation. It is impossible to create without inspiration, and inspiration comes from other creative works and life experience. Life experiences have similarities with other lives, no matter how unique the experience is or feels. Plagiarism occurs when someone directly rips off another creation without permission or giving credit. With current copyright laws, some claims have become absolutely ridiculous.

One of the most ridiculous copyright claims I read about, was one involving a fellow forager who received a copyright infringement notice for a bird whistle in the background of a YouTube video! This trend has also affected video game reviewers.

I'm surprised that Hollywood hasn't attempted to copyright the boring plot concept of: 1/ Man gets slighted 2/ Uses violence to overcome adversity 3/ Gets the girl and saves the day. That covers the majority of mundane garbage released in cinemas. I find it rather saddening that ideas can actually be copyrighted. That differs from someone using a creation ad verbatim without permission or credit.

Great review! I didn't realise that Neil had mentioned Robocop influences although it was evident from the film. I was wary to write a comprehensive review myself, as I was aware of how biased my opinion of this movie was. I had high expectations before seeing it, and those expectations were exceeded upon watching. I often find that if I have high expectations for a movie or pass on praise of something, that those expectations can lead to disappointment. I went to see Kingsman: The Secret Service with low expectations after watching the trailer, and was very surprised to enjoy it thoroughly. It had been my favourite movie viewed this year until I saw Chappie :)

I fully agree, of course. I'm not that "cool" when it's a big production, which is clearly taking something from somewhere else (and especially when they didn't even bother to mention the sources). And of course it depends too about how many things it's "using" from other sources.

Great review, thanks for it :)
It looks like it's a movie I'll have to see when I can, as I expected.
And the references/sources of inspiration, sounds promising with what you say.

Exactly :)

Long subject, but I think the actual copyright system has lead to so many... stupid and "creation-destroying" situations. Using references, like I said before, if it's not plagiarism, it's ok for me. Even a "fair use" (using only a part, crediting it if possible with author acceptation, etc...) of something else is ok.
There is of course a difference in using references (or using "part of" something) and plagiarizing (at least for me).

It makes me think about two things I heard.
First, from a french teacher I had : "Is new only what have been forgotten."
Second, is from Victor Hugo (I'm French after all, I HAVE to put a quote from him ;)) "Le livre, comme livre, appartient à l’auteur, mais comme pensée, il appartient -le mot n’est pas trop vaste- au genre humain." in a bad translation : "The book, as a book, is the property of the author, but as a thought, it belongs -the word isn't too wide- to the human race."

Exactly ! (again :D) That's what I was trying to say :)
For this kind of spirit, I love the work of Peter Watkins (go take a look at his website and to at least one or two movies from him if you have time, it's very smart and interesting), who tries to make "different" movies (and smart movies). They're always very interesting, and I especially advise : "The War Game", "Privilege", "Gladiators", "Punishment Park" and "La Commune" (who is really great).
This kind of uniformed concept plot you're talking about is really boring and annoying. It's bad because we learn to not expect novelty (and to not have a lot to think), which is a very bad/worrying thing. The few times I can watch a "real" foreigner movie (I mean not an "art movie" : I mean a movie that the people of the country who made it may want to see), I'm surprised and pleased to see how much some things may be so different. The last one I saw was "Metegol" who was really good (if you like animated movies of course ;)).
Ahah ^^ Don't worry, sure I wasn't expecting that "much", but it was a big pleasure to read it, and now I know almost precisely what to expect from the movie :) So thanks for it !

I'm a little bit curious about Kingsman and have low expectations. So it sounds not that bad *put it on the "to-see-one-day-list*"
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, and all the recent Planet of the Apes, didn't appealed me at all XD Am I missing something ?

No problem, I am glad you found it useful. :)

Kingsman has good entertainment value so you should watch it as well. Personally the new Planet of the Apes movies really resonated with me, when I first went to watch Rise of the Planet of the Apes I was expecting something just a tad better then the 2001 reboot. So I was genuinely surprised by its quality and the origin story of Caesar portrayed extraordinarily by Andy Serkis. Ofcourse it is a sci-fi fantasy but the evolution of the Apes seemed logical to me in terms of giving a plausible reason for them eventually taking over the world which is no small feat. The bridge sequence was awesome in the movie and a memorably well done action set piece.

Then for the sequel I had high expectations and it not only met all those but far exceeded them. I think what makes it absolutely incredible is the performance capture animation along with the nuanced work of the actors that have to make do with little or no dialogue. The second movie progressed and built upon the first movie showing the further expansion of the race of intelligent Apes and their motivations for considering humans a threat to their existence. The clash between the Apes and humans in the facility is just an epic conclusion that should not be missed. All in all having never watched the original Planet of the Apes I am really impressed with the new series and eagerly looking forward to the next one. :)

That sounds interesting. Do i need to know anything from the old movies to watch them?

Nope, that is whats so great about them as no prior knowledge of the previous films is required. It is one of the very rare examples of a franchise reboot done extremely well. :)

Okay thank you. That's good because i've never any Planet of the apes movie but i am tempted to do so now.

As opposed to the Star Trek Reboot imho for example*sigh*