Good concept, poor execution
I finally got around to seeing this film and I have to say, I came away disappointed - mostly because it seemed to have so much potential, but it was generally wasted.
The rich always horde resources to maintain a better lifestyle. This is history 101 and isn't an idea that is hard to accept. However, the rich tend not to be stupid. They don't horde unnecessarily. They might have a desire to keep the working man down, but not to a level that c could cause greater problems.
For instance, this film opens with a corporation worried about declining productivity. This is apparently so serious that a senior board member would consider aiding in a coup. But what reaction do we see them give to an employee on his death bed? Throw them out because they're worthless, but do it quickly because the sheets they're lying on cost money.
No wonder your company is going under, when you think a sheet costs more money than an employee. What's worse is that you have the technology to cure said employee. Tech that appears to not have any resource shortfalls. Now any business studies student knows it costs dramatically more to train a new employee than maintain an existing one. So not only does it make sense for them to use their magic healing beds to fix terminal employees, but it would also make one hell of an incentive to get people to work and work hard, for your company.
But no, let's worry about dirty sheets instead. That company deserves to go under!
Of course you could claim that the healing beds are rare or require a lot of power/resources to run. In which case, this film had a hell of a depressing ending. Because if that's the case, our "heroes" just flushed that tech down the toilet by trying to distribute it to billions of people. If its limited, then it will run out very quickly and everyone ends up suffering. The people of Earth play a lottery as to who is lucky enough to get limited treatment, whilst the rest continue to suffer. Then the entire world economy collapses because the rich who run it all die from being stuck on a space station with zero resources.
Of course that's not the suggestion given by the ending. That suggests our heroes just saved the planet by distributing a technology that is fully capable of healing everyone. But then one wonders why it would be so restricted. If it is so capable, why hold it back? There are economic advantages to keeping your workforce healthy, so that's no reason to hold it back. It can act as an incentive to control the productivity of the poor, so that's no reason to hold it back. If there's no risk to the citizens of Elysium, then there's no reason to not expect ideological philanthropists to appear in their society and WANT to give this tech to the poor.
The ending removes all reason for this tech to be restricted. Unless...
Perhaps the intellectuals amongst their society might have been concerned about the result of providing near-immortality to billions. Think of what the actual result of that would be. Sudden, mass overpopulation, with resources being devoured at an exponential rate. More people being born every day, but so very few dying. Population could run out of control far faster than we could cope and people would end up fighting for what resources remain.
The idea that it is better to let billions live in squalor than provide the technology to let them live like the rich - purely for their own good - is a fascinating moral dilemma that this world had the potential to explore. Is it right to let people suffer when you have the ability to cure them? Are you a saviour if you provide that tech to the masses, risking the likely possibility that you might actually make their lives worse in the long run? Its not a black/white situation and both positions have good points. You could end the film unclear on whether the right choice was made and leave it up to the viewer to decide if it was a happy ending.
Instead, we got a very "preached-at" ending and one that lacked any sense of realism - a realism that this film seemed to be trying to portray. I say that as a British liberal-libertarian, who believes in the benefit of universal healthcare. I feel this film thought it would be preaching to the choir to someone like me, but instead came off as simplistic and ill-thought-out.
The final problem I have with the film is Krueger. I think he would have made a fantastic villain in a Steven Segal film. He was deliciously over the top and hammed it up with a clear joy. He was a fun villain to watch. But he was totally out of place here and his final attack on Elysium made no sense. I guess he was driven mad by having his face blown off? That seemed to be the only reason. But it only seemed to drive him mad when it suited. The rest of the time, he was no different than before. And the rest of the time, he was just a brute, who enjoyed causing misery. So we would hate him. Because he's the bad guy.
That's why I feel this was such a wasted concept. There was so many shades of grey possible in this world and so many ideas that could have been explored. But instead we got a very simplistic good/bad separation. There was no room to sympathise with the villains or question whether the heroes were correct. We were told which was which and so instead of getting an intelligent sci-fi thriller, we got a simplistic action movie.
As a simplistic action movie, it did alright. The action was good, the effects were good, all the acting was solid. As a simplistic action movie, I enjoyed it for what it gave.
But it could have been so much more.