World War Z Review

A lot of people never bothered to learn Rule #1: Cardio

If the above caption doesn't sell it, I am a fan of zombie movies. Granted I'm a recent convert to the horror subgenre (courtesy of Zombieland and AMC's The Walking Dead, though I've since turned against that show; again, the Telltale game is 100 TIMES BETTER THAN THE SHOW), but I generally prefer apocalyptic zombie stories and the social commentary they provide to the dumb teenager stuff of slasher flicks. So, when I hear that Brad Pitt is making a big-budget blockbuster zombie movie, I was naturally intrigued. And then 2011 and 2012 happened, where we got way too much zombie stuff, which broke me to the point where I was only sort of excited about Naughty Dog's obvious masterwork The Last of Us (I'm only about 1/3 of the way through it right now, but look for my review later). Point is, the zombie genre has become way overdone, and when Warm Bodies (obviously the zombie version of Twilight) came out earlier this year, I figured that the undead were on their way out. And the trailers for World War Z did nothing to dissuade me. I swear to god, I thought it was a prequel for I Am Legend, with the saccharine family interplay and the impossibly bad CGI. Then there were the behind-the-scenes stories, where it was said that they had no idea how to end it, so they brought in Damon Lindelof (of all people) at the 11th hour to try to fix things. Then I heard things about Drew Goddard writing it instead, which sounded a little better; after all, he did The Cabin in the Woods. But my main concern this whole time has been Pitt's unfortunate choice of director: Marc Forster, who has the distinction of making Quantum of Solace, one of the worst Bond movies ever, which is only amplified by the fact that it came out between two of the best. Suffice it to say, unlike Iron Man 3, Star Trek Into Darkness, and Man of Steel, I was not remotely excited for this movie, other than to see shit blow up and watch Brad Pitt get into fisticuffs with the undead. I haven't read the Max Brooks novel (which I hear it's only barely related to), so I couldn't give a damn about the source material. But anyway, my review after the jump.

THIS IS WHAT A ZOMBIE IS SUPPOSED TO LOOK LIKE. Not the PG13 version.

Though I enjoyed it more than I expected to (for reasons I'll get to in a moment), World War Z ultimately came off as little more than a hacky combination of Steven Spielberg's War of the Worlds and 28 Days Later, watered down, safe, and lacking in much originality. No humor, real genuine emotion, or acting to be found here. Just a tired soulless blockbuster, much like Quantum of Solace (though it is better than that atrocity). Time for pros and cons. Also, SPOILERS from here on out.

SPOILERS

The Good

- The Third Act. Seriously, for all the grumbling I heard about them having trouble with the ending, the third act is actually the high point of the movie, particularly the WHO lab sequence. It felt like something out of a George Romero film, and oddly enough, it was the only action scene in the entire movie that didn't require a huge budget. Pitt's performance goes up a few notches here, and he actually sells the fear in this scene. I also felt that the McGuffin of warding off zombies by creating a vaccine from dangerous pathogens was actually quite clever. It was a legitimate idea; after all, zombies wouldn't be hungry for sick flesh, as that would be like humans eating contaminated food. Also, the plane crash was suitable intense and immediate. For one scene, we had Zombies on a Plane, and it was pretty damn cool. The crash was almost as cool as the crash sequence in Flight. The ending was safe, but everything leading up to it actually managed to surprise me a bit.

- Segen. One of the few characters in this movie that I actually gave a shit about, as Daniella Kertesz did a good job with the horror of being bitten, and the pain and disconnect of losing a limb in such a harsh world. Also, she was a badass, as she was right back up on her feet a few days later, shooting zombies and kicking ass.

- The Tone. The producers said they wanted to convey a "Bourne Identity meets Walking Dead vibe, and at the very least, the mood was well-executed, as everything around the main characters was strange and unfamiliar, while also being suitably apocalyptic.

- Parts of the score were nice, and surprisingly from the guy who brought us James Bond CGI cars, the action was always tense and slow-building, really selling the scale of such a big-budget zombie flick.

- David Morse. He was onscreen for like, 5 seconds, but he totally nailed it. One of the few times where any life was breathed into the movie.

I'm Batman. SHHHHH.

The Bad

- Everything with the family. I wish they had actually got Matt Damon, and made it The Bourne Zombies, because God, the last hero this movie needed was a family man. One reason that a movie like 28 Days Later works so well is that Cillian Murphy's character wakes up all alone in an unfamiliar world, and has to fight every inch for his life. Gerry Lane? Not so much. His family hangs out on a cushy aircraft carrier, and then at a seemingly pleasant refugee camp in Nova Scotia, while he gets into all sorts of shit. But because he's the hero in an action movie, I never once felt like his life was in danger. Mireille Enos' performance basically amounted to "show up and say lines", while the kids were UNABASHEDLY AWFUL. Between such memorable lines as "Daddy, what's martial law?" and utterly boring, tension-breaking family interaction, they're the opposite of what I liked about Ty Simpkins' Harley in Iron Man 3.

- Pacing. The first 30 minutes of the movie move with such whiplash that there's no time to establish an emotional connection or catch your breath before getting to the next setpiece. The movie jumps from one location to another without getting to know the people at any of them. Other than Gerry, Segen, and a couple of guys at the WHO lab, we spend barely more than 5 minutes with anyone, and the people who we do see, we never get to know. It's like there was a studio mandate to keep the movie under two hours, because an end-times movie like this needed at least 135 minutes to properly stretch its legs.

- Everything goes to shit in like, four hours. We go from a normal day on the street, with some SLIGHT concerns about a rabies outbreak, to zombies everywhere and people dying in downtown Philly, to people hiding out from the hordes in their homes in Newark in the span of an afternoon. Things progress way too quickly, and they try to root this zombie problem in real-world facts. A good example of showing an epidemic causing worldwide distress in a realistic way is Steven Soderbergh's Contagion. At the very least, that movie showed how people were dying by the millions, but it was taking at least a few weeks to get to that point where everyone was hunkered down. I know the zombies infecting people would speed up the process at least a little, but it would still take more than one day for people to become fully aware of the degradation.

- Everything with the zombies. First off, see the picture above, because I repeat: THAT IS WHAT ZOMBIES, BRAINLESS MONSTERS WITH A THIRST FOR HUMAN FLESH, are supposed to look like. As far as I was concerned, no zombie in this movie ever bit someone, as none of them had decayed jaws, or blood running down their face. But because this is a PG-13 $200 million blockbuster, we can't see any of that, so it just has to roll with making less sense. And don't even get me started on how it takes about six seconds after someone dies from zombie bite to turn. COME ON. Even The Walking Dead had it take at least a few hours (you know, until the writing got sloppy and Shane turned right away at the end of season 2).

- Brad Pitt. I've seen Inglourious Basterds. I've seen Fight Club. Hell, I've seen Seven, which is less showy than either of the formers but far more real and emotional. Pitt is just totally slumming it here. He doesn't try to put any life into the character of Gerry, besides the script telling us THAT GERRY LURVES HIS FAMILY SO MUCH. I got to like him a bit more once he was striking it out on his own, but then the movie had him hold up that sign to the security camera (you know the one I mean), and I was reminded the family existed again, and I threw up a bit in my mouth. Pitt wanted the pomp and circumstance of having his own big-ass action franchise, like Tom Cruise, Matt Damon, Bruce Willis, and now Marky Mark (see next year's seminal masterpiece Transformers 4) before him. Other than that, he basically put in the minimal effort possible. I saw his onscreen glances at Forster, as he said "ERHMAGERD WHERE'S MY GODDAMN PAYCHECK?!?!".

- Matthew Fox. Why exactly was he there?

Matthew Fox's life = Bit parts and Tyler Perry movies

- James Badge Dale. Why exactly was HE there?

Can I have a shaved head, fire powers, and beat up Jon Favreau again?

- Marc Forster. Once again, some action scenes were well-done, but this felt like Forster cranked it directly from the Paramount Studio Backlot of Blockbuster Films. He used these big, sweeping tracking shots to convey fear and terror, when Joss Whedon did the same thing in The Avengers just by keeping a level steady shot of the carnage below, as did Zack Snyder in last week's Man of Steel. And thus, Forster's transition from Indie Drama Darling to Big-Budget Journeyman Hack is complete. Can he turn back?

So, yeah, I didn't like this one. And if my past reviews are any indication, I'm not that hard to please as a moviegoer. Basically the only bad review I ever gave was for Transformers 3, and that was A MICHAEL BAY FILM. I didn't review Pirates 4 or Green Lantern, but I would've given those shitty ratings, too. And World War Z has some redeeming qualities that those trainwrecks didn't, mainly keeping a smooth tone and some crackerjack action sequences, particularly near the end. But maybe a megabudget zombie movie just wasn't meant to be.

Oh well. I'm looking forward to Pacific Rim.

World War Z gets a 5 out of 10. Just watch 28 Days Later or Shaun of the Dead again. And play The Last of Us. It's far more tense and entertaining than anything you'll get here.

Seriously, though. THAT HAIR.

Man of Steel Review

You'll believe a man can fly. And shoot laser beams. And decimate a city.

Superman's had a rough go of it on film. While 1978's Superman: The Movie was the movie that launched the superhero genre in the first place, it was subsequently followed by a series of diminishing returns. Superman II maintained enough of Richard Donner's verisimilitude charm to still work, but the seams were starting to show in the behind-the-scenes calamities. Not to mention all of the odd, extremely out-of-character moments for the title character (he quits being Superman for sex, cheerfully tosses a depowered General Zod off a cliff and kills him, and exacts petty revenge on an asshole biker). Superman III is a watchable Richard Lester farce featuring Richard Pryor with a couple of strong scenes (the chemical plant sequence, Clark Kent vs. Evil Superman, and the Gave-Children-Nightmares scene of Robo-Lady), but nothing more. Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, spearheaded by the penny-pinching Cannon Films, is a disaster on every level, with poor scripting, bad acting, and hilariously bad visual effects. The only constant in these films was Christopher Reeve, who will always probably be the most definitive version of Superman onscreen. After multiple failed attempts to revive the franchise, including the almost-epic-disaster Tim Burton-directed, Nic Cage-starring Superman Lives and the radically altered mythology of J. J. Abrams' Superman: Flyby, Bryan Singer's Superman Returns promised to be a revival of the character. Instead, we got a two-decades-out-of-date homage to Richard Donner, complete with another Lex Luthor real estate scheme and lots of creepy scenes where Superman stalks Lois Lane (and Superman not throwing a single punch). With Warner Bros. and DC desperate to reintroduce Superman successfully, they turned to their biggest source of superhero success: Christopher Nolan. With Nolan on board to produce and Batman Begins screenwriter David S. Goyer to pen the script, Watchmen director Zack Snyder was brought on board. And thus, we've got Man of Steel. My reaction after the jump...

Henry Cavill certainly looks like he belongs in the suit... and enjoys Slurpees...

To put it mildly, Man of Steel has received a divided reaction. It's got a 58% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, has a 55 on Metacritic, and has general received a mixed reception by critics and fans alike. Well, count me among the positive, as Man of Steel isn't quite the Superman movie I've always wanted to see, but damn, is it close. But the thing is, I can see where most of the non-fans of the film are coming from. This is not a perfect movie, nor is it what audiences have come to expect from a Superman movie, or superhero movies in general. If I was going to give out an award for Most Daring Film of 2013, it would probably go to Man of Steel. It takes a load of chances, some of which pay off, and some of which don't. But the ones that pay off, MY GOD. It's pretty easy to categorize the positives and negatives of this film, so I'll do it in a Good/Bad style, as opposed to my usual reviewing style of just rattling off how I feel in essay form. The Good after the jump. Also, FULL SPOILERS from here on out.

You believe your son is safe? I will find him. I will find him. I WILL FIND HIM!!

LAST CHANCE TO TURN BACK FOR SPOILERS

THE GOOD

- The Plot: Snyder and Goyer took elements from virtually every version of Superman, from Mark Waid's Birthright (The most obvious influence; I highly enjoyed the smash cut from Kal-El's ship to the boat), to John Byrne's The Man of Steel, to the first two Reeve films, among other sources. What I especially liked, though was the way that it would present these typical Superman origin tropes (Krypton prologue, Kal-El in the ship, the Fortress of Solitude, the Daily Planet), and then throw in a few twists, which were surprisingly well-constructed and logically presented. Lois Lane investigating Superman before he was Superman was an entirely new idea, and it works extremely well, not only improving Lois' character, but also giving her and Superman a stronger relationship from the start. Also, the way that Clark's upbringing is presented, through following the main plot in the present with flashbacks to his childhood with the Kents in Smallville, completely removed the original obstacle of a Superman origin: that it takes him an hour to get in the costume. By showing us Clark's trials and tribulations, both as he wanders through his adult life and as he learns to control his powers with Jonathan and Martha's guidance, we connect to him better as a character, and spend less time wondering "Damn, when is Superman going to show up?" After he finds the Fortress (Again, reimagined as a Kryptonian scout ship that he can activate with his ship controller), the plot begins to centralize around Superman, and the flashbacks become less frequent, before going full-focus into the climax. And the best part: There are virtually no plot holes or logical gaps whatsoever. There's a few issues (see "The Bad" section), but overall, the story makes sense, and presents Superman as he would be received by the modern world. In the vein of Nolan, well done. Also, my favorite twist? Removing Kryptonite, and having the conditions of Krypton's atmosphere produce a Kryptonite-like effect that causes major disorientation for Superman and the villains alike.

- Krypton: HOLY CRAP KRYPTON IS SO F***ING AWESOME. It's a complete ground-up redo from the crystalline-tech world of the original movies, that takes elements primarily from the aforementioned The Man of Steel and Birthright, and yet also is its own new thing. From the domesticated alien pterodactyls, to the updated inclusion of Kelex (Seriously, I was SO, SO HAPPY when the world "Kelex" came out of Russell Crowe's mouth) as a cell phone/robot assistant/ship guard,  down to the design of the Kryptonian costumes, that opening prologue was truly a sight to behold, as were all the recurrences of Krypton tech throughout the rest of the movie.

- The Cast: As is the case with Nolan's version of superheroes, the cast is basically outstanding across-the-board. Particular praise goes out to Michael Shannon, who had the excruciating challenge of separating his version of General Zod from Terence Stamp, and I think he succeeded. His Zod is, at least initially, a far more tragic villain that Stamp's megalomaniac, one who commits every atrocity out of a sense of duty to Krypton's future. Only once that dream is shattered does he become the Stamp-esque genocide-crazy monster again, and once that General Zod emerges, it is still quite entertaining to watch. Among others, I can easily praise Kevin Costner, who despite short screentime, delivers a truly emotional and heartfelt performance as Jonathan Kent. I really believe that this is the man who made Superman who he is, and his death scene is easily the most affecting version of the character's end ever. Amy Adams manages to overcome her not looking like the comic book character, and is easily the most well-rounded and strong version of Lois Lane on film yet, as stated above (With all due respect to Margot Kidder, of course. Kate Bosworth, not so much). Russell Crowe is also extremely well-cast as Jor-El, and thanks to some sci-fi trickery, he's in a lot of the film, and even gets to do some action stuff. I did enjoy the alien stolidity he brought the role quite a bit as well. As for the Man himself, Henry Cavill, I must say, it's really impressive that while watching his performance, I did not once think of Christopher Reeve. Cavill's version of Superman is a far more introverted and subdued take on the character that fits the world created here well, and he's easily the most physically able man to ever don the suit. I guess that's basically it. Oh, and Antje Traue is an awesome, badass femme fatale as Faora.

- Hans Zimmer: Hans Zimmer, Hans Zimmer, Hans Zimmer. Seriously, this score is INCREDIBLE, so different from his Batman scores, but equally as epic. The only downside is that the theme itself only plays over the end credits, when I wish it had been used the whole time.

- The Ending: The film as a whole presents Superman with a choice: which side will he embrace, his nature, Kryptonian, or nurture, Human? That's the question that still hangs over his head as Zod threatens to incinerate innocents with his heat vision. And then Superman makes a choice that, if handled wrong, could completely break the character: he's snaps Zod's neck. Many, including Birthright writer Mark Waid, have argued that this moments irreparably damages the movie. I, however, feel that in juxtaposing the limits of his options (he's got Zod in a headlock, but can't move him or restrain him for much longer, and Zod's getting ready to beat him by attacking the innocent) with his search for which side he's truly on, and as such, Superman makes his choice. And man, does he feel conflicted about it. And less, "What should I eat?" conflicted, and more "My dad is Darth Vader" conflicted:

The feral scream he lets out is incredible

This scene is the high point of Cavill's performance, and it's just plain epic. Follow this up with the coda at Jonathan Kent's grave and the Daily Planet, and you've got a nice franchise starter on your hands.

THE BAD

- Collateral Damage: The one thing that I found really disheartening about the movie was Superman's seeming lack of regard for the world around him. In Smallville and the final battle in Metropolis, the fights incur enormous amounts of damage, including much of central Metropolis. All of this action is visually stunning and awesome to watch, but the amount of collateral damage ensuing makes me wonder if Superman is thinking about the innocent civilians at all. This Superman does seem a bit more concerned with the big picture than the everyman, and while he does catch and save a few people here and there, I would have liked more scenes of him hauling ass to save lives.

- Power Levels: Again, they kind of totally blew it on the level of how every individual Kryptonian dealt with his powers. Superman had his entire life to develop his powers, and Zod and the others show up, and they've already basically mastered them. Granted, Zod never flies, and whenever one of their helmets is removed they become really disoriented from the X-ray vision and super-hearing, but still, Superman should have been kicking them around the block, and it was the other way around.

- More Heavy-handed Christ Imagery: Christ imagery is fine, especially when you're dealing with his pop-culture stand-in, but like in Superman Returns, they just got too carried away. From the scene where Superman consults the priest with a stained-glass picture of Jesus in the background, to him launching off the Kryptonian ship and floating in the water (half-naked with a beard, no less) in a Crucifixion pose (just like after he pushes the landmass in Superman Returns), a little more subtlety would've been more than welcome. Also, Superman is 33 years old in this movie. 33. YEARS. OLD. That's a bit too much.

- Exacerbating the Clark Kent Problem: One correction I was hoping this movie would make is explaining why no one could recognize bespectacled mild-mannered reporter Clark Kent as Superman, and it actually managed to make it worse. Now, Clark Kent is introduced to the Daily Planet, without a slouch in his step or combed over hair, RIGHT AFTER THE ENTIRE WORLD SAW SUPERMAN SAVE THEM. I like that Lois is in on the secret now, as there will now be no rehash of the Clark/Lois/Superman love triangle from the Donner movies, but seriously, no one recognizes him?

- Superman could smile a bit more: This is more of a gripe, but still, I wish Superman would take a bit more joy in having superpowers. The scene where he flies for the first time is truly powerful, and I wish we could have had more of that.

All the flight stuff is TOTALLY EPIC, though.

However, in spite of these flaws, I truly enjoyed Man of Steel. It may be more of a sci-fi movie than a superhero movie, but it's a truly gutsy and daring reinvention of the character of Superman. We need a little less playing it safe in Hollywood (I enjoyed Star Trek Into Darkness, for sure, but boy, did that movie not take many chances), and this movie certainly supplied that. It may not be on the level of Batman Begins, but it definitely has great potential as the start of a new Superman story. Because, in the end, the entire movie ends at the point where Superman completed his first save. It basically ends at the point in Superman: The Movie where Superman saves the helicopter, only on a much grander scale. Next time, let's get a full-blooded Superman movie.

Man of Steel gets a 9 out of 10, if only for sheer balls.

Two more days to order this Mondo poster, people. DO IT.

Game of Thrones Mini-Recap: "The Rains of Castamere"

YOU WIN OR YOU DIE. No middle ground, indeed.

WARNING: MASSIVE SPOILERS AHEAD

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Still here? Okay, then, last night on Game of Thrones, this happened:

Even as a book reader, Pregnant Belly Stab was DEVASTATING.

The Red Wedding. Non-reading viewers had no idea it was coming, and readers had basically anticipated it since the inception of the series. It's the crowning moment of George R. R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire, one where he says, "Ned's death didn't convince you that no one is safe? Well, TRY THIS."And it was amazing, devastating, and horrific all at the same time.

Not doing a full recap here, but just wanted to put my two cents in. I've found this season to be a little slower and less consistent than its predecessors (the perils of adapting only half a book), but "The Rains of Castamere" was uniformly excellent. With the exception of "Blackwater", it's at the top tier of the entire series.

And it may scare newcomer fans off forever.