2013: The Year in Film: "World War Z" Review

If you guys are looking for something that's somehow incurred more nerd rage than Star Trek Into Darkness, here's your target. Some day I'll write a post theorizing about the calculus that goes into nerd group think and whether or not they'll accept an adaptation of a widely beloved work, but for now let's just say that the reaction is often swift, completely illogical, and irreversible. "World War Z"was first a novel by Max Brooks (Mel's son!) that detailed an oral history of a worldwide zombie pandemic. It was written as a collection of individual accounts that together shape a global tale. It's seriously worth a read, as it touches on the international and geopolitical scale of a zombie apocalypse that is so often seen only through the eyes of a small group of survivors in zombie fiction. This film is not that book. Other than the title and the fact that the main character works for the United Nations and trots the globe, it bears only surface details with the book - and that's fine! The disparate characters, multitude of settings (and genres!) and fact that the book exists as a series of first-person narratives would have made straightforward adaption all but impossible. The film instead chooses to do zombies bigger and differently than we've seen on film to this point.. and I'm cool with that.

This film faced some legendary obstacles to production - surely associated with the difficulty adapting the book to a 2 hour movie, but there were issues with multiple re-writes and issues that required several weeks of re-shoots. In all, the film's budget ballooned and it began to risk a reputation as a disaster in the making. Mark Forster (Quantum of Solace) directs a screenplay that 75% of the writers in Hollywood have touched, and Brad Pitt stars as former UN investigator Gerry Lane. The film opens as Gerry is at home with his family when the worldwide zombie outbreak hits the Eastern US. After a tense escape and rescue, Gerry finds himself aboard a flotilla of ships that serves as UN headquarters and is tasked with investigating the virus so that a cure may be found. His investigation takes him around the world as he seeks to uncover clues about the disease among widespread destruction and mayhem.  

The Good: this film looks great. The CGI and effects are seamless and we are given zombie mayhem on a scale that we haven't seen in movies before. The disparate locations give a taste of what a worldwide zombie outbreak/apocalypse might actually resemble - as that's something that's typically depicted on a much smaller, more intimate level. There are some extremely tense and thrilling scenes, including a few of the most effective thriller set pieces I can recall. It's highly reminiscent of Alien, Aliens or 28 Days Later in that way. The way that this film created its world and its zombies, these zombies are much more terrifying that the traditional variety, and that makes for some thrilling and high stakes set pieces. The film really hits the ground running (there's no boring 20 minutes of exposition here) and that sets the stage and the stakes for what follows. In sharp contrast to the majority of action/sci fi films that have been released in ohhh, the last decade (looking at you, Man of Steel), World War Z is not 20 minutes too long, and if anything feels a little abrupt. In addition, Brad Pitt is (as always, or at least as always since the late 90's) very good. He's not your traditional action here in this one, but he's believable as a humanitarian investigator and grounds what could have been an insane destruction fest in a modicum of humanity.



The Bad: on further evaluation, the film kind of falls apart, but then again, it's about zombies, and I'm not sure there's a plausible explanation that doesn't just involve vampire-style magic. In addition, other than Pitt, no one else is given a lot of characterization, so we're really just rooting for "humanity" vs the zombie horde rather than any specific people. Also, rather than represent a revolution in zombie storytelling, this flick sort of borrows a bit from here and a bit from there (a little 28 Days Later, some Dawn of the Dead, a little Contagion, and boom.), and it feels a little TOO derivative at times.

In all, this film brings enough to the table and features some legitimately great and incredibly tense scenes to be a whole hell of a lot of fun to watch. It will probably fall apart when you're driving home and discussing it, but that doesn't change the fact that while it was going on you were probably a little scared and pretty damn enthralled. World War Z is much, MUCH better than anyone was giving it credit for a month ago.

7.5/10.

2013: The Year in Film: "Man of Steel" Review

It seems odd in this present era where comparatively minor superheroes like Iron Man, Thor and Captain America are the stars of hit movies that the original and arguably greatest superhero of them all, Superman, hasn't had a successful film in more than 30 years. Bryan Singer left the X-franchise to make the stinker that was "Superman Returns", which was too concerned with the past to really make any narrative strides with Superman, and in the meantime Batman was the center of one of the best movie trilogies of all time while Marvel built a cinematic dynamo around Robert Downey Jr. and the Avengers properties. Enter Zack Snyder, the guy behind the somewhat disappointing (but visually stunning..) Watchmen and 300. That alone is not all that promising, but when you throw in that the film was produced by Chris Nolan and written by Nolan writing partner David S. Goyer things become a bit more promising. Throw in a potentially great cast: Russell Crowe, Kevin Costner, Amy Adams, Diane Lane, Michael Shannon, and a compelling trailer, and this movie became a "must-see".

This film serves as a "Batman Begins"-style origin story and reboot/reinvention of the character of Superman/Kal El/Clark Kent.  We open with a fascinating, innovative and compelling look at Krypton in its dying days and get a powerful look (through a mix of flashbacks) at Clark's childhood and life in Smallville and his quest to become Superman. When a Kryptonian menace threatens life on earth itself, Clark is forced to become Superman, confront his past, and save humanity.

The Good: the cast is spectacular. Kevin Costner and Diane Lane are completely believable as Ma and Pa Kent, and all of the flashback scenes to Clark's childhood are simply great. Similarly, Russell Crowe is better than he's been in years as Jor-El.. this is the multiple Oscar nominee we all know and love. (Slimmed down, too!) Henry Cavill as Superman/Clark Kent is tremendous, and really brings an inner turmoil to the character that we haven't seen before. The always good Amy Adams brings a believable journalistic drive to Lois Lane, something that has often been lost in older iterations of the Superman story. Michael Shannon as Zod is suitably menacing and relentless, while not completely evil. By focusing on the character and growth of Clark Kent, the first hour of the film is as good as anything I've ever seen in a superhero movie. I'd really compare it to Batman Begins in that way, but instead of Batman's darkness and obsession we get Clark's sense of wonder and discovery. That's a good thing. The film also wisely (and in stark contrast to Superman Returns) marks a complete break from the Richard Donner/Christopher Reeves mythos of the past. New look, new score, new story. A Superman for our time, and that's definitely a good thing. Since it's Zack Snyder, we know that the visuals and the effects are going to be tremendous, and they don't disappoint. There are some spectacular (of course) action sequences, I especially liked the fight on the streets of Smallville, and the villains are sufficiently powerful to challenge Superman on his own terms. In addition, I particularly enjoyed the film's depiction of Krypton. These weren't just humans in funny costumes, this was a foreign feeling culture and society, and the film really does a good job establishing that Superman is indeed a child of two vastly different worlds.

The Bad: the final action sequence is at least 15 minutes too long. The film has a rather relentless final hour, that coupled with Snyder's shaky-cam can be rather exhausting. There's also the issue of the mindless destruction. Yes, Earth is under attack from Kryptonians, but at times it feels like Superman is making no effort to limit the damage. This is troubling, both from the perspective of what Superman has historically been presented to be, and from the implication of a Superman who doesn't care that his actions result in massive destruction. Think back to Avengers, there are multiple scenes of the heroes saving civilians or making an effort to lead the battle away from civilians. Great power, great responsibility, etc. Along the same lines, there is some sketchy, if sensible, advice from Jonathan Kent. While undoubtedly a great man and a great father to Clark, Pa Kent also advises him to keep his power a secret. There seems to some middle ground there. [insert secret identity here]

In all, this is a fine film, and is the best Superman movie ever made. With the strength of the cast, I'm optimistic for the Superman franchise moving forward and hopefully the creation of a wider cinematic DC universe. On the quality of the performances and the greatness of the film's first hour, this is a fine, if ultimately flawed (mostly morally) film. Well worth seeing, but brace yourself for massive and often mindless destruction. 

8/10.

2013: The Year in Film: "This Is The End" Review.

You may have (and probably should just go ahead and do it if you haven't) forgotten about all of the hoopla surrounding the supposed "apocalypse" that was all over the internet last year. Well, it spawned a pair of comedies from some of the funniest people in Hollywood - "This Is The End" from the people who brought you Superbad and "The World's End" from the people who brought you Shawn of the Dead. This one had the benefit of coming out first and featuring a large number of extremely funny and well-known comedic actors from the Judd Apatow orbit. Featuring actors playing ridiculous versions of themselves, this flick focuses on a funny group of friends as they deal with a world-ending calamity.

Old friends Seth Rogen and Jay Baruchel (most recognizable for me from "Tropic Thunder" though he also played Danger in "Million Dollar Baby") have a pot and video game filled reunion weekend in LA planned. Jay, who doesn't like LA, begrudgingly agrees to accompany Seth to a celebrity-filled party at James Franco's house. (Among the celebs in attendance: Jonah Hill, Franco, Craig Robinson, Emma Watson, Michael Cera, Rihanna, and more) After what appears to be an earthquake hits LA, a small group boards themselves up in Franco's mansion to await what they think will be inevitable rescue. They soon discover that the calamity that has befallen LA may be much more than a simple earthquake and seek to survive and keep their sanity among the madness.

The Good: this flick at once features some very funny people who clearly get along quite well sharing whip smart barbs over preposterous and often terrifying situations. There is enough reality in their performances and interactions to really give the film a fun and intimate feel. Don't get me wrong, it never really feels like a documentary, but there's enough of a personal vibe that you really get a glimpse at what hanging out with this group might be like. Much of the film is obviously improvised, and the cast has hilarious interactions with one another based on real or fictionalized relationships. The cast is put through some preposterous and occasionally gruesome situations, but the script and cast is quick-witted and smart enough to find the humor in just about every situation. I found Jonah Hill, James Franco and the entire early party scene to be especially funny, and this group of people has a way to write real-feeling dialogue that you just don't find all that often. [See: Superbad] In addition, some of the more horror-y elements, while always remaining funny on some level, can result in some legitimate low-level scares. This apocalypse feels legitimate, and it's never completely laughed off.



The Bad: it drags a bit in the middle section, and doesn't become clear where exactly the film is going immediately leading up to the sprint to the close. If anything, the film could have benefited from pushing the actual event back a little and letting the party scene breathe more. Many of the film's funniest scenes happen in quick succession by using the available star power, and a movie could have been made from the party alone. In addition, there's a rather abrupt turn from one character in particular that feels unearned. Minutes prior the whole group was hanging out as friends and shortly thereafter one is trying to murder the others? It doesn't feel legitimate and feels a lot more like a device to push the plot along.

In all, this is an extremely enjoyable movie with a lot of solid laughs. There are hilarious sight gags and characterizations that take the interactions between these well-known and well liked actors to ridiculous places. Well worth seeing in the theater for the laughs alone. Ultimately, this one isn't as funny as Superbad (though very few comedies are) but it definitely works on a Pineapple Express (which is heavily referenced throughout) level. A solid time at the movies.

7.5/10

2013: The Year in Film: "Mud" Review

Let me start by saying that this movie completely flew under the radar. Despite the fact that there were rave reviews following it being screened at Cannes and Sundance, it got lost in the Iron Man 3/Star Trek 2 shuffle for me and I kind of completely forgot it existed. Sorry, Mud! A cursory glance at the movie listings revealed that it had a nearly unheard-of 99% on Rotten Tomatoes, so I decided I should give Mud a whirl. A friend and I decided to check it out, and boy am I glad that I did. The follow-up to 2011's "Take Shelter", (which I've heard is good but have never seen!) also written and directed by Jeff Nichols, "Mud" is an indie coming of age story in the vein of "Stand By Me".

"Mud" features two 14 year old friends Ellis (Tye Sheridan - who I recognize from "Tree of Life") and Neckbone (newcomer Jacob Lofland) who live on a river in rural Arkansas. One day they come across a boat in a tree and mysterious, charming, charismatic drifter named simply "Mud". (Matthew McConaughey in his best-ever performance) Mud needs help and brings the boys into his orbit with fantastical tales of a lost love and sinister forces conspiring against him. As Mud's mysteries unfold and Ellis faces challenges at home the two grow closer and form a real friendship.

The film is shot in an almost cinema verite style, and the use of gritty, rural settings and hardscrabble depictions of river life really gives the film an authentic feel. If it wasn't for the presence of known actors, it would really feel like a naturalistic depiction of a way of life that's not likely to be long of this earth. It's a cousin of last year's "Beasts of the Southern Wild" in that way. The sleepy town, turns of phrase, chivalrous yet violent characters and romance of it all gives the happenings a southern gothic Faulkner-esque feel. This is a film that feels distinctly southern and very real and that seeming authenticity gives it a real charm.




The cast is stellar from top to bottom, highlighted by great performances by McConaughey (shoo-in for a Best Supporting nod, I'm calling it right now) and young kids Sheridan and Lofland, who give the sort of convincing, charming and deeply felt performances that make this film feel like more than a work of fiction. Reese Witherspoon is almost unrecognizable as Mud's long-lost love Juniper and Michael Shannon, Ray McKinnon, Sam Shepard and Joe Don Baker are all completely believable as inhabitants of this forgotten place.

Simply put, this flick is a gem. A pseudo modern American fairy tale that is inhabited throughout by charm, humor, mystery and above all the bonds that friendship and family can provide. Some convincing performances by two kids and masterful work by McConaughey propel it to greatness. See Mud, you won't regret it.

8.5/10.