Review: "World War Z"

In This is the End (which I quite liked), Emma Watson remarks to her celebrity friends that she believes the disaster that has hit Hollywood is a zombie apocalypse. Now, it turns out to be the rapture in that movie, and not a single zombie is actually seen. But This is the End does share some common ground with that horror genre. The setting is a tight space (a house), and the characters pose an equal threat to each other when compared to what is happening outside.

Traditionally, the zombies are merely a catalyst for getting the characters together, and presenting the real threat - humans. We bicker, fight, make selfish choices and even kill one another. The looming danger outside only heightens the true danger inside. Commentary through horror. If only we had just gotten along.

Brad Pitt's World War Z is a sort of mix between 28 Days Later and Outbreak, with less insight into humanity and politics and more money spent on... action? Star power? CG zombies?

The story is about an ex U.N. investigator that has been tasked with assisting in finding the origin of (and possible cure for) a plague that is quickly turning the world into ravenous beasts. The word zombie is spoken here and there, and with a sense of "you've got to be kidding me" from those talking about it. We are thrown into a mysterious worldwide disaster with grave consequences and palpable tension. Refugee camps, walled up cities and command centers in the ocean. That's the contingency plan, folks. We're screwed.

The actors all do a fine job of getting us invested in these events, showing exhaustion and uncertainty very well. It's fun and suspenseful watching people quietly move around the undead by using greased up bicycles. It's terrifying having to calm down your children, while they cry for their blanket in the midst of a crisis. And it's hilarious when we see several closeups of a zombie biting down on his teeth like a squirrel.

Wait... what?

Indeed. Emotional intensity is undercut by unintentional hilarity and overdone action set pieces. Over shadowing moments that reflect the good and bad people do in panic mode are silly chases and conveniently placed sequences meant to stop your heart. There is a scene early on when Brad Pitt's wife is almost raped in a grocery store aisle. Not by zombies, but by regular men. Everyone is scrambling for food, water and medicine, and here are these scumbags, causing a problem where there doesn't need to be one. The opening of this movie is filled with things like this. Later, just after a city is destroyed in a pulse pounding rampage, a zombie attack happens on a plane. Why? Because it would be exciting to have an attack happen on a plane.

Oh, and the zombie actors were either instructed or given permission to bang their heads against walls with funny sounding foley attached.

I'd be willing to bet these were problems that came from the troubled production, and the editors did what they could to have it all make sense. It does, but the tone feels off. The movie tries too hard at pleasing every person in the audience - an effort that ends up a detriment. The irony of it all is that if they had left the original ending alone, the end result would've been a captivating cliffhanger and a ballsy move. Instead, they chose to play it safe. Such a shame.

The only commentary I took from World War Z is that when pushed into a corner, people will do what they can to survive. I'm not talking about the characters, but the behind the scenes people. Trapped in an office, feeling the walls closing in, they only made the situation worse. If only they had just gotten along.

2/5 *s

Bad Dude Status: "Jack Reacher"

Beyond that internet meme from Duke Nukem, the title of Bad Dude is something reserved for the most awesome of heroes. Not boy scouts and not anyone with any respect for our “code of law”. These guys are willing to make a boy scout cry if necessary. They have their own law. And if you fall within their jurisdiction...

I plan on, through a series of blog entries, explaining why some characters are bad dudes, why some are not. Maybe doing this will reveal something wonderful and/or sickening about us as an audience. To help me out will be fellow critic and purveyor of the exploitative, The Cine-Masochist! Enjoy:

My first RedBox rental - something I had been putting off for a long while - was the Tom Cruise production of the Tom Cruise starring Jack Reacher. The poster spoke to a very primal side of me: a serious looking man in front of a cityscape with the American flag superimposed over it. The ad team could’ve easily put some explosions on it, or a gun in Tom’s hand, but no need. He IS the weapon. He IS the danger. He is so much these things, that the title needs to only be his name. Damn. 

Is Jack Reacher a Bad Dude?

First off, who is he? In the movie, Jack has a ghost like mystique about him. He’s a drifter, only appearing when he’s been called upon. He wears only one set of clothes per mission (that he gets at Goodwill) and “borrows” cars when he needs them. I don’t think he has an I.D. in his wallet, or a wallet at all (please correct me if I’m wrong). All he needs are his abilities. He is THAT confident, and you should be THAT scared.

The kind of villains he’s up against are quite villainous. We have a military sniper and a man known only as “Prisoner Human Being”, played by the one and only Werner Herzog. When someone fails him, he offers a choice of either being shot or proving to have the will to survive. How? By chewing off your own finger. Normally, they just prefer to be shot. “Always the bullet. I don’t understand” he says. It’s been said that you can judge your hero by the nature of the villain. In this case, our hero better have his stuff together.

Beyond being a loner and up against a stone cold baddie, Jack can walk the walk and, almost more importantly, talk the talk. When needing to interrogate a witness, a desk clerk asks to be shown some I.D. Jack has a counter offer to “show” him the back of an ambulance. When backed into a corner, Jack says, over the phone, “I mean to beat you to death and drink your blood from a boot.” And not in an angry manner, but an “as a matter of fact” way.

When he drives a car, he makes sure the engine purrs like a kitten. When he fights, he makes sure to leave a mark and an impression. When he shoots, he rarely misses. And when he misses, he’ll make you suffer.

Jack Reacher can be seen as nothing but a vanity project; an effort by an A-list actor to claim dominance and pound his chest. Yes, this is that. Everything in this is only meant to supplement Tom and his bad assery. It might be the most blatant example of it in his whole catalog, and should probably be disliked because of that. Only if it didn’t work. Watching a character whose only development is that he can wreck anyone and anything is just so entertaining. There really isn’t anything being said about the act of vengeance, the concept of justice or anything that could illuminate an audience. It’s got atmosphere, tension, danger and moxy without bothering to worry about pathos. Ironically, that one thing that could’ve put this movie over the top would’ve held it back some. And nobody holds Jack back.

So, does Jack Reacher in Jack Reacher achieve Bad Dude status? Here's CM:

First off, thank you for having me in mind, Bill!

And in regards to Jack Reacher? Yeah! HELL YEAH! definitely a Bad Dude.

This is a character that reflects on the days of old, the action heroes of the 80's and early 90's that were brutal, cunning and got the job done. This no nonsense approach has really been making a resurgence lately, with films like Dredd, Jack Reacher and of course, The Expendables. I think audiences are craving this in the action films they go see, proving that characters like Jason Bourne, just...don't quite cut it as bad ass action heroes.

I mean hell, look at the Daniel Craig Bond films! Even James Bond has been pumped with a dose of Bad Dude status. He's big and strong, and absolutely wrecks people's shit. Action fans want that escapism, they want to root for this larger than life Bad Dude, and Jack Reacher gives them that.

I hope that makes sense, and again, thanks for having me!

Status - ACHIEVED 

Review: "Man of Steel"

For me, one of the most striking images after 9/11 was on a local news report. The reporters did a regular feature on paintings and drawings made by Elementary School kids, based on current events. One child, after witnessing the terrorist attacks on New York, drew a crayon colored picture of Superman, stopping one of the planes from crashing into one of the towers, having arrived just in the nick of time. Sad that there is no real superhero in our world, but hopeful because potential for good exist within all of us. This meant more to me than President Bush standing on top of rubble, calling for payback.

You see, Superman is about doing the right thing, even in the face of unimaginable horror. He doesn't give in to senseless rage, nor does he use his powers for selfish reasons. Well... except for when he turned back time to save Lois Lane. And does breaking a man's neck count as rage if done to save a group of people?

It's hard making such decisions, especially when you can do almost anything. But, that's part of what makes the character so compelling. In his latest film adaptation Man of Steel, we get an origin story laden with this.

Before he was Clark Kent, he was named Kal-El, the first and last naturally born child of the planet Krypton. Knowing the destruction of that world was imminent, his parents launched him into space, sending the craft to Earth. There, he is raised by a kind hearted Kansas couple. He spends his youth struggling to do what comes naturally to him (saving the day) and trying to keep his abilities a secret (what his Earth parents want). Eventually, after years of drifting from place to place, he discovers a relic of his home world and learns his true destiny, just when we need him the most.

At first glance, this movie is merely a feast for the eyes. From Russell Crowe riding a dragon to a New York like Metropolis falling apart building by building, the level of visual candy and destruction is absolutely overwhelming. Punches, kicks, sonic booms and explosions are louder than in any superhero film I've seen recently. Leaving the theater, it felt like Director Zack Snyder out did his own style to the point of detriment. "A Superman movie for a new era" this was called. Fine, but what does it say of this era? Bigger is not necessarily better. They tried a slow moving drama with Superman Returns, and people complained that it lacked action. Well dummy, now you got it.

At second glance and after conversations with colleagues, I realized the enormous visuals distracted me from what was under the surface. Themes of self discovery, doubt and making difficult choices are strewn throughout. Clark spends many years learning just who he is exactly. He finally uncovers the truth (and his suit), and goes home to tell his mother, still confused as to what should happen next, but momentarily happy to have some answers. When General Zod, a Kryptonian with ties to his birth family, threatens Earth, Clark is given the reality check of a lifetime. Sometimes, the only way to get someone out of an existential rut is to shake them out of it.

From there, Clark puts on the suit, tries things out for the first time, and learns along the way just what he is made of. We don't get many scenes of dialogue expositing lessons learned, but we do get to see them as they happen. At one moment, he is forced to do an act he'll hopefully never have to do again, and gets emotional afterwards (you'll know it when you see it). He didn't do something as grand as turning back time, but it was just as jaw dropping to witness, and may haunt him for some time. This Superman is not yet whole as an individual, but is finally ready for the next phase of his life. Is the world ready?

Thrown headfirst into the dilemma of fighting against people of his past, to protect the people of his present, Clark's internal problems have become external, for everyone to see. He experiences one nightmare, only to wake into a real one. Using all of his powers to their fullest capabilities for the first time, he wings the situation, learning as he goes. Sure, it all comes naturally to him, and he is no longer holding back, but you get the sense that he may be uncertain (and possibly afraid) as how to win the day. Where Captain America is confident and steadfast, this Superman is powerful yet doubtful. He flies through the air with heavy emotion on his face, like someone rushing to complete multiple food orders (maybe more dramatic than that). He WANTS to save everyone, but doesn't really know HOW. It's the coming of age story of a lifetime, when you think about it. It's not going to be easy Supes, but just know we're all behind you.

In preparing this review, I doubted not only my rating of this movie, but also that of Star Trek Into Darkness, which I think shares something in common - both are big, loud, and on the surface deviate from the source material. It might appear that spectacle trumps smarts, but brain and brawn work side by side in both (to varying degrees). Still, what I would give for a 1970's style sci fi flick. We can handle it, Hollywood! Give me a depthful crayola drawing over a shallow photo op any day.  

4/5 - 5/5 *s, depending on how I feel at a given time.

Review: "The Purge"

One night of unrestrained, perfectly legal violence. For this future version of America, this Purge is a Holiday in the vein of the 4th of July. We faced the collapse of our country, and our leaders "solved" it all - by allowing us to bludgeon each other during a 12 hour period once a year. Low unemployment, low crime, no government debt. Clearly, this works.

The Purge is not about how this night came to be, who implemented it or how it should be taken down, but instead what could potentially happen during it. A well off white family attempts to go through the night, guarded with what has been billed as a tight security system, in peace. Unfortunately, the young son lets a poor black man, who is being chased by psychopathic hunters, in. The hunters threaten the family, causing them to confront the morality of the nights events directly.


These hunters are young, also white and also well off. They firmly believe in the principles of this night, and will go to great lengths to kill one man, despite the fact that they could just leave their safe / guarded neighborhood and go to the other side of town. An across the board license to kill goes both ways, and by leaving the area of privilege would actually (gasp) put them in the real world, where they aren't really safe. Hunting for game in your backyard doesn't make you a badass, but as long as you can pretend like one with your prep school friends...

On the surface, the movie is about our violent tendencies and "need" to let it out. In the world these characters inhabit, this is how the government marketed the plan to its citizens. How can one 12 hour period of violence create economic stability for a nation? Population control and literal class warfare, it seems. Those who are well off can afford to protect themselves and live in the neighborhoods that don't see most of the violence. Those who are the neediest are left to fight off anyone and everyone who believes they caused the near destruction of America years before.

Remember that argument about teachers making SOOOO much money from taxpayers, implying that they ALONE were causing our downfall? Or how about organizations like ACORN being demonized, only to be vindicated after the fact? But those wars we spent all of your money on? No, those were necessary. We couldn't spend it on health care for all or education - things that could pull a nation out of despair - not while dirty looking foreigners worship falsely. No, the REAL problem is that you need release. Enough to make you forget. BIG TIME. Either the New Founding Fathers were evil men covering their butts, or just backward thinking dummies. Which is worse?

One of the silliest movies of the year is also one of the more surprising ones. An exaggerated yet prophetic horror film for liberals, a home invasion thriller for everyone else. I understand it is getting a sequel. More violence will be had, but hopefully they'll sneak in some of the elements that made the first one a tad thoughtful. A tad, mind you. Can have us thinking too hard...

2/5 *s (though, 3/5 feels right as well)

Review: "Now You See Me"

The belief in magic is, I imagine, looked down upon by many. If you're a child, the tricks performed by illusionists are puzzling, intriguing and entertaining. To be completely fooled as a kid is ok. Once you reach a certain age, it's assumed that you've matured a bit. You understand the truth about Santa, accept that Pro Wrestling is a show, and hopefully, appreciate magic on the showmanship level only.

In Now You See Me, a magician actually points out the foolishness of charging him with a particular crime. To do so would be admitting that magic is "real". Another character accepts that what she sees are just tricks, but enjoys the feeling she gets from them. She speaks of having a little faith in the unbelievable, and being a more tolerable person because of it. A professional trickster that calls you stupid for thinking what he does is real and an adult woman who just goes along with the tricks despite knowing that they're just tricks. What was it that Obi Wan Kenobi said about fools?

The crime I mentioned above was part of a Las Vegas stage performance. Calling themselves The Four Horsemen, these four (of course) showmen play out a trick where they transport a man to a European bank, and have him rob a safe. The FBI and Interpol investigate, but are always just a few steps behind this crew. Are they modern day Robin Hoods, or is there something more to their act?

Well, that something more is the trick (or twist) the movie has up its sleeve. A very short sleeve. I don't mean that the finale is easy and cheap but that the whole story is. The way the tricks unfold are implausible and kinda dumb for a popular magic act to achieve. They go to lengths like hypnotizing a man days in advance, switching out real money with flash paper and guessing that an entire audience were victims of an insurance company. Sure, I get it that the performances are just a cover for what they're "really" doing, but what they're "really" doing is "really" not clever. 

Jesse Eisenberg plays one of the Four Horsemen, in what I would call the best acting of the movie (the neurotic tendencies I would expect from him are swapped for confidence and flash). He regularly says that the closer you look, the easier it is to trick you. When a character is seemingly trapped in a car chase on a bridge, we see how the crew pulled off his escape. And it's something straight out of the Fast & Furious mentality. What worked in a movie that could care less about smarts, doesn't work in a movie that depends on you believing it's smart.

This must be similar to the problems people have with the new Star Trek movies. Every personality and theme from the original shows and films are heightened to almost extreme lengths. Whatever subtlety there used to be is gone. Nothing is subtle about Now You See Me, which would be ok (it IS a movie about flashy stage performers pulling off heists) if the tricks played out in and by the story hadn't been delivered in a Happy Meal. 

Now I remember; "Who's the more foolish, the fool, or the fool who follows him?" Fun razzle dazzle is fine and all, but only if you don't ask questions. When I was a kid, I hardly ever accepted something without being a little inquisitive. And you know what? I grew up to like movies ranging from the thoughtful to the silly. You CAN have fun while being mature. No need to be a Toys R Us kid forever.

2/5 *s