Zombie Holocaust! - Review: World War Z

World War Z gained a lot of notoriety from all the rumors of production problems, reedits and expensive re-shoots. From all those negative stories, you would be forgiven for expecting an incoherent vomit of a movie; that it's not only easy to follow, but also well made and gripping is a massive plus. WWZ tells the story of a mysterious global pandemic, the source of which is unknown, but which turns the majority of the earth's population into rampaging zombies. We see the outbreak from the perspective of Gerry (Brad Pitt) and his family, as they witness it first hand while stuck in rush hour. From there, Gerry – a former government agent - is coerced back into action to find a cure and it is action all the way until the end.

You have to admire this movie on many levels. It's supposedly a summer 'tent pole' release – traditionally a time for family movies - yet, it features lots of zombies running around biting people while getting shot in the process. There are panoramic shots of zombies running amok and the ensuing widespread destruction. And even if the bloodletting and gore levels are appropriately sanitized and restrained for the summer audience, still you have to revel in the joy of an actual summer zombie movie. When has that happened before? And unless there is a sequel to this, when is it likely to happen again?




Brad Pitt (looking about 35 here) makes for a solid action hero as he goes through one hellish experience after another. Strangely, he doesn't really have a regular counterpart/sidekick to bounce ideas/dialog off, resulting in a lot of him asking questions on behalf of the viewer. The one time it seems as if he's going to get a sidekick, said sidekick is dispatched rather quickly in an unintentionally amusing fashion – presumably to give Brad/Gerry more to do. Furthermore, there isn't really the usual secondary subplot to cut to and as such as we see the chaos unfold mostly from his viewpoint. This has the unforeseen consequence of giving the movie a very 'chaptered' form; one-off events – almost like little mini-stories in their own right - take place in one country after another with their own beginning middle and ending and usually as Pitt the lone protagonist as the witness.

The zombie action is excellent and we see suitably large-scale set- pieces of wanton zombie destruction. There is a level of scope and ambition here that you just won't see in something like 'The Walking Dead'. Though it has to be pointed out that those wide vista shots of the zombie hoards building 'ant hills' to scale walls happens only a handful of times in the movie. Even at that, you've probably already seen them in the prevalent trailers, which admittedly takes away some of the 'Wow Factor'.

Now onto the aforementioned 'productions problems' and 're-shoots' that littered this movie's gestation. It's hard to evaluate it without taking those 'issues' into account. Why? Because the telltale signs are so evident. The story takes strange turns, focusing on some elements while completely ignoring others. For example, early on in the story, we see Gerry and his family rescuing a young boy – who we assume Gerry will semi-adopt and become a surrogate father figure to since his offspring are girls; this is how it seems it's being set up - yet the child is never seen or referred to again.

Similarly, Gerry later takes a wounded Israeli soldier under his wing but she is so underwritten and cipher-like, you wonder: what's the point? If that's not enough, then take a high profile actor like Matthew Fox (of Lost); he features early on in the story and you assume he will figure prominently later; instead, he just shows up a handful of times in what could be the role of a background extra and one not worthy of Fox's talents. Just like John Cusack's shorn role in Terence Malicks's 'The Thin Red Line' (1998), what you begin to suspect is that Fox too was a victim of all the re-shoots/re-edits and his arc probably featured more prominently in the earlier version. And if you really want to nitpick, a scene at a facility, while admittedly a stand out that's very well executed, still feels very glued on… almost as if it came from a different movie. Yet another legacy of the re-shoots? Probably… it certainly feels that way.

As for the pandemic, a reference is made to rabies early on in the story, then it's never really mentioned again. It's vagueness like this that rears its head again and again. Still, it's not the disaster that had been foreshadowed by some members of the media. Yes, it may feel chaptered but it's an intelligent film – for a zombie movie, anyway – that has stuff to say while showing you big spectacle. You really get the impression that this is truly a global pandemic.

And that's the one thing this movie has going for it over a lot of movies of the genera: take any of the Romero zombie movies or any zombie movie from the last few decades, and what you find is the action/outbreak is always restricted to small areas/backwater towns. Not so here – this is the real zombie deal on a massive scale. For the first time ever, you see a zombie apocalypse taking place in cities in populated streets and not just on some back road in the middle of nowhere. But there has to be a trade-off: you can do spectacle or gore but you can't do both. That type of thing costs money, and if you're spending a lot of money, you want your product to be seen by the widest audience possible – meaning what essentially boils down to a bloodless zombie movie. Still there is enough good material in here to keep you interested and make the idea of a sequel/sequels a not altogether unwelcome proposition.

'Steel Man' - Review: Man Of Steel

Just like the reboot/remake/sequel/whatever that was 'The Amazing Spider-Man', 'Man of Steel' chooses to retell an origin story. Except unlike that movie, this one at least has a good excuse: the original 'Superman: The Movie' came out in 1978 and is ripe for reinterpretation. First off, let's be honest: the late great Christopher Reeve was a brilliant Superman. He was also a brilliant Clark Kent, having the talent to thread a fine line with a performance that was at once comedic and sober. For some, he will always remain the quintessential Man of Steel. Rather like Sean Connery in the Bond franchise before him, he is the original and all who come after-wards have to stand in his shoes and be compared to him… And admittedly, they are rather large shoes to fill… 

They had previously attempted to fill those shoes in the 90s on TV with Dean Cain in 'Lois and Clark' and failed. They had tried it again in the 21st century in 'Smallville' with Tom Welling, which while being a huge improvement over the Cain version, was still missing something. The fact is, just like Batman/Bruce Wayne, Superman/Clark Kent is an extremely hard role to get exactly right. You can usually get somebody to do one or the other, but it's rare that they can do both. Among the things they got right this latest retelling of the story of Kal-El is the casting of Henry Cavill as the Man Of Steel. He is without doubt the best actor to don the cape since Christopher Reeve.

Man of Steel is an amalgamation Superman 1 and 2 and covers a lot of the same territory. Jor-El (Russell Crowe) send his infant son to earth to escape the destruction of Krypton, where he's raised by his earth parents (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane). His early life in Smallville is told in flashback and juxtaposed with his search in the modern day to discover who he is... And why he is... Things take a turn for the worse when a newly liberated General Zod tracks Kal-El to earth and demands his surrender - by which time the previously confused Kent/Kal-El has discovered the suit and has made peace with his idenity. Cue: one of the noisiest, chaos-ridden second halves to a movie you will probably ever see. 

 

Whereas Brandon Routh's rendition in the 2006 movie 'Superman Returns' is an honorable failure, the biggest problem with his interpretation of Kent/Superman seemed to be he was doing an impression of Christopher Reeve. Spot on as it was, he was channeling Reeve (probably at the behest of director Bryan Singer) to such extremes that you wondered why they even bothered. Another issue with that movie was Routh looked too young in the role: it's not Superboy/Boy of Steel, its Superman/Man of Steel, and as such, Cavill – even though he would have been in his late 20s during the time of shooting - brings a maturity and gravitas to the role unseen since Reeve's heyday. Rather than doing an impersonation, Cavill brings a fresh approach to a role that could have been one-dimensional - yes, he's THAT good in the lead.

Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight) produced this and it's easy to see his influence. The movie is meant to be rooted in reality with a gritty sense of realism. For one thing, check out the title: it's not called 'Superman' but the 'Man Of Steel'. So dedicated it is to this realistic approach that when the character is first called Superman by someone, they are interrupted before they can finish; when we do eventually hear Cavill's character being called 'Superman', it's with an apologetic – almost embarrassed – tone. Seriously, what is wrong with the name, and why couldn't they just have called this movie 'Superman'?  

No expense has been spared on this production and they have got a terrific cast. While the 1978 movie was great, it wasn't perfect. Terence Stamp's rendition of General Zod was slightly one-note; Michael Shannon in this gives a more three dimensional performance. And the growing romance between Lois and Clark here is done much better. But the unsung hero in all of this, it has to be said, is Kevin Costner playing Clark Kent's dad. His screen time may minimum, but his impact is huge. Just like the greats of the past – Marlon Brando/Glen Ford playing the Kent's dad in the original - he casts a large shadow and his scenes with the young Kent as he reaches maturity are brilliant, genuinely touching, and heartfelt. Even after his arc of the story is completed, his ghost seems to loom throughout the remaining picture, with Kent/Superman carrying his legacy. Russell Crowe might be equally as good in his role as the father of Kal-El, but Costner leaves a lasting impression. Do they give Oscars for super hero movies? Just saying… because, honestly, this movie needed more Kevin Costner in it. 

There are some issues in this that bare the hallmarks of a script that was rushed through the boiler faster than it should have been. Namely: the Krypton here is a vibrant, active world that seems very much alive; at least the Krypton in the 1978 version looked like it was already in the throes of death. This Krypton is also so hi-tech – you can see space ships - that you just have to wonder why Jor-El and wife don't just jump into a ship and escape with their baby? Similarly, what exactly is going on with Superman's breathing: he breathes in space; no, he can't; wait… yes, he can… Then there's the issue of the ship frozen in ice for millena: why is it set up for Kal-El's discovery? Why would Jor-El put the "codex" in his child - bonding it with his very DNA, essentially putting him in mortal danger should anyone come looking in the distant future? Is it to set up a Krypton on Earth? Isn't that Zod's plan? How do they get the codex back out? And why on earth reuse the Zod villain from Superman II in the first place? Surely there are enough enemies within Superman's universe to keep him busy without going back to well? It reeks of the same lack of imagination deployed in Star Trek Into Darkness with their regurgitating of a villain from yesteryear. 

But the obvious question is: is it as good as the original 1978 movie? Is it even fair to compare the two? It's inevitable comparisons will be made but the simple answer is no, it's not as good because the original had a magic that isn't really present in this newer, rawer take. While there is no question that Messrs Cavill/Costner/Crowe/Shannon are definitely on par with the originals in the 1978 movie, somehow the wonder that was in that movie is missing here. For one thing – obviously attempting a 'clean slate' - they eschewed the brilliant John Williams composed theme. No musical themes here leap out and grab you the way that did. Big mistake. Furthermore, the effects in the original – dated though they are – have a realness to them because they were all done practically. This movie, it has to be said, turns into a CGI fest to such an extent, it becomes like watching a computer game. While the CGI is more effective in the background - for example, when buildings are falling etc., - it's less effective during the superhuman-on-superhuman bouts. Still, overall it is a worthy and spectacular watch. It beats Bryan Singer's dreadful entry in spades and is more than deserving addition to the Superman cannon. Catch it if you can - just watch out for your hearing afterwards. 

Review: Cloud Atlas - Clever... Ambitious... Entertaining... Epic..

So here is a movie that has everything: gore, sci-fi, violence, drama, action and huge visual effects… Yet it's very telling that when it came out in the US it flopped. Big-time. There were lots of walkouts because it was 'too hard to follow' for some and 'too boring' for others. For a generation weaned on endless Michael Bay helmed Transformers toys advertisements – sorry: movies - or regurgitated Spider-Man remakes/reboots/prequels/sequels/who-the-hell-cares, Cloud Atlas committed the ultimate sin: it was a movie that strayed from accepted convention, playing out multiple story lines that seemed unconnected over a huge ass-numbing running time. Punters voted the only way they knew how: with their pockets. Simply put, they stayed away in droves. 

And who could blame them? After all, it wasn't a reboot; it had no fighting robots and featured no vampires. However, this is exactly what makes the reception to the film all the more telling because - get this - Cloud Atlas is an exceptionally brilliant movie. Even more tellingly, it's (A) Easy to follow – the stories are surprisingly simplistic - and (B) not boring at all – the movie, in fact, moves at a very fast pace. It's very telling that even after you take those aspects into account, it still managed to go over US audiences' heads. So what was the problem, if any? It seems Cloud Atlas's biggest sin was it attempted to be bold, ambitious and original - probably not the kind of thing that would go down too well with an audience waiting for the latest Marvel rehash.

Based on the novel by David Mitchell, Cloud Atlas tells the somewhat fanciful stories of people and events that while happening far apart from each other – mostly in other times - are intricately linked beyond time/space. It may sound unwieldy at first but it works: a lawyer (Jim Sturgess) on an ocean voyage is being slowly poisoned by his greedy doctor (a brilliant Tom Hanks); a sassy journalist (Halle Berry in top form) is investigating some nefarious matters concerning a nuclear plant; a revolt by robots (fabricants) in a futuristic Korea is being suppressed by authorities; some senior shenanigans goings-on at an old folks' home where a literary agent is sequestered; there's post- apocalyptic bloodletting in an age many centuries from now and finally, two composers war over a piece of music which they're claiming equal ownership of – the 'Cloud Atlas' sextet of the title. 

While this may sound like a storyline that is has too much going on for its own good with its 'everything but the kitchen sink thrown in' approach, it still works and there is a reason for it. If there is one thing that has been overlooked with Cloud Atlas it has to be the remarkable feat of editing. Surely, this has to be one of the best edited movies in years? Editor Alexander Berner has no fewer than six stories to juggle, which in lesser hands, could have been a huge 'throw it at the wall and see what sticks' mess, but in Berner's hands, the stories are inter-weaved and played out to perfection. There's a lot of ground to cover here. When juggling that amount of stories, the editor has to have the precision of a surgeon. It's a balancing act for sure: when do you cut away? When do you return to a story? When do you introduce a new story? When do you cut away from that and go to the next strand? And so on. It was a massive - nay, typical - oversight on behalf of the Academy that it wasn't even nominated.

The cast are great too and play multiple roles across the vast layers of stories: Tom Hanks doing the best Irish?/British?/Scottish? accent this side of Dick Van Dyke and Halle Berry playing a white woman that resembles Madonna back in her 'Vogue' days; Jim Sturgess playing an Asian (with a distinct Neo-vibe from The Matrix) and Hugo Weaving playing a chilling demonic entity - there is no-one dragging their weight here; everyone is giving it one-hundred per cent. While some have sniffed at the notion of white people playing other races, it's important to point out that blacks and Asians also play whites in this movie. In fact, there's a strange fascination in trying to spot who's playing who in what era/role – kind of a generational 'Where's Wally?' if you will. 

 
This approach may have been budget-driven; after all, if you're going outside the so-called 'Hollywood system' to independently fund a movie, doesn't it make financial sense to have you're A-Listers playing more than one role? Why hire others to play them? Furthermore, it also indirectly benefits the whole mystical conceit that we are all linked through time – would the movie be as effective if different people were playing these roles? Who knows.

Like the 'Tree of Life' before it, it's been favorably compared to another not exactly mainstream movie: '2001: A Space Odyssey'. Both mix story and theme strands, but while Tree of Life maybe be the more Kubrickian, it has to be said that on the whole, Cloud Atlas is the more successful of the two, expertly weaving and interweaving to perfection the multiple scenarios that are cross-cutting across the huge running time. 

This movie could easily be put in the 'don't make 'em like they used to' category: just when you thought that large, epic filmmaking was a relic of the past, here comes Cloud Atlas to shift your views: it's huge and dazzling entertainment, for sure, but the really telling thing is although it's juggling six story lines for almost three hours, it remains riveting the whole way. Brilliantly directed by Tom Tyker and the Wachowskis with a great musical score, Cloud Atlas is nothing short of a criminally underrated classic. Watch it and you will be transported, spellbound, touched and more importantly, entertained.

Review: Life of Pi

A large scale yet very intimate epic

Based on an apparently 'unfilmable' book, Life of Pi tells the powerful story of an Indian man named Pi (after a French swimming pool but shortened to the name of the mathematical number) who recounts the tale of his epic – and fantastical – survival at sea in the company of a Tiger named 'Richard Parker' (seriously) and some assorted wild animals after their ship sinks and they are cast adrift in a lifeboat. 

First things first: this is an absolutely incredible movie. In fact, this movie is so good, it ranks as one of the best of 2012. And if there is any justice in the world, it will garner an Oscar for Best Picture, Best Director (Ang Lee), Best Actor (Suraj Sharma – young Pi), Best Supporting Actor (Irrfan Khan – adult Pi) and Best Visual Effects, but more on all these later. Heck, let's throw Best Adapted Screenplay in there too, because this is a movie so well made, it actually hearkens back to a bygone era, almost eradicating the term 'They don't make 'em like they used to'. The scope may be massive, but the movie that is so old fashioned, you could easily imagine it being released eons ago in the 1940s. 



Ang Lee, director of the underrated 'Hulk', really deserves a lot of props here. While the easier route would have been to drastically change the story and cast an American in the lead role (stand up M. Night Shyamalan who did just this in 'The Last Airbender – subsequently angering an entire generation of Asians), Lee goes the opposite way and casts an Indian actor, or rather in this case, an Indian non-actor: Suraj Sharma - who plays Pi - had largely no acting experience prior to being cast, making the performance Ang Lee has coaxed out of him all the more extraordinary. You believe his every nuance and considering ninety-nine per cent of the time, he was probably acting with something that was not actually there, the conviction he injects into each scene is amazing. 

There has been animosity from some quarters regarding the whole framing device of the adult Pi recounting the story to a writer, dismissing it as an unnecessary obstacle to the crux of the movie: the survival at sea. But those criticisms are wrong; the introductory scenes of the adult Pi recounting his early life in India to the writer interviewing him are a hundred per cent necessary for what eventually transpires. In fact it could be argued that these early scenes are what make the movie: they give a much needed back-story to Pi's youth: being raised at the family zoo, how he got his strange name, and his relationship with his decent - but very tough - father (a brilliant Adil Hussain), who teaches him a very harsh lesson about life and death. These scenes are riveting in themselves and serve as the icing on the cake for what's to come.

Strange as it may sound, the movie actually has a few things in common with a huge sci-fi movie: Avatar. Avatar looked great and the fear was we would have to wait until Avatar 2 before we would see a movie as beautiful again. Not so. Life of Pi is the first movie since Avatar to look THIS amazingly good. As with Avatar, the imagery has a fantastical element mixed in with all its sheer beauty. Furthermore, Life of Pi is also one of the first movies since Avatar to feature a CGI creation that is so photo-realistic and lifelike, that you can't actually tell which is which. The Tiger - Richard Parker – is a complex blend of real animals and computer generated ones. When it moves around on the boat, it's actually difficult to believe it's not a real Tiger – they got the weight distribution and movement so accurate, it's actually difficult to believe it's CGI. The effects company who did it deserve a lot of credit because they must have done a lot of research into the movements of Tigers to get such an accurate representation here. Let's just say Richard Parker in the Life of Pi puts Aslan the Lion in the 'Chronicles of Narnia' movies to shame. The seemingly small scale of the story somewhat underlies the evident technical wizardry that has gone on behind the scenes.

The movie moves fast, is very clever and intelligently executed, and always remains engrossing – despite the hefty running time. There is a very obvious religious motif that runs through the entire thing, which may irritate those who don't like being sledge hammered with spiritual doctrine. You see, much to his father's chagrin, Pi follows three religions simultaneously: Hindu, Christianity and Islam. If you came here for some fast 'put your brain in neutral' action, then you came to the wrong place, pilgrim. 

As with Avatar, the 3D stands out as one of the better examples of the format (check out the lizard running up and flicking its tongue into camera at the opening). Refreshingly, it has been shot in 3D rather than being doctored in 3D in post-production and for the most part avoids the old hurling stuff at ya' template that has become the common, go-to practice with movies such as these. With 'Life of Pi', Ang Lee has created a modern classic. Yes, there are elements of darkness to this tale, but surely all fables have those? Simultaneously life affirming while teaching a life-lesson too, this movie will have legs. While a lot of movies come and go, some even largely forgotten, this one looks and feels like something whose life can only extend and whose fan base can only build over time – due, no doubt, in part to the fact that it will become one of those perennial favorites; those rarities that are replayed endlessly every Christmas for new generations to enjoy. Yes, it is THAT good.