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.