World War Z review

                When coming out of the theater I tried to tie up my thoughts and feelings on the somewhat anticipated “World War Z”, based on the bestselling novel of the same name.  The question I kept asking myself was “what is this supposed to be about?”  Is it about multicultural government cooperation against a mass-destructive threat? Is it about the reoccurring paranoia of possible mini-pandemics like SARS or H1N1(aka the swine flu) ? Perhaps it’s a vague allegory about the unwinnable war on terror and perhaps zombies are supposed to stand in for the ambiguity and ubiquity of nationalist extremism.  Or maybe, and probably more likely, perhaps this movie isn’t really about anything.

                Having reportedly suffered a number of production issues, including undergoing many rewrites, reshoots and going over budget, it seemed early on that this film might have bitten off more than it could chew with its popular source material. However, Brad Pitt’s involvement was somewhat reassuring, as he usually doesn’t slum it in low-brow genre entertainment and the early trailers looked promising.  But having now seen the movie it looks like those trailers were more than a little misleading and as it turns out, apparently Brad Pitt isn’t above slumming it in low-brow genre entertainment after all—both of which would be fine if “World War Z” hadn’t been so regrettably underwhelming.

                Pitt stars as Gerry Lane, a suburban family man, supporting his dutiful wife Karin (Merielle Enos) and their two younger daughters.  After breakfast, on the way to work, they get stopped in traffic, where they are overcome by a full-fledged zombie outbreak that has begun to take hold of their entire city, as well as the entire world. After losing their vehicles and struggling to find safety, as an ex-ground agent of the UN, Gerry makes a few calls and has his family protected in a well-guarded military base.  Somewhat against his will, he then volunteers to travel the globe looking for the source of this fast-acting virus as well as a possible cure.

                Even if it barely peeks above average, “World War Z” isn’t offensively bad and it does have a few moments worthy of praise.  Brad Pitt brings his Brad Pitt to the table and occasionally he is able to elevate the monotony of this totally pedestrian screenplay.  The opening scene on the freeway immediately throws you into the action and starts the war drums early, even if it’s at the expense of the character development,  crucially needed to care about our hero or his worried family. Likewise, a suspenseful set-piece in the last twenty minutes of the movie, set in a conveniently located disease research facility in Whales,  is fairly well shot and edited and manages to remind you that yes, you are in fact watching horror movie, even if by then it is far too little too late. And lastly, the script does tease some interesting themes and politics, even if it’s only because those ideas came attached to all of the superior zombie/horror movies this film lazily borrows from (“28 Days Later”, “Day of the Dead”, “War of the Worlds”, “Contagion” etc...) .

                As I was watching this, having not read the book in which it was based, I just found myself going through the motions with this episodic plot as Pitt and company have to level up from country to country and continent to continent, like the players in a survival video game—some of which are actually more narratively ambitious than this multi-million dollar disaster yawn.  It’s not an altogether failure but it’s not really fun or stylish—in part because of its aim for gritty docudrama realism—and more troubling, it isn’t really scary—in part because of its aim for a bizarrely incongruent PG-13 rating. All of which leaves “World War Z” entirely passable but equally disposable.

Grade: C-

Originally published in the Idaho State Journal/June-2013

Man of Steel review

                Unlike the bright-eyed and light storytelling  of 1978’s “Superman: The Movie”—as well as its subsequent sequels in the 80s’—“Man of Steel” aims to be much more grizzled and grounded with its approach, which we should only expect coming from the production team behind “The Dark Knight”. And for the most part it manages to build its characters and maintain the momentum of its multi-stranded plot pretty well. Though this origin story has been told to death, this film mines an emotional and thematic drive in Clark Kent’s past that is filled with great performances and compelling tragedy.

                “Man of Steel” retells the origin of Clark Kent/Superman (now played by the English Henry Cavill) while it intercuts in between an A-plot about earths invasion by a gang of hostile Kryptontonian survivors. Their leader, the vengeful General Zod (Michael Shannon), is hell-bent on destroying everything in sight, in search for our rogue hero.  Peripherally, we also see how Superman’s first big entrance into the city of metropolis is tracked and recorded by the hard-working and stubborn reporter, Lois Lane (Amy Adams).

                Released on father’s day weekend, this screenplay deals heavily with the themes of fatherhood and the importance of knowing where you come from.   Russell Crowe as Clark’s alien father Jor-El and Kevin Constner as his earth-dad Jonathan Kent infuse a surprising amount of heart and tenderness into this otherwise brutish movie. 

                The other main concern of this story has to do with the notions of repression. Clark quickly  learns growing up that he can’t express his true self to just anyone and he subjects himself to a lot of  personal and existential torture by not allowing himself to be open about who he is, where he is from, and most of all, his incredibly dangerous abilities.

                Undoubtedly, there’s a lot to like in this movie. The story is well crafted, the acting is great, the characterizations are compelling, and the filmmaking is ambitious. So what doesn’t work? Well…

                Though Christopher Nolan and company may have manufactured this vehicle, the all-sizzle-and-no-steak director Zack Snyder (“300”, “Watchmen”, “Sucker Punch”) is behind the wheel. This is without a doubt some of his best work and under Nolan’s watch he manages to tone down his usual misgivings, including the usual green-screen eye ball assaults, fetishized gender dynamics, and his incessant use of slow-down-speed-up. Throughout, you get the feeling that by using someone else’s toolbox, his style has been greatly restrained. However, when the showdown between Superman and Zod finally kicks into gear Snyder’s shackles are unlocked and his blunt aesthetics become increasingly pronounced.

                By now you have no doubt heard of about the controversies surrounding the astronomical civilian body counts in this movie. The destruction of Metropolis dwarfs the devastation of 911 and making it all the more disconcerting is how these action scenes are shot to evoke the ground-level news footage broadcasted on that day. Snyder doesn’t seem to be using this imagery with a discernible purpose and more importantly it undercuts the whole basis of what Superman is supposed to be about as a protector and as a hero.  Sure, this ongoing set-piece is satisfying and well-staged but as every skyscraper tumbles you can’t help but wonder how many more bystanders are dying in all of this mindless wreckage.

                So here’s the contradiction with Nolan and Snyder’s “Man of Steel”; as a story and as drama things are looking very good for this reboot, in part because of the realistic and darker tone. Conversely, in employing this choice, the sci-fi action becomes deeply problematic and flippantly mishandled. Does the final twenty five minutes sink the whole picture? No it doesn’t. Too much of it is working too well to dismiss the movie all together but it sure does leave you with a bittersweet taste in your mouth.

Grade: B –

Originally Published in the Idaho State Journal/June-2013

The Purge review

         

               The fear of random violence is unfortunately an increasingly valid concern. Over the last year and a half alone we have had a string of unwarranted mass shootings and even public locations like movie theaters have become a place of paranoia. Human nature is a mystery and we can never know how, when, or where someone will snap and make news in their community. So what does it mean that a science fiction thriller about the legalization of murder has come out in theaters this summer?

                “The Purge” deliberately aims to address these current social phobias; the fear of being indiscriminately attacked, the fear that we can never truly know the innocents of others or even ourselves in extreme situations, and the fear of the widening gap between the super-rich and hopelessly poor.  It’s a thematically ambitious genre movie but it never quite lives up to the promise of its premise.

                In 2022, in order to solve America’s problems with violence and the overpopulation of prisons, once a year, observed as a dystopian holiday known as “The Purge”, all crime becomes legal for twelve hours. Ethan Hawke plays James Sandin, a wealthy executive who sells state-of-the-art home security systems. Under the safety of his latest security invention, he and his family plan on staying indoors to watch satellite footage of the purge on TV while the mayhem ensues in the streets.

                Not long into the night, their perimeters becomes compromised when a vengeful boyfriend of their daughter reveals his presence in the house and their youngest son decides to let in a homeless man from outside, who was begging for refuge.  This act of kindness attracts a viscous pack of young one-percenters who then threaten to kill Sandin and his entire family if they don’t give up their stowaway.

                There are a lot of great ideas in “The Purge” and I commend writer/director James DeMonaco for trying to be timely and relevant. However, while he is more than ready to charge toward his themes, once he has arrived to them he barely scratches the surface of their potential. We are told that for twelve hours all crime is legal everywhere, but we never really get a full sense of the scale and anarchy of the purge.  We never really get a full sense of what led our county to sanction something as seemingly ridiculous as this, and most importantly, we never get a very complicated moral argument from this entire set up.

                Obviously this is supposed to be a dark satire of our current economic issues in social disparity and it’s in its obviousness where the movies problems reside. DeMonaco’s soap box is often so elevated that while he is busy preaching he forgets to deliver the genre goods.  As a home-invader thriller it doesn’t stack up against many of the movies it evokes—“The Strangers”, “Last House on the Left”, “Funny Games”, “A Clockwork Orange”—and that eventually cripples this film as it gradually relies more and more on traditions and clichés.   

                The performances too are awfully broad and simplistic. The bad guys are cartoonish, mustache-twirling, cackling hyena’s and as our main characters are put into harder, more compromising positions their emotional arcs never seem to naturally evolve.  Instead it always feels that they are only responding what the script is telling them to do.

                “The Purge” isn’t an altogether bad movie but isn’t really a satisfying movie either. It’s economically made and it has a thought provoking conceit but as soon as your thoughts are provoked it never leads to anything as interesting as its premise suggests. As a horror film it isn’t that scary and as science fiction it isn’t that smart and while it plays its game adequately enough to be passable I couldn’t help but lament for all its bland failings.

Grade: C-

Originally published in the Idaho State Journal/June-2013

Now You See Me review

          
                 Through the magic of motion pictures film is able to create a very convincing illusion; the ability to trick your mind into transforming flashing images and sound into a real-time documentation of sequential events and stories. Of course everything about this illusion is false. But this is something that we as the audience have already assumed and accepted before we even walk through the doors of our local multiplex.

                Similarly, performance magic utilizes these same expectations. We know that it can’t be real but we allow ourselves to be convinced well enough to enjoy the show.  Because of the similarities between these two mediums movies have an inherent difficultly portraying the magic of magic.

                When watching a magician perform we are already one step removed from believability. So when you then add the extra obstacle of a film’s narrative conceit, it usually leaves me, arms crossed, wondering what it is exactly that am I supposed to be surprised by. It’s akin to working as a 911 operator and having someone wake from a nightmare and then calling to tell you about it. With all of that said I have seen some good movies about magicians—“The Prestige” comes to mind—but “Now You See Me” is not one of them.

                Jesse Eisenberg, Isla Fisher, Woody Harrelson and Dave Franco play four fledgling street magicians who are selected and banded together by a mysterious secret society. After a few short years their lackluster solo acts become a crowd drawing Las Vegas theater show called The Four Horsemen.  Together they stage bank robberies via onstage teleportation and dare the police to figure out how they did it.

                 Enter Mark Ruffalo and Melanie Laurent as a frustrated FBI agent and French member of Interpol, fresh on her first big case. If you, like me, find these two to have absolutely no chemistry, despite the fact that the film is trying very hard to establish some sexual tension between the two, then get ready to be disappointed, as their puppy-dog gumshoe antics nearly dominate the majority of the movie after the first twenty-five minutes or so.

                Later we are introduced to Michael Caine as a the group’s benefactor who gets unwittingly bamboozled and Morgan Freeman as a magician turned debunker who is supposed to be helping the police…or maybe he’s actually helping the Horsemen…or maybe he’s being paid by Caine’s character to get to the group before the FB I do…or maybe I stopped caring well before the twists even reveal themselves.

                This movie relies heavily on the audiences willing suspension of disbelief and as the plausibility of the plot is stretched tighter and tighter the narrative thread eventually snaps by the weight its own absurdity.  Beside the fact that Louise Leterrier (“Clash of the Titans”, “The Transporter”) directs this thing within an inch of its life—filled to the brim with distractingly frenetic camera work, confused editing and lousy CGI—when the third act eventually arrives to what is supposed to be a mind blowing character revelation, I had long since lost my patience with the screenplay’s incessant stacking of one preposterous contrivance on top of another. 

                Perhaps even more problematic is the muddled tone of this picture. It’s far too hokey and light to be an adult-minded heist-thriller and it’s too suggestive and convoluted to work for kids. What results is an exceedingly senseless, out-of-tune movie that feels like it’s clumsily making itself up as it goes.

                The best thing you can say about “Now You See Me” is that it’s breezy and digestible in that overproduced, next-year-it-will-be-in-the-Wal-Mart-five-dollar-DVD-bin, way.  However, despite a well-cast, talented ensemble, everyone here feels wasted and the film never realizes the potential of even the base entertainment values of its high-concept.

Grade: D+  

Originally published in the Idaho State Journal/June-2013

Fast & Furious 6 review

               Remember when the “Fast and Furious” movies used to have something to do with street racing? Yes, cars and driving still play heavily into the newer iterations of this long-running series of silliness, but as the decade has rolled over into a new realm of eye-assaulting, high-octane, summer action, people just don’t have the time to settle into a simple racing movie anymore.  With this in mind, the people behind 2011’s “Fast Five” and this year’s “Fast & Furious 6”, have repurposed these films to be larger, higher-concept action fiestas that include large-scale bank heists, tank chases, global terrorism, and flaming airplanes. As Tyrese Gibson so eloquently stated in the last film, “This just went from mission impossible to mission in-freakin-sanity!”

                Using the last sequel as a new plateau to build from, this film doesn’t really reference the rest of the franchise all that much. The exception being that in this movie the crew (Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Tyrese Gibson, Ludacris, Jordana Brewster, and Sung Kang) are searching for Torreto’s (Diesel) ex-girlfriend Letty (Michelle Rodriguez), who was previously thought to be dead in one of the past sequels. With some complicated plot contrivances involving the British baddies of this story, Letty has been successfully revived, only to become an amnesiac working for a dangerous crime-lord named Shaw (Luke Evens). 

                 Also, if you recall, Dwayne –“The Rock”—Johnson has become a very key figure in this world as the fast-talking, one-liner dispensing FBI agent named Hobbs.  This film begins where the last one left off, where Hobbs finds Torreto in his South American hideout to tell him that Letty is still alive.  To bridge their feud, he offers to help find her and ensure the whole crew their freedom if they can lend their totally dope racing skills to bring down this new criminal threat.

                Where “Fast Five” intended to change a franchise about drag racing into a heist film, “Fast & Furious 6” has now turned this into James Bond, “Die Hard” and “Mission Impossible” all at the same time—only with more gusto, more explosions, and less sense making.

                 In what is perhaps the best disclaimer ever in the history of film disclaimers, at the end of movie, before the credits, the makers of the film remind us that the car stunts performed are only for entertainment purposes and shouldn’t be copied or attempted by those viewing (or something like that). I suppose that this would be sound advice if any of these stunts were physically possible to attempt.  Unlike a “Jackass” movie, the mathematical realities of this film could probably only be recreated in a video game, as cars are flipped, flung, toppled and propelled like rubbers balls in a gymnasium.  To ask audiences to carefully observe this as fiction would be like cautioning people that Superman is not real and that attempting to fly might result in their bodily harm or death.

                Whatever. This movie is stupid. All of these movies are stupid but not all of them are fun.  And despite the fact that the plot is forced and somewhat ordinary, the villain is laughably evil, and the dialogue is achingly lame, this movie can be a lot fun. It’s probably not as tight or as well conceived as its 2011 predecessor, and it could certainly due without as much plodding exposition, but I got a kick out of how overblown and escalated the action-inducing situations have become. If it were up to me the next one would be in outer space!

               

Grade: C+ 

Originally published in the Idaho State Journal/June-2013