The After Movie Diner Video Review 1 - Avengers 2: Age of Ultron
These were my initial thoughts on seeing the film. I hope to cover it in more depth on a podcast soon.
I am looking to do more video reviews so please suggestions suggestions. That would be great!
Kingsman: The Secret Service Preview Review
Kingsman: The Secret Service is a movie very loosely based on the comic book The Secret Service by Mark Millar and Dave Gibbons. The movie is written by Jane Goodman and Matthew Vaughn, who also directs. This is the same team behind the similar Millar comic adaptation, Kick Ass.
The film, unlike its unfortunate title, is anything but clunky. It is a slick, fun, R Rated, filthy humour and ultra violence filled romp that plays like an intentional love letter to Roger Moore era James Bond.
Kingsman in both its humour and action, plays a lot like Kick Ass did before it and like Kick Ass the movie contains plenty of awesome jaw dropping and taboo busting moments. Vaughn also repeats the trick of editing the fight scenes to a retro soundtrack that, while not exactly giving Guardians of the Galaxy a run for its money, is still damn cool.
The actors all appear to be having a great time and mostly play the whole thing straight, even when the situations are anything but. It's sad then that some of the dialogue is occasionally knowingly winking at the audience and slips into heavy handed referential moments. It never spoils the scenes outright but everyone should already be getting the joke without turning this into Austin Powers with gore. Colin Firth, Vaughn staple Mark Strong and newcomer Taron Egerton are all particularly superb. Firth, not always the first name you think of as cool or a fantastic ass kicker steps up in this and steals the show.
It also has more than a few echoes of James Bond which has always been a big hit in The States.
Plus it has every American's favourite older Brit Colin Firth in it being undeniably awesome and giving Liam Neeson a run for his money in the action stakes.
If there is one very British aspect to the movie it's that it has absolutely no regard for authority and is joyously, ridiculously subversive on all fronts. It certainly will make you either proud to be British again or wish you were British, which certainly makes a change from the Brits always playing villains.
I would strongly urge anyone now intending to see it on its US release date of February 13th 2015 to avoid the trailers as much as possible and go in fresh. Your experience will be enhanced greatly.
Remember the days when trailers didn't spoil the whole first 2 acts of a film?
4 out of 5 bullet proof umbrellas
Bad Words
Jason Bateman makes his directorial debut with this R Rated indie comedy that sees him attempting to drop his Mr.Put-Upon-Nice-Guy persona while starring in a film that doesn't exactly work without it.
Bateman plays Guy Trilby a foul mouthed, negative, man-child with a savant way with words who has, through a loop-hole and with the support of reporter Kathryn Hahn, entered the Golden Quill spelling bee much to the chagrin of it's organisers Allison Janney and Philip Baker Hall and the parents of the children, the other participants.
The film is a short, well acted and competently directed, verbal, indie comedy. The humour is, at times, very rude, crude but pleasingly inventive and Bateman, especially, seems to be relishing the role. Good thing too as he holds the whole thing together.
Which is more than can be said for the script. The tagline to the film is 'the end justifies the mean' and the fact of the matter is, it really doesn't. Whether you find spelling competitions important or not, nothing really justifies the cruelty Guy Trilby unleashes on, not only, the people directly involved in the competition but just general people in the world, funny though a lot of it is. His personal vendetta effects way more people than the actual, solitary focus of it and I guess it's just down to Bateman's like-ability as an actor, the genuinely funny dialogue and the fact that we are stuck following him for the whole movie that keeps us, the audience, dubiously 'on his side'.
There is a sub-plot about his befriending a child, a fellow contestant, and 'tearing up' the town with him in the evenings which, I suppose, is intended to endear him to us a little and play to the rebel in all of us but some of the things they do, including causing a stolen lobster to lacerate a man's genitals, seem a tad cruel for no reason, as well.
Now before you think I am taking this all too seriously, let me explain. The film IS funny. Taken on face value, if you find vicious, dark, crude humour for the sake of it funny, then you are going to love it and there was much about it I did enjoy. Films, however, whether people like it or not, have to have characters, plots and motivations that make relative sense within their presented frame work and while "it's just a comedy" may excuse a lot of illogical or unforgivably cruel behaviour, the fact that the film, ultimately, asks us to give a hoot about this selfish, arrogant arse hole of a man means that we have to, at least, buy into the story and care a little, when it doesn't give us a lot of satisfactory reasons to.
Had he participated in the contest without cheating and eliminating some of his opponents in humiliating ways or had he befriended the kid, torn round the town but not hurt a man's penis with a large clawed sea creature then his character might have been a little more redeemable, while being no less funny.
There are echoes of Wes Anderson in the characters and the plot, especially Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums without, of course, it being anywhere nearly as charmingly presented or stylish.
A worthy debut, though, for Bateman as a director and interesting to see the R Rated comedy given the mumble core indie treatment.
7 out of 10
American Hustle
A comedic caper with a Martin Scorsese 'Casino' like sensibility and, similarly, a kick ass period soundtrack.
I can't say that I 100% embraced American Hustle the way I did Silver Linings Playbook but the acting is always watchable, the fashions and hair suitably over the top and ridiculous and the script pretty strong. I get the feeling I will enjoy it more a second time.
I felt like it meandered too much, didn't have terrific focus and I thought that Jeremy Renner, while fine, was too young for the role. The impact of his position in the plot I felt through Bale's reactions rather than anything, actually, that Renner did. I thought Jennifer Laurence was good but not completely confident or assured in the role and very often I could see her "acting". It's difficult to shake the fact that Christian Bale, as marvellous as he is in the film, is 'doing' Robert De Niro which gets really confusing and weird when De Niro, himself, shows up for a brief cameo half-way through. Amy Adams is good in all but accent which wavers everywhere. The plot involves her putting on the performance of that of an English lady but her English accent is not defined enough to be English and her American accent isn't strong enough to be clear who she is and what she's doing. This is only a problem in as far as the fact there is a plot point and a reveal that sort of hinges on you being able to tell the difference. Lastly Bradley Cooper is tremendous in the movie, none more so than, in one scene, doing a perfect, physical impression of a surprising and awesome Louis C.K. character. Cooper clearly has hidden talents and is fast becoming O. Russel's De Niro (or DiCaprio to bring it up to date) with him doing, by far, his best work with the Director. I hope they have a long fruitful partnership, I could watch their stuff once a year, no problem.
The plot is all very well and dragged out a bit but the genius of the film is in its character portrayal and in its dark, a lost Coen-esque sense of humour. It doesn't always balance this well with the drama though and it makes a bit light of a situation we're meant to feel rising danger in and the tone is a bit all over the place, to be honest. In parts Broadway Danny Rose and in other parts Casino.
The ending, too, isn't exactly A) a shock B) explained clearly and C) gripping enough to let you walk from the cinema thinking you've seen a great con man caper.
Also, the film, like almost all films these days is 20mins too long.
That being said, however, there is great performances, clever writing and fun, assured direction to enjoy. No words on whether O Russell is still being a massive cock on set though, I like to think not.
No real strong complaints, just not the unmitigated work of genius some would have you believe.
Thinking about it again it's like the Coen brothers seen through the eyes of Scorsese but not as successful as that sounds, still a damn good effort though.
7.5 out of 10
Man Of Steel
Ok so at the start of this review I am going to lay all my cards out on the table. I have never been a fan of Zack Snyder (yes, even the Dawn of the Dead remake). I have watched Dawn of the Dead, 300, Watchmen and now Man of Steel so I have given him several chances. I could give you a long string of bullet points explaining exactly why, but that comes later. I could also just show you a picture of the man and if that doesn't make you want to garrotte him with piano wire then all hope maybe lost for you.
I just don't believe or much understand the hype to tell you the truth. When people say they like his films there is a part of me, the irrational, uncensored, badly mannered part of my brain that thinks, just a tiny negative thought along the lines of "What, you must be crazy. Actually bonkers crazy". I am also a natural born cynic and sceptic as a rule so buying into something simply because I am told it's good is not my style.
As for Christopher Nolan I am not a true believer there either. There are some things he has done that I rather liked and there are other things, that despite their, obviously impressive, technical superiority, I think are a load of old bollocks. To use a British expression.
Coming off the back of the woeful, yes you read that right, WOEFUL Dark Knight Rises it feels like he has either been supping from his own private vat of 'I'm wonderful' cool aid or was added as a producer to this film in an attempt, maybe, to silence the pretentious, wanky, stroky chin, roll neck and hipster scarf wearing set who blindly attack Zack Snyder without really being able to explain why. I am not one of those either, I can tell you at length WHY. I am also not someone who believes Nolan is somehow high brow genius and Snyder is some gutter dwelling cockroach. I just think when it comes to making films, while technically they obviously have some chops, Nolan more than Snyder, they both have problems when it comes to story, character, script, intention and other things that, I'm sorry, but I deem rather important when it comes to watching films.
Lastly I am not a superhero comic book fan/nerd/geek. Historically I have always preferred Superhero films and action/detective/horror comics. I can neither get into the scripting problems that everyone having superpowers inevitably lead to in the comics or the soap opera of these character's personal lives that I am meant to invest in. When it comes to Superhero films, however, I have always, more often than not, been able to enjoy the spectacle, the effects, the performances and the humour over any glaring pacing/story errors that Superhero films tend to have. I tend to zone out during the third act 'CGI things hit each other a lot' bit that ALL these films devolve predictably and depressingly in to, some worse than others.
I have to, of course, also quickly mention that I absolutely love the first 3 Christopher Reeve Superman films but I do recognise the structuring, scripting and story problems in them. However the inspirational, charming, epic and beautiful way those films are put together, performed and scored, not to mention a large dollop of nostalgia tends to put such thoughts to the back of my mind.
Ok so confessions over. Now why did I write all that and why are you reading it? your brain is no doubt screaming. Well I did it to put my review below in context.
By the way, I did NOT like Man of Steel. At ALL. So if that bothers you, offends you or annoys you in any way then I truly apologise, it is JUST an opinion and really doesn't matter at all but if it does then stop reading now.
To the film then.
Firstly some things I won't do. I am going to try and not complain about this film by comparing it to the Reeve films before it and saying it's, clearly, not as good. The influence of what Donner, Reeve, Hackman, Kidder and John Williams did back then will forever be felt and will always be relevant and important but they were then and this is now.
Of course I could easily argue that if they didn't want 30 somethings hating, arguing and ultimately comparing Man of Steel to Donner and Lester's films then why in the name of Beelzebub's cleft did the producers decide to REMAKE the origin story/Zod as villain storyline. Isn't that BEGGING comparison?
Still, to hell with logic, I won't be doing it.
I am also going to not complain about fanboy stuff like the costume or the mythology etc. because, firstly, I am not enough of a fanboy to justify it, it's all been said by far better men than me and secondly it's petty niggling and ultimately pointless.
SO, in all honesty, I would be lying if I said I didn't, initially at least, during the first few minutes, while trying to be open minded fall into the trap of feeling 'oh this just sucks! What are these CGI winged beasties?! This is needlessly showy-offy and wanky, it's not as good as the Donner one, which, of course dealt with Krypton simply and perfectly'
I then took a deep breath, relaxed and thought 'no Jon, you shall relax and enjoy this film and cast from your mind who directed it and the fact that it's not your childhood Superman... embrace it I told myself'
I did really really try.
I know that no matter what I say or how I explain it there will be folks who say 'well you went in hating it, you wanted to hate it, your opinion is not valid because you are naturally biased against Hack Snyder etc. etc.' and they are going to think that no matter what but I am telling you that this wasn't the case.
I gave myself a talking to, I said 'look at it for what it is and watch THIS film, don't wish you were watching something else' So I did. I watched this film and it stank. It stank like a mouldy jam jar filled with stale piss and with day old cigarette butts floating in it.
First problem was the camera work. You'd think somewhere in the bloated stupid budget for this waste of time film they'd find a hundred bucks for a fucking tripod, either that or a thousand for a dolly track, or a few thousand for a steady-cam rig or SOMETHING! We can put a go-cart on Mars and we can't find Hack Snyder something to rest his camera on? I tried desperately to ignore it but if it wasn't shaking up and down badly during dialogue scenes, or positively going epileptic during blurred close up fight scenes, then it was crash zooming and rack focussing all over the place. Jesus Christ on a four speed lawnmower it was irritating. It doesn't make things more exciting it makes things look shit.
There was one of the bazillion flash back scenes with Kevin Costner by his truck talking to a young Clark Kent some homespun, irrelevant, seemingly important but actual hokum nonsense and not only was some of it in poor focus but the camera was bobbing up and down like the camera person desperately needed a piss. There really is NO excuse.
Another example of the camera work RUINING this film. When Superman first flies in his outfit it is meant to be an awe inspiring, exhilarating, fist pumping and happy moment. In this case I would've just been happy to be able to see it! The camera is crash zooming, rack focussing, shaking, whizzing, bobbing, bouncing and flying about so much that I waned to walk out. That people accuse The Expendables of being badly directed because of the 'shaky cam' fights but they give a pass to Batman Begins and this which have some of the very worst filmed action sequences I have ever sat through is beyond me. I am sure my detractors will just say I am an old man or looking for things to complain about but the photography direction is one of the most important aspects of a film because the camera operator IS our eyes. Guess what, SUPERMAN does not need to be filmed with faux-documentary style realistic camerawork because... GUESS WHAT?! SUPERMAN IS NOT A DOCUMENTARY!!!
Second problem was the quality of the image. When the image was occasionally in focus it had been so enhanced with green, grey, gritty, high contrast, fake, post production grain that it managed to make Amy Adams and Diane Lane look like a tired, pockmarked Fat Bastard and The Crypt Keeper. A story is dark and edgy when it's actually dark and edgy, not when you just decide it is and give it a good old digital wash making it look like boiled shite.
Then there was the CGI. Considering the script had been written in such a way (i.e. barely, if at all) that the entire story relied on copious amounts of the stuff, you'd think they'd have some decent CGI. Not that I care most of the time as all CGI looks pretty crappy to me, lacking as it does anything approaching realism or a soul, but the CGI in Man of Steel was shockingly bad considering the budget, the studio and the film's reliance on it.
The action scenes were long, drawn out, loud, turgid affairs with little to no point, rhyme, or reason. Billions of dollars damage was done, thousands of people probably died and often with no satisfactory result or catharsis at the end of it. Also there wasn't a set piece in this film we haven't seen a couple of hundred bloody times. School bus, check, bully, check, saving people from a fire, check, planes fall out of the sky, check, New York being destroyed, check, CGI villains being thrown through buildings, check and so it went on...
There was one scene which I thought was a good idea, the tornado scene. That makes sense, I thought. Since the Donner film in '78 established Smallville squarely in Kansas a tornado scene of Supes vs nature is logical now when you think about it, right? Except this is a Nolan/Snyder film and so instead we get a possibly exciting tornado scene that's only really there to deliver one of the biggest insults of the entire film. The death of Jonathan Kent. What a load of arse.
So Supes can save a bus load of school kids from drowning but saving his human Dad and dog from a tornado would be one step too far?
It's always the same with these comic book films: 'you can't reveal your powers' 'I can't have a girlfriend because then you'll be in danger' and what happens? by the end of the film he's revealed his powers to everyone and their parrots and the girl has been kidnapped anyway!!
All their bullshit philosophising, hypothetical danger, worrying, moralising and speechifying is all for nought.
Plus you then have this Peter Parker crap of guilt over the death of his surrogate father rather than the somewhat more poetic message of Clark Kent having to learn from Pa Kent's death that, as powerful as he is, you can't fight time, nature and ultimately death. You see that would be a message we could all relate to and invest in but NO! this is a Snyder/Nolan joint and so it has to be cod-lofty-philosophical-stroky-chin nonsense about 'one day you'll reveal your powers, when the time is right and the world will stand with you' well, yeah, everyone will stand with you except the people in the world flattened to death by massive chunks of falling iron work and masonry as you throw Zod about the place with angry abandon amidst a clumsy and howling 9/11 metaphor.
None of this would matter though, the CGI, the action scenes and even, maybe the camera work if I gave two hearty and heavily pungent shits for any character in this film. There isn't a semi-decent performance, an interesting line of dialogue, an emotional moment or any chemistry, style, class, cool or humour. A po-faced, dreary, slow, heavy handed film featuring non-people who either mumble or shout, there is no in between.
As I couldn't invest in anything that was going on I was left focussing on things like the camera work, the massive amounts of injured and dead people Superman left in his wake, the massive, intrusive, laughable and sad store-names product placement during the downtown Smallville fight, the fact that Zod seems to have picked up a 1940s stereotype, creepy, bald, German, mad scientist as part of his Krypton crew and a series of questions like:
Why does Zod also want Lois Lane on the spaceship with Superman?
How does Zod, at that point, even know who Lois Lane is?
Why is young Supes in a flashback playing a caped hero with a red cloth from the laundry when he doesn't discover his cape until years later?
Superman goes and talks to a priest?? REALLY??!! His very existence dispels the myth of God, he is HIMSELF a metaphor/substitute for the story of Jesus Christ so why on earth is he taking advice from this creepy priest in an empty church on a summers day?
Oh and don't get me started on Superman's crucifix stance with his arms out after the (holy)ghost of his father tells him he can save Lois, he can save ALL the humans (and the fluffy bunnies too) but only when his real father, who's a ghost, says so. When his actual flesh and blood earth father NEEDS saving, nah he can't do that.
From the opening shot of us seeing Superman's mother give birth to the ending where Superman snaps Zods neck it wreaks of Snyder and Goyer sitting in a room patting each other's back or wanking each other off congratulating themselves on how clever and edgy they're being.
Superman's mother giving birth is precisely the Snyder version of edgy realism. He probably thinks he's daring. Actually it's just silly and a ridiculous and pointless way to start the film.
What does that add to it eh Snydes? What great statement are you making there?
Jor-El then says that Superman is the first natural birth Krypton has had in thousands of years about three more times in the film, I guess his mothers big old screaming sweaty face right at the very beginning didn't drive that edgy and dark idea home hard enough huh Snyder?!
And as for the ending, Goyer himself has described the death of Zod as them 'taking down sacred cows'. Yeah because Goyer lives life on the edge, Goyer is sticking it to the establishment and taking down sacred cows. What a steaming pile of myxomatosis filled rabbit droppings!
You didn't know how to end it so you got too big scary CGI machines to destroy a bunch of stuff, the defence mechanism of which seems to be computer game snapping metal tentacles made up of lots of cubes, then you had Supes and Zod duke it out making more things explode and endangering more lives because you'd seen Raimi's Spiderman 2 and then you had Supes snap Zod's neck because you couldn't think how to get out of the mundane hole you'd dug for yourselves. Taking down sacred cows indeed. You pretentious twat Goyer!
The rule breaking and sacred cow tipping didn't end there, once the movie dispelled with its Lord of the Rings/Phantom Menance like Krypton opening and got down on earth, the rest of the film was so desperate to dispense with the tried and tested Clark Kent story and so does everything it can to change it all because, you know, Snyder and Goyer are mavericks.
It has Lois know who he is and what aliens are from the start, he doesn't play Clark as bumbling... in fact he makes no distinction between Clark or Superman at all, thus sort of rendering the point of his entire character a bit moot, he doesn't go to Metropolis to work for the Planet, there's no fortress of solitude and no Kryptonite. Man aren't those cats Goyer and Snyder just so innovative and pleased with themselves.
However, after this 3hr sacred cow tipping tournament has taken place, the very end is his reveal as Clark on his first day at the planet, glasses and all... still no sign of any acting going on but whatever. Trouble is, as clever as Goyer and Snydes THINK they're being, this ending, like the rest of the film is waffly dribbly piss and makes no sense.
He tells his mother that he's going to get a job where no one will ask him a question when he goes somewhere dangerous and where he can keep his ear to the ground.
Well, firstly, after openly saving the world as Superman in front of journalists, the military and everybody, basically, are you telling me that people don't know who this guy is and what he looks like?
I know what Lindsey Lohan's vagina looks like, are you telling me in this day and age of cell phones, tablets, laptops etc. Nobody has this guys picture? Lois tracked him down in 5 minutes in the middle of the film for Pete's sake! Now he needs a disguise?? and the disguise is still a nerdy pair of specs. What run out of cows Goyer?
Also he spends most of the movie traveling around going where he pleases and doing what he wants, he unearths a spaceship and flies off in it without any questions being asked, he even says to the military that he'll save people, on his terms and Washington has to deal with it. So why on earth does he need a job where no one will ask questions?
Oh and that second point about keeping his ear to the ground, sounds good in theory but in the day and age of the internet is working at a bizarrely, still 1950s style newspaper office really going to be giving him the hot pertinent info he needs.
Oh and can't Supes, if he chooses, hear and see everything all at once. Couldn't he just use his mind-internet to locate trouble and focus in on it?
Oh and doesn't he live, basically, in New York City? There's trouble there every single minute of every day from purse snatching to murder to bankers to politicians... he'll have his work cut out for him without needing a newspaper to work at.
None of it makes any sense.
Oh and the 'he's kinda hot' joke at the end - embarrassing, squirm central. When you've had literally NO humour in your film for 3hrs you can't have an army woman say this horrible horrible cringe worthy line and expect chuckles and applause.
I could go on and on and on... there's the score, the editing, the script... I am sorry but this film defeated me. I wanted to be surprised, I wanted to enjoy it, I wanted to be proved wrong, I tried, i relaxed, I put my prejudices to one side and attempted to let this movie drag me in. Instead it beat me slowly to death one noisy, repetitive, CGI filled, out of focus mess of a fight scene at a time.
There were TWO things that I liked about the film! SHOCK HORROR!! one was the Zod, Supes, drowning in skulls dream scene which I felt was a great representation of a comic-book image and just a damn cool idea (I refuse to believe Goyer and Snyder had anything to do with it, PLEASE tell me it actually comes from a comic book) and two, I felt that at least the first two acts had a relatively tight structure that made some sort of sense. The endless flashbacks stopped momentum a lot of the time but, more or less, the driving force behind the story seemed sound even if the characters seemed hollow cyphers.
Last thing I would say is that I have now seen 4 of the bigger films this summer. Each one, from its trailer and promotional material, I would've normally passed on but I have been chastised SO MUCH for making my mind up based on trailers and promotional material and told time and time again to go against my gut, against my better judgement and actually pay and go and see these films. Well I did and the ones I thought were going to be average, were average, the one I knew was going to be self indulgent wank was self indulgent wank and Superman turned out to be everything and worse than what I feared from the director, the writer and the 57 trailers.
So this is me saying NO MORE. I will watch WHAT I WANT TO WATCH and I will have my opinion on the rest based on the stuff the studios marketing company gives me. The last 4 films I have seen in the cinema have been such colossal wastes of time as to be criminal and reviewing them has taken even more time. I am done. Call me what you like, cut me down however you want. I know what I like and that's what I am going to see. End of story.
The Internship
The thing of it is, though, it's ok. It'll do. It could've been a billion times worse.
Vaughn has forever lost the rapid-fire-funny charm that he displayed in Dodgeball or Old School, where you'd be forgiven for mistaking him as Bill Murray's slightly more talkative and enthusiastic successor but The Internship, like it's leading two characters, is just so full of positivity and some occasionally very funny lines that you can almost see past the mundane, formulaic, Googleness of it all. It also features some actors you probably like and a couple of actually inspired and pretty hilarious scenes.
Wilson is a mystery to me though, so good and full of nuance and depth in Wes Anderson films and then just so cheery but ultimately weak and bland in everything else. In this he is, again, the chipper foil to Vaughn's often-annoying motor mouth and, of course, has a generic and pointless romance with a random woman Vaughn, also the screenwriter, forgot to write a real personality for.
There are times, sadly more frequent than I would've liked, that the Vaughn/Wilson schtick becomes just teeth-grindingly grating. You want to smack them, tell them to breathe and go again.
The Google setting is, on face value, a big old advert for all the services the primary coloured company provides, with a side helping of 'aren't we a swell place to work and aren't we making the world a better place' type crap which, ultimately, comes off a little creepy and simplistic, especially for those of us who grew up on Gene Wilder's Willy Wonka. We know every seemingly joyous place has a dark, weird core that is not to be fully trusted.
Also, as positive as it attempts to present things with it's green, red and yellow bikes, ping pong tables and free pudding for all, laid back hipster/geek chic attitude, somewhere in my soul it scares the piss out of me that this is someone's idea of the way things should work.
All that said, stick it to the back of your mind as much as you can, switch most of your brain off and enjoy the misfits over come adversity, recycled from Revenge of the Nerds, plot line sprinkled with some ok comedy.
Worth a single viewing.
5 out of 10 overly advertised salads.
World War Z
FAIRLY SPOILER FREE
When I say 'I like Zombie films' I realise, now, that I am talking about really only a handful of movies. George A Romero's original trilogy, Lucio Fulci's Zombie, The Living Dead at the Manchester Morgue, Re-Animator, The Return of the Living Dead and that's more or less it. There are probably a few more I am not thinking of right now and probably a few from the genre's heyday that I haven't seen yet but I list these films merely to shed light on where and who this review is coming from.
Notice how I didn't include 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later. Both films I like very much but, to me, they are NOT zombie films. They are post-apocolyptic infection films but they are NOT zombie films. People get infected while living, the dead don't rise from their graves and the infected don't die before they come back with the 'rage' contamination.
I mention this because World War Z is NOT a zombie film (in my mind). NOT AT ALL
It is basically the story of a world wide violent rage/rabies infection seen through the eyes of one perpetually stoned, lank haired, hipster scarf wearing, former UN investigator played by Brad Pitt.
I am not sure I have ever seen a film with such massive, global set pieces that is so utterly bland and underwhelming. This is not to say it's an altogether BAD film because it's not but it's not anything special either. It lacks a sense of humour, a sense of style, a decent soundtrack, engaging characters or any cool at all.
Since zombie films and zombie film remakes became tediously the rage in the last 10 years the genre has distinctly lacked any cool. The zombie films of the seventies and eighties are still popular today because they had iconic soundtracks, great lines spoken by characters you liked, disliked or had a complex series of mixed emotions about, they had metaphor and meaning, style and substance and fantastic gore.
World War Z really doesn't have any of that. What it does have is a global scale, some nice tension at the beginning, a cameo from David Morse that could've gone on MUCH longer and some weak underlying message about how we should all just get along. It feels more like a bland alien invasion movie.
Brad Pitt is hideously miscast, misdressed and woefully haired. He was about as convincing a UN investigator as Denise Richards was a nuclear physicist (in The World Is Not Enough). He was also bland as a beige pair of slacks on a wax model of a local news anchor from Des Moines.
To improve this film you should've cast a ton of people and instead of just following 1 man, who seemingly doesn't eat or sleep for a week as he travels from South Korea to Wales and everywhere in between, you follow lots of people around the world all detailing the outbreak in their own way. That at least would allow for some characters. Say what you like about mindless tat like Independence Day or 2012 but at least they have a sense of humour and are fantastically entertaining.
The film attempts to seriously portray what it would be like if an infection took over the human race and turned us into canabalistic rage monkeys. It also attempts to have a story that wraps up in a predictable 'satisfying' way, some set pieces on a grand scale that you haven't seen before and some wishy-washy guff about how we should work together and, in that regard, it's a complete success.
The CGI is not terrible or annoying, it is shot and edited competently and at least the first act attempts some tension and the last act attempts to be a bit more exciting. It does have one scene though that proves that, even in the midst of apocalypses, mobile phones are fucking annoying.
It thinks it's way smarter and better than it is when really it's all just too serious and a bit dull. It's, also, weirdly, one of the most bloodless films of its kind in existence (obviously to capitalise on the recent zombie craze and pack em in at all ages!).
If you're still curious then it is worth one watch and maybe I am just jaded and burnt out but I was watching the film thinking, if this had anyone else in the lead and a Goblin soundtrack this would already be 10 times better.
5 out of 10 bloodless dry steaks in a beige sack
The Story of Droning by Mark 'Despair' Cousins
I knew it was all utter nonsense when Cousins interviews other pretentious arse head Lars Von Trier about Dryer and Von Trier stammers and dribbles through an utterly pointless and horribly shot interview segment saying 'I don't know why he's great but he is'. Oh well that's ok then Cousins.
At one point, while randomly and casually discussing the birth of documentaries, Cousins actually says "Seemingly they were only co-directors, the other director being life... itself"
Jesus!
Lastly the documentary is so utterly horrible to look at. Amazing clips are presented with no life to them, the interviews are unlit and discoloured giving them the look of 3 day old dried sick and the footage he took from around the world is bleak, too slow, shot on cheap video and unimaginative making the world a cold and ugly place to look at. The whole thing is accompanied by the dreariest music Cousins could find (probably from his own personal collection of Latvian dirges) that makes it have the feel of a 'help you quit smoking' hypnotic video from 1989.
How can you take an art form so full of innovation, creativity, life, excitement, message, propaganda and importance and reduce it to this droning, creaking, plodding, monotonous, opinionated and slanted 15 hours of tedium?!?
Some review on imdb described it like he was trying to hypnotise an otter. I can't beat that.
I imagine that a dinner round Cousins house takes place in a cold grey room, on a bare, rough table (because, you know, poverty and despair are "REAL"), while Russian funeral marches play on a small wind up, war time gramophone and the 7hr Eric Von Stroheim film Greed plays on a loop, projected on a blood stained sheet next to a bare window, while his wife sobs uncontrollably into the mash potatoes and Cousins drones on saying "These are the worst mashed potatoes so far in the story of Cousins, there's no cream, no butter, no taste and yet think again, look closer, the preparer has left the skins on, the skins are red. Maybe the red potato symbolises hope amongst this futile dinner time. Maybe it's just a potato. The server leaves it ambiguous and who am I to ask?"
It all makes you want to scream and say cheer up you miserable bastard!
If I manage to wade through any more I will let you know.
Twat.