World War Z

World War Z

A review

June 22, 2013

Viewed June 22, 2013

**** out of *****

I pulled into Nazareth, was feeling 'bout half past dead 
I just need some place where I can lay my head 
Hey, mister, can you tell me, where a man might find a bed? 
He just grinned and shook my hand, "No" was all he said. 

                                                     The Band

          There is nowhere to hide that is safe.    The world you woke up to this morning is gone.  What is left in its place is a nightmare.    The end of civilization has come, not with bombs, or guns, or disasters, just people destroying each other in a mindless frenzy.   This is the end, unless you can stop it. 

          The advance word six months ago nearly pronounced this thrill ride of a movie dead on arrival if you will pardon the pun.   World War Z, based on the very popular novel by Max Brooks of the same name, survived its bad press and rumored outrageous budget and reshot ending to survive and arrive in theatres with a loud triumph.    This is certainly a film that merits attention whether the current zombie obsession is one’s cup of tea or not.  It certainly is not mine, however I was riveted for nearly all of the much too short running time for this shocker.  

          In fact, its too hasty conclusion and rushed characterizations are really all that is wrong with the film, and even those can be forgiven partly.    What is on screen is a non-stop and sometimes out of breath race against time to save the world.   We find out pretty early on that most of the world is spinning mildly to the brink of extinction or at least of the extinction of the human kind that is not obsessed and running wildly after any life. 

          All that stands between this destruction may be a former UN investigator, who along with his family is saved in one of the many narrow escapes from the zombie hoards, only to be ordered to investigate and try to locate the source of the epidemic.  

          The screenplay by Matthew Carnahan, Drew Goodard, and Damon Lindelof condenses the novel events into a short and direct film with little room to ponder the darker questions the book probes.    The director, Marc Forster continues to build upon an impressive body of work with tense and absorbing sequences.    The result is a film that is likely to have one looking over their shoulder or shielding their eyes during its two most impressive set pieces. 

          Brad Pitt in a role that is a change of pace for the actor underplays in the role of Gerry Lane.   This decision serves the film well as an overly bravado laden performer would have made the movie silly.    Unfortunately Pitt has to carry the film on his shoulders as the large cast barely registers save a noteworthy turn by Daniella Kertesz as an Israeli soldier that gives the story a lift midway through.   

          A longer film may have existed prior to the reshoots, and it would have been interesting to see what a more character driven piece would have looked like, but this is a worthy addition to the world- ending films.    Surprisingly and maybe thankfully the film is mostly free of using gore and blood to add to the terror and relies mostly on suspense.  It is the fear of what is behind the corner that is most effective, and makes World War Z worth a night at the movies.   It may just leave you wanting to leave the lights on just a little longer, and be very quiet and still.     

                                                              Tommy Key

Rated PG-13(intense frightening zombie sequences, violence, disturbing images, language)                                                 

Man of Steel

Man of Steel

A review

June 15, 2013

Viewed June 15, 2013

“It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.” 
― William Shakespeare

          The young boy cowers away from his peers.   He is afraid of the noises in his head.  He cannot shut them out.   He is different, so different in fact that he cannot make sense of how or why.  His mother arrives to comfort and plead with him, and he says simply to her “the world’s too big”, and she says “then make it small.”    Society does two things with loners and misfits, they become outcasts, or they become icons.   Identity after all is about the essence of the central duality we all share, and the beliefs we ascribe to as we accept our destiny.

          Superman first appeared during the Golden Age of comics in the late 1930’s and the enduring figure of the muscular, powerful and benevolent protector of mankind has endured and changed with the times.    Each generation seems destined to get the Superman we most desperately need. Even though we had a reboot of sorts just eight years ago, 2005’s Superman Returns,  the timing seems right for this latest version which is engaging throughout and is spectacular often enough to rate it a smashing success.  

          Man of Steel is a surprising entry in the comic book canon because as conceived and executed it seeks to humanize a character that is most often viewed in the most fantastic light.  Here in this film we get a glimpse of a Superman most in the form of a Clark Kent who seeks to hide from the world instead of help it.    This change in tone and mythology of the character open the door for the strong screenplay by David Goyer to explore the character in depth, and also and decisively challenge the audience’s perceptions about what to expect.    Taking a cue from the successful Dark Knight series, its creator Christopher Nolan serves has producer and story credit, Man of Steel is not just a cerebral experience but an attack on the senses with blistering action set pieces delivered with panache by young director, Zach Snyder.

          Mr. Snyder may have been a surprising choice to guide the film, but it zips along despite a long running time, and contains enough strong moments that it offsets most of its flaws, most notably a major plot development critical to the film which needs more explanation.

          The film rehashes the origin story of Kal-El, who is sent to Earth from his dying planet of Krypton in the film’s powerful opening scenes.   Here on Krypton we are given longer and more detailed explanation and introduction to the planet, including meeting the renegade warrior General Zod, who in the film’s second half will make it to Earth chasing Kal-El to help rebuild the destroyed planet using and wiping out Earth’s population to achieve his goal. 

          The filmmakers have made so wise and very brave decisions in regards to the film’s narrative t with the use of flashbacks to the past, which in this rare instance do not detract but enhance the film’s structure.    Only a few times in the film is the narrative flowed rushed in favor of getting to the next sequence.    Thankfully the payoff is that one is likely to stay glued to their seat once the second half of the film starts.   

          The film is reverent to a degree and unlike many of the recent comic book blockbusters does not seek easy laughs.   In fact this is wide departure in tone that the few laughs that come are much more effective.   Even the General Zod character, wonderfully played by Michael Shannon is given character shading and a powerful motive in his actions.     The name Superman is only uttered once in the film, and even that comes as a bit of a surprise that it seems to fit the moment perfectly. 

          The most common denominator with previous incarnations of the films is rah-rah stance with gung ho celebrations of what are commonly noted American values, hard work, sacrifice, individuality, the Military, and a not too subtle religious reverence for the character.    These do not detract in any way from the film’s power to entertain, but they add an air of depth and seriousness.   Only very briefly toward the end is the audience given sustained reasons to smile, and by the end it has been well earned. 

          Impeccably cast this film features a number of excellent performances.    In the title role, British actor Henry Cavill looks the part and gives a quiet performance.   Whether as Clark or Superman this is a different take than previously seen and fits the new version of the character.   Russell Crowe plays Jor-El, his father and sticks around long enough to make a lasting impression.   As Clark’s earthly parents Diane Lane makes a worthwhile Martha Kent, while Kevin Costner is superb as Jonathan Kent.   German actress Antje Traue makes a formidable second villain and companion to Shannon’s General Zod.   In a role that seems like it was cut drastically, Laurence Fishburne portrays Daily Planet editor, Perry White.    The always excellent Amy Adams take Lois Lane in new directions and her character this time around is so central to the action that the film misses her when she is sidelined.  

          The new score by Hans Zimmer is both bombastic and moody and heightens the energy of the film.   The film for better or worse has more of a foundation with sci-fi than the most recent comic blockbusters, however do we dare estimate the death toll that film’s destruction might suggest.

          This latest version, a mix of the new and old takes Superman out of the air to ground him as a human, and reflect the need for a hero that audiences can invest in again and again.  This latest film delivers the real deal, even if the suit and the man has changed through the years.   Man of Steel is not to be missed.

                                                              Tommy Key

Rated PG-13 (sci-fi violence, action and destruction, language,

          

Now You See Me A review

Now You See Me

A review

June 3, 2013

Viewed June 2, 2013

*** out of *****

“ Nothing is more sad than the death of an illusion”

                                                                        Koestler

              The old phrase goes simply “seeing is believing.”    Are we born skeptics or are we born believers?   We go to the magic shows hoping to suspend belief for just a moment in time.   Houdini escaped time and time again cheating death.  We know that, but he was just a man.  We know the elephant cannot really disappear, don’t we?   There is a trick, some mechanism that is hidden from the audience that makes the magic.    Yet we go to be fooled, to be amazed to see with our own eyes what we want to see.

              The new film, Now You See Me covers very little ground in the realm of unveiling any hidden magic about the world of magic.   Uneven, frenetic but watchable and entertaining for most of its running time the film is likely to leave you guessing to its final reveal(Hint, I did not guess it)   Most of the charms of the film and there are several occur during its middle section, but the film is maligned largely by one too many subplots that the screenwriters leave juggling for the audience to fill in the gaps.   

              The film concerns the hunt for four elusive magicians who after pulling off an elaborate trick in a Las Vegas act appear to steal a ton of money from a bank in Paris and give the money to the assembled audience.   This runs them afoul of the FBI who are pursuit of the group as they begin to plan and execute something bigger while being pursued.

              The less said about the rest of the labyrinth plot is wise, not that I could explain the twists along the way, some of which under analysis make no sense.    This is modern moviemaking after all, with its unusual shot camera angles and its frenetic editing that suggests other stronger films including a late hour car chase better suited to a Bond film than this thriller. 

              This hodgepodge of both a good and bad film is the work of screenwriters Ed Solomon and Boaz Yakin who seek to confuse the viewer with its rapid fire dialogue where all the characters speak as if they were Doctoral candidates in one-liners from a university producing comedians.    Its director, Louis Letterier who has good work in his future as an action director is best when the film slows down and works on character development, which is very little.     I would have loved to see some back story for the characters.    The deepest confusion a viewer may have is wondering who as the audience are we supposed to be following.    Are we meant to be engaged by the leader of the greatly named, Four Horseman group of magicians led by Jesse Eisenberg’s Daniel Atlas, who is still channeling his Mark Zuckerberg in this performance, or are does our allegiance lie with the FBI agent, Dylan Rhodes, played by Mark Ruffalo, who seems to be in a different movie at time from everyone else, so serious does he play his role?

              The rest of the strong cast, Isla Fisher, Woody Harrelson, and Dave Franco as the fellow magicians have nice moments.  Harrelson has played this role before in some form or fashion so it is no great stretch for him.      Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine try to infuse their characters with a little life, but both are miscast in their roles.    However they are fantastic all compared to poor Melanie Laurent, miscast as a French Interpol agent who sole purpose in the script seems to be to give more exposition.

              Despite my reservations I found myself enjoying the film.    The magic sequences are a great deal of fun to watch, and more scenes hit the mark than miss.    In magic terms the whole film is more apt to appeal to those who are apt not to question where the film is taking you, just sit back and believe.    If you peak behind the façade backstage, you might spot the holes in the act.   

                                                                                      Tommy Key

Rated PG-13( language, action, sexual content)