World War Z

Z does not waste any time. Gerry Lane (Pitt) and family (relatively unknown actors) are headed out but are snarled in downtown traffic, a radio news report about odd breakouts of a rabies-like disease is background to their chatting, and then… it is on. Explosions, rioting, numerous and really fast maniac zombies are overrunning the non-maniacs, and all hell is breaking loose. It’s a spectacular, blunt-force opening that will have many nicely hooked. And the fact that the story behind the spectacle of undeadness is not all that bad, makes the anxiety that follows even more effective.

Z, directed by Marc Forster (Finding Neverland), has several things going for it that make it just a bit more special than the present crop of 2013 summer blockbusters. Most obvious among its particular attributes are the hybrid zombies. No dragging feet, half stroked-out gait for this crew – no sir. These dead things are revved up, super-charged, killing machines designed to run you down and eat you up. Scripting a virus that takes only 12 seconds to convert you into a super-powered, flesh-eating ghoul gives the film (at least in its first half) a great chaotic, this-thing-can’t-be-stopped pace. I actually found myself tightening my grip on the arm of my seat (slightly)… my breathing was noticeably affected (somewhat) - the early scenes are that edgy tense. 

Second, the film is not all together stupid… unusual for a big-budget summer scare flick. Although Z clearly gives up on the post-war retrospective approach of its source material (World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War), its simplified understory and style have just enough savvy and consistency to add to, rather than distract from, the film’s terror-ride core. Z does tease us, however, with what it could have been. For example; in a too-short scene, a caged and compromised CIA agent (cameo by David Morse (The Hurt Locker, Disturbia)) hints at the politics behind the disease and of the world’s reaction to it – why some nations are winning and some are losing. Sadly, there just is not enough time for such intrigue and Z chooses to move around the globe in a more conventional action-thriller path. Nonetheless; although Z can’t be described as cerebral in any way, or even all that original, the film is taut - the dialogue is crisp and smart, and the tension is as thick as molasses whether Forster is stressing us in high or low gear.

Which brings me to the movies final point-scoring element. Z is a zombie thriller, so by definition it’s going to be over the top. But unlike so many of the big box office action films this year, it does not pound you into submission with the relentless cacophony of sight and sound (like Man of Steal for example).  Instead Forster does something almost unheard of in this type of film; he shifts gears midway - from fast and frantic battles to a silent, slow, and tense walk through enemy lines.  I found this deletion of the obligatory crescendo toward a tiresome, hyperactive finale to be perfectly refreshing.

I believe Z to be the best of the summer blockbusters to date. The ending, however, is completely superfluous and out of phase (corny) with the rest of the show. So skip out a few minutes early; you’ll know when. But don’t get in there late... 12 seconds is not a lot of time.  7 out of 10. 

Man of Steel

If one Superman slugs another Superman… what happens? What if they punch each other 5,000 times… then what? Watching Zach Snyder’s (Watchmen, 300) Man of Steel, it seemed at times that getting to the bottom of these perplexing paradoxes of our DC Comic Book youths was the sole objective of this film. Ok, I exaggerate (but just a bit)… there is a story here. It’s just a little hard to recall amidst the gargantuan battle royal between super hero and super bad guys and the noisy CGI cloud of destruction that comes with.   

Man of Steel’s story, contained principally in the first half of the film before the MMA match begins, turns out to be a fairly close retelling of the Superman legend portrayed in the Christopher Reeve Superman I (1978) and Superman II (1980) films. Snyder’s version, however, takes itself more seriously than the red-tights, 20th-century rendering. It’s a little more sci-fi, visually bolder; and it’s darker. Not “I’m Batman” dark (although Christopher Nolan of the recent Batman trilogy did produce the film) but trending in that direction. That story, of Kal El (aka Clark Kent, aka Superman) sent from a dying Krypton civilization and planet as a baby by visionary parents to a new world, is quite well told by Snyder. The treatment of the emotional and spiritual side of parents giving up a child, adoptive parents loving an alien child that will change the world, and a super child growing up not knowing who or why he is, is effective and powerful. Unfortunately, that side of the film loses the battle with the turgid and over-long action/warfare part of itself. In the end, I just wanted one of those 5,000 super punches to cause the super villain to give up his super ghost so I could go home. 5 out of 10. 

Star Trek Into Darkness

J.J. Abrams reboot of the Star Trek series in 2009 created a new universe in which James Kirk and his crew could explore new worlds and go where no man has gone before. A universe altered by the old-reliable sci-fi restart button… time travel. Now, in Star Trek Into Darkness, Abrams picks up where he dropped us off in 2009; placing our old friends in familiar poses but in different, even inverted or transposed, settings and circumstances from what we remember from the original Trek history.

But this second venture in space is not quite as good as the first. Long-time fans of the series (TV and motion picture) will be pleased that Abrams continues to inject vintage components from the old Star Trek franchise into these new films. Old names with new faces will trigger the desired nostalgic response from the faithful. But just a bit of the specialness of having our old buddies back with us has worn off.

As with all of the Kirk-era Star Treks, the movie works best when the crew is engaged in its patented interplay… cocky Kirk riding his star ship like a wild horse, Spock responding with the single raised eyebrow, and the rest throwing in there special moves – all is the same but all slightly different… in good and interesting ways. Benedict Cumberbatch is outstanding as the enemy (or is he ally?), who is new to this crew's pseudo-parallel universe but well known, from another past, to long-time Star Trek viewers. But alas, writers and director eventually fall into typical summer-action-film excess and the misconception that if 10 explosions is good then 100 is better. Fortunately the CGI action is not as bombastic and laborious as other summer blockbusters such as Iron Man III or Man of Steal, but it does overwhelm at times. Although Abbrams fails to completely sustain the magic of his first Star Trek, Into Darkness is still worth the price of the ticket and is the best of the early summer action films. – 7 out of 10. 

Oblivion

Oblivion is the place where most of my memories of this film went quite shortly after walking out of the theater. Like the mild impression from a pretty, but non-spectacular sunset - hey, would you look at those nice colors - the thought of the film faded quickly behind the next interesting thing that came by. Oblivion, the new future-world sci-fier starring Tom Cruise, is an attractive film; I'll give it that. Maybe if the concepts of the story and it’s telling were as consistent and cogent as its visual landscape and architecture it'd have some staying power. Instead, the results offer little more than formula components in familiar scenes extracted from the post apocalypse/invasion genre freezer and just re-heated for us on a shiny new plate. While great care has been given to the film’s settings, the story and script feel like lazy efforts. I’m sure Joseph Kosinski, who co-wrote, produced, and directed the film, does not consider himself indolent in his creative endeavors, but if he thinks his story is deep and profound (and it was clear he was trying hard to make me believe that) then he’s a little too close to it… cuz he’s wrong. Oblivion, the saga, may be clever enough for its graphic-novel (comic book) origins but it’s no heavy hitter beyond that.

The attempted profundity starts with narration from the main character - Cruise’s Jack Harper, also known as Technician 49. It’s 2077; our beloved earth has suffered an alien invasion (some 60 years earlier). The evil intruders first blew up the moon wreaking havoc with the planet’s tides and tectonics to soften us up, and then they hit the ground.  As Harper puts it “we won the war but lost the earth”. Winning meant unleashing the nukes, we learn, and thus trashing most of the planet. Surviving humans have, or are, migrating to Titan, a moon of Saturn. The success of the exodus and the new colony depends on the operation of fusion energy stations, fueled by earth’s oceans, that power the whole venture. Technician 49 and his teammate (and assigned wife), Victoria "Vic" Olsen (Andrea Riseborough), are charged with maintaining the drones that defend the power stations from the few remaining aliens (known as Scavs) that, for some reason, are still carrying on the bad fight. The couple receives their orders from a twangy mission commander headquartered on the "Tet," a space station orbiting earth and fueling up for a final trek to Titan.  

Kosinski, intentionally or not – it’s hard to tell, makes it clear early on that there’s something fishy going on here. The first red flag pops up when Jack Harper reveals that for security reasons the technicians’ memories have been wiped… always a foreshadow of skullduggery. Its not a very good wipe either (hey we’ve only had 77 years to develop this technology) as Tech 49 has remnant memories of a woman – someone he loves but does not know – hanging out with him on top of the Empire State building… who’s she? 49 also wonders aloud about those Scavs; didn’t they get the memo that they’d lost the war… hmmm? And did they say that we’re all going to live on Titan… Titan? I guess the memory wipe was just good enough to make Harper forget that the average temperature on Titan is about 200 degrees below zero and that it rains methane. Or maybe he never earned the astronomy merit badge.

Even though it’s easy to get ahead of Kosinski’s plot, there’s still some good tension as Harper works to discover what gives on this burned-out earth. The drones – flying spheres that shoot mean machine guns in all directions - are particularly menacing and create suspense as they process, in RoboCop style, whether the thing in their sites is a good guy or a bad guy. And Cruise is… well… he is plug-and-play Tom. He’s good, as usual, as the talented and confused hero, but has too little to do in front of Kosinki’s dense and stunning landscapes to have any memorable impact. The rest of the film’s characters, especially the women, are flimsy foils or simple stereotypes from similar-genre films (do all future world rebels wear capes… really?).

Kosinski is a graduate of the Columbia School of Architecture, and it shows. The drones, Harper’s patrol plane, and particularly the technicians’ futuristic quarters are marvelous creations. But Kosinski obviously wants Oblivion to be more than just a visual experience; he wants it to be an acute and poignant puzzle. But it’s not. What the scriptwriters might think are killer twists, you’ll see coming like a slow hanging curve ball – you’re to third base before Cruise’s character gets his bat off his shoulder. You’ve processed all of the profound revelations long before the score swells to let you know that something really emotional is happening. And the film’s is-it-really-that-easy ending is terrifically unsatisfying. I would have been just fine with Kosinski focusing all of his talents and money on his grand and cool sediment filled, dystopian vistas… maybe putting some Copland behind it and calling it a day, instead of trying so unsuccessfully to convince me that I was experiencing a story that was truly special. 5 out of 10. 

2103 Oscar Nominee Review - Life of Pi

Life of Pi is, throughout, a visually impressive and, in the end, a mentally challenging trip. Ang Lee’s adaptation of the best-selling 2001 novel by Yann Martel places a young Indian boy named Pi in a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean with a hungry Bengal tiger. The events that lead to this bizarre situation are odd but less peculiar than the journey that follows. Mingling the fantastic with delusion and dream (or vision), Lee pushes Martel’s Pi through a journey of ambiguous nature. The principal objective is survival; but surrounding that goal is a possible parable about the character of the world… of life, faith and truth. Matching this spiritual context, Lee transforms the natural world surrounding Pi’s trial into something beyond natural. Lee’s imagery gives the feel that someone has turned up your visual sense knob past its maximum 10 to a Spinal-Tape 11. The world around floating Pi is hyper-ised – the oceans too calm or too wild, the colors of landscape and sky are beautiful but not quite correct. The castaway’s realm displays as if injected with some sort of growth hormone that has caused it to become a Dali-like globe canvas for Lee to paint Pi and his carnivorous companion.

Pi’s story, it was said, will make one “believe in God”. An established but blocked novelist was told this in India by Pi’s maternal uncle, and the author comes to visit the adult Pi, now living in Canada, to hear the story and possibly gain some inspiration for new book. Pi (portrayed at different ages by different actors but played as the adult Pi perfectly by Irrfan Khan) narrates the film as he recites the story to the would-be scribe. Pi starts by telling of his youth as a son of a zoo owner. Central to this first chapter and key to the adventure tale that follows is Pi’s acute interest in understanding God and the relevance he finds in religion. Much to his rationalist father’s chagrin, Pi finds truth, or at least peace, in the teachings of many religions mixed together – Pi explains: “ None of us knows God until someone introduces us. I was first introduced to God as a Hindu. There are 33 million gods in the Hindu religion. How can I not come to know a few of them?”  

Pi’s life journey shifts dramatically when his family decides to close the zoo and immigrate to Canada where they will sell the animals. This decision puts large animals in a large ship on a stormy sea:

Adult Pi: Now we have to send our little boy to the middle of the Pacific.

Writer: And make me believe in God.

Adult Pi: Yes, we will get there.

The ship sinks. Only one lifeboat survives the storm and in short time there are just two left on that small boat… man and beast. Pi and the tiger travel at the will of the ocean or of God maybe; first separated by what distance is possible, then together in a necessary truce.

Pi’s ocean adventure is a digital masterpiece. I did not see the film in 3-D but I can’t imagine it being any more vivid. Although you can tell the difference between the live tiger (used sparingly) and the CGI tiger, the computerized depiction is amazingly fine. Lee piles additional pseudo-natural wonders onto the screen - a giant whale raising out of the ocean to pierce a super crisp night ski, a battalion of jelly fish illuminating a glass ocean, a field of Meer cats on a floating island. On the ocean, Lee’s visuals dominate the spiritual. But the uncle’s claim remains hovering behind the images…”make you believe in God” – what does that mean?

That the story is a combination of thrilling adventure tale and mystic allegory does not weaken its power in either mode. Rather the two themes team nicely together, the latter focusing the former. Although you may be carried away in the visual, Life of Pi is more than just a tale of the fantastic or fantasy. It forces ones head to tilt a bit... makes you ponder why we believe what we believe…  9 out of 10.

2013 Oscar Winner Review - Argo

Readers over 50 may clearly remember the events of November 4, 1979 when Iranian militants overran the US embassy in Tehran taking hostage all who were inside. But we likely do not remember the life-or-death, CIA-led operation to rescue the six Americans who walked out of that embassy minutes before it was taken. We don’t remember that part because it was never told to us (until now)… and we probably would not have believed their story if it had been.

Indeed, Argo’s tale of how CIA agent Tony Mendez (played by Ben Affleck who also directs) managed to extract six US embassy workers out of revolutionary Iran is so outrageous that it could not have really happened. But it did. And it’s that fact - that the film is chronicling a real event – along with superb execution, that gives the film’s fairly standard caper story line an intensity edge and special feel.  

During the frantic take over of the U.S Embassy, amidst the record shedding, frantic phone calls, and fear and panic, six staffers leave the building to a side street and just walk away. Initially, Iranian revolutionaries are unaware of their escape to the home of the Canadian Ambassador, but it's only a matter of time before they are discovered unless they are evacuated. Back in D.C., Agent Mendez is brought into upper-level intelligence strategy sessions to consult on rescue approaches for the six. Unimpressed with the plans being considered to get the Americans out, Mendez puts forth his own proposal – inspired by watching “Battle for the Planet of the Apes” with his son the night before. The cover story would be that he and the six are part of a movie production crew scouting locations for a sci-fi movie called “Argo” (for you true Sci-Fi fans the script selected for the cover story was originally titled Lord of Light, based on the book of the same name by Roger Zelazny – the CIA renamed it Argo). Mendez would get in and set up the cover, train the six in their new identities, then walk the crew through the airport and get on a plane home... ridiculous right? Everyone agrees that all possible options are bad but that this idea is as crazy as it sounds:

CIA Bosses: "You don't have a better bad idea?"

Agent Mendez: “This is the best bad idea we have, sir”

The script sets up the story in two parts and Affleck deftly transitions from one, the comedy of developing the ridiculous cover story, to the other, the tension of its execution in Iran. Mendez needs to make the cover as real as possible and enlists the assistance of make-up pioneer John Chambers (there’s the Planet of the Apes connection), played by John Goodman. Alan Arkin plays a cantankerous producer, Lester Siegel, whom Mendez and Chambers convince to join the charade as the “big name” behind the film. Goodman and Arkin are both outstanding in these supporting roles. Oddly, Arkin’s Siegel may be the most memorable and interesting character in the film yet the only main character that is fictional. Arkin captures a particularly poignant moment that seems to set the tone for the transition between comedy and tension when, about to turn down the offer from Mendez, he sees a newscast of a blindfolded hostage on a small TV in the meeting room. The magnitude and humanity of the situation becomes real and heavy in that moment compelling him to help regardless of the likelihood that it will be a completely wasted effort.

Argo is a very good movie; nominated for seven academy awards and winning 3 including Best Picture. It is an unsensational portrayal, relying on the narrative of the event to hold attention and evoke emotion. It is difficult to resist getting caught up in the skillful presentation and current of the story. Despite the fact that you already know (maybe) how the event ends, there is great tension and I found myself egging the six on… verbally, out-loud to the screen… it’s that well done. Since these reviews are sort of a series of Oscar Best Picture critiques, I can’t help but compare it to those previously reviewed here.  So here goes… Argo is good but Lincoln is the better. But Argo is still a must see and gets and 8 out of 10. 

DVD New-Release Review: Premium Rush

How long can one watch bicycles chasing themselves through honking, downtown Manhattan traffic before one taps out? Well, the results of a recent case study with a sample size of one (me), indicate that its some time less than 85 minutes… or the run time of the alleged chase-action thriller Premium Rush. Indeed, Rush plays more like a high-end, but annoying version of Frogger (you young people may have to look that up) than a serious thriller or even a tongue-in-cheek romp. I’m not quite sure what the makers (David Koepp directing) were shooting for but the film hits no good target firmly.

A “Premium Rush” order is the most deluxe and expensive, double-time bicycle delivery service… if your paying for the “Rush” it means you need to get something across town fast-fast. And if you need it fast, then Wilee (like the coyote – played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is your man. For Wilee, being a bike courier is a life style, not just a job. He’s a law-school grad but can’t trade in the bike shorts for the office grind. He’s considered crazy by his crazy colleagues, rides gearless and brakeless, and is, of course, the best in the city.

The film’s silliness starts when Wilee picks up a package from an old law school lady chum. Turns out that the innocent-looking envelope contains a valuable ticket desired greatly by a gambling-addicted and hopelessly in debt cop… and thus the chase begins. Backdropping the scene is a romantic triangle with a glistening female cyclist (Dania Ramirez), Wilee’s bike-courier rival Manny (Wole Parks), and Wilee as the lead. Joined for worse and better with this group, Wilee must outrun the evil cop and work out the mystery of the ticket, all while navigating through the perilous streets of Manhattan on his fast bike with others in hot pursuit.

Gordon-Levitt certainly looks the part here and reportedly did much of his own riding – which looks good. But the bike heads slowly down slope from there. Nobody from the buddy-romance triad seems capable of carrying his or her load with any believability. Gordon-Levitt’s interchanges with Ramirez trend from stiff to awkward (unintentionally). And Ramirez, although looking tough and good in the bike gear, will not be receiving any awards for her acting. More entertaining is Michael Shannon’s play of bad Detective Monday. Regardless of any confusion from the director on where he wanted this film to go, Shannon obviously chose cartoonish for his take on Wilee’s nemesis and he plays it to the hilt. I expected to see Detective Gordon’s eyes bug out of his head on springs and for him to shout “why I oughta…!” each time Wilee slipped from his clutches. Shannon, who has been memorizing in previous efforts like Take Shelter, applies the wacky approach right to the bitter end of the flick and is easily the best component of the film.

Rush employs several gimmicks to try to style up the action. Wilee’s routes to complete his gauntlet are periodically displayed like a Tom-Tom car GPS or a “Real Speed” video-game map help. A digital countdown display lets us know that the intensity of it all should be ramping up. Wilee also has Robert Downey Jr.’s Sherlock Holmes-like perception skills allowing him to estimate the future and optimize his route. How does he do this…? Oh yeah, that’s right, he went to law school so he’s really smart and can speed up his brain time (a la Limitless) to cycle though three or four scenarios before selecting the only one that will get him successfully through to the next level… errrrr, to his delivery target. I was never worried about Wilee failing as I felt like I could reach out and hit the reset button on the Wi if any fatal crashes occurred.  

The action, repeated over an over again with only slight variation and always amid the din of the traffic setting, in Rush gets a bit fatiguing near the end. And the motivation for it all – the ticket, the delivery, the chase etc. is weak and by the end all but moot. Although I’m sure that many will find this film, and its multitude of pop ups, to be a refreshing take on the chase genre; for me, this time, different does not equal good. Rush gets 4 out of 10.