World War Z (2013)

Let the debate between the fast-moving zombie versus the traditional, slow-moving zombie commence...

To be honest with you, the whole fast-moving zombie thing has never really bugged me.  Since zombies aren't real, you can pretty much do anything you want with them.  It don't care either way, and there are great examples of either type being effective and terrifying.  That wasn't what worried me about World War Z.  I was more concerned with how bad the CG looked, and that it was PG-13, leading me to think the movie would be very tame and pedestrian.  I also heard fans of the book were upset with the changes made to the point where some have said the only thing the book and film have in common are the title.  I haven't read the book, so I won't be commenting on that part though.  Fortunately, World War Z wasn't as bad as I feared, but it misses the mark about as much as it hits.

We meet Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt) as he prepares for a regular day with the family.  Gerry's retired recently so he could spend more time with his wife (Mireille Enos) and kids.  Even though we don't see much of them, I liked this part as it did a good job of setting up the Lane's as a loving family, and gives you something to care about.  I am a little disappointed Mireille Enos wasn't given more to do though.  I'm a big fan of The Killing and thought World War Z might let a larger audience see what she can do, but most people are probably going to remember her as "Brad Pitt's wife from that zombie movie."

Shortly after, we see them sitting in traffic.  An explosion happens in the distance, and everyone's in a panic to escape what appears to be a rapidly growing wave of zombies attacking everything in their path.  They kind of reminded me of a Zerg swarm.  Gerry and his family narrowly escape the city and end up on a military vessel where we learn more about the zombie outbreak and how widespread it's become.

The military forces Gerry back into action, as he's the best as what he does.  What is he the best at, you ask?  Kicking ass?  Wrong!  Investigating stuff...for the UN!  Gerry goes from location to location in an effort to track down the source of the infection, or "Patient Zero".

What I liked about World War Z is that despite that most of the film to this point is pretty much exactly what you see in the trailer, it still managed to be very intense and thrilling.  WWZ wastes no time getting to the point.  We're barely five minutes into the film before the outbreak begins.  I also felt like the film was a realistic depiction of the early stages of a zombie invasion.  We see there's still a command structure and military force.  There's a pointed effort to find the cause and hopefully find a cure.  People make decisions that are much more pragmatic (there's a great example of this at the midway point), and you thankfully don't see a majority of the characters do stupid things once the shit hits the fan.  The cast does a good job of taking the material seriously, and the movie avoids any camp or silliness.

On the other hand I think striving for a PG-13 rating detracted from that realism.  When the outbreak happens, I'd expect to see people screaming and swearing their heads off, but I don't think I heard anyone swear.  Also, the movie is almost completely bloodless, which I find odd for a zombie film.  All points of impact are cut away from, and there are other times where you can see someone struggling against something that's off screen.  You can see gorier stuff each week on The Walking Dead.  Some might appreciate the lack of gore, but not seeing any blood when people are being bitten and hacked doesn't work for me.  I think the decisions director Marc Forster made at times seemed to be geared towards getting more people in the theater rather than making a zombie film strictly for fans of the genre. That isn't a bad thing necessarily, but it usually means you have to make some sacrifices, and I think those sacrifices hurt the film.

Finally, we get to the end, and it's very abrupt and unsatisfying.  I sat there thinking, "Really?  That's it?"  It felt like they didn't know how they wanted to end it.  I heard they did a large amount of reshoots to get us to the current ending, as well.  If this was the improved ending after all the reshoots, I can't imagine how bad the original ending was.  I'll be curious if there's an alternate cut when the Blu-Ray comes out.  For example, Matthew Fox has a bizarre cameo where you barely see his face on screen.  It makes he think he might have had a bigger role and was a casualty of all the reshoots.  I'm guessing having four writers didn't help with the ending (Matthew Michael Carnahan, Drew Goddard, Damon Lindelof, J. Michael Straczynski).  I've heard there may have even been more writers involved that weren't credited.  That helps explain why it's so uneven.

The special effects didn't help either.  While not as bad as what the trailer made it look like, there were still lots of times I felt the zombies looked artificial and rubbery.  Even when standing around they moved as if they suffered from Tourette's, twitching and chomping their teeth.  This caused a lot uncomfortable laughter at times.  I suppose it helped break the tension a bit though.

World War Z is a mainstream zombie film, but I think that's part of what holds it back.  While it manages to entertain and keep a high level of tension, the rating keeps this a tame affair.  It's a shame as there are some smart and realistic ideas in there, but the ending leaves you disappointed and wish there had been more.  I'm right on the border of rental and matinee on this one.  It's not a bad film, but it's really going to depend on how much you want to see it.

2.5 (out of 5) Death Stars

Prometheus (2012) - Movie Review

When are humans going to learn that if you're going to explore outer space, then you should bring an army along just in case?

I was talking to a friend the other day when he questioned what all the hype was about Prometheus, and I said, "It's return of Ridley Scott to the Alien franchise and it has a sick cast.  What's not to like!"  After seeing Prometheus, I'm afraid my friend was right about the hype.  It's not that Prometheus is a bad movie, but I think it's an example of what happens when everyone's expectations are set too high.

While I'm going to try to stay away from spoilers, I am going to start this one off on a bit of a rant.  The problem is this: nearly the entire story, including the climax, is spoiled in the trailers.  This has to stop!  You can watch the 2-3 minute trailers online and you've pretty much seen the entire plot of Prometheus.  Granted, lots of movies do this, but so much of this movie is telegraphed by the trailer that there's little suspense to anything that happens.

The setup for Prometheus starts with two scientists, Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green), who find an old cave painting that has a set of markings that matches the same set found in paintings from many unrelated civilizations.  They determine these markings are a star cluster, which they analyze and find that there is a planet they suspect that can support life.

Weyland Industries funds an expedition to the planet to see what they find and maybe get some answers to the origins of life on Earth.  While in transit, you're introduced to David (Michael Fassbender), an android, which is clear by the very fact that he's not in cryo-sleep like everyone else.  Plus, they introduce him to the crew as an android the first chance they get.  This felt odd to me as in Alien the reveal of the android was a surprise to the crew.  David is easily the most interesting character in the movie and Fassbender does a great job with the role.  From the very beginning, you're already curious about what's going on in that computer brain of his.

They arrive at the planet and find ancient buildings and remains that are thousands of years old.  Something bad happened there, but they don't know what yet.  Just as they start to explore, another pet peeve of mine happens.  Why is it always the role of the 'egghead'-scientist character to not want weapons on the mission?  As a smart person, don't you understand that when going into an unknown, it's probably not a bad idea to be prepared for all contingencies?  Of course, they don't take weapons and then later there's always a need for them.  It bugged me a little more this time around, because you don't know what you're going to run into on an alien world.

There's a whole lot of 'what is that?' and 'who are they?' in the movie.  One of the strengths of Prometheus is that this did feel like a true sci-fi film.  The setup and early part of the movie really had me.  When they talk about the Engineers (the famous Space Jockey from the first Alien) and life on Earth, you're genuinely interested in seeing how it all plays out.  What are they going to discover?

However, once the more action/horror elements start, I started to lose interest, as those earlier sci-fi aspects of the film fell by the wayside.  That's the main problem.  Prometheus sets up all these questions and then doesn't answer very many of them.  I left Prometheus still knowing very little about the back story of this universe.  They do setup a sequel, and I actually hope it gets made because maybe that will answer many of the questions left unanswered.

The ironic thing is that there was a line in the movie about being disappointed when meeting your creator and finding out 'why'.  That's how I think a lot are going to feel about this movie: disappointed.

Prometheus does have a great cast, but the characters aren't developed very well and it seems like a waste, as their talents are underused.  For the second straight week, Charlize Theron stars as a bad guy, but this time around it's more of a muted performance where there is doubt about what her true motivations are.  This could have been a more interesting character, but they didn't develop her.  Tom Hardy-lookalike, Logan Marshall-Green, plays his character with a unusually abrasive attitude, especially towards Fassbender's David.  It's never a good idea to be needlessly mean to the outwardly nice, but morally ambiguous android, right?  That won't turn out bad for him at all.

The story focuses on Noomi Rapace's Shaw and I thought she did a good job.  While the comparisons to Sigourney Weaver's Ripley are natural, she doesn't demonstrate the same strength or toughness as Ripley.  Shaw is a scientist, where Ripley seems like a natural leader from the very beginning.  Idris Elba seemed like the only character that had any real personality, but he's not in it that much or given much to do.  I didn't even realize Guy Pearce was in this, as they put him some really awful old man makeup.  I don't understand why they did this, rather than just cast an older actor.  I like Pearce, but he didn't bring anything to the role that made you think only he could have played it.  Fassbender comes out if this looking the best.

The script by Jon Spaihts and Damon Lindelof doesn't develop the story elements it sets up or gives you enough to care about the characters or make them all that interesting.  If you're a Lost fan, as I am, the disappointing payoff may not be a surprise to you considering Lindelof's involvement.  There were just too many thing in the story that didn't add up to me.

I'm glad Ridley Scott is back to the Alien universe he introduced us to back in the 70's.  He really did get the sci-fi aspects down and the movie's visual style is fantastic.  It is a gorgeous movie to look at.  The visuals alone are almost worth the price of admission.  I did see it in IMAX, which helped, but I didn't think the 3D did much for it.

There's been a lot of discussion about whether or not this is an Alien prequel or just set in the same universe.  It's definitely not a direct prequel to Alien.  I'd call it Alien's uncle.  I think it's better to go into this as a standalone film.  I tried to do that, but still felt it lacking.  However, there's a tacked on ending that kind of undercuts their assertion that this isn't another Alien film.

In the end, Prometheus has a lot of interesting ideas that aren't fully realized.  It's a visually stunning movie and has a few interesting performances, especially from Michael Fassbender, but it ultimately left me disappointed and a little cold.  Maybe on a second viewing once it hits Blu-Ray I might get more out of it.  If you're dying to see this, do a matinee and skip the 3D.  Otherwise, it's a rental.

3 (out of 5) Death Stars