World War Z

3 Stars (out of four)

This movie was tough for me.  It was an exercise in managing expectations.  I was a latecomer to the party for Max Brooks' seminal book on the zombie apocalypse.  I actually broke my own rule of not reading a book before I see the movie, because I am inevitably disappointed. The only time I liked the movie adaptation of a dense book was The Lord of the Rings.  The Lord of the Rings was exhibit A on how to adapt a very layered story filled with way too much purple prose.  Once I read World War Z, I became one of the teeming millions who immediately loved the story.  The problem is that the story, like Lord of the Rings, is very dense with an epic scope.  I honestly did not know how they would be able to do the story justice in 2-3 hours.  It felt it would make a great HBO miniseries, but a movie?  Never.

I was really apprehensive, but i shouldn't have been.  When I saw the writers in the credits, who included some of the best comic book writers and scriptwriters in the business like Damon Lindelof and J. Michael Straczynski, I began to relax.  This movie is a great example of not biting off more than you can chew.  Instead of trying to adapt the entire story, they wisely chose to focus on the initial outbreak and then the search for a vaccine.  Despite what the previews show, this is not a shoot 'em up.  There are some action scenes, some very tense scenes, but mostly it was about the investigation on how the disease started.  It was a wise choice, and while the movie is left unresolved (HELLO sequel!), it is a tight and compact story that works well.  

Another bonus surprise to me was that it was not very gratuitous as far as violence goes.  With shows like The Walking Dead, as good as they are, they have way too much violence in them.  Unfortunately, this trend is being generated by brain dead, childish fanboys who don't understand what exactly make a good zombie story.  It's not the gore that drives the drama but rather what people do in the face of what could be the end of humanity.  Whether it be an alien invasion, disaster flick, war or whatever, the drama is in people.  I am so thankful that the producers of this movie understood that fact and focused on what really made World War Z such a crowd-pleasing story and didn't focus on the lowest common denominator like a cut-rate slasher.  There are more than enough Dead Snows out there.  It's nice to see that there are some movies trying to rise above the sludge.  See this flick for that very reason.  It is better than I expected, and hopefully, good entertainment like this will continue.

This Is The End

2.5 Stars (Out of four)

At first, I was mildly interested to see this. The previews were cute, and the idea of a humorous look at the Apocalypse was fun and original.  It reminded me of the incredibly funny book Good Omens by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett.  I also like Seth Rogen and his posse, of you will.  Many of their films are very funny.  But I was also worried that most of the good jokes were in the previews.  As I spoke to friends, the word of mouth was unanimously positive, so I decided to go see it.  My final thought on it is that the movie is not too bad.  But, as it was hyped by more and more people, my expectations were elevated and thus, the further the crash from the eventual disappointment.

Without spoiling anything, the story is about Seth Rogen and his co-star from The TV show Freaks and Geeks, Jay Baruchel, when they get together for a visit in LA.  Seth drags Jay to a party at James Franco's house where there is a who's who of young Hollywood attending, especially those in comedy.  The Apocalypse breaks out, hilarity ensues.  The movie also stars Jonah Hill, Craig Robinson (who steals every scene he's in, as usual), and Danny McBride.  Rhiannon, Channing Tatum, Emma Watson and several others make some very funny cameos.  Basically, the show is an excuse to get all this comedic talent together to riff on each other in unconnected vignettes that range from really stupid to gut-bustingly funny.  My favorite is a very boisterous argument between James Franco and Danny McBride over a magazine that stretches the bounds of decency and will have you rolling in the aisles.  My vote for the best sport of the whole movie is Channing Tatum.  I honestly couldn't believe what I saw.  To me,the funniest running gag is what Craig Robinson was wearing.  The movie's humor is very raw and many people will be turned off.  You have to be a good sport for this film.

The movie is extremely funny in parts, dumb in others, but the overarching problem with the flick is twofold.  The first is that there is too much topical humor.  In 10 years, will people care as much about the Lindsay Lohan drama?  Who knows, but it doesn't help the movie age.  The second is related to the first.  That is, you have to know the history of the Seth Rogen/Judd Apatow crew and the whole pot culture.  I have a feeling there was a lot of inside jokes that I was missing.  It is similar to Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back, but in that movie, they let you in on the joke.  I kept feeling there was something I was missing and it was annoying me because I kept asking myself, "Is this it?  There must be something more."  That's never a good thing for your audience to be asking.  I also think they are trying too hard to make some jokes that are sort of hip, funny to only a few people.  So in the end, there are funny elements but is not great.

Man of Steel

2.5 Stars (out of four)

Whenever I am thinking about seeing a movie, there are usually three critics I would go to for their recommendations.  Since I am not a professional reviewer, I am at their mercy for first impressions since I can't get into a movie early.  Unfortunately, my best go-to guy, Roger Ebert, died this year (RIP Roger).  The second is Pete Travers from Rolling Stone and the third was anyone from The Washington Post.  Their opinions were best exemplified by Stephen Hunter in the old days and now their new top reviewer, Ann Hornaday.  I found that if Roger Ebert liked a movie, Pete Travers liked a movie and if The Washington Post hated it, 9 times out of ten it would be a flick that I would find entertaining.  I find the Post's critics to be snooty and too artsy about film.  In fact, they are the type of people who call movies films.  They seem to have forgotten what it was with which they fell in love in cinema in the first place.  Movies take us to places and times and events that we could only imagine.  For me, going to the movies is an experience to be savored.  I love to be whisked away in the pageantry (for lack of a better word) of it all.  Not every film has to be art or a banquet; sometimes junk food is just fine.

Now, I told you all that to tell you this.  The Post, especially on crowd pleasers, seems to have an instinctual repulsion to anything that normal people would find fun or entertaining.  They seem to only like foreign films, heavy handed message films or arthouse films.  So, naturally, they hated Man of Steel.  And not just one of them hated it, but two of their critics spent several words trashing every detail.  Now, while I am loathe to agree with the Post on anything, I have to agree that this movie is a tad much.  Now, I do not hate it, and, in parts, it is quite fun. It just is not great.  Now, I did my best to manage my expectations going into the theater.  The moment I heard Zack Snyder was going to direct a Christopher Nolan-penned version of Superman, my stomach dropped.  First, Snyder's directorial style is getting way out of hand.  Its over-stylized, over-the-top slo-mo, jerky-style worked for 300 and less so for Watchmen.  But it is now becoming ubiquitous with how many people are copying it.  The most egregious example is the teenaged fever-dream fantasy of ancient Rome on TV, Spartacus.  I was praying to God Snyder would not repeat this style for Man of Steel.  Well, my prayers were answered in that regard (sort of).   Unfortunately, he settled into either the jerky hand-held style so popular today (I call it the vomit-cam), or else the post-MTV, rock video hyper-cut style for those with the attention span of a hyperactive chihuahua on caffeine and speed.  So, while at least Synder can do something else, he still does not a great directorial style.  I found myself pining for the laid-back style of Michael Bay's Transformers or Armageddon throughout the experience, so he still has a long way to go before he can be considered a good director.

But the movie is not Syder's fault, not by a long shot.  I place the blame solely at the feet of Christopher Nolan.  Nolan's own original movies like Memento and Inception are amazingly original works of art.  However, while much has been made about his revamping of the Batman series, I find that on further consideration, I like his version of Batman less and less.  Now, I loved The Dark Knight Returns, but that was mostly because Heath Ledger's Joker was so undeniably good.  In his take on Batman, Nolan took an already gritty and joyless character and made it grittier and even less fun.  Now, this approach actually works for Batman, with the tortured psyche.  But it does not not really work for Superman.  Both Batman and Superman are archetypes, two faces of the same coin.  They are two sides of humanity, Batman representing the darkest and worst of it, Superman represents the best and brightest of it.  Neither of them are truly attainable, as they represent ideals.  Superman was always meant to be a bit naive, a bit too good to be a superhero.  It is something that sets him apart from humanity, other than the fact he is an alien.  I don't want to get into a gritty, self-examination of what makes Superman tick, to bring him down to the level of most of the other superheroes today.  I want to see something to aspire to, not see him brought down to our level.  I know this has been a tendency in movies today, to make superheroes more "real."

I did like unknown Henry Cavill in the role.  The producers wisely stayed with an unknown; the big S speaks for itself.  They have wisely gone down this road since they cast Christopher Reeve as Supes in the 70s.  Reeves, incidentally, is still the best Superman out there.  While Cavill looks the role and can act, he does have a problem with expressions.  He spends most of the movie looking like he lost his keys with a worried, furrowed brow, giving him a confused, befuddled look.  Amy Adams plays Lois, and while she is fine acting in the role, she does not really convince me she is Lois, merely an actress playing her.  She did not really own it, merely occupied the space.  This is probably not her fault, but rather the script's.  The script has Superman and Lois sort of falling in love, but there is absolutely no chemistry between them or impetus for them to fall in love.  They do so because the script says so.  Michael Shannon chews the scenery in true Shatnerian heights as General Zod, but that really is all the role called for.  Kevin Costner and Diane Lane are great as Ma and Pa Kent.  They actually are high points in the film  There is a whole lot of loud, very long fight scenes, with world machines that aren't explained to somehow restart Krypton on Earth.  There is a lot that doesn't make sense or is explained, you just go along for the ride.  And on top of it all, it is essentially a remake of Superman 2.  Now, while I am not opposed to making a remake, at least make it good.  I have been complaining for years that Hollywood seems to be running out of ideas, and this movie kind of proves this trend.  It is exhibit A on how not to write a comprehensible film.

However, despite all the negative stuff I said here, the movie is fun.  It is not great, but it is not bad, either.  Go see it for some brainless entertainment.  Turn your brain off and go have fun, but manage your expectations or you will be disappointed.

Wreck It Ralph

2.5 Stars (out of four)

Disney's Wreck It Ralph is the next movie by Pixar über-genius, John Lassiter, the man behind almost every Pixar film out there.  But this is under the Disney banner.  If you haven't seen the previews, the main character Ralph is the bad guy in an old 8-bit video game called Fix-It Felix.  The game is a cross between the classics Rampage, Donkey Kong and Burger Time (and many others).  Basically, Ralph (John C. Reiley) smashes up a building, Felix (the player), fixes the damage and then the building's residents, in a style similar to the pitchforks and torches mobs of Frankenstein, toss him off the roof and another level starts.  Ralph lives in the dump next to the building and is shunned by the building's residents while they praise Felix after the arcade (do these even exist anymore?) closes for the night.  After 30 years, Ralph doesn't want to be the bad guy anymore and leaves the game to get a medal (don't ask).  He goes into a modern first-person shooter, absconds with a medal and a dangerous bug into a racing game called Sugar Rush.  Here he meets Venelope (Sarah Silverman), another outcast in her game, and she steals his medal and then loses it to the king of Sugar Rush.  Meanwhile, the bug is laying eggs that could bring the end of the Sugar Rush world and make it inoperable, which means the game is out of order and unplugged, essentially killing everybody  Felix and a woman from the shooter come in, chaos ensues, the day is saved, and Ralph realizes he has his own place in his game.

The movie, while fun, is a conglomeration of things you've seen before.  There is nothing particularly bad about the film, and even a few inspired gags.  The problem is you have to have a LOT of video game knowledge and experience to really get a lot of the funnier inside jokes.  It is not a coincidence that Lassiter is part of this.  The movie feels like the first draft of the much superior Toy Story.  There are good messages, though: Self-discovery, recognition that money or popularity aren't the most important things in life, opposites attract, don't judge a book by its cover, importance of friendship and teamwork, recognize your strengths and others', blah blah blah.  These messages seem to be required in any kids' flick or TV show now.  Why can't they just be fun sometimes?  No message, just plain old fun?  An interesting side note, as the movies' real demographic seems to be people my age who can remember playing Pac-Man, Dig Dug, Asteroids through Street Fighter and Tomb Raider, up through Halo and Mario Kart, is that the movie makes a point about the quaintness of the 8-bit games and the andrenaline-fueled games of today.  That is, the games of today are kind of fast-paced, fever-dream psychosic dream worlds.  It didn't happen at once, but creeped up on us.  And now we have psycho games like Call of Duty, Dead Island, Bioshock and Grand Theft Auto clearly meant for adults but most kids play; and on the other hand, cutesy games like Mario Kart and Dance Dance Revolution with not too much in between.  Not making a judgement, merely an observation.

Is the movie appropriate for kids?  Sure.  Is it good?  For sentimentality for older people, maybe.  Kids will find it cute.  Hard core gamers may love it.  Normal parents will probably think it's okay.

Get The Gringo a.k.a. How I Spent My Summer Vacation

2 Stars (out of four)

Oh, how the mighty have fallen.  However, despite this opening, this is not a review of schadenfreude.  Mel Gibson at one time was one of the biggest stars in Hollywood and was one of my favorites.  After some very unfortunate outbursts and recordings, he isn't quite what he used to be and has been relegated to roles that were nothing what he used to play.  Get The Gringo (aka How I Spent My Summer Vacation) is at times exciting, odd, confusing and sometimes downright unpleasant.  Mel plays a career criminal who pulls off a huge heist and crashes inside Mexico.  Because he has a large amount of cash on him, corrupt Mexican cops arrest him and throw him in a huge prison called La Pueblito.  The prison is more like a huge enclosed strip mall that houses both criminals and their families.  Mel falls in with a streetwise 10-year-old kid who tells him the lowdown of who's who and what's what inside the prison.  When word gets out about the money he stole, criminals both inside and outside the prison and on both sides of the border want him dead.  What then follows is a convoluted revenge plot where Mel, of course, ends out on top.  (NOT a spoiler.  Did you honestly think he wouldn't?)

The movie abruptly changes tone from action flick to prison drama to revenge flick to Grindhouse over-the-top actioneer.  The story doesn't make a lot of sense and keeps adding characters and wrinkles that should have been brought out earlier.  It is pretty intense at times, too.  This IS Mel Gibson, after all, the creator of the bloodbaths Braveheart, We Were Soldiers and Apocalypto.  But also like those films, it is engaging.  This movie could have been horrible in lesser hands.  It's sort of Escape From New York meets Lockup, and holds more than a few similarities to another one of his films, The Payback.  And while it does tilt, it never goes completely off the rails.  Like it or not, Mel has charisma to spare and it helps immensely in this film.  And while he has aged quite badly, he still pulls off the film.  It is schlock, yes, but he has a long way to go if moviegoers will ever take him back, if ever. 

A big complaint I have, though, is that it is genuinely unsettling at times at the type of violence in the film.  While I am no prude for any story element being in a film, whether it be nudity, violence or whatever, there has to be a reason for it.  It cannot be included for its own sake; otherwise it is just gratuitous.  There is a subplot where the kid Mel works with is an exact blood type match for the ruler of the prison.  The kid is being kept alive for his liver for a later transplant.  Well, the time eventually comes, but not before the bad guys torture his mother and he stabs himself to ruin the liver.  We also get to see the surgery in detail.  As this is going on, I'm asking myself, "Is this REALLY necessary?". If I'm asking myself that, chances are, it probably isn't.  There is also a slow motion shoot out that, while exciting, several innocent bystanders are wounded or killed in the crossfire.  While this does prompt the denouement of the Mexican government shutting down the prison, this is not exactly the type of scene I expect from American moviemakers.  Maybe that is the point.  It seems more at home in a over-the-top Chinese actioneer like Hard Boiled or The Killer and totally out of place here.

In the end, it's not great.  However, it is not horrible, either.  Turn your brain off and go, and you might like it.  It's not Citizen Kane, but it's not Plan 9 From Outer Space, either.

The Hangover III

2 Stars (out of four)

Well, according to the campaign, we have come to the end. The end of one of the funniest set of movies I have ever seen.  The Hangover is one of those unapologetically crude and adult type of film, and it is comedic gold.  While definitely NOT for all tastes, I loved the first two.  In fact, they were so good, it kind of ruins the third.  I went in with some high expectations, and was a little disappointed, although I probably should not have been surprised.  The first two movies were, quite frankly, a very high bar to surpass.  The first is literally one of the funniest films I have ever seen. It easily ranks with films like Ghostbusters, Stripes, Airplane!, This Is Spinal Tap, Good Morning Vietnam and Monty Python & The Quest For The Holy Grail.  The second, while nowhere near as good, still manages to pull out some truly inspired gags.  The third, while funny in parts, suffers in comparison.  Taken on its own merits, it is okay.  It would not be the billion dollar grosser the first two were.  

One of the elements that actually hurts the film is the events are not the result of a night of drunken debauchery our heroes must piece together.  I suppose that makes the title a little misleading.  The fact we are piecing together stories that get crazier and more psychotic as we go give the previous films an almost exciting, anarchic edge, a feeling of foreboding around every turn.  "What can possibly happen next," becomes the mantra through them.  This one is like, meh, it's okay.  Maybe it's good on its own, but the fact that it is part of such superior predecessors really injures the experience.  There is one inspired bit of casting, bringing Melissa McCarthy into the movie. She was the actress who stole every scene in Bridesmaidsshe appeared in, a movie many people consider the female Hangover.  Her role is a nice bridge between the two franchises, and while she only appears briefly in the film, she is great.  I kept waiting for at least one great, side-splitting gag, but the film was just another trip to the trough.  A sad attempt to make lightning strike a third time with bales of money.  While this is no fault of the actors', they do the best with what they have.  But the producers should have stuck with two.

Mud

3 Stars (out of four)

Mud has been being hailed as Matthew McConaughey's best performance ever, and I have to say, I agree with that.  Of course, that's a bit like saying what is the best way to rip an eye out without anesthesia, but I have always thought there was something more to him than an incredibly toned midsection.  For some reason, I have always liked him in most of his movies I've seen, but they were never very demanding.  Finally, Mud provides the role and range I always knew he could play.  It reteams him, however briefly, with Reese Witherspoon, his costar from Sweet Home Alabama, a sweet romcom.

The movie takes place along the Mississippi River, where two young boys have found a boat in the branches of a tree on an island, the result of a recent flood.  They decide they are going to claim it as their own.  As they look around the hulk, they realize someone is living there.  They run away, but bump into a stranger (McConaughey) who is fishing by their boat.  He says his name is Mud and asks them to help him obtain parts to rebuild the boat.  He is running from people and wants to reunite with his lifetime love (Witherspoon), who is hiding in town.  Along the way, the boys learn about trust, friendship and the nature of love, whether it be between parents, lovers or friends.  There is a lot going on in the film, and it is nice to see that Hollywood can make the occasional great story to chew on.  The film makes no judgements on these people who are severely damaged or desperate; it just shows both the fleetness and endurance of love and it's sweet and yet sometimes awful consequences of falling for the wrong person or for the wrong reasons.  

McConaughey, while not the main character, is the motor which drives the events.  He is amazing.  While he has previously relied on his considerable charisma in his past roles, his depth of feeling in this one is nothing short of Oscar-worthy.  I hope we will continue to see such performances from him and live up to the promise he has shown in this movie.  One last note ladies, McConaughey's streak for taking off his shirt remains unbroken since U571.  But the best part is, his pecs are no longer the only thing about him.  Perhaps we are seeing a new, more mature McConaughey who will continue to surprise in the years to come.