Snowpiercer (2014) – Review

Review: Snowpiercer is on one hand a cool sci-fi film built on impressive visuals and great dystopian themes, but on the other hand it is a fairly ludicrous narrative that seems to leave a lot to be desired from a logic standpoint.

Global warming has become so bad on Earth that collectively the planet’s governments have decided to shoot a chemical into the atmosphere to cool down the planet. It backfires causing an eternal winter that is far too cold to sustain life; however, a brilliant man, Wilford, who loves trains, knew the consequences of the chemical. Prior to its use, Wilford built a global rail line with a train that runs as a self-sustaining system. Those onboard the train during the chemical’s dispersal are Earth’s only surviving humans, as the chemical agent immediately caused Earth to descend into a world-ending global winter, killing almost all life. Fast-forward seventeen years. A class system has developed on the train and the poorest live in terrible conditions. Lead by Curtis, the poor plan to violently revolt. They want to storm the rest of the train and take the engine and hold it hostage to stop their oppression and change their fortunes.

There are many things to like in writer-director Joon-ho Bong’s Snowpiercer, especially for sci-fi fans. The train is structured in such a manner so that to some extent it mirrors both the evolution of humanity from beast ravaging in the muck to elevated sophistication and the layers of today’s global class system. The train, from back to front, begins with the ultra-poor who are oppressed and abused. The poor live in darkness and are completely subservient to the upper classes for their food, healthcare, and all other manner of basic human needs/rights. In turn, they are treated with almost no regard, as if they are a subspecies. As one moves forward through the train, there are sections dedicated to incarceration, science, education, polite society, hedonism, and finally an all-powerful man at the front who controls the engine (the life force of the train and the society).

In this way, the film acts as a metaphor for our own society, one that sees the wealth and control of the very rich grow at the expense of everyone else. This metaphor works reasonably well and Bong uses it as the central driver of his narrative. The people in the back of the train are fed up at having nothing and revolt against the system that actively tries to keep them in their place – something our own class system also does very well (with programs like “the war on drugs” which effectively does nothing to lessen drug use, rather it efficiently keeps the poor centralized and impoverished). It also comments on the perception of the different classes. The people in the back of the train seem like honest hard working people who have just never been given a real chance, while those in front are more or less shown as ridiculous caricatures who lead frivolous lives.

In addition to the grand metaphor of the piece, Bong also does a good job making the film entertaining. The action scenes in particular are quite enjoyable, utilizing the great style of modern Asian fight sequences/choreography. Bong paces the film to continually move forward as well. There is narrative momentum, as Curtis and his people push their way up the train – each car offering something new. All this keeps the film engaging throughout.

The characters are overall reasonably well-done. It is easy for the audience to root for Curtis because of his station in life and drive to improve it. That is a very human want, relatable to everyone. The main supporting characters are not developed thoroughly, but are all given enough business to stand out and make an impression. They are each different enough to not blend together and feel bland.

Bong gives the audience almost everything they need: characters to root for and against, action scenes that are fun, interesting sci-fi themes, and a clear narrative goal; however, Snowpiercer has a few issues that take away from the film (although, I will say that these issues may not matter for many viewers; especially when the film is approached as pure entertainment). Mainly, the film seems to constantly test the limits of plausible believability and logical sense. There will be some spoilers that follow: characters seem to make decisions that make no sense – a few examples: Wilford claims that the train’s engine is a self-sustaining system and yet he requires children to perform tasks once equipment starts to breakdown. Eventually all the equipment will breakdown, which means that either Wilford is delusional about the future (due to some sort of religion-like mysticism surrounding the engine/system he has created) or just does not realize that this is not a permeate solution (due to mental detrition from prolonged isolation and claustrophobic conditions – it is probably a bit of both) . Either way, the train is eventually doomed. Namgoong Minsoo, the man who Curtis helps to escape from detention in exchange for helping him open the door between cars, also has his own plan. He believes that the weather outside is becoming warmer and that humans can now survive the elements. Thus, he wants to stop the train and go outside. This seems reasonable until his plan to do that becomes apparent. His plan is to forcefully blow the door off the train to both allow exit from the train and also to cause an avalanche to hasten the melting of the snow, the combination of which has an almost absolute probability of also destroying the train and all life onboard. Here again is the problem. His plan essentially leads to the end of humanity (just more rapidly than Wilford’s slow demise as things degrade).

But maybe this is the point of the film? Bong presents modern society though the microcosm of the train and then concludes that no matter what humanity is doomed regardless of its choices. When Curtis arrives at the engine, he has achieved his goal to reach the engine but his people have mostly been killed and it is clear that nothing will change onboard the train. All his effort is essentially fruitless. In humanity’s history the same is true. Regardless of wars, revolutions, technology, and so on, there has always been a global class system (although the percentage distribution of how many people inhabit each class shifts constantly up and down – though more or less holds its same overall shape). There are always those with a lot who oppress those with little. All the actions in the film thusly appear to be in vain, leaving the film lacking a meaningful resolution.

Bong’s ending showcases the train being wholly destroyed by the avalanche caused by Minsoo’s bomb on the train door; however, Minsoo’s daughter and another young boy survive and brave the cold together. They seem to be able to handle the chill, but Bong ends on a shot of a polar bear that notices the two young survivors.  Does the bear suggest that life can be sustained and goes on and that these two young people will work to repopulate the Earth or is the bear just going to eat them? It is unclear, as Bong leaves it open-ended. End of spoilers.

The logic of the film’s characters and ending will take many viewers out of the narrative. It seems to inherently make no sense, because it is contrary to our own survival instinct (something that is at our core as humans) and it is contrary to the initial premise – get to the front, make things better. It feels like a letdown on the promise of that premise.

Bong does employ what could have been an interesting twist to corrupt the initial premise, but by the time the twist is revealed it is too late. The narrative has already run its course and thus what could have been a powerful dramatic turn ends up making a minimal emotional impact on the audience (though, does effect Curtis’s final decisions).

Even more than the Snowpiercer’s character logic or the impotence of the twist maybe it is that the film feels a bit pointless at the end that is its greatest nemesis. Yes, it is entertaining and plays with some potent sci-fi themes and style, but if the audience feels indifferent at the end then it is all for nothing. Again, I do not think that everyone will be pulled out of the narrative by its issues, but they are prevalent enough to noticeability take away from the overall effectiveness and quality of the film as a whole.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Joon-ho Bong has a great style to his films. He does well garnering good performances and can also shooting engaging action. He has all the tools to make good films (like The Host and Mother); however, with Snowpiercer, he might have relied too much on trying to make a statement about humanity than actually making a fully compelling narrative, as the film completely loses all its momentum by the end and sort of goes out on a whimper. Even so, I am looking forward to seeing what he does next.

Marco Beltrami provides an adequate score that matches the tone of the film well. Kyung-pyo Hong’s cinematography is very good, as his lighting wonderfully gives the film a dystopian look and clearly differentiates each section of the train. Ondrej Nekvasil’s production design too is top notch. His sets for each section of the train are fantastic (I especially liked the school and the aquarium).

The cast is strong overall. Vlad Ivanov, Alison Pill, and Ewen Bremner are great is small supporting roles (each exhibiting a wonderful madness). Ah-sung Ko is good as Minsoo’s daughter Yona. She blends presumed-innocence with sudden maniacal brutality well. Tilda Swinton is brilliant as Mason, the mouthpiece for Wilford and the people in the front. Her whole character is so exaggerated and yet feels honest and dynamic, which speaks to her skill as an actress. Ed Harris sort of does his typical confident/unmovable yet slightly beaten down by circumstances authoritative figure performance with Wilford (it is something he does well and often). Kang-ho Song is great as Namgoong Minsoo. He gives the character a fun reluctant swagger. He does not seem to really care, but if pushed might be the toughest of them all (he sort of takes on the role type made famous by Charles Bronson’s character Harmonica in Once Upon a Time in the West). Chris Evans is very good as Curtis. He is sort of an everyman, which pulls the audience in and makes him relatable, but then he has a darker side and backstory to him, making him interesting.

Summary & score: Snowpiercer is ambitious and does a lot right, making it in many ways a good sci-fi film, but ultimately it loses too much momentum by the end and just sort of feels inconsequential in its final moments. 6/10

The Wolverine (2013) – Review

Review: The Wolverine takes a more personal look at the character – well, at least for the first two acts – bringing something a bit different and welcomed to the superhero genre. The film is about a reclusive, emotionally drained Logan in the wake of the events of X-Men: The Last Stand (no, he is not in hiding due to the sheer terribleness of that film, but rather due to his role in the death of Jean Grey – the woman he loved). He no longer wants to hurt anyone, but still feels a sense of justice that gets him into trouble. Meanwhile, Yashida, a Japanese businessman that Logan saved from the bombing of Nagasaki during WWII, is on his deathbed, wishing to repay all his debts. He sends Yukio (a mutant with the power to foresee a person’s death) to find Logan and bring him to Japan. She does, and he reluctantly agrees to come. Yashida offers Logan a way to finally shed his immortality and lead a normal life. Yashida has become the most powerful man in Japan and has figured out a way to transfer Logan’s abilities to himself through his corporation’s research (and the help of a mutant named Viper). Logan refuses and his longtime friend passes away, leaving everything to his granddaughter Mariko, circumventing his ambitious son Shingen (who feels betrayed). Mariko is now a target, both from her father and outside forces. Yashida was in a power struggle with the Triads. His fight has now become her fight. She is innocent and thus Logan feels compelled to protect her. However, the longer he stays in Japan, the more he comes to realize that not everything is as it seems.

The X-Men franchise (along with Spider-Man and Batman Begins) launched the current boon of superhero films that now dominate ever summer movie season (after Batman & Robin all but killed the genre in the late 1990s). And yet, the series has never quite found its way with the initial trilogy succumbing to awful casting (save for Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart), bad writing/storytelling, and in the end very poor directing. Wolverine is assumed to be the franchise’s biggest character, and was thus spun-off into his own X-Men Origins story (only for that to be another step backwards for the series). While the films continued to be successful at the box office, fan and critical acclaim had become all but nonexistent. X-Men: First Class saw the series rebooted (in a sense) with strong casting, good writing, and sure direction, bringing the franchise back from the dead. With The Wolverine, director James Mangold has all this history to contend with as he makes what is ultimately a one-off, self-contained story.

What works well with Mangold’s film is that primarily the story focuses on Logan’s emotional journey, interwoven with some exciting action set pieces (for example: the bullet train scene is fantastic). Mangold digs deeper into the character than audiences are typically accustomed to in a summer blockbuster/superhero movie (aside from the good ones). For once, Wolverine is not just a cool character on screen that does action stuff with big claws, but rather a fully fleshed out character that the audience can relate to, understand what motivates him, and get behind in more than just a superficial manner. The action, in this sense, very much plays a secondary role – almost to the point of distraction – in the film, as Logan’s journey and his relationship with Mariko is far more dramatically engaging.

But, as seemingly it must as a summer blockbuster, the film dissolves into a somewhat more generic action film in the third act (because that is what the audience wants, or so think studio executives). The first two acts are very strong, focusing wholly on character, while the third act is just an extended action sequence with much of the built-up emotional energy dissipating as the film relies on genre troupes and disregards its characters to the sidelines. To some extent, it feels like the big action ending was a compromise for the rest of the film being more character driven, made by Mangold in the face of studio pressure (whether or not this is the case is unknown, this is merely my guess).

Ultimately, the inclusion of the Silver Samurai serves no dramatic purpose and thus hurts the narrative arch of the film. Its inclusion is made to raise the stakes, action wise, giving Logan a more intimidating enemy to defeat. This would be fine in a different film, but it goes against the tone and narrative style established in the first two acts. The Wolverine is not a film about Logan fighting an exterior monster, but his own interior demons. By switching up the tone and narrative trajectory in the third act, most of the characters and the complex relationships being built throughout the first two acts kind of fall by the wayside making room for big action moments. In the end, it all feels a bit underwhelming and incomplete, which holds this back from being what could have been one of the better superhero films (and one of the best of the summer). It just does not have those necessary impactful moments that the third act of a film should deliver, because it is essentially a different film as soon as Logan gets on the motorcycle and heads up the mountain to Yashida’s hometown.

With all that said, however, The Wolverine is still a very entertaining blockbuster, filled with exciting moments (I thought the bombing of Nagasaki was particularly impressive and effective from both a visual and emotional standpoint – showing the power and cruelty of man in a series that has predominately focused on man’s fear of the power that mutants hold) and stronger than expected performances and characters. It is probably the strongest of all the original-cast X-Men films.

Setting the film is Japan also is one of the film’s stronger aspects. Visually, it allows the X-Men franchise to explore a world, style, and set of values that the audience has not yet seen cinematically with these characters. Mangold embraces the setting wonderfully, as the film has a number of very beautiful locations. It also enables the audience to further connect with Logan, as he is alone in a foreign place that he does not understand and does not fit (as this world is new and different for the audience as well, in many cases).

The film features multiple female characters as well, which on its own in something refreshing for a summer blockbuster. But even more surprising, these female characters are not just there in subservient roles, each of them adds something to the narrative (and, for me at least, Mariko and Yukio are probably the film’s best characters).

The Wolverine does and is what moviegoers have come to expect from summer blockbusters. It is very entertaining. It does have some strong action set pieces. It tells its story economically. It even takes a character, in his fifth full outing, and digs deeper into him dramatically, giving the audience something fresh. By this regard, it is a successful film (and one that I liked a lot). But, at the end of the day, it stumbles when it could have been great. It takes the easy road of spectacle instead of staying the course for the more fulfilling and poignant emotional payoff, which leaves the film feeling a bit disappointing (once the sheer awesomeness and excitement of the fantastic post-credit scene setting up Days of Future Past wears off).

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: James Mangold is a veteran Hollywood director. With The Wolverine, he turns in another solid entertaining film, which is really all one can ask from such a director. It would have been nice to have seen a third act in which the characters were still center stage instead of the spectacle, however, as Mangold’s strongest aspect as a director is garnering great performances (see Walk the Line) and creating dynamic dramatic moments between them (and really, that describes the best parts of The Wolverine).

Marco Beltrami turns in a fairly generic action-movie score, but it does have some good moments especially when it takes on a more authentic-sounding tone. It does its job though, reinforcing the dramatic moments and propping up the big action scenes. Ross Emery’s cinematography is very good in the film. Much of the film is dark and rainy, and Emery use of minimal light in these moments works well in capturing the dramatic tone. And by contrast, the film is very beautiful in other moments, this juxtaposition reflecting Logan’s own inner struggle for peace. However, the greatest achievement of the film is Francois Audouy’s production design. Yashida’s house, the entire Nagasaki sequence, the hilarious ‘sex hotel’ – each of these sets stands out as something memorable in the film.

The Wolverine also has a strong set of performances across the board. Mangold inherited Famke Janssen and Hugh Jackman as Jean Grey and Logan respectively from the X-Men series, and sadly they are miscast in those roles. Here, however, he gets good work out of both of them, as he again focuses more on the characters allowing each to have more of a dramatic and emotional part to bring to life. Janssen is good playing Logan’s spirit guide of sorts through his journey, as he tries to forgive himself for her death. Jackman has never been better as Logan (and is closer than he has ever been to matching the character in the comics – the reluctant blunt-force weapon). He is able to engage the audience on an emotional level, bringing them fully into the narrative. Brian Tee and Svetlana Khodchenkova offer some good moments in their small supporting roles. Ken Yamamura and Hal Yamanouchi play Yashida (young and old respectively), and bring emotional weight and an urgency to him that works very well. Hiroyuki Sanada is (as always) brilliant as Shingen, an overbearing father and scorned son. If only he had more to do in the film. Rila Fukushima and Tao Okamoto each make their cinematic debut, playing Yukio and Mariko, and to some degree stealing the film. Rukushima is a lot of fun as a tough street punk type who is also loyal to her core, while Okamoto steals the audience’s heart, as she epitomizes innocence and hope. But what is great about these two women and their performances is that they also bring wonderful strength to their roles, budding from their inner resolve. It is refreshing to see this in a summer blockbuster.

Summary & score: As a one-off, self-contained character driven superhero film The Wolverine works extremely well, but in its third act it just reverts back into a generic summer blockbuster spectacle movie (which is really too bad) undoing a lot of, but not all, the good. 7/10

World War Z (2013) – Review

Review: World War Z is, while predictable, an entertaining thriller with a message of hope. The film is about the chaos humanity faces when the Zombie Apocalypse overruns the Earth. U.N. investigator Gerry Lane is sent on desperate fact-finding mission to locate patient zero. The hope is: if Lane can find where this all began, maybe he can also uncover a cure or way to combat the infection.

Director Marc Forster combines two kinds of films with World War Z. First, the film feels like a horror thriller, as legions of the undead run rampant in the streets (and behind every corner and down every dark ally). While it is not overly scary, Forster does a great job managing suspense. Like most of these kinds of films, the audience more or less already knows what is going to ultimately happen, but suspense is still key in keeping them invested in the drama by maintaining some level of gripping excitement. Here, Forster keeps the thrills coming, while also avoiding the cheapness of impact cuts. He employs a much more effective and classic style of suspense (playing on the fears of the audience – like darkness, isolation, and fear itself).

Second, the film feels like an international spy or adventure drama – like a James Bond or Indiana Jones film – as Lane hops across the globe following his leads. This international flare brings a great scope to what is more of an intimate story. Basically, the narrative follows Lane only (and the drama of him both wanting to find a cure and get back to his family) with all the other characters being people he meets along the way. Most zombie films also revolve around one character or a small group and their attempt at survival. By including an international scope to the narrative, World War Z feels more epic and sets itself apart from those other films as something different (which is nice).

However, the film working both as a thriller and an action adventure film is contingent on the audience caring about the characters – specifically Lane (as really he is the only protagonist). Forster does a great job here too. The first act is almost entirely dedicated to creating character moments for Lane as he protects his family from the onset of the Zombie Apocalypse before being rescued by the U.N. and set forth on his mission to find a cure. This character work early pulls the audience in, giving them a stake both in Lane personally (which is paramount in the film working as something more than spectacle) and in the survival narrative. It also allows Forster to focus on the story for the remainder of the film.

This summer has been filled with massive action films filled with grander action set pieces than audiences have maybe ever seen before – and also more mindless destruction (with many of the films featuring larger portions of cities being destroyed with hundreds of thousands of faceless casualties – and Pacific Rim has not even come out yet). World War Z also has a huge amount of destruction and death (as humanity is practically on the brink of extinction – like any other apocalypse film), but it feels different. The film carries a message of solidarity and hope – something that our world seemingly needs more of, as at times humanity feels overly fragmented and hostile. It is refreshing to see an action film that while filled with big entertaining action approaches it from a grave perspective instead of gleeful joy and disregard for human life.

World War Z has a strong lead character that the audience cares about, compelling action and drama, and an easy to follow narrative, but it has a few issues as well that hold it back from being something great. Chiefly, the third act feels somewhat tacked on. Forster abandons the international dazzle retreating back into the zombie genre troupe of a small group of people isolated, trapped, and needing to come face-to-face with zombies to achieve potential survival. Essentially, the film just becomes like almost every other zombie movie – and thus extremely predictable, which extinguishes some of the great tension that Forster had cultivated throughout most of the narrative. But, by the same token, this is at its core a small, personal story (in terms of it following one protagonist and his journey) masquerading as a grand international adventure thriller, and thus it seems fitting that in the end the narrative would minimize its scope down to a small secluded group – to makes things feel more intimate.

The bigger problem lies in the narrative feeling incomplete, like it is merely the first chapter to something bigger – and yet, there is no indication that there is anymore to this story. The end is the end. The tacked on ending is somewhat abrupt and feels too easy, although this allows Forster to keep the film at a brisk sub-two hour runtime (while many blockbusters are bloated and overindulgent).

All in all, World War Z is one of the better summer movies to be released this year. It grips its viewer from the opening and holds their attention throughout with a strong lead in Lane and big zombie action moments. It just does not aspire to be anything greater than an entertaining zombie thriller (succumbing to genre troupes and clichés in the end – but there is nothing wrong with that).

Technical, aesthetic and acting achievements: Marc Forster has had an up and down career. He has made some good dramas (Finding Neverland and The Kite Runner), a good comedy (Stranger Than Fiction), but his previous thrillers have not worked (though, I would argue that as a direct companion piece to Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace is solid, and probably provided a lot of useful experience going into this film). World War Z is by far his best action thriller, and maybe his best film to date (still, however, he has never been able to make something great despite his noticeable talent).

Marco Beltrami’s score does a fine job reinforcing the horror/thriller aspects of the tone while giving the action sequences an extra oomph. Ben Seresin’s cinematography is very good as well. Forster’s camera is often frantic matching the disarray that would come from zombies suddenly consuming the Earth’s populace. The look of the film is very desolate with mostly dimly lit interiors. Nigel Phelps’s production design also gives this feeling. Many of the scenes take place in claustrophobic confined spaces. However, despite the supernatural aspect of the narrative (i.e. the zombies), Phelps’s design along with the documentary-feeling camera grounds the film in reality, which helps amplify the suspense and tension.

World War Z does not really offer much to it cast as all the characters appear in small bit roles, save for Lane and two other characters. Plus, the film is much more plot driven than character driven. In these small roles Peter Capaldi, David Morse, and James Badge Dale (especially) are good. Daniella Kertesz is strong as an Israel soldier who accompanies Lane on his mission (it could serve as a mini-breakthrough for her). Mireille Enos is also very good in support as Lane’s wife. She gives a lot of weight to the early character moments. Brad Pitt (as usual) is great as Lane. He is believable in the role and brings a great emotional resonance to the character (the audience really gets behind and cares about him), which enables everything to play bigger.

Summary & score: For a summer film, World War Z is very good. For a zombie film, it is also very good, but not among the genre’s elite. 7/10

Warm Bodies (2013) – Review

Review: Warm Bodies is a fun mix of genres with a surprisingly fluid (yet subtle) message. The film is about two young people (star-crossed lovers, if you will) who happen to be from different sides of a giant wall. The zombie-apocalypse has happened, and the surviving humans have built a massive wall protecting them from the zombie masses that surround them, but they still need to scavenge outside their protective enclosure for supplies from time to time. During one such supply run, Julie and a group of her friends are attacked by a zombie horde, but one of the zombies, R, has an unexpected reaction upon seeing Julie. R finds his life as a zombie to be unfulfilling. He is bored and craves connection. When he sees Julie, something changes within him and he decides to protect her and not eat her. He takes her back to his home, and the two of them form an unlikely bond that could save humanity. Just a warning: this review does contain some plot spoilers, so seeing the film first would probably be wise before reading the full review.

It would be easy to dismiss Warm Bodies for many reasons based on its premise – like: it is just another zombie movie trying to exploit the current fad (headlined by the AMC series The Walking Dead) and a Twilight copycat supernatural genre teenage romance aimed at drama-caving young women. However, writer-director Jonathan Levine’s film (based on Isaac Marion’s novel) is so much more. Yes, it is a zombie movie and yes it does center around two young characters, one a zombie and one a human girl, who develop a relationship, but Levine also addresses social issues, fleshes out great characters, and infuses the film with very funny material. And, best of all for genre fans, it is a good zombie movie too.

Visually, the film has a very typical post-apocalyptic look – things are in shambles, civilization has collapsed and retreated into an entrenched area, and dangerous creatures roam the wasteland. Plus, the action beats are done very well, fitting what one might expect in a zombie movie. However, Levine quickly makes it apparent that this is not a typical zombie film, as it opens with voice-over narration from R. He explains the mundane life that he has as a zombie and his inner aspirations. What works well about this is that Levine has established R as a character the audience can relate to – how different is R’s life to the banality of the typical day-to-day life of the viewer (aside from being a zombie) and all R wants is to not be alone, which is what we all want really. Outwardly, R cannot really communicate, so the use of voice-over allows him to stay in character while still enabling the audience to get to know him. This is the first major difference between most zombie movies and Warm Bodies. Here, the zombie is the main character and not just the monster (and they are still the monster too, as they do attack and kill humans). The audience actually gets to take a stake in their story.

Levine likes to switch gears and genres with the film. It starts out like a typical zombie movie (with a twist, as R, a zombie, is the main character and the audience hears his inner thoughts), but after R and his fellow zombies attack and kill most of Julie’s friends (R eats her boyfriend) he takes Julie back to his home and the film shifts to more of a romantic comedy. Julie does not know what to make of R. She does not really like him at first (because she is terrified of him), but as she gets to know him she sees there is something different about him. R, on the other hand, is trying his hardest to impress Julie, as he has fallen for her almost immediately (a common troupe of young love in movies – the main character having a crush on a seemingly unattainable girl or boy, and over time they come around). R acts chivalrously towards Julie, trying to both keep her safe and to evoke some affection. They share some pleasant times and Julie does form an affinity for R, but this relationship only exists in isolation. Her group would not approve and likely would shoot R in the head, and his group would not approve and likely eat Julie’s brains.

While it is certainly not new territory to have characters from two opposing sides form a bond, Levine does it in a manner that still feels fresh, while referencing Romeo and Juliet (of course) and making a social statement as well. Shakespeare’s play is probably the most famous to feature star-crossed lovers, and Levine pays tribute (along with Marion, the novel’s author). First, and maybe the most obvious, are the main characters’ names: R and Julie for Romeo and Juliet. Second, there are visual and narrative references as well – most notably there is a scene in which Julie is on the balcony outside her room and R has snuck into the human compound to find her and calls to her from below the balcony. This is maybe the most iconic of the Romeo and Juliet imagery.

Levine seems to also be very interested in delivering a social message with the film about love being the answer to problems and not fighting or war. It is the love and understanding between R and Julie that unites the humans and zombies, rather than one making the other subservient or eradicating them. Once Julie gets to see the zombies interacting with each other, she realizes that they are misunderstood and not so much different than humans. One of the final images in the film sees the massive wall that separates the humans from the zombies being destroyed, which invites memories of seeing the Berlin wall come down. Again, Levine is promoting love, understanding, and togetherness rather than hate and fear. What is great about Warm Bodies is that Levine never forces feeds or is heavy-handed with this social message. It seems to organically come out of the narrative (a sign of good direction).

The film also has a lot of great comedy. The interaction between R and Julie plays very much like the normal interaction between an awkward boy who is interested in a girl. It is resonates with the audience because they can relate. But, it also has an additional comedic undercurrent due to the sheer ridiculousness of the situation: a zombie making googly-eyes at a young woman and trying to get her to like him.

Unlike Romeo and Juliet, however, Warm Bodies is not a tragedy. In fact, its resolution is a very neat and tidy happy ending. (Personally, I thought) it works well, but maybe it is too wrapped up in a bow for some – especially those looking for a zombie movie, because ultimately this is not a zombie movie, it just operates under the guise as one, it is a romance. The resolution seems too easy. Would zombies and humans suddenly be friends? Well, there are a few factors to consider. First, they worked together to defeat a common enemy in the Bonies (super zombies that want to kill both the humans and zombies, once they become more human-like). Second, R and Julie’s connection ignited something in the zombies that made them become more human, even restarting their hearts. And third, there is no timeframe between the events of R and Julie starting a revolution of sorts and the tearing down of the wall signifying zombie and human co-habitation. Really, the specifics of how exactly they live together do not matter, as the message of the film is what is important. We can assume that they worked something out.

The film also embraces many of the clichés of the romance genre. And therefore, yes, the film does feature many of the same clichés, but Levine has turned them on their head, so to speak, by staging his romance in a world ravaged by the zombie apocalypse. Also, a lot of the humor comes from seeing these cliché romantic moments played between a zombie and a human girl. The film does not shy away from the clichés. It draws attention to them and revels in them.

Warm Bodies is not just a zombie movie or just a romance or just an action adventure. It blends all three creating a very fun and entertaining experience, and one that actually aspires to uplift through its positive social message of love. It is the first great film of 2013.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Jonathan Levine has now made four films, though his last two saw bigger commercial releases. 50/50 and Warm Bodies have both been very good films, blending genres and delivering great stories with wonderfully relatable characters and meaning. He is definitely a filmmaker on the rise and one to watch.

Marco Beltrami and Buck Sanders give the film a score that equally matches its genre blending aspects. However, it is the soundtrack that really shines, as it features both great music and songs that poke fun at and play with the zombie and romance movie features (stuff like: John Waite’s Missing You, Bruce Springsteen’s Hungry Heat, and Bob Dylan’s Shelter from the Storm). Levine uses music cues fantastically throughout the film as well. Javier Aguirresarobe’s cinematography is brilliant. He creates varying looks for the film depending on whether something is taking place pre, during, or post the zombie apocalypse. During has a very bleak color saturated look, while before (seen through memories) and after are much brighter, angelically lit, and filled with color. Martin Whist’s production design is equally great. R’s home inside the main cabin of an airplane, filled with knickknacks, is full of character. The dilapidated and decrepit city (in the wake of the zombie apocalypse) feels just as authentic as any zombie movie.

The film is comprised mainly of only a few main roles, and the cast is great across the board in them. John Malkovich plays Julie’s father, who also happens to be the leader of the humans (because if she is Juliet, then her father must be the patriarch of the Capulets). While he does not have much screen time, he is able to create the sense of a menacing and vindictive father that would never trust in a zombie. Analeigh Tipton is fun in support as Julie’s friend Nora. She is kind of goofy and sweet, but kind of badass too (she reminds me of the girls in Red Dawn a little). Rob Corddry is brilliant as R’s friend M. He has perfect comedic timing and brings heart and emotional depth to his role as well (something that is very important in aligning the audience with the plight of the zombies). Tipton and Corddry bring so much more to their roles than the typical throwaway one-dimensional best friends to the leads parts that the romance genre usually churns out. Teresa Palmer’s Julie is fairly complex for a teenage romance film. She is dealing intense emotions with the loss of her mom (turned by zombies and then shot in the head by her father), a distant father who is driven by hate, a boyfriend who is pulling away, and of course the zombie apocalypse, and yet she wants to be in love, have fun, and just be young but does not really have that luxury. This is why her mini-vacation away from her life with R (once she got over her somewhat debilitating fear) affects her so much and why she forms such a strong bond with him, because he enables her to feel those things. Palmer is able to covey all these emotions drawing the audience into the narrative and love story, as she must carry most the scenes with R merely reacting to her (due to the nature of his character). It is by far her best work to date. Nicholas Hoult has a very difficult role as R. He has to be a zombie, yet be a character the audience can relate to and care about. The voice-over narration helps, however Hoult is able to do enough with his face to sell his inner emotions. It is easy to overlook the performance, but it is great work.

Summary & score: Warm Bodies is both an exciting zombie movie and a funny and charming romance. It even has genuine and positive social message. It does all this while feeling fresh and original. 7/10

Trouble with the Curve (2012) – Review

Review: Trouble with the Curve is a great baseball movie – and almost a complete rebuttal to 2011’s Moneyball – that has not forgotten the most important ingredient to any film is good characters. It is about Gus, a scout for the Atlanta Braves, who is on his last legs professionally. The game is changing and his eyes are failing. He is sent out on what could be his final assignment to scout what many believe to be a sure thing. His daughter Mickey, who grew up on the road with him but now has a difficult relationship, decides to tag along to help her father out so he can keep his job and passion for a few more years.

Director Robert Lorenz knows the secret to what makes a good Hollywood-style film: relatable characters with a clear story arc. He also knows his target audience. Gus is lost in today’s world. He does not understand technology and he hates the way Sabermetrics are taking over the process by which talent is analyzed in baseball. It makes him, and all scouts (an important aspect that shapes of the game), obsolete. He is out to prove that a computer cannot really fully understand a player. Lorenz has multiple examples that make Gus’s point. He may be an ornery old man who is out of touch in a lot of ways, but he still is completely in tune with the game of baseball. This appeals in many ways to the audience. The audience (especially the targeted older movie-goers that make up Clint Eastwood’s typical demographic) relates to Gus because they feel the same way about the world that is becoming more and more technology savvy and dependent, leaving out generations. Trouble with the Curve is about a man fed up with this widening generational gap and that speaks to the target audience. Thus, the audience is very much invested in Gus. And, for other audience demographics, Lorenz has created a fleshed out character that can be related to through humor (as there is a fair amount of funny material).

Gus’s daughter Mickey is also a strong character that the audience can latch on to. She is a successful lawyer who loves her father but is frustrated by their lack of communication – a common theme in many families. The character also provides a nice juxtaposition to Eastwood’s strong-but-silent stoic character (that he is famous for), because she shows the issues that have been created between her and her father due to his lack of communication with her. The narrative (which does not really need her, though it would be a slightly different story without her) is all the more compelling because the audience sees the deconstruction of Eastwood’s own archetype.

As this is a Hollywood-style narrative, Lorenz does not shy away from having a fairly predictable and safe structure, complete with the happy ending. But, with this kind of film, the happy ending is not just expected it is demanded. Imagine the story of Gus being left by his daughter and eclipsed by technology (i.e. being wrong about the players while the computers are right). The story would be rather dark and would end with Gus probably killing himself or letting himself go in humiliating total defeat. It would be heartbreaking. Trouble with the Curve, however, is not this type of him and that is not the type of film that Eastwood’s target audience wants to see. However, that being said, the film’s narrative structure does leave it feeling a little lazy and wrapped up in a nice Hollywood bow. For some, this will hurt the film, as the structure and character archetypes will feel overly played out and tired (and too safe). But, taking the film at face value, the narrative works well for the story that Eastwood and Lorentz want to tell.

I have said before that baseball translates itself to cinema better than any other sport, as it seems to have the most human aspect to it. It is a game that is specifically about individual achievement, while still being a team sport. A pitcher and hitter are alone as they face one and other. And thus, it lends itself perfectly to being inhabited by great characters as a backdrop. Baseball seems to accentuate the human emotions and drama of the characters, as it is a very nostalgic pastime for the audience. So, to make a great baseball movie, a filmmaker merely needs well-drawn characters in a baseball setting (with seemingly a hint of wonder and majesty), and have a love of the game – which is evident in all involved in this film. It is also a great baseball movie because it gets back to the quirky and magical intricacies that make baseball the special wondrous game that it is, and away from the dehumanizing numbers that dominate today. As someone that seems to be drawn to nostalgic things from my childhood, I like this, as I remember the fun I had in little league. The film speaks to both the fan and child just playing the game in all of us.

Trouble with the Curve is going to work best for those that like and understand baseball (though it is not a mandatory requirement) and enjoy good characters and well done character drama.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Robert Lorenz makes his feature debut with Trouble with the Curve. He served as Clint Eastwood’s producing partner on Eastwood’s last ten films (as well as second-unit director on a few others) prior to this. Lorenz decided to take a very straightforward approach to the material, shooting it in a very typical Hollywood style (standard coverage), which worked for the material.

Marco Beltrami’s score is also fairly standard – emphasizing the dramatic beats. Tom Stern’s cinematography and James J. Murakami’s production design work with the Hollywood style aesthetic of Lorenz’s narrative as well. The photography is glossy, making even the small town ballparks look majestic and magical (being a common theme in baseball movies), while the production design reinforces the characters and narrative. It is very good work (as to be expected from these two).

For a character drama like this to work, the performances must be good. In Trouble with the Curve, the performances are the strongest aspect of the film. John Goodman and Matthew Lillard are good in smaller roles. Justin Timberlake brings a lot of charisma and likability to the film, as well as a change of pace from the more stubborn and combative leads. Amy Adams is maybe the best part of the film. She plays Mickey to be very strong and independent, but still insecure when it comes to her father. I also really liked the fact that she is completely in love with baseball, and cannot fight it, even in her grownup life. Clint Eastwood plays the same old gruff, cantankerous and grumpy man that he seems to always being playing these days (see Gran Torino or Million Dollar Baby for reference). And as usual, it works to great effect. He is compelling and has fun with it.

Summary & score: Trouble with the Curve is really just the same old Hollywood style drama about two characters learning to connect that we have seen hundreds of times and thus is very predictable, but with great characters and a baseball setting the film is still very engaging. 7/10

Scream 4 (2011) – Review

Scream 4 is a slasher film that much like its predecessors combines horror, comedy and a self-referential wit. It is the strongest in the series since the original. Director Wes Craven is a veteran in the genre and certainly knows how to make thrilling scenes, ripe with anticipation – however, the film was not scary at all. Craven did not take the cheap and easy road (that too many a horror film takes) and use noise and quick cutting (impact cuts) to create scares instead of building tension, but the playful tone created by the comedy from the outset undermines the tension throughout leaving the film thrilling (watching Ghostface pursue victims) but far from scary. The thrilling aspect of it is more in an entertaining vein than one that constricts the audience (leaving them on the edge of their seats, figure nails dug into the armrests) only to release them at the perfect impactful moments. The film is very self and genre referential, even more so than the first three (and maybe even too much). The prologue is quite funny, but kills any hope of the film being truly chilling, as the tone set (especially in the wonderful Anna Paquin/Kristin Bell scene) creates a jesting (if not lighthearted) atmosphere for the rest of the film. Also, Craven does not take his time with the murder scenes (for which there are quite a few). He is more interested in making an entertaining narratively quick moving movie than slowly building anticipation and tension (which generally leads to the scariest moments in films). The brisk pacing (which seemingly slams to a halt in a few dialog heavy exposition scenes) also takes away from the characters, especially all the new faces (but with a long prologue and extended, yet great, ending, the middle needed to move rapidly). The audience gets a brief idea of the characters, but not enough to really care or take stock in any of them, which again takes away from a real sense of tension (i.e. if we are not invested in them, then we do not care if they die or not, so whether they die or not is inconsequential dramatically, so all we want is for it to be entertaining). Luckily, Craven does make these death scenes engrossing on more of a fun level. Thus, the film plays a bit more like a spectacle than a drama (which is fine). That being said, a few of the new characters fit the Scream world very well and are a lot of fun (I personally really enjoyed who they picked as the principal killer – sorry for any minor spoilers for those who have not seen this or any of the Scream films). Scream 4 is entertaining and enjoyable (just like the original), but not among the best films in the genre.

Technical and acting achievements: Aside from Red Eye, Craven has not really made a good film since Scream, which is maybe why he and writer Kevin Williamson returned to the franchise and characters. Scream 4 is a step in the right direction for him as a director, though it feels like a film made for a much different audience than his past better known works like A Nightmare on Elm Street (and maybe that is a good thing – but it does change the aim and tone of his films, from scary to entertainment driven). The music in the film overall was not that great mostly due to the bland rock that populated the found pieces. Composer Marco Beltrami’s (who worked on the series previously) score is ok. It is adequate but nothing more. Peter Deming’s (who is doing great work in the genre recently) cinematography is good (but maybe not as good as his recent work on Drag Me to Hell, but Sam Raimi is a much more stylistic director, and nowhere near as amazing as his work on From Hell, but again The Hughes Brothers have a lot more style than Craven). He is at his best in this film when there is an active camera. Adam Stockhausen’s production design is pretty standard for the series (though I did like his set for the Stab Fest and thought the selection for Kirby’s house was somewhat aesthetically interesting – and of course all the homes have stairs to run up). The cast was a lot of fun overall, and really the lifeblood of the film. The prologue features great work – Paquin and Bell are really only there for laughs and do the job well, while Lucy Hale and Aimee Teegarden are quite good in their brief scenes (it is too bad they were not in more of it). The film also features a number of supporting characters played by funny people. Chief among them is Alison Brie (who much like her work on Mad Men and Community is full of energy and hilarity). The three members of the original cast that return are ok – lead Neve Campbell is the best among them playing a more confident and badass self, David Arquette is useless and goofy (just like he is in all the others) and Courtney Cox is fine, but her character feels forced into the narrative. While grossly underdeveloped, the new characters shine. The cinema nerds played by Rory Culkin and Eric Knudsen are good fun, and make the self-referential exposition fresh and enjoyable. Hayden Panettiere is witty and charismatic (her best film performance to date, washing away some of the stink left by the horridness of seasons three and four of Heroes). Emma Roberts is fantastic in the lead. Her scenes with Campbell are good, but she is at her best during the end (the sequence of events after the killers are reveled has some really great and funny work from her).

If Scream 4 is indeed the start of a new trilogy, it has started it off just as well as the original did for the first three. 6/10