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

The Cabin in the Woods (2012) – Review

Review: The Cabin in the Woods is a very fun mix of homage, satire, classic America horror, and something completely different and new. I generally try to keep my reviews spoiler free, but this film is extremely hard to talk about without revealing elements that may take away from its first viewing, and so I greatly suggest you stop reading here if you have yet to see it. Just know: if you like horror films and/or Joss Whedon’s style, you should go see this film. Spoilers: The film is about five friends who go up to a remote cabin in the woods to get away for the weekend only to find themselves pawns in a horrific ritual. Writer-director Drew Goddard and co-writer and producer Joss Whedon are both huge fans of the horror genre, and this film is their love/hate letter to the genre. It is packed full of homages to films like The Evil Dead, Friday the 13^th, Suspiria, and many more (there is even some very funny J-Horror stuff in there). On its surface premise, the film stereotypically plays on the tried-and-true genre clichés and genre archetypal characters as they go up to a secluded cabin only to be tormented and killed by all manner of monsters (the basic premise of hundreds of horror films), but Goddard and Whedon want to have fun with these clichés and viewer/genre expectations. The film becomes a very funny post-modern deconstruction of the genre, pointing out and drawing attention to each cliché and narrative device, but also reveling in them. However, as a result, the film works much better as a comedy than as a scary movie, as it is not very scary – though does have some decent thrilling moments. It does not skimp on gore however, with a bloody bedlam of a third act. What works extraordinarily well in the film is that the satire and straight horror cues flow together and do not really detract from each other, as each resonates from their own piece of the narrative, which is seen from two different perspectives and set of characters, intersecting in the third act. If taken as a straight horror film (eliminating the other perspective and narrative track), the film is a decent entry in the genre – latent with clichés and things horror fans have seen a million times (which is sort of the point; it is called The Cabin in the Woods after all) – but still enjoyable because Goddard and Whedon create rich characters (a Whedon specialty) that the audience cares about (especially Dana and Marty), even as they assume their stereotyped genre roles. However, it is the completely crazy and imaginative other narrative and set of characters that make this film great, highly innovative and fun. Sitterson and Hadley (the two office employees) are so mundane when the audience meets them. And yet, they are ultimately the most interesting characters in the film, serving as the writers’ perspective on the horror genre in a sense, commenting on what is happening to these kids (as monsters try to kill them) to comedic affect while they guide their fates by inserting story devices (much like writers and directors do). They invite the audience in on the joke and process. The film, then, plays in a way as a criticism of the horror genre, referencing tons of films and genre narrative tools – subverting them to a degree. Can anyone make a ‘cabin in the woods’ type horror film again after this? And yet, even as the film is constantly commenting on genre clichés, characters, situations, narrative structures, and so on, it turns into a horror film as the two narratives combine and everyone is being chased by monsters and there is an ultimate big bad. The film is not perfect however. It is full of very ambitious ideas that the audience needs to just accept without too much reflection, as there is so much untold and stipulated about the world of the film that it seems that the universe itself is full of things that are not fully explained or understood – the audience does not know the rules of this world (because they are constantly being broken and changed). But, narratively speaking, it does not matter at all. This is just a crazy adventure to go on and have fun with. The Cabin in the Woods warrants almost endless viewing for huge genre fans, as easter eggs are overly abundant. For non-hardcore genre fans, it is a wonderful comedy with great characters and thrilling moments (and I brilliant and crazy third act).

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Drew Goddard is known to many of us as a fantastic writer of television (writing some of great episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer’s seventh season and Lost). His first feature script was Cloverfield. With The Cabin in the Woods, he makes his directorial debut to great effect. The film oozes with great style and flare, and he meticulously and perfectly captures what the film sets out to be, keeping it fresh and most importantly a lot of fun. I, for one, very much look forward to seeing what he does next. Composer David Julyan’s score establishes the tone for the film, that being one of a classic ‘cabin in the woods’ style horror film, and it does this masterfully. While I would not say that it stands out as much as say his score for The Prestige, it is a very good and chilling piece of work in a genre that often has great music. Cinematographer Peter Deming got his start shooting low budget horror films, and appropriately his first feature job was on Sam Raimi’s Evil Dead II (a film and series that certainly influenced this one visually and thematically). Visually speaking, the look of this film fully captures the elements of homage with shots that closely (if not exactly) resemble many in classic horror films, while also match the feel of the genre. Production designer Martin Whist’s work is essential to the success of the film in many ways. He needed to articulate visually the look of classic ‘cabin in the woods’ films, while also creating a fun contrast between the cabin and the more banal office/lab space. He does a great job. His cabin set is so intricate and specific, that genre fans will enjoy it (especially the basement). In terms of the performances: Chris Hemsworth, Anna Hutchison and Jesse Williams are good in support playing archetypal genre characters (the jock, slut and brain), but it is the fool and virgin that shine among the five (which is due to them being main characters and given more to do). Fran Kranz is very funny and has wonderful comedic timing (stealing most of his scenes; this performance along with his work in Dollhouse certainly makes him a talent to watch), while Kristen Connolly embodies (for most of us) the audience’s emotional connection to the narrative. She is sweet and likable, but has enough spunk and grit to fight. In the other group of characters (down in the office/lab), Amy Acker is great playing the conscious of Sitterson and Hadley, while also having fun with them. However, it is Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford (as Sitterson and Hadley) that own the film. They are fantastic – playing their characters as seemingly boring workday nobodies with normal lives, who just trudge along in their menial jobs, only the fate of the world rests in their hands. They are both funny and emotionally engaging. End of Spoilers.

Summary & score: The Cabin in the Woods is very funny, inventive and crazy (and probably one of the most fun film experiences you will have in 2012), but it also probably destroys the ‘cabin in the woods’ sub-genre (or maybe even the whole genre) to all future filmmakers (or the next 5-10 years, or less given how quickly things are revamped, remade and rebooted these days). 8/10

Super 8 (2011) – Review

Review: Super 8 is a throwback to the great sci-fi and adventure films of the late 70s and 80s, but with a bit more action. More specifically, it feels very nostalgic (especially for viewers that grew up with films like The Goonies, Stand by Me and E.T.: The Extraterrestrial, three films that seemed to have influenced this one greatly) both visually and tonally. Writer-director J.J. Abrams certainly drew inspiration from the films of Steven Spielberg (who also served as the film’s producer), Richard Donner, Rob Reiner, and other filmmakers working during the late 70s and 80s. The film takes place in the late 70s, featuring some great music cues and references (as well as nice horror genre references, and homage, especially to the work of George Romero). Abrams also exhibits his own passion for filmmaking, which comes out in the scenes featuring the group of friends making their zombie movie (which is awesomely shown during the ending credits), and has stated that many of those scenes are based on his own experiences making films as a kid (and these scenes appealed to me on a nostalgic level as well, having made films with my friends growing up and in film school). His love of the genre, its great films and filmmaking in general give this film charm and his characters sort of an innocence (sort of like looking back to a better time – Abrams’s Golden Age, if you will – taking an idea from Woody Allen’s own summer film Midnight in Paris). The fact that the principal characters are a group of middle school kids in a small Ohio town also contributes to the sense of innocence to the characters. They come off as good-hearted, and the begins of a romance between Joe and Alice is very sweet and harkens back to our own first loves or crushes, which immediately makes these two relatable for the audience. The comradeship, jokes, and dialog between them are really what make the film work so well. Abrams is brilliant at developing good characters, which he again illustrates with these giving each their moments and drama so that the viewer feels connected and understands them (which is so important), while at the same time keeping the story and action moving forward at a rapid pace – the narrative structure is very tight, the viewer engaged throughout. Abrams puts his characters before anything else, which is rare for a big summer movie (many of which focus on the special effects and the action and then seemingly add characters as an afterthought). (As much as I loved the film) viewers that are not fans of this genre (and the pre-mentioned films from the 70s and 80s) will probably find the film too interested in the friendship of the characters and the film they are trying to make (as the action and sci-fi aspects are really the backdrop until the two story elements collide), but I think that is what makes it great. Abrams loves his characters. But do not worry, the action is also good. There are many thrilling and well shot sequences (especially the train crash). But again, without the great character work done, these action scenes would not have the same impact as they do, because the viewers would not care about the characters to the extent that they do. The film definitely puts a lot of effort into paying homage and having a nostalgic aspect to it (maybe too much for some), but it works well in setting the tone (though, I wonder how it plays for younger viewers who may not be familiar with the films it is referencing, as to some extent it seems to have been made for those like Abrams who grew up with and love these films, and filmmaking). All in all, Super 8 is a wonderful addition to its genre and will hopefully influence and be adored by a new group of fans (and filmmakers), as the films that inspired it were to their fans.

Technical & acting achievements: J.J. Abrams is very accomplished in the realm of television, but this is his first original feature film (his first two being Mission: Impossible III and Star Trek). He also oversaw most of the marketing, keeping the story elements (especially surrounding what escapes from the train) a secret (something that I wish more films would do, nothing worse than having the trailers spoil the film, and nice to see Paramount Pictures trust their filmmaker). With Super 8, Abrams has again shown that he is a top director when it comes to making films that are suspenseful and high on action but also have great characters and drama. I think it is safe to say that he is an auteur filmmaker. Working on his ninth project with Abrams, composer Michael Giacchino does great work (as usual). His score captures both the excitement of the action and the wonder of the young group of friends. Cinematographer Larry Fong and relative newcomer production designer Martin Whist (this being his biggest film to date) both have also worked on Abrams’s projects in the past. Fong’s work is very good. He has a lot of experience shooting action (working with Zack Snyder in the past, including this year’s Sucker Punch), which he again does a great job with, but it is the overall look of the film that works so well (being both homagy and nostalgic, and having a quicker more modern style to it). This also has a lot to do with Whist’s great sets and design work as well. While the 70s certainly shine through, his work as has sort of a timeless and wholesome quality to it, which fits the film extremely well. As stated above, the younger members of the cast really make the film special. Supporting work from Kyle Chandler and Noah Emmerich is good, but overshadowed by the funny and addictive friendship shown by Zach Mills, Ryan Lee, Gabriel Basso, and especially Riley Griffiths. Elle Fanning does not start as part of the group, but she quickly finds a place. She is remarkable in the film, winning the hearts of the characters and the audience. Joel Courtney makes is film debut and is excellent. He is able to carry the film, do the dramatic work and be funny. He has a bright future ahead of him.

Summary & score: Sure there is a big nostalgic aspect to the film, but really this is just an outstanding sci-fi adventure with marvelous characters that pulls you in and great action to keep you on the edge of your seat as the mystery unravels. 9/10