World War Z (2013)

I knew that I was asking for trouble when I said in my last entry that I was sensing a trend this month in me seeing a disturbing streak of big budget movies with no soul to them despite the spectacle. I mentioned that I needed a break from all of that, and what do I do? Almost immediately after writing that, I go out and see "World War Z," the most expensive zombie movie ever made with its price tag of around $200 million.

I am not a smart person sometimes.

I won't lie, I was never fully on board with this one from the get-go. I'm zombied out. I just can't bring myself to care about anything zombie related anymore. This culture really has seemingly hit an event horizon of zombie obsession, almost like zombies ourselves oddly enough. And this over-saturation and rabid following and praise of everything zombie related simply because it is zombie related has completely killed the genre for me. I'm sick of hearing about them, and by the way, I don't care how good "The Walking Dead" is supposed to be. The fact that all I hear fans of the show do is complain about how bad it is speaks otherwise.

And while we're at it, I don't care about "Doctor Who," either. Shut up about it. I would have maybe shown interest in it if half the people on my Facebook wall didn't post 57 "Doctor Who" related updates and pictures every day.

Anyway, my expectations for "World War Z" were firmly in the ditch, seeing as it looked bad from the trailer, I don't care about zombies, the production history for the film was troubled to say the least, the whole "zombie swarm" thing looked dumb to me, and it's the only zombie movie I can think off the top of my head that is PG-13. Can't say as I was expecting much.

And what do you know? "Not much" is exactly what I got.

"World War Z" is basically the trailer. No, seriously. Everything you need to know about this movie can be ascertained by watching the trailer, in which nearly the entire film is laid out in near chronological order. And since it's a zombie film, it's basically on a plot railroad as it is. Zombie movies are nothing if not consistent, being that once you've seen a few, you've seen them all.

Look out, they're attacking you right in the CGI!

Brad Pitt is a guy who flees from the zombie apocalypse with his family, finding relative safety on a military ship, he has to go out and find a cure, which he (kind of) does, and the movie ends on the unforgivably overused note of "This is only the beginning." Because as we all know, closing your movie by saying those words is always a mark of a film that it totally not cliched and tired, and undoubtedly the ending will be satisfying. Except if you're in the real world, or in "World War Z," where that's actually really dumb.

The whole "cure" bit is really less of a cure and more of a band-aid which will allow people to get away from the infected zones. Brad Pitt discovers that if you are sick, the zombies won't go after you out of some bizarre plot contrivance that is either nature doing the "survival of the fittest" thing, or the zombies being picky eaters - Unless you're healthy, the zombies will leave you alone. Like, if you have some kind of really bad disease, they won't even touch you to kill you. This of course raises all kinds of issues, chief among them being the question of "What is the threshold of health that the zombies can instantly sense?" They won't go after Brad Pitt once he's injected himself with some terrible but curable disease, but what about people with heart conditions? What about people who just have colds?

The zombies are wiping out entire cities with gusto. In fact we see Philadelphia get annihilated. Everyone got eaten. We didn't hear reports of sick people walking out unscathed. You're telling me every person in Philly was the epitome of health? What about fat people? They aren't healthy. Why aren't fat people immune from zombie attacks with their high cholesterol and blood pressure and clogged arteries that will kill them? If that was the case America would be the last country standing. U.S.A! U.S.A!

The whole issue of "choosing a healthy host to propagate the virus" becomes even more stupid when you take into consideration that the zombie's bodies aren't even living, so the fact that they were healthy doesn't matter one damn bit. But hey, what do I know? I'm not a professional screen writer.

By the way, it's interesting that Brad Pitt's whole family, and in fact everyone in the world just kind of rolls with the situation. There's nobody freaking out, or even a question of "What's happening?" They just kind of all say "Well, looks like it's the zombie apocalypse. Let's do this thing." It's almost like they're zombie movie fanatics themselves.

All of this could have been slightly overlooked had the action of the film been at least halfway passable. But as it is, the action in "World War Z" is so absurdly shaky, undecipherable and dark that it is nearly impossible to tell what the hell just happened for about 90% of every action sequence. Now this movie is loaded with action, which is one of the only good things I can say about it, but what does it matter if you can't tell what's happening?

For as much plentiful action as there was, there were very few points during which I felt a solid understanding of what was happening or who I was even looking at half the time. The camera jolted and jostled around so much, and the editing cuts were so quick and frantic that I felt like my eyeballs were going to explode. And then I remembered it was directed by Marc Forster, the hack who brought us "Quantum of Solace," which had the worst filmed action scenes of any Bond movie ever, and it all made sense.

Huh. When you look at the zombie swarm in a still frame it just kind of looks silly doesn't it?

But the thing that kills, utterly KILLS "World War Z" before any of the lame plot devices, the uninspired paycheck collecting acting, the random useless might as well be nameless characters, and the terrible action was the absolutely unforgivable rating of PG-13. This is a movie that was clearly intended to be rated R, as was pretty much every single zombie movie ever made. But since we can't be having gore in a movie about PEOPLE GETTING EATEN, we need to have black blood (if any blood at all), confusing editing, and shaky camera so we never get a good look at the supposed carnage. If I had never seen a zombie movie in my life, I'd say the zombies just go around tackling people, because that's about all you ever see happen.

Listen to me very carefully. Are you sitting comfortably? Good. Because I'm about to once again, drop the science.

It's time for "LESSONS WITH PROFESSOR PAT!"

Pictured above - A credible movie critic.

LESSON #95 - "A few extra butts in seats is not worth a PG-13!"

Listen. It's a hard fact, but it's time to accept the truth. Zombie movies suck. Almost all of them do. It's just a fact of life. Embrace it, and know that no matter how bad it sucks, you will still have a built-in, hardcore audience that will see it no matter what.

And do you know the reason for that? It's because of the gore. Blood and guts. Carnage. People getting torn limb from limb while being eaten alive. That's literally the only thing your audience wants in a zombie flick. What, do you think they're going for the social commentary? That message was overdone and old in the 70's. Yes, consumerism. Loss of humanity. We get it. Even the masters of putting that message in their zombie movies have stopped giving a crap about that hackneyed moral.

We want blood. It's literally the only thing keeping most of us awake during this crap. Don't deny us that. Otherwise you look like a pansy.

 This is what happens in zombie movies. Accept it.

/science drop

 That's about all I have to say about "World War Z." I don't care about zombies, and this has done little to change my mind.

And I'm still not watching "The Walking Dead."

BWAAAAAAAAA...........BWAAAAAAAAAAA.........BWAAAAAAAAAAA.........

THE BOTTOM LINE - "World War Z" may look pretty, but like all that I have seen before it this month, being pretty does not excuse the fact that it's boring, dumb, and soulless. The fact that it's PG-13 just makes it insulting on top of being a waste of time.

Top 10 of 2011

2011 was an admittedly pretty bad year for movies. This was actually a tough list to make, and not for the reasons that usually come up. Usually I'm forced into making hard cuts and quantifying why one of my favorite movies deserves to be on the list and another doesn't. This time I had to struggle to fill up all 10 slots. That's not to say that the movies that made this list are bad! I really liked all of these movies, but it was difficult filtering them through all the crap that 2011 piled upon us.

So without further ado, let's take a look at these diamonds in the rough that make up my personal Top 10 of 2011!





10. Insidious

"Insidious" may just be one of the only PG-13 horror movies that's worth a damn. What's unique about the film is that each act is pretty much a different horror genre. The first act is a classic haunted house movie, the second act turns into a possession movie, and the third act gets a little trippy and is somewhat its own niche with what can only be described as an "astral projection" movie, although it does remind me heavily of "The Others."

Most people who saw it commented on how scary it was, and yeah, there's something to that. It was pretty darn scary, although it is another one of those films that is fueled almost entirely on the "jump scare" tactic, which I hate. I feel they are cheap and are more startling than scary. "Insidious" gets a pass from me in this case, however, because the movie never fakes you out. Every time there's a jump scare, it's because something scary is jumping out at you. There's no kitten jumping out of a closet making a earth-shattering kaboom here. Every scare is legitimately earned, despite the fact that you may be able to see (some of) them coming.

"Insidious" isn't anything groundbreaking in terms of horror films, aside from being PG-13 and being good, but it's well made enough to stand toe to toe with pretty much any horror film to come out in the last 10 years.

9. Drive Angry

I love me some Nicolas Cage, and I apologize for nothing. I know that the hip thing to do is to hate the guy's guts but I honestly don't see how someone couldn't be entertained as hell watching him. Say what you want but the man puts more passion into every performance than nearly anyone else in Hollywood, and you can tell he's just having a blast doing it. And for me, that fun transfers over to my watching of the movie.

"Drive Angry" was exactly what I wanted to see: Nicolas Cage being a bad-ass. This is an exploitation flick, pure and simple. It's the same kind of drive-in B-movie schlock that Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez made with their "Grindhouse" double feature. "Drive Angry" is more "Planet Terror" than "Death Proof," though, for anyone worried about that. While it may not have the same level of gore that "Planet Terror" or even "Machete" had, it's still a fun, bloody romp that doesn't apologize for anything, and just takes the insanity and rolls with it.

If you're ready for this film, and you have to be ready for crazy, it's a hell of a ride. Along with Nicolas Cage being awesome and William Fichtner doing a very cool and unique spin on the Grim Reaper, "Drive Angry" was one of the most fun movies I saw in 2011, and left me with a big smile on my face.

8. Season of The Witch

Oh snap! A Nicolas Cage double header! I was waiting for "Season of The Witch" for a long time, since it got its release date pushed back, and then was only showing for like, a weekend. And of course it was in and out of theaters before I even knew it was released. But when I finally got to see it, I found a really fun action flick with two of my favorite actors, Nicolas Cage and Ron Perlman.Sounds like a good time to me.

Whereas "Drive Angry" was an exploitation flick, "Season of The Witch" is a B-horror movie flick. It's straight out of something that Hammer Films would make. Hell, it even has Christopher Lee in it! That's some serious B-movie royalty right there. I always love films with a great atmosphere and this movie nailed it. From the first scene to the last, it felt like a graphic novel with its very creepy and atmospheric sets. This is a movie you can just smell because it's so vivid in its scenery and style.

For my money, few things are as fun as a movie like this. And to the movie's credit, I didn't call the ending. It did not go where I thought it was going to go, and in fact took the gutsier of the paths it could have gone down. That, too, was a pleasant surprise because normally I can spot endings coming a mile away.

7. Moneyball
Out of all the movies on this list, this is the only one that's award bait. I usually don't like movies that are made to win Oscars but this one was actually pretty good. It embodied the same story of one man rising up against impossible odds to prove to himself and the world that he's worth something that classics like "Rocky" and "Rudy" have, and that's kind of unavoidable in a sports film, but it still strikes home on an emotional level that was very effective. I mean, yeah, that story has been done to death, but there must be something to it, right? 

Not too much more to say about that one. Besides, I already wrote one review about it. I don't need to do another mini-one. It's just a solid flick.

6. Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol

Sometimes a movie makes the list purely on the merits of how fun it is. I think the Nicolas Cage double-header proves that. "Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol" was one of the most fun times I had in a theater in a long time, and it's nice to be able to recapture the spirit of the first movie again. This is exactly what the series needed to bring it out of its rut.

I would love to see another "Mission: Impossible." Now we only have to wonder if they're going to start numbering them again. I swear, the titling of sequels needs to be left to people who know what they are doing. In other words, somebody other than Hollywood. Hell, hire me. I can't promise you fancy titles, but there won't be any doubt as to the order in which the sequels go!

5. Everything Must Go

I do not like Will Ferrell the Comedian very much, but I love Will Ferrell the Actor. People look at me cross-eyed when I say this but he is an amazing actor. Just watch "Stranger Than Fiction." Go ahead, I'll wait...

Amazing, right?! That's what I'm saying. "Everything Must Go" reminded me of "Stranger Than Fiction" a bit, despite the fact that it's not really like it very much, but it also felt like "Up In The Air" and "The Beaver," two other films that were also quite good. The thing about "Everything Must Go" is that it's not a comedy at all. If you go in expecting the funny-ha-ha, you'll be bored stiff. If you go in expecting a drama, well, it might choke you up a bit.

Will Ferrell went on record saying that he took this role about an alcoholic selling everything he owns after having the worst day of his life, because he doesn't get offered stuff like that. When a serious role like that came along, he jumped on it. I have more respect for Will Ferrell now for doing that, and I hope he keeps going. In fact, I think he's notably forgotten in this year's Oscar race for this film, because seriously...Best Actor. At least a nomination. Anything to encourage him to keep doing things like this!

4. X-Men: First Class

 Let's be honest with ourselves. The "X-Men" movies have never been very good. Yes, they have their entertaining moments and a fantastic cast, but they've never been objectively good. They're a bit overblown, characters have little identity past their mutant powers, and the stories don't make a lot of sense.

And now we have "X-Men: First Class," and it is the first of the series to not only be a really good comic book movie, but a good movie, period. The characters are (mostly) more fleshed out, which makes sense because there are far fewer of them this time, the story is riveting, and the struggle between Erik and Charles, two friends fated to be driven apart by immovable ideologies, practically sizzles there is so much chemistry going on between the two leads. You know that these two are destined to end up mortal enemies, but even so, the progression building up to that split is so well handled that when it happens, it's still a shot to the gut, and tragic as well as shocking.

Michael Fassbender is quickly becoming one of my favorite actors, and he and James McAvoy absolutely tore it up in "X-Men: First Class." I don't know if another sequel would work, but it's exciting to think of those two in another "X-Men" film.



And now we come to the Top 3! I found it interesting that the criteria for the Top 3 wound up being determined by overall sense of feeling throughout the film. Of all the movies to come out in 2011, these 3 films were the most effective at eliciting an emotional reaction from me, which is something I hold in the utmost importance. Those feelings wound up being disgusted, pumped up, and happy. In that order, here's the best 3 movies I saw last year:


3. Red State

If Kevin Smith keeps making movies, he needs to do more horror. The man has a knack for it, and his first outing into horror with "Red State" is one of the most realistically scary movies I've seen in a long time. It's not a supernatural kind of scary, it's a real kind of scary because this kind of stuff is totally feasible. And it's so easy to see people doing these horrific things in the name of their own obscene, hateful version of religion.

It's not so thinly veiled that the villainous church in "Red State" is supposed to be the Westbro Baptist Church. You know, the "God Hates Fags" idiots. It's so easy to see people following the preacher in this movie, played with Oscar-caliber gusto and passion by Michael Parks (another actor unforgivably snubbed in this award season), because they're already following people spewing this same kind of hate speech that is in the movie. This is scary stuff. And you have to wonder if killings like this are already happening and we just haven't found out about it yet. I hate to say that I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case.

"Red State" may not be for everyone, and it will most likely cause a great deal of discomfort among its viewers, and that's the point. It's an ugly thing that this movie is looking at, and it's looking at it with some pretty high-intensity beams. If you're not squirming in your seat or slightly sick to your stomach during "Red State," you don't have a soul. If anything else, this is a movie that will get people talking afterwards. And potentially really mad.


2. Attack The Block

 If an alien invasion happened, would you fight back? Well, I feel sorry for any nasty alien who lands in the ghetto of London looking to cause trouble because they'll be in for a hell of a fight. "Attack The Block" is so much fun that it kind of defies explanation. You just have to experience it for yourselves. It's one of those films that you just kick back and enjoy. If movies were people, "Attack The Block" would be the guy who bought everyone in the bar a round the minute he walked in the door. You just know it's going to be a good time when he's around.

"Attack The Block" is the first movie from Joe Cornish, who has worked with and is friends with Edger Wright, and it shows. It is reminiscent of "Shaun of The Dead" and "Hot Fuzz," but it has it's own identity, despite Wright's obvious influences. I think it's more of a student learning from a master craftsman. Of course at first the work is going to emulate the teachings, but soon he'll carve out his own identity, and I'll be first in line to buy a ticket.

There wasn't another action film in 2011 that I had this much fun with. From beginning to end, this movie about a group of punks in the ghetto fighting back against aliens put a big smile on my face, and I needed someone to high-five.

AND THE BEST MOVIE I SAW IN 2011 WAS...














1. The Muppets

 I think the word I'm looking for is "magic." There's just something magical about the Muppets. I haven't met a single person who didn't like them. The absolutely brilliant marketing campaign for this movie helped psych me up for it more than almost any other movie that year, and when I finally got to see it with some of my best friends, it wound up being the best experience I had in the theater that year.

Watching this movie was like having an hour and a half long childhood flashback. It was an amazing experience that left me feeling good all over, and anybody who has ever liked the Muppets will probably feel the same. Was it because there was nostalgia involved that I liked it? I don't think so, although it does help. Nostalgia can't hold something up on its own, after all. Fortunately "The Muppets" is a very well made, very very funny film that also tugs on the heartstrings. Pretty much like every Muppet movie, for the most part. And that's a good thing.

If I had to complain about something it would be that I felt there was probably a couple too many "why bother" moments where a character (usually Kermit) is ready to throw in the towel, but is brought back around by his friends. It's good stuff, but it happens like 5 times, and it starts getting old. But then Jack Black and Gonzo are doing something ridiculous and you're busting a gut laughing, and the other thing is forgotten about.

There are so many wonderful moments in "The Muppets," from Gonzo blowing up his factory, to Chris Cooper rapping about how evil he is, to the Swedish Chef's first subtitled appearance, to "Travel by Map," to Neil Patrick Harris' cameo wondering why he isn't in the movie, to the wonderfully catchy musical numbers including the immortal "Ma-Na-Ma-Na" (you KNEW it was coming), to every time another one of your old favorites appears on the screen that it seems like every 5 minutes you've stumbled across your new favorite part of the movie. And I guarantee that "The Muppets" will slap a huge smile across the most sour of faces.

After all...life is a filet of fish. Yes, it is.

Moneyball

"This is where you talk about Moneyball. You liked it."

Those two sentences have been sitting in my "drafts" folder in this blog for roughly the past 15 hours. Usually I write the entry immediately after seeing the movie, so that it's fresh in my mind. But last night, after the credits rolled, and I watched some behind-the-scenes extras on the Blu-Ray...that's all I could type, and after a while I realized I wasn't going to be able to write anything more that night. So I went to bed. It was late anyways, and my sleep schedule is hilariously whacked out. I didn't need to be up until 4:30 AM again.

I found it really hard to write anything because I found it really hard to be funny about "Moneyball." It's a lot easier to make fun of a bad movie than a good one, most of the time, and "Moneyball" definitely qualifies. It's rock-solid. And I liked it, so I guess it's time for my "serious face" to come out.

Knowing nothing about the events that "Moneyball" covers, the only background I can give is what the movie told me, so for anyone who is a die-hard baseball fan, forgive any ignorance in the following paragraphs. "Moneyball" is the true story of Billy Beane, who was the GM of the Oakland A's in the early 2000's. Along with a Yale-educated economics major, Peter Brand (which wasn't the real guys name) they broke down the scouting of new players into a numbers game, assigning a value to every player based on how beneficial they are to scoring runs. Personality doesn't count, history doesn't count, age doesn't count, looks don't count, nothing but the numbers count.

It sounds like a "duh" idea but this was revolutionary, and flew in the face of over 100 years of baseball tradition, and it really was an ostentatious notion to a lot of people. For years baseball scouts had looked at potential players and rated them on things like their personality, looks, and what was perceived as their potential, what they could be instead of what they were, and it was more of a "gut feeling" than a hard science. This meant a lot of potential fell through the cracks because someone "pitched funny" or something, even though they were performing really well. But here comes Billy Beane saying "Everyone is baseball has been dead wrong about scouting since the beginning."

So the Oakland A's, who had a miniscule budget, had to assemble a rag-tag team of outcasts and throw-offs that nobody else wanted, but the formula said they were winners. And to everyone's shock, the formula worked. The A's set an MLB record by winning 20 games in a row, something never done before, and ended up winning just as many games as the Yankees...with a third of their budget. And baseball was never the same, because now, everybody uses this system.

What was interesting to me with "Moneyball" is that I'm not quite sure how we as the audience are supposed to feel about Billy Beane. Obviously, we are meant to root for him and the A's, but at the same time the man is changing everything. Him and Brand seem to be taking the soul out of a the process of baseball, and implementing a very cold, mathematical formula that treats people like numbers. But by the end, I don't think it really comes down on one side or the other. I think the only real opinion the movie puts out regarding the state of baseball is "screw the Yankees." And I can get behind that.

I know that comparisons to other sports movies are inevitable, and yeah, maybe there is something to comparing "Moneyball" to "Rocky" or "Rudy," considering that it's about a guy overcoming insurmountable odds in sports to prove his life is worth something. Huh. That's kind of sad when you look at it that way. Anyways. It even has a "Mighty Ducks" vibe, not in terms of film-making but in terms of "fist-pumping in the air after the wimpy kid finally knocks one out of the park." Dare I say, it may even have some "Cool Runnings" in it, what with the idea "it's not about winning, but what you prove to yourself" ideology at the end.

From a technical standpoint, it's a beautiful film. The baseball scenes are wonderfully shot and edited together with what appears to be actual footage from the games, although those could be recreations. The sound design is also very nice. When they want you to feel the hit of a bat, man do you feel it. The *crack* that comes off that thing is crazy well done, and works to give intense moments in the game that extra "oomph" that almost gets you half-way standing up, craning your neck to see if that sucker is long gone. It's like baseball without all the boring parts!

It's pretty clear from the beginning that this movie was groomed for an Oscar or five. First of all, it has Philip Seymor Hoffman in it, which is just coming right out and saying INSERT OSCAR HERE. I don't know what it is, but man, the Academy loves that pasty tub of mumbling dough. Second, It was directed by Bennett Miller, who did the not-too-bad-but-kind-of-dull Oscar winner "Capote," and finally, it was co-written by Aaron Sorkin, which is basically guaranteeing you at least get a Best Picture nomination, especially after the inexcusable ass-kissing "The Social Network" received at last years awards.

Does "Moneyball" deserve it? Well, I'd say it's a hell of a lot better than "The Social Network" for starters. That's not even a contest. So I guess I'll say that if "The Social Network" won three Oscars, "Moneyball" is worth at least that. But then again, who says these things are fair? To that end, who says they even matter? (They don't.) I'm just surprised that I like a movie so much that was clearly Oscar bait. That's usually a sign that I'll hate it.

But one thing we can all agree on, whether you like the movie or not, whether you think it deserves some Oscars, whether you like baseball or not, whether you're a human being or not...

Screw the Yankees.

BOTTOM LINE - It may be Oscar bait, but it's damn fine Oscar bait. To my pleasant surprise: Highly Recommended.