Knight Owl's Review of World War Z; And the song remains the same.

It's time for the zombie craze to end. Now.

Film has become a very fad-based industry over the last decade or so, playing off of what emerges as the newest big thing. When Lord of the Rings took off, suddenly we saw several comparable epic fantasy films. X-Men hitting it big kickstarted the Comic Book movie genre. Saw started torture porn. The Blair Witch Project made found-footage movies seem like they're a good idea. The Harry Potter franchise revealed the market for Young Adult novels as adaptations. Thanks buddy, 'cuz I really appreciated those Twilight movies (he said sarcastically).

Anyways, zombies have been riding their 15 minutes of fame for almost ten years now. Hit films like Shaun of the Dead, 28 Days Later, and the Dawn of the Dead remake had renovated what may have been considered an outdated sub-genre before their releases. There were subtle and obvious changes to the clichés, such as improved make-up and visuals, better stories, and the introduction of the dreaded 'fast zombie'. It was a remarkable about face for a type of horror I've always appreciated and have grown to love. But there's only so much you can do with zombies, and about 14 of their minutes should be up. World War Z is a definitive example of this.

Disclaimer: I have not yet read the book. This review is based solely on the merits and flaws of the film in and of itself, which as I understand is for the best considering the film and book bare no real resemblance to each other save for the title. Yeah, that sucks, but one time Joker killed Batman's parents and it was still considered one of the best Comic Book adaptations ever for some time. Shit happens, bro. Anyway, I hope to get to the book soon, but for now I just have this, which is not a lot.

Generally, zombie films or TV shows can go one of two ways. Either the work is a character-based plot where the protagonists basically go from point A to point B, aimlessly trying to stay alive, or it is an objective-based story where the humans are out for some sort of Chekov's Gun that either ends or drastically changes the conflict. Both versions are tricky in that one is entirely dependant on the audience identifying and actually caring for the characters enough to be interested in their plight. This is why I loved Zombieland and Shaun of the Dead, and why I HATE The Walking Dead. I could barely give a shit about any one person on that show for a 50 minute episode, and you expect me to watch three goddamn seasons!? NOPE. The second approach is difficult because there is a finite number of inventive ways to pull it off and even when it works, it's purely Movie Science(!) that's usually pretty retarded and is borderline-Star Trek in realism. With World War Z, it doesn't even matter which one of these formulas (formulae?) the film follows, because it would do both poorly.

With as vague of a synopsis as I can give, the basic story follows Tyler-fucking-Durden, a retired CIA investigator or whatever, who is called back into action to go figure out why nearly every human on the planet is taking an affinity to longpig (aka: nomming humans) and/or how to stop or cure them. It kind of plays on both versions of the zombie movie in that there are several side characters you meet along the way, including Durden's family, some military guys, some scientists, etc., and they're all going along with Durden on this little trip. The problem is that no one is on screen long enough (save for Tyler himself, of course) for the audience to give a shit about them. It was kind of like in An American Tail, where the cartoon Communist mouse is running around America trying to find his family and runs into all kinds of people, helping out in various ways bringing the mouseki closer and closer to his objective. The only difference is that the mouse is even slightly endearing. Brad Pitt can be one of the most charming mother fuckers to grace God's green earth, but he might as well have been Keanu-goddamn-Reeves in this movie. Sure, the world's going to hell. You know what all of these uberstressed out bastards could use? A little levity, some chumming around; hell, even the slightest clue that you give a shit about their well being, other than what they're helping you with. Durden was a harsh prick in this film, not unlike almost every single fucking character on Walking Dead. You know who's awesome? Woody Harrelson. Next time, be Woody Harrelson.

The whole 'objective' part of the story also falls flat for a couple of reasons. First off, it's never really clear what anyone's looking for. I get that there's a mystery element to the thing, but it leads to the subject matter jumping around while all of the action is happening elsewhere; and every once in a while I forgot what the hell Durden was supposed to be doing, other than letting everyone around him die so that he can catch the next plane to Vegas to rip off casinos with Clooney or whatever. It was underplayed enough that even after the film was over, I found it lackluster at best. Sometimesd the end justifies the means, and a poor set-up leading to an awesome wrap-up is forgiveable. This is not such a time. I would have preferred a film more devoted to one or the other type of zombie film, or at least a single goal or likeable character. This was a bit of a mess. By the way, that cross-class between Ocean's Eleven and a zombie flick would be best. Write that down.

The saving grace in WWZ is where it and really any big budget zombie film should be: in the action. There are many thrilling epic scale scenes of the hordes running down humans like nothing, and for the most part it looked really well done. Obviously, many of the scenes were CG-heavy with the sheer number of zombies being thrown into the mix. However, it was depended on a little too much I think, leading to a whole Lord of the Rings epic battle feel. And no, that's not a compliment. The other complaint I have is that, when focusing on Pitt and Co., the action scenes were more reminiscent of a Michael Bay film about cars that are also robots. The fights are very fast-paced and extremely close up, making it nearly impossible to determine what's happening. That shit is excruciating, more so in 3D. Save the couple bucks and see it in regular D.

The biggest thing I liked about this movie is such a small thing, but no serious zombie movie fucking does it: characters ACTUALLY USE THE WORD 'ZOMBIE'! It is literally the stupidest thing in the world that this doesn't happen more. It would be like everyone in Gotham City referring to Batman as 'Guy Who Dresses Like Bat'. And it happens all the time. The only time that zombies are referred to as such are in the comedies like Zombieland and Shaun of the Dead. Does no one watch movies or TV? This is why the average people will be wandering around when the real zombie apocalypse comes, wondering what the hell is happening whilst I rack up the shotguns and start breaking off table legs. Pro tip: go for blunt, not sharp. Sharp things get stuck.

All in all, WWZ isn't the film it probably should be. Not every genre film of this kind gets the money behind it that WWZ had, and the publicity it has gotten over the past few months has been ridiculous. The book it's based on is (apparently) really good and has enough of a following that the film was pretty much guaranteed to turn a profit. All that considered, I don't think there's any audience that will thoroughly enjoy WWZ. If you're a fan of the book, too bad 'cuz the film couldn't be more different (again, apparently). If you're a fan of the zombie genre, you've probably seen better efforts made with far less resources. If you're just out for a random movie experience, you will find things not to like, from the unlikeable characters to the unstable story right to the straight up lack of common sense that every character seems to possess. Another pro tip: if they're attracted to noise, STOP SHOOTING.

Then again, maybe everyone should watch it. Watch as many zombie movies as possible, just to be ready. Constant vigilance!

Knight Owl

Knight Owl's Review of Man Of Steel; Coming of age

And I saw it. And it was good.

It's amazing to me that a character with the word 'Super' in his name could muddle around in mediocrity in film and TV for as long as Superman has. The original film in 1978 was revolutionary mainly due to the special effects. It truly made the audience believe a man could fly. Too bad the majority of the rest of the movie was a campy, if not boring outing that has not aged well. Superman II was fun, to be sure, but the fact that there was a noticeable director change midway through the film hurt it. Superman III and IV were both truly terrible films. Superman Returns was a tremendously lazy effort to play into the audience's nostalgia by having it be a sequel to Superman II, despite a 26-year separation. TV didn't fare much better for the boy scout, as Lois & Clark was a campy soap opera, and Smallville was a 10-year long cocktease that didn't deliver (don't get me fucking started on that finale). There have been good moments, sure, but even Superman deserves more than just that. He deserves a good film.

Now, he has one.

Man Of Steel was a perfect storm of a world-without-a-Batman film series; a super hot genre of Comic Book films, a great direction, and a Christopher Nolan with nothing to do. It was a great modern take on a classic hero without falling back on the nostalgia that may exist from works past. It shed a new light on maybe the oldest superhero still relevant in pop culture, and might have kickstarted the revival of the DC universe in film. I almost hate to say it, but MOS is to Superman what Batman Begins was for Batman. It was different from the source material, but in a fresh way. You know, as opposed to a 'why is Parallax a cloud? I hate everything' kind of way.

I honestly don't have much to say about this film except that everyone should go see it. I'm not usually an advocate of the 3D movement, but if possible, go see it in 3D. The visuals are at the spectacular level that I have come to expect from Zack Snyder. It doesn't matter how you feel about his work, they are always stunning to look at. The look of the Kryptonian tech, the scenery, everything looks phenomenal. This is complimented by a near-perfect tone for this post-Dark Knight style of Comic Book film. Superman has never been this dark. It's not Batman by any means, but the optimistic shinyness that Clark typically represents is not prominent here. Instead, it's a kind of mask for the conflicting humanity inside, almost like Kal-El is at odds with Clark and Superman is the result. It's a great way for the audience to relate to a character that might be the hardest to relate to. I call him the boy scout because, up until MOS, that's what he's been: the prototypical, do-no-wrong lawful good perfect guy. That guy is nowhere to be found here, and it's awesome.

When Henry Cavill was cast as Clark, I think I was the only one I knew that 1) knew who he was, and 2) thought it was a good choice. I'm glad to say that I'm totally vindicated here because he was spot-fucking-on as Superman, through and through. I was more hesitant about Amy Adams, who is very hit or miss with me. She was great in films like The Fighter, but I couldn't stand her in Enchanted. I had no idea what to expect but was pleasantly surprised by her performance. I think a lot of credit should also go to the script for making her look like an actually decent journalist and not the damsel in distress that just herp-derps her way into trouble. But of course, since I'm a heel guy, the award goes to Michael Shannon for his turn as General Zod. There was a lot of potential to go nostalgic, as Terence Stamp's 'Kneel Before Zod' line has been immortalized by pop culture. Thankfully we stayed away from that, and Shannon made Zod his own character who was both sinister and sympathetic at the same time. The character reminded me of the type of antagonist that Loki was in Thor and The Avengers, or John Harrison was in Star Trek Into Darkness. Great job all around.

If there was a complaint that I have (and of course, I have one), it's the battles between Superman and Zod or his goons were too Michael Bay-ish in their presentation. It would be naive to say that I wasn't expecting there to be heavy CGI in a Superman film, but a lot of the scenes went a little far with it. Also, the film did that Transformers thing, where it was fast-paced and extremely close up, to the point that at times I had no idea what was happening. It went from that to landscaping scenes of people getting thrown through things. There was no happy medium. Snyder's work has often featured well-produced slow motion fights, and while they might not have well accentuated the superspeed and such that was being used during the fight, the film would have benefited from some slower paced slugfests between Zod and Clark.

That's it. Finally. I'm very happy with this film. It is, without a doubt in my mind, the best Superman adaptation in film. I'm glad to notice the impact that The Dark Knight has had on the genre, especially in the DC side of things, and hopes that any following films will take note in one way or another. I'm hoping that this will motivate the production of DC-based films, as Iron Man did for Marvel. It's also clear that Nolan, while in a producer's capacity as opposed to director's, still has some influence over the tone and style of a film and should be allowed to have it. Snyder was a great pick for director, and I hope he sticks with the franchise.

Welcome to the 21st century, Superman. We've been waiting for you.

Now go re-do Green Lantern, because damn.

Knight Owl