Review: 'Gravity' is An Awe-Inspiring Masterpiece

PLOT: Two astronauts- medical engineer Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) and veteran flight commander Matt Kowalksky (George Clooney)- find themselves adrift in space after debris from a satellite causes a catastrophic incident.

REVIEW: Movie theaters will talk themselves blue these days trying to convince people to still bother to come out and see films in dark theaters with other people. But all they really need is Gravity, one of the most captivating and essential big-screen experiences in recent years, and maybe ever. The gripping thriller about two astronauts lost in space could work on a small screen in theory, sure. But in a dark theater, with expert sound effects and the stunning visuals surrounding you, Gravity is like being launched into orbit yourself; it's transporting and terrifying and, eventually, transcendent.

With its mind-boggling visuals and commitment to the authentic experience of outer space (no sound, no gravity, no oxygen), Gravity is genuinely unlike any film you've ever seen before. But its story, from a script written by director Alfonso Cuaron with his son Jonas, is deliberately, sometimes clangingly familiar. You've got one astronaut Matt Kowalski (George Clooney), a wisecracking veteran on his final spacewalk. And you've got the rookie Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock), a brilliant and strong-willed scientist who's understandably nauseous on her first trip into orbit. This odd couple pair has met disaster in countless types of movies for the last century, but this time it happens to be in space, when a Russian satellite is hit by a missile and the debris comes flying at them at thousands of miles an hour. In space, nobody can help you dodge shrapnel.

The lauded 10-minute unbroken shot that opens the film is mesmerizing and thrilling, and leads into the first action sequence, as Stone and Kowalski survive the debris field and manage to regroup themselves while overcoming problems that just don't exist on earth, like the fact that once you start spinning in space, there's no way to stop yourself. As Cuaron's camera slips magically inside Stone's helmet and back out into the distance of space, the visceral experience of the film becomes almost unbearable; the action sequences of Gravity are designed like a thrill ride, wringing maximum physical response from the audience, and it's an insanely well-calibrated ride at that. When Stone and Kowalski finally have a chance to catch their breath, you may only then realize you've been holding yours as well. 

When the film takes the time to develop the characters, allowing Stone to talk about her young daughter's death and Kowalski (Clooney essentially just playing himself in a spacesuit) to talk her through the ordeal, the lighter moments tend to work better than the heavier stuff near the end. Sandra Bullock's resolutely physical, ferocious performance often says more concisely everything the script stumbles in saying out loud, and many of the film's best emotional moments-- like her one-sided communication with amateur radio operator back on Earth-- are nearly wordless. The gambit of having the astronauts communicate with "Houston in the blind" allows the characters to narrate essential technical parts of the action, but at several key moments the script doesn't know to step back-- that Bullock's face and grim determination to survive say it all. 

With its deliberately archetypal characters and occasionally chewy dialogue Gravity feels like a film James Cameron would be lucky to make--an enormous compliment for this technically brilliant, unerringly entertaining thriller. Your mileage may vary on the film's more spiritual elements, but Gravity will make you believe in the higher power of movies, of the transformation that happens in a dark room with a giant screen and a story set in a place you couldn't possibly imagine. See it in IMAX and in realD 3D and any other way that allows you to block out the rest of the world. Gravity is movie heaven.

Share this:

Read More

Review: 'Elysium' is Great Entertainment

PLOT: In the year 2154, the wealthy have made a new home on a spectacular space-station called Elysium. There, the very, very rich can live a carefree life, in addition to one free of any health concerns, as each home is equipped with technology that can cure any disease, or heal any wound. Those who are left on Earth aren’t so lucky. When an ex-con, Max DeCosta (Matt Damon) is exposed to a lethal dose of radiation, and given only five days to live, he dons a metal exoskeleton, and takes on a dangerous mission to hack his brain into one of the colony’s most prominent citizens, allowing him to access their life-saving technology.

REVIEW: Any film that Blomkamp made as his second feature was going to be born in the shadow of District 9 and impossibly high expectations. Elysium, sadly, doesn’t eclipse its predecessor, but it’s still a strong follow-up and an engaging piece of original science-fiction. 

Elysium, like the best examples of sci-fi, has something to say about the status of our current world, but in trying to fully create the metaphor the movie’s reach exceeds its grasp, and the result is some unfortunate plot holes. Making a statement about global issues like immigration and health care, the film is set in a near future where all of the rich and powerful people on Earth have moved up to an exclusive space station called Elysium, a place where disease has been completely eliminated. Matt Damon’s character, an ex-con turned factory worker named Max, is trying to lead a normal life, but is struck by tragedy when an on-the-job accident leaves him with only five days to live. In order to live he needs to get to Elysium, and to do that he must return to the criminal world he was trying to escape. 

As on-the-nose as the film’s central premise is, Blomkamp actually does a smart job finessing it into the story while also avoiding being preachy or overbearing.Two well-paced acts lead to a chaotic finale, where fight sequences and explosions cloud any explanation of Elysium's mechanics and security practices. It's the kind of messy logic that bugs you while walking back to the car — and not in a good way.

A well-written character lacking in typical hero tropes, Max is a strong character as brought to life by Damon, whose natural charisma shines through this hardened new look of tattoos and a shaved head. Blomkamp mixes in plenty of negative, selfish behavior for the character to keep him interesting, and Damon once again shows why he is one of the best lead actors we’ve got. It helps that he's surrounded by an outstanding supporting cast, with actors like Wagner Moura, Diego Luna, and Alice Braga all putting in strong turns, but the movie’s real scene stealer is District 9 star Sharlto Copley. 

Completely changing gears from the meek Wikus Van De Merwe in Blomkamp’s last film, Copley’s new character, Kruger, is a hardcore, evil son-of-a-bitch mercenary who is hired by the security team on Elysium to track down Max, and the South African star truly gives one hell of a performance. The only problem with this is that Copley manages to completely outshine every other villain in the story, particularly Jodie Foster’s Delacort, the Secretary of Security on Elysium and Kruger’s handler. While she does play a crucial part in the movie’s plot, the fact that she’s stuck up in space keeps her away from most of the action and undercuts her significance. The role is so minimized that the character ends up being more of a high-powered plot device. All of it is backed by flawless CGI that never takes you out of the film. 

It's easy and true to say that Elysium isn't as good as District 9, but it’s also slightly unfair and reductive. Blomkamp’s sophomore effort stands on its own and is a solid, well-made, original film that also has its fair share of problems. The writer/director remains one of the most exciting filmmakers to watch, and if he can keep producing at this level he will only elevate the science-fiction genre.

Share this:

Read More

Review: Kick-Ass 2 is Silly, Ridiculous, Violent and Worthy

PLOT: After inspiring a wave of new people to don costumes and fight crime, David Lizewski (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) comes out of retirement, and once again becomes Kick-Ass. With Hit-Girl (Chloe Grace Moretz) sidelined by a need to be a “normal teenager”, Kick-Ass joins Justice Forever, a superhero club run by a former Mafia thug, turned born-again superhero calling himself Colonel Stars and Stripes (Jim Carrey). Meanwhile, wanting to avenge the death of his father, Chris D'Amico (Christopher Mintz-Plasse), aka Red Mist, has decided to reinvent himself as a super-villain named “The Motherf**ker”, complete with his own army of psychos.

REVIEW: Writer/director Jeff Wadlow’s Kick-Ass 2 is actually here, however, we have to wonder if maybe we should have left this franchise where it started.

Telling three separate narratives within one big story, the sequel finds Dave Lizewski a.k.a. Kick-Ass (Aaron Taylor Johnson) continuing his efforts to help the city as a low-rent superhero; Mindy Macready a.k.a. Hit-Girl (Chloe Moretz) leaving the violent vigilante world behind to try and be a normal teenager; and Chris D’Amico a.k.a. The Motherf**ker (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) looking for revenge against Kick-Ass for killing his father, becoming the world’s first supervillain in the process. While two of these narratives manage to be modestly entertaining, Mindy’s story drags the whole film down. Kick-Ass’s efforts to join a team of fellow amateur crime-fighters called Justice Forever introduces some interesting, though underdeveloped, side characters like Jim Carrey’s born-again, ex-mobster Captain Stars and Stripes. Chris's transformation into The Motherfucker’s gives the audience a peek into how a supervillain kick starts their career. But Hit-Girl (who was the best part of the first film) gets screwed over by being stuck in an R-rated, half-baked version of Mean Girls. In the shadow of Kick-Ass’s crime fighting The Motherf**ker’s chaos, watching Mindy go up against a Regina George rip-off just feels like a waste of an interesting character and a talented young actress. 

The choppy structure holding it all together doesn't make these narratives mesh any better. The stories are really only connected whenever Kick-Ass tries to get Hit-Girl to put on her costume again, but outside of that the film just bounces back and forth, failing to establish any real rhythm. Up until the climactic finale, the three central arcs feel completely disjointed, which isn’t exactly what you want to see in a sequel that’s supposed to reunite the fun, interesting characters from the first movie. 

Kick-Ass 2 has focused a lot of its marketing focusing on the movie’s gratuitous violence and shock value, but it weirdly doesn’t even deliver on that front. While there certainly is plenty of gore to go around – characters getting stabbed, shot and having body parts chopped off – but it isn’t anything you don’t normally see in an R-rated action film. Even the impact of Moretz’s Hit-Girl is lessened, as the actress has grown a lot in the last three years and isn’t the same adolescent we saw in the 2010 original. I’d even go as far as to say that the movie is far more graphic when it comes to language, but even that feels mostly forced. 

There’s a good amount to like in Kick-Ass 2, including some manic performances from Mintz-Plasse and Carrey as well as some cool comic book flourishes by Wadlow. But the good stuff is continually buried in the things the movie gets wrong. The end of the film does set up the story for a potential part three, and while part of me wants to see if there’s any chance the series could be redeemed, it might just be smarter to let sleeping dogs lie.

Share this:

From around the web:

ZergNet

Read More

Review: 'White House Down' Has Exactly What You'd Expect From Emmerich!

PLOT: When a paramilitary group takes over the White House, a U.S Capitol cop, John Cale (Channing Tatum) - who flunked his interview to join the secret service- is the only one left to protect the president (Jamie Foxx), and prevent World War III.

REVIEW: John McTiernan’s Die Hard will forever stand as one of the greatest action films of all time – and the genius, really, is in its simplicity. You can’t help but love the explosive fireworks, breathtaking stunts and brilliant one-liners, but really Die Hard boils down to being about a witty, down-on-his-luck, lovable lawman named John McClane who finds himself up against an overwhelming opponent and succeeding despite impossible odds. 

It's clear that Roland Emmerich really wanted to make his own version of Die Hard with White House Down. Like the 80s classic, the new movie follows a witty, down-on-his-luck, lovable lawman named John who also finds himself up against an overwhelming opponent and impossible odds. Unfortunately the director also forgoes simplicity for complexity, and the result is a bloated, predictable political thriller that far too often forgets about what should be the film’s real central focus: the hero. 

Scripted by James Vanderbilt, the story begins as John Cale (Channing Tatum), the head of security for the Speaker of the House (Richard Jenkins), heads to the White House with his daughter (Joey King) for a Secret Service job interview. While things don’t seem like they could get any worse after the interview goes horribly-- turns out the hard-nosed interview is also his ex (Maggie Gyllenhaal)-- a group of terrorists bomb the Capitol building and invade the president’s home. Separated from his kid and hiding from the enemy insurgents, John is forced to not only to locate and protect President Sawyer (Jamie Foxx), but also stop the terrorists’ plot. 

Given his rise in popularity in the last few years, Tatum was an obvious choice for the lead, but Emmerich and his crew really couldn’t have chosen much better. The star is equipped with a great mix of charm, wit and believability as an action star, and only gets better when he is able to find the President and the movie forms an odd buddy cop-type relationship. Tatum and Foxx have excellent chemistry together and make a surprisingly adept action-movie team, whether they’re riding around on the White House lawn firing rocket launchers, climbing around in an elevator shaft, or hiding from the baddies in a kitchen dumbwaiter. 

As terrific as Tatum and Foxx are, they are far too regularly overshadowed by a less than mediocre plot. While John McClane only had to deal with a bunch of high-powered thieves stealing from a multi-national corporation, White House Down’s setting inherently raises the stakes of the plot and steals attention away from the movie’s greatest assets. For each bit of Tatum/Foxx awesomeness, the film has to slog through scenes of Maggie Gyllenhaal dealing with the politics of the order of succession or trying to figure out the terrorists’ end game. As one of the lead bad guys, Jason Clarke does the best he can with what is really an underdeveloped character, and provides his own entertaining moments (my favorite being a scene where he nonsensically screams at one of his fellow radicals about his struggles with diabetes), but ultimately it isn’t enough. 

When its working, Emmerich’s latest film flies higher than the flag perched on top of the White House, but as a whole can’t live up to his promise. Buy a ticket for Tatum, Foxx and the director’s unique brand of action and destruction – just don’t go in planning to see anything more than that, it's a lot of fun. I'd say it's easily Emmerich's best movie in at least a decade.

Share this:

From around the web:

ZergNet

Read More

Review: 'Pacific Rim' Is Better - And - Smarter - Than - Average Humans - vs.- Monsters Spectacular!

PLOT: When a race of giant monsters, dubbed “Kaiju” arise from the sea, mankind's only hope are the “Jaegers”, giant robots operated by two or three pilots who are linked by a psychic connection called “The Drift”. When his brother is killed during a drift, pilot Raleigh (Charlie Hunnam) drops out of the Jaeger program, only to be brought back into the fold five years later by his former commander, Stacker (Idris Elba), as the Jaegers face an apocalyptic standoff with the Kaiju.

REVIEW: Sometimes people just opt to dump on a movie for no reason. Pacific Rim despite coming from genre maestro Guillermo Del Toro- has been all but christened the next big flop by the press, despite the fact that the reviews have been overwhelmingly positive (and not just from the fanboys either). Especially funny are the reviews that call the premise “dumb” or “unbelievable”. I mean come-on people! Isn't this supposed to be fantasy? And why are superheroes and alien robots defending humanity perfectly acceptable, while giant monsters from the sea are not? What's the criteria for “good” fantasy, and “bad” fantasy?

People are seemingly looking for any reason to pick on Pacific Rim but do yourselves a favour. Forget all the negative press and stories about its budget, tracking, etc. The only important question is whether or not Pacific Rim is entertaining. I'm here to tell you that not only is the answer to that a definite “hell yes” but Pacific Rim is just about the most fun I've had at the movies since Skyfall. As much as I liked Star Trek: Into Darkness and Man Of Steel, I think Pacific Rim has them beat. The best thing about Pacific Rim is that it's just so much damn fun. From the time this sucker started I had an ear-to-ear grin on my face that was so wide my cheeks are still killing me hours later. You have to hand it to Del Toro for jumping right into the insanity with the opening teaser, with it only taking him about five minutes to (perfectly) set up the Kaiju, and the rockstar-like Jaeger pilots. From there del Toro plunges the film into wall-to-wall action and insanity, with the first of many sea battles pitting Hunnam's Jaeger against Kaiju that could have emerged from a sixties Toho movie-albeit much cooler.

Del Toro has said that this is the movie he dreamed about making when he was twelve years old, and sure enough there's a generation of kids that are going to absolutely go gonzo for this, provided that their parents are cool enough to take them. As for the rest of us, Pacific Rim just might make you feel like you're twelve again, and NOT because it makes you'll feel stupid, but rather that it's just a film infused with so much joy on the behalf of Del Toro and his crew that you can't help but get caught up in it. “But wait a second Chris,” some will be saying. “How is the story?” Again I say this- it's a movie about giant robots fighting giant monsters! Don't go in expecting social commentary, or twists and turns (this isn't Zero Dark Thirty people, nor is it supposed to be). It's all about the spectacle, and in a summer filled with eye candy, I guarantee you none have come close to what Pacific Rim offers. The gorgeous lensing by DP Guillermo Navarro, which is best appreciated in IMAX 3D, is comparable to Wally Pfister's work with Nolan, or what Roger Deakins did for Skyfall It's striking and for once the 3D really adds to the film, although I'd admit that the fact that I saw this on true 70MM on a massive screen certainly helped, as that's really the ideal way to watch it. This is also a case where every penny of the obviously hefty budget has found it's way on screen, and this is the first time in awhile that CGI has really knocked my socks off.

As for the performances, here's the thing. Everyone does exactly what they're supposed to. Del Toro's got a big heart, and just like he brought heart to Hellboy he does the same for Pacific Rim  Nowhere is that more apparent than the idea of “drifting” with it only working if the two people involved actually have an emotional connection. This means the best pilots are usually parents and their (grown) children, people that are married or in love, or siblings. Giving us characters that care about each other makes us care about them. Some critics are picking on Charlie Hunnam, but I don't really get this as to me he was totally charismatic, and made a likable hero (not to mention that fact that the ladies Love the guy). Our leading female heroine Rinko Kikuchi is absolutely adorable, and the bond that springs up between her and Hunnam feels well-thought out and never tacked on. Meanwhile, Idris Elba is a full-on movie-star as their tough commander with a heart of gold (natch), while Ron Perlman shows up later in the film to steal every scene he's in as an unscrupulous black-marketeer comic relief Charlie Day (toned down) has to turn to in an hour of need. No matter how much I slather over Pacific Rim  many are still not going to give it a shot as for some reason the premise seems to offend people. Again, I ask, how is this any dumber than any other tentpole movie that's already come out this summer? People are too cynical, and this isn't a movie for cynics. Del Toro's only goal here is to entertain and make you feel like a kid again. For me, he did exactly that. I really think Del Toro is a master and no matter what happens with Pacific Rim  I hope this is just the start of a long-line of hugely ambitious films to have his stamp on them. He's a modern master, and there's more imagination and skill in any of this movie's individual set-pieces than in many other wildly successful movies I've seem lately. If any tent-pole actioner ever deserved to shatter the box office, this is it.

Share this:

From around the web:

ZergNet

Read More

Review: Hammer and Depp Saved the 'The Lone Ranger' From Being a 3/10

PLOT: John Reid (Armie Hammer), a tenderfoot lawyer educated in the east, is left for dead by a gang of outlaws. Donning a leather mask to hide his identity, he teams up with a Native American warrior named Tonto (Johnny Depp) to bring the bloodthirsty gang to justice.

REVIEW: For now, though, the Rango director offers up The Lone Ranger, a handsomely photographed but sloppily plotted homage to the classic serial hero that also acts as a cinematic cousin to the Caribbean franchise. Slick, slimy pirates have been traded for grizzled, dusty lawmen patrolling America’s uncharted frontier. The director experiments with the supernatural (though there’s nothing quite as immersive as Capt. Jack Sparrow’s trippy tour of the afterlife), and allows his runtime to bloat to At World’s End levels of tedium. But if you embrace the Pirates movies, as a whole, you’re likely to find enough to enjoy in this hodgepodge of chewed-over ideas. 

The selling point – for both mainstream audiences and the Disney execs who bankrolled this endeavor – is the return of Verbinski’s muse, Johnny Depp, who agrees to play Tonto alongside an unremarkable Armie Hammer. Essentially an origin story for the masked lawman, The Lone Ranger transports us to Colby, Texas circa 1869, where sinister Butch Cavendish (William Fichtner) casts a menacing shadow over the land. Dan Reid (James Badge Dale), a shoot-first sheriff, wants to end Cavendish’s reign with a noose. Dan’s educated brother, John (Hammer), demands the criminal answer to a legitimate system of justice. Their clash ends in tragedy … and also the birth of an iconic hero. 

If the Cavendish plot were the only one Verbinski asked us to follow, this campfire tale might not have felt so overstuffed. Unfortunately, The Lone Ranger resembles a horse with three saddles, and Verbinski – as the metaphorical rider – is rarely sure which one he wants to straddle. There’s a prototypical love interest (Ruth Wilson) dividing the Reid brothers. There’s a secondary villain (Tom Wilkinson) who’s hell bent on bringing the railroad through town. Helena Bonham Carter wanders over from the latest Tim Burton joint to play a whorehouse Madam … though she has a wooden leg that has been converted into a gun because, well, why the hell not? Cavendish and his colorful crew eventually must be dealt with when they escape the long arm of the law. And what’s with those vampire rabbits that patrol the prairies in the dead of night? 

Those who followed Verbinski’s rocky road through the Lone Ranger production know that the director had grand, bizarre plans to utilize Tonto’s Indian mysticism for a subplot involving werewolves, silver bullets and other supernatural hokum. For reasons unknown, the bulk of that originality is chucked for a stock conflict with a money-grubbing white-collar antagonist. Except, traces of the supernatural still exist on the fringes of Ranger, promising an interesting movie that’s never allowed to develop. 

On the topic of “never developing,” I’m fairly confident Hammer’s never going to develop into a capable leading man. His Ranger is overshadowed by Depp’s solemn sidekick, by Fichtner’s snarling villain, by the majestic white horse on which he rides and by the vast desert landscapes that surround him in vital scenes. When you’re ignoring the leading man so you can stare at a spectacular, maroon rock formation in a New Mexico desert, your film has issues. 

That’s not to say The Lone Ranger can be dismissed. Cinematographer Bojan Bazelli shoots a gorgeous period Western reminiscent of John Ford’s Monument Valley classics. Depp refuses to fall back on Jack Sparrow’s boozy swagger, choosing a detached, incredulous approach that helps Tonto stand apart. And few modern directors stage large-scale action set pieces with the fluidity Verbinski brings. The Lone Ranger opens and closes with memorably choreographed stunts aboard rapidly-moving locomotives that are cleverly planned and well-executed. The film’s soggy middle section desperately needed a rousing sequence on this level to keep us awake, and more invested.

Share this:

From around the web:

ZergNet

Read More

Review: 'World War Z' Is The Most Phenomenal, Highest I.Q. Action Movie!

PLOT: World War Z follows the adventures of a United Nations employee and his family who find themselves trapped in the middle of a massive zombie epidemic. He is soon brought into service to help find answers to stop the deadly occurrence from destroying humanity as we know it.

REVIEW: Max Brooks's World War Z is probably the most serious zombie book ever written, an "oral history of the zombie war" that tracks across continents and multiple disasters a viral outbreak that makes monsters of the dead. The movie based on it, also called World War Z, might be the most serious zombie movie ever made. That's pretty much the only similarity it shares with Brooks's novel, but surprisingly enough, that's OK. In fact everything that's OK about World War Z, from Brad Pitt's stern lead performance to the high-wire tension of the finale, is a surprise. No movie this blatantly cobbled together ought to work nearly as well as World War Z does.

Despite a PG-13 rating that hamstrings some of its most visceral moments, World War Z establishes a strong mood of dread and terror from its very beginning, a family car ride through Philadelphia interrupted by the panic of an early zombie invasion. Pitt's Gerry Lane is a former UN researcher who's been out of the game for several years, and he's just the right mix of professional and everyman you want to follow in this situation-- comfortable using a rifle and dressing a wound, but perplexed and terrified for his family's safety. No one uses the word "zombie" until much later in the film, when Gerry, his wife (Mireille Enos) and adorable daughters (Mireille Enos and Abigail Hargrove) are airlifted to a military aircraft carrier, one of the few safe spaces left on the planet. The UN wants Gerry to accompany a young virologist (Elyes Gabel) to an army base in South Korea, where they believe the virus started. Doing so is the only way his family can keep getting room and board on the aircraft carrier, so Gerry-- reluctant hero, devoted dad-- sets out on his hunt.

The script-- famously written and re-written by half a dozen people-- is not so much a story as a series of set pieces, moving from the big Philadelphia attack to a tense escape in a Newark apartment building to a nighttime operation in South Korea to a siege in Jerusalem to a haunted house-style showdown in Wales. In general the biggest scenes are the least effective, with director Marc Forster's shaky camera nearly unbearable in 3D, and the entire uncanny valley terror of zombies wasted in a blur of bodies and teeth and carnage. The script's weaknesses show in getting Gerry from place to place-- the Jerusalem attack in particular is caused by sheer human stupidity-- and in blurring past bits of non-essential world-building. As a CIA traitor locked up in the South Korea brig, David Morse is fascinating… but inexplicably written off by the grunts on the base. Gerry hops on a passenger plane out of Jerusalem, which is somehow not just filled with healthy people, but their luggage. Many moments of World War Z powerfully evoke a world spinning out of control, but those serve to make the weaker ones all the more glaring.

Just when World War Z seems prepared to dole out more of the same exhaustingly paced action, it shifts radically into the third act, a section rewritten by Cabin in the Woods director Drew Goddard and Lost's Damon Lindelof that rescues the movie entirely. With the global stakes of Gerry's mission more than clear, the film has the permission to ramp down the scale considerably, setting scenes within the tight confines of an airplane and a medical research building, both of them humming with all the tension that the shaky, chaotic bigger scenes never managed. Pitt seems to find himself in the later scenes as well, not just a grim-faced hero on a mission, but a clever and risk-loving man who's finally using all that research and putting it into action. (He's joined, crucially, by Daniella Kertesz, a stoic but open-faced Israeli actress who is luminous here). The end of the film is much more like a traditional zombie film, with a limited cast of characters and occasional pops of grim humor, but after an hour and a half of disaster-movie-level destruction, it's a welcome relief. We finally are inspired to care about Gerry and the rest of these unlucky humans, just in time for an ending that inevitably leaves the door open for a sequel.

There's not a thing in World War Z that hasn't been done better in another film from these apocalypse-minded times-- the science angle evokes Rise of the Planet of the Apes, the zombie terror Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later or Zack Snyder's Dawn of the Dead, and the scenes of city-wide destruction could come from virtually any recent summer blockbuster. But it's impressive to see a movie this big stay dark for so long, and to watch a film torn in a million different directions seem to find itself as it goes along. LIke any good action hero, World War Z pulls out one bit of last-minute derring-do and saves its own skin-- a hollower victory than they might have liked, but more than any of us expected.

Share this:

From around the web:

ZergNet

Read More

Review: 'Man of Steel' Is A Epic Brand New Superman You've Never Seen Before!

PLOT: With the planet Krypton on the verge of destruction, Jor-El (Russell Crowe) defies the evil General Zod (Michael Shannon) and sends his son Kal-El to Earth. Thirty-three years later, Zod arrives on Earth, looking for the grown Kal-El, now known as Clark Kent, or rather Superman (Henry Cavill) who's only recently begun to embrace his powers. Now, he must save his new home from imminent destruction by Zod, even though the humans aren't sure he can be trusted.

REVIEW: I believe a man can fly — Such an advantage did not exist when the duo began to develop Man of Steel. Audiences seen the origins of Superman in a movie before – Richard Donner’s Superman: The Movie from 1978 is a pop culture lexicon - and since its release it has been seen as one of the definitive stories about the legendary comic book character. But with clever story structure, incredible visual style courtesy of director Zack Snyder, and a collection of well-written characters and great performances, the new film is not just able to keep rank with its esteemed predecessor – it’s able in many ways to surpass it. 

With the exception of a few small-yet-key elements that I won’t spoil here, Man of Steel tells the same story of the birth of Superman that we are used to – a young alien is sent from the dying planet of Krypton to Earth where he becomes the greatest hero the world has ever seen – but it’s through smart storytelling that Snyder and Goyer avoid having it feel like a retread of old material. Similar to Batman Begins, the plot plays out non-linearly, with us first seeing the birth of young Kal-El on Krypton and then flashing-forward to a 30-something Clark Kent (Henry Cavill) working on a fishing ship and heroically saving a bunch of workers on a burning oil rig with his impossible strength. Flashbacks to Clark’s life growing up in Smallville, Kansas and growing up with Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner, Diane Lane) are used regularly to inform who the character is as an adult, and it’s done with incredible emotional impact. Rather than weighing the film down, making movie-goers impatiently wait for the new elements to kick in, the use of the origin elevates the movie and gives us a better understanding of who Superman is. 

The script has some pacing issues and there’s the occasional small plot hole, but Man of Steel is a smart drama that tackles some interesting ideas, perspectives, and philosophies. The heart of the story finds Kal-El/Clark torn between his two dads: the man who raised him, Jonathan Kent, and his biological father, Jor-El (Russell Crowe). The latter sees his son’s potential to be a beacon of hope for the human race – a source of inspiration and goodness. The former, however, realistically recognizes the social terror and fear that would come with his only child revealing himself to the world as an alien. Both make the audience look outwardly at our own world and ask the same questions, while the film fuses both ideas to create the Superman we know. 

Man of Steel is one of the most visually stunning films we’ve seen in the superhero genre. Finding and matching the more somber tone of the story, Snyder finds a perfect excuse to once again make grand use of muted colors and high contrast. At the same time he also shows surprising stylistic restraint, severely cutting down on the number of slow-motion shots that he has come to be known (and slightly mocked) for. 

Action has always been Snyder’s greatest skill, and he certainly doesn't disappoint here. Acknowledging that his hero and villain essentially have the strength of gods, the director goes full tilt in his action sequences and lets us feel the impact of the punches both in the cinematography, and in his shot construction and use of CGI. Your mouth will gape watching Jor-El whiz around Krypton on a giant dragonfly and the devastating destruction done to Metropolis when Superman and General Zod (Michael Shannon) go head to head. 

An up-and-coming actor who will certainly see his star rise once the film is released, Cavill brings a great energy to the part of Superman and has a fresh-faced charm that allows him to seamlessly melt into the role. While the movie doesn’t really give him a chance to revel in his heroics, the superhero played with a more somber tone of self-discovery, there is an undeniable, charming spark within the English actor that lets him capture the pure essence of goodness in Superman while also communicating his internal struggle with his place in the world. 

Surrounding Cavill is a team of actors who likewise find the all-important spirit of their characters. As the most influential figures in Superman’s life, both Costner and Crowe bring a powerful, necessary gravitas to their roles that perfectly illustrate their importance to the story and helps support their beliefs about Kal-El/Clark’s existence on our planet. Shannon provides General Zod with a deeply intimidating presence and brings to light what is really a philosophically fascinating version of the antagonist. The showstopper, though, is Amy Adams as Lois Lane. She effortlessly dials into Lois as a hard-nosed reporter, but also mixes in heart, fortitude, real intelligence and grounded morality. 

Man of Steel doesn’t spend a great deal of time directly focusing on the next step for the franchise or giving hints about a long-rumored DC Comics Cinematic Universe (similar to the developments over at Marvel Studios), but it does something perhaps even more valuable: it sets up a fascinating and compelling tonal world that audiences will want to see Superman explore. It’s realistic in approach and honest in emotion, but also wonderfully fantastical and cinematic. The future is bright for the Man of Tomorrow.

Share this:

From around the web:

ZergNet

Read More

Review: 'After Earth' Is An Unqualified Disaster in The Purest Sense

PLOT: In a future where mankind has had to abandon Earth and has found a new home on a colony called Nova Prime, humanity's greatest warrior, Cypher Raige (Will Smith) has just come back from a long tour of duty to be reunited with his son Kitai (Jaden Smith). He takes Kitai with him on a routine training mission, but a deep-space calamity leaves them marooned back on Earth. With both of Cypher's legs broken, it's up to Kitai to find a beacon that will signal their presence. Now, Kitai not only has to navigate the treacherous environment, but he's also being stalked by a dangerous alien from Nova Prime that was on-board the ship when it crashed.

REVIEW: That’s not to say this movie is nearly as airtight an endeavor as Sense, because it isn’t. But the loyal Night watchers who were deeply disappointed by his last few forays into moviemaking, The Happening and The Last Airbender, will find enough to enjoy once they accept After Earth for what it is: a subdued, small survival story with a calculated family hook that softens the sci-fi so it can aim at young adults and their parents. 

The clues to this film’s intentions are blatent. After Earth, after all, is a vehicle Will Smith has mounted for his son, Jaden. Papa Smith gets a “story by” credit, and largely takes a backseat to his offspring/ Pursuit of Happyness co-star when the meat of the After Earth story hits the burner. Before you go screaming “Nepotism,” however, Jaden once again proves himself a capable leading man. He’s less charismatic here than he was in both Happyness and his enjoyable Karate Kid remake, but he’s playing down the in-his-genes Smith personality because it serves the story. 

What is the story, exactly? Will Smith and screenwriter Gary Whitta have concocted a survival tale set in a distant future, where Cypher Raige (Will Smith) stands tall as society’s bravest warrior. Raige has mastered the art of “ghosting,” a technique of masking one’s fear to escape the sight of The Ursas, a vicious alien that senses through fear pheromones. Cypher’s young son, Kitai (Jaden Smith), is training in the same program that his father has mastered, though he’s swallowed up in his stoic father’s shadow. Simultaneously, the family is haunted by a death in their family, a dark moment when an Ursa claimed Kitai’s sister, Senshi (Zoe Kravitz). 

Hoping to establish a bond with his son, Cypher takes him on a mission. During the trip, their craft is caught in an asteroid storm and forced to land on the closest planet. Unfortunately for them, the planet is an uninhabitable Earth, which mankind destroyed eons ago. The Future Earth more closely resembles prehistoric times than the Neo Seoul of a Cloud Atlas, or the dingy Day-Glo future of Sir Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner. After Earth is set in a desolate landscape that’s brimming with dangers that threaten to prevent our hero from completing his task. 

After Earth calls to mind Shyamalan’s The Last Airbender, only it’s an improvement because the director learned from that film’s mistakes. There’s a rich backstory available in After Earth – and even a novelization that reportedly goes into greater detail if audience members are interested in learning more – but Shyamalan doesn’t get lost exploring it as he did in Airbender. The sci-fi production values are excellent, and the action – while intense in spots – is always cognizant of the teenaged hero and the young audiences who might be rooting him on. After Earth might be dismissed as too basic by savvy sci-fi crowds, but it can be an exhilarating ride for young moviegoers interested in interplanetary adventures, but impatient with the dense layering of the genre. 

Don’t enter After Earth expecting to see Smith reprise his Independence Day role, though. The actor channels a solemn Laurence Fishburne to play Cypher, a mentor figure hoping his son can recognize his full potential. Jaden, perhaps playing to the screenplay, presents Kitai as an intuitive, sensitive boy struggling to find his identity. In many ways, Kitai is a true Shyamalan protagonist: quiet; confused; curious; emotional; and in tune with nature. The movie falls into that subdued atmosphere, which is fine, but unexpected for a large-budget, Big-Willie-Style blockbuster. 

The approach to the material and the lack of a breathtaking set piece makes After Earth an odd summer selection in general. The energies of Will Smith and M Night Shyamalan are so different that their unusual pairing almost grounds their collaboration in stasis, but once you readjust your expectations and accept After Earth on its own terms, I think you’ll find it’s an admirable YA adventure, a moderately engaging piece of sci-fi storytelling, a return to respectability for Shyamalan, and a welcome departure for an aging Will Smith.

Share this:

From around the web:

ZergNet

Read More

Review: 'The Hangover Part III' Is Likable Enough, Even as it Collapses In a Heap

PLOT: Two years after their wild night in Bangkok, the Wolfpack is back. Alan (Zach Galifianakis) has been off his meds for six months and is running wild. After an intervention, Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms) and Doug (Justin Bartha) manage to convince him to go the rehab, but on the way to the clinic they're attacked by a mobster named Marshall (John Goodman) who kidnaps Doug and threatens to kill him unless the guys can find the elusive Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong), who's just broken out of prison.

REVIEW: Raunchy and absurd as its basic premise may have been, The Hangover works because it offers incredible balance. It gives each of the characters, whether lead or supporting, exactly the right amount of screen time. Everyone exists for a reason, and every line they utter serves a larger purpose. The same cannot be said for The Hangover Part III, where director Todd Phillips attempts to double the recipe, but instead only doubles the wilder ingredients, leaving viewers with way too much coconut and not nearly enough flour. 

Take Zach Galifianakis’ Alan Garner, for example. The character works best when he’s an absurd counter-punch to the finicky and sensible Stu (Ed Helms) and the handsome and overpowering Phil (Bradley Cooper). Alan is just too outlandish to be relatable and too balls-to-the-wall to push the plot for an entire film. But in Hangover Part III he feels like the main character. He’s given the lion’s share of the jokes, and at the film’s worst moments, Stu and Phil are relegated to the background. Unlike Doug (Justin Bartha), they’re not absent - they just feel like representations of missed opportunities. 

The movie starts out promising enough, as the entire gang reunites at Alan’s house for an intervention. The beard-iest member of the Wolfpack is off his medication, and everyone would like to see him check in to rehab. After much debate he agrees, but like every other trip these men have ever taken, this one does not go according to plan. Doug is kidnapped and Alan, Phil and Stu are ordered to hunt down Leslie Chow (Ken Jeong) and the millions of dollars in gold he stole from a powerful gangster (John Goodman). They agree, but with Chow, there are no guarantees. 

Chow is another character best utilized in small doses. He’s a wild card. He’s a sociopathic tornado with mean intentions and questionable fashion sense, and like any other natural disaster he should swoop in, leave bodies in his wake, and exit stage left. That doesn’t happen here. Instead, he spends long stretches with the three leads as though he’s another member of the Wolfpack. He chooses nonsensical Karaoke songs. He buys bath salts. He starts to get involved in cockfighting. Taken by itself, any of it could be funny, but altogether, it’s just too much of that damn coconut. 

The Hangover Part III has some funny scenes, and more than a handful of its jokes could sit beside the better ones in the beloved original film. Now and again, it’s even well thought out and kind of touching. There are numerous callbacks to various scenes in earlier films, and every attempt is made to offer closure to the fans, who will also find nice little touches and Easter Egg moments throughout the runtime. Altogether, it’s just not enough to overcome the poor choices, delivering too much Alan, way too much Chow, and very little of the magic that made so many of us fall in love with these characters in the first place. The natural impulse for any filmmaker is to give fans more of the scenes and characters they rave most about, but without the proper context and the counterbalancing elements that set the stage for those laughs in the first place, it never works as well. It always just tastes too much like coconut.

Share this:

From around the web:

ZergNet

Read More