WORLD WAR Z (2013): I know absolutely nothing about the Max Brooks novel upon which this film is based so I can't judge whether the film lives up to those expectations or not. As a zombie movie, it seems much more in the vein of Contagion rather than Dawn of the Dead, which pleases me. As much as I love the current trend of "fast zombies" and all the attendant gore and horror, I found the idea of a worldwide government being stumped by an epidemic, and powerless to stop its spread, the most horrifying movie experience I had ever had in Soderburg's Contagion. World War Z follows this line, as the scattered remains of the global network scramble to identify the origin of this plague. The focus on the tactical struggles, the way information leaked to allow some countries advance notice of this "plague," the idea that an investigator for the U.N. is the world's best hope - these are more relatable plot lines for me than extended focus on the individual zombies and the damage they cause. The film has some extraordinary sequences that struck me as unique ways to present this situation (although I'm sure they are not). There is a family that shelters our hero (Brad Pitt) and his family early on, and their decisions and the subsequent fallout were tensely and humanely handled, as was the moment where Pitt momentarily fears he has been contaminated. Also noteworthy are a shocking and unexpected death, and the way our hero handles an Israeli soldier being bitten. I also give the film kudos for a more subdued and cerebral conclusion, which while lacking in action, is full of suspense. The film ends on a rather unsatisfactory note because this problem and the only logical way to solve it will not fit into a film's time limits. This story would make an excellent mini or television series. I hope at some point we are able to see that vision.
STOKER (2013): I rented this last week and I was not disappointed. While I originally thought the film was heading in a different direction, what I ultimatly got was undoubtedly original and disturbing. India (Mia Wasikowsa) is a friendless teenager living in a large, gothic house with her parents. When her father unexpectedly dies, her fragile mother (Nicole Kidman) is comforted by the arrival of her husband's younger brother Charlie (Matthew Goode), an unnerving rascal with an intense interest in India. What follows is a rare coming of age story that resolutely refuses to be predictable. And for those collectors of random facts, the screenplay was written by "Prison Break" star Wentworth Miller - yes, that one. Matthew Goode is always best when playing underhanded characters. His good looks and natural charm would seem to make him a strong candidate for leading man, but they work much more effectively when you know his mind is warped. Mia Wasikowsa has been a critical darling for years now, mostly for a stellar turn on HBO's "In Treatment" and solid support in The Kids Are All Right. I hadn't really been blown away by anything I'd seen until this. India is an observer and Wasikowsa's best moments take place in silence, when her eyes register something horrifying or titillating that only her ever working mind can grasp. As criticism of Meryl Streep, Katherine Hepburn noted that Streep always looked as though the wheels were turning in her head, "Click, click, click..." but I've never grasped why that is a bad thing. I like it when I can see a character processing information, planning their next more, thinking for God's sake. And Mia Wasikowsa "clicks" in spades. She also completely surrenders to the emotional side of her character in two very strong, if somewhat distressing, scenes: that unpleasant shower recollection, and her impromptu piano duet. The use of color in the film is astonishing; usually a film that employs such bright colors (all those blues and greens, even the earthy reds) feels happier, even safer (see: Amelie). In Stoker, director Chan-wook Park uses the lusciousness of these colors to imply a kind of rotting fecundity - a fertile place for India's darkest elements to take hold. And his choice of blocking, camera angles and often a lack of sound assist in creating an atmosphere of repression, isolation and foul desire.
JEFF WHO LIVES AT HOME (2011): Perfectly serviceable, if somewhat slight film. It's nice to see Jason Segel continue to expand his repertoire beyond manic nice boys, although his Jeff is still a man-child. But this man-child thinks Signs is the greatest film ever, so I can't really find too much fault there. Jeff is a slacker, with no apparent trauma in his recent background, but living a stilted adulthood in his parents basement. He is obsessed with fate and following the signs, and so waits for cues before he acts - in this case a wrong number calling for "Kevin" influences his ride on the bus, and other events in his day, including a run-in with his estranged brother Pat (Ed Helms), a tool suffering marriage problems whose solution is to buy a Porsche. Ed Helms is such a likable presence in real life, but in roles he is so forced and obtuse, you just want to smack him over the head. And Susan Sarandon, as the boy's mother, feels somehow shoehorned into the story (sharing only one real scene with the main characters) and yet has the more interesting and unique storyline involving a secret admirer sending her instant messages at work. By the end of the film, rather than depict Jeff learning that he needs to grow up and stop smoking pot in his mom's basement while waiting for the meaning of life to happen upon him, the plot somehow supports his unrealistic expectations. For those who believe in "signs" and the idea that the universe has a grand plan waiting for them, I guess this ending will be satisfying. Even I was unable to suppress a hopeful smile. But it seems too easy a fix for life to say that a belief in fate should be what drives you. I guess I hold more with the Angel-Stripper in Can't Hardly Wait who says that "Fate. It does exist. But it only takes you so far and then it's up to you to make it happen." Jeff does make it happen. But did he really learn anything? Or will he continue to wait for wrong number phone calls to give him an idea of who he should follow today?
MONSTERS UNIVERSITY (2013): There's nothing really wrong with Monsters University. But there are no moments of transcendent wonder either. Carl and Ellie do not have a lifetime of mundanely happy adventures, WALL-E does not take a magical ride through the Milky Way, Dash does not laugh exuberantly while running on water. And I suppose that's okay. Not all films need to transport us out of the ordinary. I appreciate that the sequel focuses on Mike Wackowski (voiced by Billy Crystal) and his great, big, scare-loving heart, and less on the formerly more shallow Sulley (voiced by John Goodman). That seems fair after Sulley got the far more rewarding arc with Boo in Monsters Inc. I enjoyed this movie, and I suspect all the families and parents and children who saw it enjoyed it as well. The college setting allows for a lot of jokes that only adults will understand and empathize with, but that won't stop the kiddies from laughing along, and they scored the great Helen Mirren to voice the formidable Dean of the Scare Program. But apart from the originality of the animation and the fact that these characters are already beloved, there is nothing to set this movie apart from any 80's/90's underdog movie. Nothing wrong with that, but we all know Pixar is capable of so much more and it would really make me sad if they started settling for sequels to everything. We appreciate your original ideas folks! Keep 'em coming!
NOBODY WALKS (2012): For a film with so many actors I have real fondness for (John Krasinski, Olivia Thirlby, Rosemarie DeWitt) this movie left me a little cold. We follow a young artist/filmmaker Martine (Thirlby) who was invited to L.A. for help from a sound effects/sound editing master (Krasinski) by his therapist wife (DeWitt) who has ties to the Martine's circle of friends. I really enjoy the process of filmmaking - from casting to the camera choices, the costuming and sets to the editing choices - so it is fun for me to get a feel for how the sound in a film is created and layered. I will have more respect for whomever wins Best Sound at the Oscars this year, that's for sure. But when it comes to characterization, I'm a little at a loss. Krasinski's character seems perfectly content and even happy in his marriage to DeWitt, but two days of making sounds with Martine and he's ready to throw it all away for some misplaced sexual attraction. Actually, it felt a lot like that Season 2 arc of Downton Abbey where Lord Grantham almost has an affair with a housemaid because she makes him feel worthwhile, gives him something to do when he feels impotent about his forced lack of involvement in the war. Kransinski's character is apparently caught up in Martine's enthusiasm and it makes him appreciate and be excited by his job again. It still feels like that came out of nowhere. And what makes it more irritating is that every other male in the film is instantly attracted to Martine as well. She has some kind of magical vagina, and despite Thirlby being cute as a button, there is no reasonable explanation for her irresistibility. The character is just not engaging enough to warrant this onslaught. Especially when you have sexy force of nature DeWitt being shunted to the side, and young actress India Ennega as Kolt, DeWitt's thoughtful and uncertain daughter, whose every scene is far more interesting than any other in the film (I wish the movie was about either of these characters instead). 
No comments:
Post a Comment