Category Archives: Movie Reviews – W

REVIEW: “Warm Bodies” (2013)

by

25

Warm Bodies posterHave you ever walked out of a theater after seeing a movie asking yourself “What on earth did I just watch?” That certainly sums up my initial reaction to “Warm Bodies”. Now I’ve watched a ton of zombie movies over the years but I can honestly say I’ve never seen one quite like this. This is actually a romance film (Yes, you read it right. It’s a romance film). It also features some good humor and throws in some horror elements as well. After all this is a zombie flick so you have to have horror, right? But the bigger question is how does it all come together and does it equal a fun and entertaining movie?

There are several uniquenesses that “Warm Bodies” throws out there. Perhaps the biggest is that the story is told from the zombies’ perspective. I mean let’s be fair, in our movies we’ve seen a countless number of zombies shot in the head, ran over by vehicles, chopped up by helicopter blades, and blown to bits by an assortment of explosives. Isn’t it time that we see things through their eyes? Don’t we all just want the voices of the zombies to be heard? Okay probably not but that’s what we get here and I have to admit I kinda liked it.

Right off the bat we’re introduced to a young zombie simply named “R” (Nicholas Hoult). Through narration he sets the table for us, laying out the post-zombie apocalypse landscape and describing what it’s like to be a walking corpse. He does have a level of consciousness. He tells us about his desire for simple things such as casual conversation and we see his affection for 80s and 90s pop rock tunes. All of this is laid out in a pretty humorous fashion and it gives R his own odd but entertaining personality. Like a worker getting through his workday, R and the other zombies go about the mundane daily grind of shuffling through the ruined outskirts of the city.

The inner-city is protected by a giant wall and that’s where the living call home. But even they need supplies so periodically a group of young people will go into the outskirts of the city to bring back food and medical needs. Julie (Teresa Palmer) leads her friends on one of the supply missions but they are attacked by a group of hungry zombies which includes R. It looks as if Julie and company are doomed but then R sees her. And in what plays out as an ‘I saw her across the dance floor’ type scene, R is instantly smitten and leads Julie to safety. Julie triggers something inside of R which begins to change him. Is true unwavering love the remedy to bring the zombies back to life. As goofy and cheesy as it sounds, that appears to be the case.

Warm Bodies 1

As wacky as it sounds the romance component between Hoult and Palmer works mainly because it’s laced with some really good humor. The absurdity of what we’re watching is actually fun thanks to some clever writing by Jonathan Levine and two committed lead performances. The movie works best when it keeps its focus on this. But the film tries to develop a big threat in the form of a group known as ‘the bonies’. The bonies are basically zombies who have deteriorated into ravenous skeletons. They turn out to be the real antagonists of the film which sets up a big climactic showdown at the city walls. The problem is none of this really worked for me. The bonies feel like a tacked on addition to the story and they take away from the movie’s real strengths. And then there is the CGI used to animate them. It’s really terrible. I know this isn’t meant to be a big special effects picture, but they should look a lot better than this.

But I would rather dwell on the positive and on how the filmmakers took something so preposterous and made it entertaining. There are several stand-out gags that I think are really funny and I appreciated the film’s originality. Now don’t let the zombie thing scare you off. This isn’t a scary or gory picture. It’s a spoof of the zombie movie craze wrapped up as a quirky romantic comedy. Still its hard to imagine this being everyone’s cup if tea and I doubt it has much staying power after a first viewing. But it’s still clever enough, creative enough, and funny enough to make it worth a watch.

VERDICT – 3 STARS

“WE BOUGHT A ZOO” – 2 STARS

by

8

“We Bought a Zoo” is a comedy/drama from director Cameron Crowe that’s based on the memoir of Benjamin Mee. It’s packaged as a family movie that tells the interesting true story of Mee and his purchase of a run-down zoo. “We Bought a Zoo” does sometimes tug at the proverbial heartstrings and there are occasional moments where the film is mildly amusing. But it’s also a movie that’s full of forced sentiment and familiar themes that play out exactly as they have in countless other films.

Matt Damon plays Benjamin Mee, a recent widower still struggling with the recent death of his wife. He has two kids, both fitting the molds of so many others we’ve seen. There’s his adorable 7-year old daughter Rosie (Maggie Elizabeth Jones) who is filled with cute smiles and cuter sayings. Then there is 14-year old Dylan (Colin Ford), the misunderstood older child with a bad attitude who is really just hurting inside due to his mom’s death. C’mon, you know you’ve seen versions of these same kids in several other movies. They both closely follow the blueprint here and everything from their actions to their relationships with their father seems really familiar.

After Dylan is expelled from school and after seeing too many reminders of his wife around town, Benjamin buys and moves to a dilapidated old zoo just outside of the city. His hopes are to start a new adventure that will help both him and his children overcome the grief that they’re all still battling in their own ways. The zoo comes with it’s own assortment of exotic animals as well as a small staff that we hardly get to know with the exception of the head zookeeper Kelly (Scarlett Johannson). Young Rosie loves their new home while the rebellious Dylan wants to move back to the city. Against the advise of his older brother Duncan (Thomas Haden Church), Benjamin sets out to fix up the zoo in hopes of opening it up for the public. But as costs mount up and money runs out, he soon finds that his entire adventure may never get off the ground.

As I alluded to earlier, Cameron Crowe  milks emotion out of almost every plot point. There are occasions where it does work especially when the film deals with the more personal feelings of loss that each member of the family is dealing with. But Crowe drags these things out just a little to far. I’ll use the strained relationship between Benjamin and his son as an example. We know that a huge blow-up is coming before the relationship will ever be fixed but it feels like it’s never going to come. At over two hours long, Crowe could have trimmed a lot of fat off of the story and the movie would have been better for it. There are also underwritten relationships between Benjamin and Kelly as well as Dylan and a 13-year old home-schooled zoo restaurant employee that go nowhere. But there is a touching side story about a sick bengal tiger that Benjamin grows close to. In a sense it mirrors what he faced with his wife and it plays a big part in his personal healing process.

It sounds like I’m being really hard on the movie and with good reason. But there is also some things to like. As I mentioned there are moments where the emotion feels genuine and I was stirred by them. And even though the family dynamic is something we’ve seen numerous times before, there were instances where they were a believable family struggling with an intense loss. The performances are generally good even though the material sometimes lets the actors down. And I also found that the true story vibe made the movie more interesting. It’s really a neat story. I just wish it had been constructed a little better.

“We Bought a Zoo” isn’t a horrible movie but it’s one that could have been a lot better. It’s sloppy screenplay doesn’t help and the movie runs about 20 minutes too long. It advertises itself as a family picture but it deals with some fairly heavy subject matter and the inclusion of a few pointless vulgarities, especially from a young child, had me shaking my head. At it’s core, the movie has a really good story and we see glimpses of it in some of the scenes. Even with it’s faults, I stayed with the film to the end just to get the feel-good payoff it delivers. It’s just a shame that it couldn’t have maintained a more consistent story from start to finish.

“WRATH OF THE TITANS” – 2 1/2 STARS

by

0

Apparently I was one of the few who liked 2010’s “Clash of the Titans”, a remake of the 1981 mythological action film. In fact, one of my biggest disagreements with critics centered around their brutal reviews of that movie. I like the remake because it never pretended to be anything other than what it was. It was a fantasy monster picture in the same vein as the first “Clash of the Titans”, “Jason and the Argonauts”, and the “Sinbad” films. In many ways the remake was an homage to that old genre, replacing the classic stop motion animation with computer-generated imagery. The movie wasn’t a deep, intellectual exercise nor was it intended to be. It was a fun popcorn action flick that reminded me of those old films I grew up with.

That brings us to “Wrath of the Titans”, an original sequel that tries to strike the same chords as the first film but ends up falling short. The sequel starts at least 10 years after the ending of the first movie. Perseus (Sam Worthington) has settled down in a small village where he fishes and raises his son Helius (John Bell). Zeus (Liam Neeson) pays him a visit and tells him that the walls of Tartarus are falling and the God’s powers to stop them is limited due to the lack of prayers from the humans. Zeus’ brief words are really the only introduction we get to story. There’s practically no setup at all. Perseus first refuses to get involved choosing to stay and raise his son instead. But when the walls of Tartarus fall, monsters are unleashed across the earth and one attacks Perseus’ village. Of course this gets him immediately involved.

Much like the first film, “Wrath of the Titans” turns into quest movie. Perseus teams up with Queen Andromeda (Rosamund Pike), Agenor (Toby Kebbell), Poseidon’s demigod son, and several token tagalongs to stop the fire monster Kronos from being freed from Tartarus. To do that they will need three weapons that will join together to form the Spear of Triam. Much like “Clash”, the journey takes them to several locations and they encounter several different creatures. But unlike “Clash” the creatures and the battles with them just aren’t that impressive. I still remember the extremely cool scorpion battle sequence and the fight with Medusa from “Clash”. There isn’t a single creature battle here that I’ll even remember a year from now.

It’s not that the creatures look bad. In fact, the CGI special effects are very well done. The creatures look amazing, feature fluid movements, and they blend in perfectly with the environments. The camera often times turns away or jerks at just the right moments to help the scenes look more realistic. The problem is the scenes aren’t choreographed that well. Another problem is that there really weren’t that many new creatures. Every creature in the film was shown in the trailers and I was disappointed that I wasn’t surprised with a few others. But the CGI is exceptional in creating some wonderful environments and landscapes. The group has to make their way through a rubik’s cube-like labyrinth that looks fantastic. Tartarus also looks great and I was really impressed by some of the sweeping overhead shots of some of the battle sequences.

While the story lacks a good introduction, some of the characters lack development. Neither Andromeda or Agenor are developed to the point of feeling like important characters. I think back to Perseus’ fellow journeymen from the first film. There were several of those characters that I liked despite their limited screen time. That’s not the case here. But the movie does ease up on the cheesy lines especially between gods. Ralph Fiennes is back as Hades and his conversations with Zeus as considerably less corny that before. Fiennes and Neeson are actually quite good and I did enjoy the powerless gods angle.

“Wrath of the Titans” does capture some of what I liked in the first film. It’s still a straightforward popcorn action picture that doesn’t try to be anything else. The story is simple but it still manages to provide some fun. The creatures look amazing even if their fight sequences aren’t as exciting as they should be. This Perseus is a kinder and gentler Perseus and in many ways this feels like a kinder and gentler movie. It has some nice eye candy and a few pretty cool moments but it lacks the kick and the grit of the first film. Even with its fun scenes and shiny coat of paint, I just can’t help but see “Wrath of the Titans” as a disappointment.

“THE WAY” – 4 STARS

by

0

Emilio Estevez was a household name during the 1980’s and early 1990’s. He starred in several popular films such as “The Breakfast Club”, “Young Guns”, and “The Mighty Ducks”. After seemingly disappearing from the business, Estevez turned up behind the camera with “The Way”. He wrote, produced, and directed the film starring his real-life father Martin Sheen. “The Way” isn’t Estevez’s first foray into writing and directing. His first attempt was with 1986’s forgettable “Wisdom”. He later directed 2006’s slightly better “Bobby”. This time Estevez creates a simple but much stronger and more genuine film that I really enjoyed.

“The Way” is a reference to the Camino de Santiago, a spiritual and historical pilgrimage also known as “The Way of St. James”. It’s a long, arduous journey starting in France and ending at the Cathedrel of Santiago de Compostela in the small town of Galicia in northwest Spain. Thousands of individuals travel the Camino’s different routes each with their own personal and/or spiritual purposes. In the movie “The Way”, the Camino provides the main setting for this touching story of reconciliation and personal transformation.

Martin Sheen plays Thomas Avery, an Optometrist with a successful professional life but a troubled family life. Since the death of his wife several years ago, his relationship with his son Daniel (played by Estevez) has soured. While out on the golf course with friends, Thomas recieves a call notifying him that Daniel was killed during a storm in the Pyrenees mountains. Thomas flies to France to identify and bring back Daniel’s body. While there he discovers that Daniel was killed while walking the Camino de Santiago. Struggling to handle not only the death of his son but the strained relationship they shared, Thomas has the body cremated then takes Daniel’s gear and sets off on the Camino in hopes of finishing the journey for his son.

Estevez’s story could have easily evolved into a mushy, run-of-the-mill road picture but it never does. Sure it’s easy to predict and nothing happens that will catch you by surprise. But it’s a very sincere and sensitive film that doesn’t get caught up in overwrought sentimentality. Thomas’ journey feels authentic and personal and I couldn’t help but wonder if the real-life father-son connection had something to do with it. Along the way Thomas runs into several other pilgrims including Joost (Yorick van Wageningen), a Dutchman taking the journey to lose weight for his brother’s wedding, Jack (James Nesbitt) and Irish writer struggling with writer’s block, and Sarah (Deborah Kara Unger), a Canadian who wants to quit smoking. Much like Thomas, each of these characters have more going on under the surface and each find themselves effected in different ways by their pilgrimage.

“The Way” also looks fantastic. Estevez took great effort to portray the Camino de Santiago reverently and authentically. The beautiful scenery and the quaintness of the small Spanish towns fills the movie with life and ambience. Also the ability to capture details of the pilgrimage does just as much to contribute to the atmosphere. Estevez proves to have a good eye and I was surprised at how well he handled the camera. It may not be the most polished example of filmmaking but I was impressed.

As I mentioned, “The Way” is a simple and straightforward story. It’s fairly predictable and it’s only real surprise is in how effective the movie is. It’s a heart-felt and inspirational film and even when the story meanders in the middle, I never felt uninterested or disconnected. It doesn’t shy away from it’s spiritual nature but it doesn’t bludgeon you to death with it either. “The Way” may not work for some people but I was moved by it despite it’s few shortcomings. One thing the movie stresses – the journey is often times more important than the destination and it left me wishing I could take a month off and make my own way to Galicia.

“THE WOMAN IN BLACK” – 3.5 STARS

by

0

No, this is not ‘Harry Potter Does Horror’. Saying that may be the greatest compliment Daniel Radcliffe could receive. Fresh off of the  massive success of the  Harry Potter franchise, Radcliffe begins his adult movie career with “The Woman in Black”, and old school horror film based on Susan Hill’s 1983 novel. The story has been adapted into a play and a TV movie before finally reaching the big screen. It’s old school in the fact that it doesn’t soak the audience with buckets of blood and guts. Instead it relies on mood and tone and in my opinion that’s much scarier than any amount of gore.

“The Woman in Black” was a good choice for Radcliffe. It’s not a role loaded with heavy dialogue or that requires a wide range. But Radcliffe is more than able to handle what’s asked of him. He plays Arthur Kipps, a young lawyer and father who is still struggling to cope with the death of wife during the birth of their son. Arthur’s sadness is not only effecting his relationship with his now four-year old son, but also his job performance at the law firm. His boss gives him one more chance to impress the higher-ups by sending him to a remote English village to handle the final affairs of a woman who died there. As you would guess, upon arrival Arthur is greeted with all sorts of odd behavior from villagers that would rather he leave.

One of my favorite actors, Ciaran Hinds plays Sam Daily, one of the few locals that gives Arthur the time of day. Sam warns Arthur of the superstitious nature of the villagers but it’s clear Sam knows more than even he want’s to believe. Arthur arrives at the creepy mansion of the deceased lady to begin his work. He soon finds that the land is haunted by a mysterious woman in black which leads Arthur to discover the gruesome secret the villagers so desperately try to hide.

There are so many vintage horror elements in “The Woman in Black”. We get everything from ghosts to haunted houses but most important is that the majority of it works. “The Woman in Black” really succeeds with the creep factor. With the exception of a few cheap, loud ,volume burst jump scenes, the movie manufactures its terror through slick camera work, dark and dreary locations, and a genuinely spooky ambience. The story turns out to be far more grim than a simple haunted house ghost story which adds to the intensity. Once the mystery begins to unfold, the story comes together nicely and with the exception of Arthur’s rather far-fetched solution, I liked the way things came together.

“The Woman and Black” isn’t a perfect film but it’s head-and-shoulders above many of the horror pictures Hollywood churns out. There are a couple of cheap frights, a few head-scratching moments, and it does revisit the same boo devices more than once. But it also shows a film can be scary without the senseless blood and guts. It’s look and tone perfectly captured the mood for me and I found myself easily wrapped up in the story. This is a good transition for Radcliffe and a nice film in what is usually a poor movie month.

REVIEW: “War Horse”

by

0

“War Horse” is a Steven Spielberg movie throughout. It’s broad in scope, has huge production value, and soaked in melodrama. Spielberg produced and directed this war time period film and it features beautiful locations and several large-scale action scenes and set pieces. He has made several of these ambitious war pictures before so he’s in familiar territory. But his biggest challenge is taking a horse and making him the main star while keeping the audience engaged for the movie’s two and a half hour running time. “War Horse” does succeed in several areas but it never completely captures or maintains the emotional charge that it aims for.

Based on a 1982 children’s book, “War Horse” follows a very special young colt who is unwisely bought at an auction by a struggling farmer who is supposed to be buying a bigger, stronger plow horse. The farmer’s wife is furious with the purchase but their young son Albert promises to raise and train the horse who he names Joey to eventually plow their hard, rocky farm plot. The family hits even harder times and circumstances arise that sees Joey thrust into the onset of World War I. “War Horse” never stays in the same place very long and becomes a collection of brief short stories about the people Joey encounters including a military officer heading to war, two young brothers reluctantly serving on the German front, and an elderly French farmer and his granddaughter. There are several other scenes featuring other characters but the one constant throughout is Joey.

WAR HORSE

This storytelling technique works good in the broad sense. Joey is certainly an incredible animal and I couldn’t help but stay interested regardless of the convenience that dictates many of his situations. I particularly enjoyed the story of Joey and the military officer played wonderfully by Tom Hiddleston. Equally good were the scenes with the French Farmer played by the fantastic French actor Niels Arestrup and his young granddaughter Emilie played by the lovely Celine Buckens. These are the films best scenes and I can’t help but wish we could have gotten more from these characters. But as I mentioned, Joey is the real star and I was amazed that Spielberg was able to draw so much character out of his lead. As many as eight different horses played the part of Joey and even though the director uses several instances of emotional manipulation, the horse we get on-screen held my interest throughout.

But there was something missing in the movie. It’s clear what the movie wants to be but I could never get as emotionally invested as I was supposed to be. Some of the tugs at our heart-strings felt a bit artificial and there are several animal movie clichés that the movie fully embraces. It was also rather predictable in some areas and I found myself figuring out things well before they culminated on the screen. As with many Spielberg pictures, subtly isn’t a strong point and his attempts to bring tears feel heavy on delivery but light in effect. And with a movie that is striving to be an emotionally driven family drama, that hurts the film.

Flaws aside, “War Horse” is a very watchable film and even flirts with occasional greatness. As expected, it’s technically sound with some beautiful camera work, fantastic locations, and crisp editing. I loved the shots of the English countryside and the dank, muddy, war-torn areas are perfectly fitting. All the performances are solid and some of the character stories are great. There is a lot of charm and heart in “War Horse” but there are also several cheap and lazy attempts to bring out the tissues. It’s a good movie and one that I would certainly watch again. But I can’t help feel that with a tighter script and a slightly different approach, “War Horse” could have been a serious Oscar contender.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS