World War Z:
What's it about?
Big budget adaptation (in-name-only, pretty much) of Max Brooks' celebrated zombie novel.
Who would I recognise in it?
Brad Pitt, Mireille Enos, James Badge Dale, Matthew Fox, Fana Mokoena, David Morse, Peter Capaldi.
Great/Good/Alright/Shite?
I went into watching this flick (in its "extended" form) with my expectations at rock bottom after months of negative press and information and trailers in the lead-up to the initial release. Likewise with very mixed reviews coming from fellow zombie fans, I was preparing myself for an out-right calamity. Fortunately, it wasn't quite that bad - however, it was still a massively compromised hodge-podge of CGI, gargantuan plot holes, and leaps in logic that crumble what semblance of a narrative there is. Effectively a series of increasingly large-scale set pieces, the film rushes to establish a 'family dynamic' to give Brad Pitt's Gerry something to fight for. Sadly, the film never earns the right to our emotions as it swiftly goes about throwing as much money at the screen as possible. The scale is impressive, but the running, jumping, screeching, twitching, 'zombies' look awful - it's CGI overload and groan-inducing "I Am Legend" style nonsense all-the-way. The 'ant hill' and 'fluid group dynamics' are just naff gimmicks as the CGI 'zombies' defy physical logic and the abilities of the human body.
Click "READ MORE" below for more WWZ, horrors inside the home, Nazi monsters, knock-off Star Wars action, and spooky houses...
The third act - the much talked-about costly re-shoots - is, by comparison to the rest of the film, evidently cheap. It's essentially twenty minutes creeping around an office building in Wales with an underwhelming biological discovery. Crammed-to-the-gills with moronic characters, idiotic decisions, and dodgy plotting, WWZ gives grand and entertaining spectacle, but the complete and utter trampling of the source text is unforgivable. Furthermore, swapping out the novel's shambling zombies for CGI runners is a slap in the face to the hardcore fans - you can't help but wonder if the filmmakers just weren't capable of 'making slow zombies scary' ... never mind that the book shows them exactly how to make it work (the Battle of Yonkers, anyone?), as well as the most popular show on Cable TV in America right now by the name of The Walking Dead.
Lots of flash, lots of "BIG STUFF HAPPENING", but little thought throughout, and a fetid stench of a death by a thousand committee cuts. Sometimes alright, sometimes shite.
The Purge:
What's it about?
In the near future, America's woes have been solved by staging a 'purge' once-a-year, whereby the citizens can commit heinous crimes and get away with it.
Who would I recognise in it?
Lena Headey, Ethan Hawke.
Great/Good/Alright/Shite?
The central conceit is interesting, but very quickly it collapses under the weight of numerous questions. Indeed, once you think about it more and more, you can't help but consider 'how on earth does any of this actually work?' Plus - annoying child characters - there's a most-punchable teenage son in this film who does nothing but piss you off. Ultimately, that's what the film comes down to - a series of distracting annoyances and questions about the entire premise of the film. There's a couple of cool moments, and it says something dark and interesting about what's bubbling under the surface of polite society, but within minutes of starting you just know it's not going to hold together. Sure enough, it doesn't. Alright.
Frankenstein's Army:
What's it about?
A squad of Russian soldiers go deep behind enemy lines to search for comrades in need of help. During their travels, accompanied by a documentarian with a secret mission, they discover a hidden town of bio-mechanical horrors created by a crazed scientist.
Who would I recognise in it?
Karel Roden.
Great/Good/Alright/Shite?
The locations, gore, and creature designs are fantastic - atmospheric, graphic, and highly inventive - so it's a shame that the rest of the film doesn't match up. The characters are vaguely sketched (to say the least) and so you never know who's who or why you should really care about them, and for crying out loud - yet another bloody 'found footage' horror movie. I'm sick to death with the style - it seems more like an excuse to not bother with proper set-ups these days, a way to rush the shooting schedule, but it just ends up looking lazy. When you've got such fantastic locations to shoot in, and with such wonderfully horrific monsters populating the set pieces, it seems like such a waste to cover it with shaky camera bullshit. The '1940s camera' idea is barely adhered to as well: it would have been better if they'd gone for a documentary aesthetic, but without breaking the fourth wall. You could still include a documentarian as a character and intercut with their footage (which could have been digitally altered to resemble genuine WW2 era footage, not HD widescreen). The script is weak when it comes to characterisation and scares, but the film is strongest when it's showing off it's scene-stealing monsters. Swaying back and forth between alright and good.
Battle Beyond The Stars:
What's it about?
Roger Corman produced this sci-fi flick in the wake of Star Wars' huge success. A bunch of evil space bastards rock up to a farming planet and threaten to destroy it, so their version of Luke Skywalker goes in search of mercenaries to help defend his home.
Who would I recognise in it?
Richard Thomas, Robert Vaughn, John Saxon, George Peppard, Sybil Danning, and others.
Great/Good/Alright/Shite?
It's painfully obvious that this is a cheap cash-in on Star Wars, featuring numerous elements that are decidedly familiar, but the sense of scale is to be applauded. A young James Cameron (yes, he of Avatar fame) was the Art Director on this flick, and his early talent is evident. Squeezing every drop out of the meagre budget, the sets are impressive and the model work is wonderful - indeed, the majority of the film is made up of lazer-shooting space battles. Naturally, the script is rather wonky and the performances aren't what you'd call brilliant, but for certain film fans in a certain frame of mind it's a good bit of low budget fun. On the cusp between alright and good.
Silent House:
What's it about?
A young woman is helping her father and uncle renovate the old family home, but things take a dark turn. Is there a psychotic squatter in the shadows, or are there spookier goings-on afoot?
Who would I recognise in it?
Elizabeth Olsen.
Great/Good/Alright/Shite?
This low-fi chiller makes the most of its modest budget with some skilled filmmaking. Featuring very few edits, the film is made up from a handful of long takes (as few as ten, apparently). It seems that the first 40-or-so minutes is one continuous take! I figured out the main revelations of the plot in advance, but even still, this was an involving piece of 'spooky house' horror. Elizabeth Olsen gives a brilliant performance - the complexities of how the film was made must have been a huge challenge in itself - and the sense of discovery holds a tragic air. Not the scariest low-fi horrors of recent years (Lovely Molly, and The Innkeepers were both more unsettling), but certainly one of the more impressive chillers from a performance and technical perspective. Good/Alright.
No comments:
Post a Comment