The Cinephile Fix

World War Z is one of the best zombie films to come out in years. Now, I know that’s not saying much, but I also know it kept me on the edge of my seat for much of its duration, and that’s pretty much all I ask for when I walk into a zombie film. Marc Foster managed to direct the first zombie film that feels truly epic in scale. This isn’t the tale of a family trapped inside a mall or a couple taking refuge in a house. World War Z is about a global epidemic that needs to be stopped before it’s too late.

With a budget of over $200 million, this is the most expensive zombie film ever made. The film shifts into full gear right from the opening scene. No time is wasted on establishing the family or repetitive shots of ordinary life getting interrupted. We’re thrown right at the twitch of chaos and the tension never drops a notch.

After zombies start running around spreading the disease along the way, we see Gerry (Brad Pitt) and his family running into a supermarket to stock up on food and medications. This is pretty much standard human behavior. Whenever chaos breaks off, the first that comes to mind are the very things you’ll need to survive; naturally, food is at the top of that list. Anyway, something very interesting happens in that scene that isn’t important to the plot.

They rush inside and see dozens of people grabbing everything they can in a frenzied manner. A moment later, they decide to split up. Gerry walks over to the pharmaceutical section and the wife stocks up on food. We follow Gerry as he gets asthma medication for his daughter when suddenly the scream of his wife sends him rushing over to the food isle. We see his wife on the floor fighting off two men attempting to rape her. Gunshots are fired, and Gerry shoots down one of the looters. At that precise moment, a cop walks by and sees the killing. Gerry raises his hands, but the cop walks right past him like nothing happened. The thing I love most about apocalyptic films is observing how humans act in anarchic scenarios. Most films don’t bother to show that angle of chaos, but World War Z is smarter than most zombie films.

You see, in the midst of chaos, the whole system we’re used to falls apart. A cop typically paid to protect and serve simply becomes a man in a uniform. Priorities change, he thinks of his own survival, his family, his future. He sees a man killing another, but doesn’t bother to do anything about it. In the midst of turmoil, it’s every man for himself. I said that this isn’t important to the plot of the film, and it’s true it plays no significance whatsoever to the storyline, but it is extremely important to the film itself. You see, the little things that feel true to human nature are elements that pull viewers in. Directors often don’t pay much attention to background behavior, but it’s often the key to making viewers forget that what they’re watching isn’t real. The danger in World War Z felt real and authentic and that’s why it works as a thriller. That being said, the film does have its flaws. It feels rushed and could’ve dwelled more on character development. The acting feels somewhat flat and Brad Pitt seems to have put little effort into his performance. But the thing that bothered me most is a scene set in Palestine aka Israel. We see Palestinians and Israelis singing together in unity.

That’s perfectly fine and believable since humans tend to unite when they have a common enemy. What bothered me is the repercussion this act of unity caused. You see, when they sing together, the sound attracts the attention of thousands of zombies and this becomes the end of Jerusalem. Now, I don’t know what kind of political subliminal message this is meant to send out to the millions of subconscious minds watching this film but if there’s any meaning behind this, World War Z may be just as contaminating as the virus infecting the human race within the story.

Nevertheless, I disregarded it the way I disregard forced product placement in films and had an overall pleasant time at the movies. The film perfectly sets up an inevitable sequel that will probably be less of a detective story and more of a war film. Rither way, I’m interested enough to anticipate what happens next in this alternative world. Bring on World War Z: II.

A man walks amongst us, lost, confused and absent minded. The misfit drifts from one day-job to another in search for his place in this world. The more he searches, the less purpose he finds in life. He thinks of himself as a freak, different, misplaced, and cursed. Each time he uses the very thing that distinguishes him from the rest, he is left with no choice but to leave and drift elsewhere. The day he finds out who he is and where he came from, he walks over to his guardian and smiles. He looks genuinely happy; he knows why he’s here.

Zack Snyder’s Man of Steel was perhaps the most anticipated movie of the year. It had all the workings of a great success. Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight, Inception) acted as “godfather” to the project, Zach Snyder (Watchmen) directed the film, and David S. Goyer (The Dark Knight, Dark City) is the man who put it all down on paper. Conceptually speaking, this is a dream team that would (and probably did) keep geeks up many nights. Having seen the film, I can honestly say, they did a great job at doing what they were trying to do, but the question is, did it need doing?

Man of Steel is a Superman film that begs to be taken seriously. Here’s a Superman film that has depth in its themes. It is filled with religious undertones and philosophical themes about the nature of human beings, but somehow it didn’t feel natural. For some reason, the very things that worked miracles for Nolan in the Dark Knight trilogy ultimately fail here.

Derek Clanfrance reunites with his Blue Valentine star Ryan Gosling for another hard hitting family drama however, The Place Beyond the Pines is much more ambitious than his previous film and wide in scope. The plot spans nearly two decades and revolves around the lives of two New York families whose paths intertwine in unfortunate circumstances. It is epic, grandiose and rich with character development, plot twists and genuine human drama that feels more authentic than most of contemporary films that claim to be based on true stories. Here’s a film that isn’t afraid to be truthful, a film that doesn’t attempt to manipulate viewers’ emotions, a film that doesn’t follow Hollywood conventions of having a flawless hero chasing an evil villain; The Place Beyond the Pines is the real deal: gritty, confident and gutsy. It explores deep themes of moral dilemmas, paternal responsibilities, systematic corruption, and internal guilt. There are no heroes or villains in this film; every character does their own thing for perfectly understandable reasons.

The trailers will have you thinking it’s a film about a motorcycle stunt man who decides to rob banks to provide for his family and a parallel storyline of cops closing in on him, but it’s far bigger than any of that. In fact, The Place Beyond the Pines is very much Shakespearean in the way the story is told. Every character has their own story told in their own time frame. The film is broken down into three stories, but it’s not one of those worn-out plot devices where we have three separate stories that tie together neatly at the end. It’s more like each story has its own arc and, as it comes to a conclusion, the story hands itself over to another tale that is more or less a continuation that could stand alone, as its own film. The three acts do feel like part of a whole because they do follow the same plotline and explore the same themes.

We have an all-star cast with Eva Mendes, Ryan Gosling, Bradley Cooper and Ray Liotta gracing the screen and each act has its own powerhouse performance. Ryan Gosling completely owns the first act, Bradley Cooper surprises with a heartfelt performance in the second, and newcomer Dane DeHaan delivers what could very well be his breakthrough performance in the third act. For the sake of avoiding spoilers and your viewing pleasure, I won’t go into what the second and third act are about.

The films kicks off with a beautiful long-tracking shot following Luke (Ryan Gosling) as he walks from his trailer onto a bike ultimately performing a stunt that involves driving in loops within a huge metal globe. I can only assume that this is a metaphor of his life. The loops are more or less his days, they come and go; fast in pace yet predestined. A lone rider rides the day-to-day routine uninterrupted. Shortly after, he discovers he’s a dad and we see Luke haphazardly driving his dirt bike through a cluttered forest with no clear path. The lone stunt man drives on, unaware of what lays ahead.

Clanfrance’s epic drama bares much symbolism: a lot of scenes mirror one another and we can see how they’re all connected and part of a whole. Yet, the plot unfolds much like that ride through the forest. We never know where it’ll take us next. Just as we think we think we have the remainder of the film all figured out, the film takes a surprising turn and throws you in the midst of a completely unpredictable scenario. This is a film that will likely fly under your radar, but I strongly urge you not to miss it; The Place Beyond the Pine is one of the best films to come out in the first half of 2013.

Baz Luhrmann has a tendency to modernise classical stories to make them appealing to the current generation. His adaptation of Romeo & Juliet, set in modern day LA was quite controversial for the liberties it took, but it also made youngsters talk about the work of William Shakespeare and that’s something to behold.

Nevertheless, when it comes down to it, the film was absolutely horrendous. If you’re going to makeRomeo & Juliet set in modern times, then don’t make them speak Shakespearean English. In fact, the unedited dialogue was downright absurd. At several points, the characters asked one another to “draw thy sword” before raising guns. I’m sure Luhrmann did this intentionally, but to be frank, it was silly. How could characters that talk so eloquently be so stupid?

On the contrary, this mixture of the old and new worked marvelously in his remake of Moulin Rouge. Characters living in the year 1899 covered songs by Nirvana, Madonna and Fatboy Slim, but the truth is, when you enter a fantastical world where people sing their words, it’s somewhat acceptable. After all, it was a musical and anything could happen in that genre.

Oblivion is Joseph Kosenski’s second directorial effort and like his first film, the only thing I wholly enjoyed was the musical score. Tron Legacy’s music which was composed by the legendary Daft Punk, was one of the best electronic scores in film history. For Oblivion, he hired the lesser, albeit still impressive duo, M83, and the score once again overshadows everything else.

The story centers on a lone repairman called Jack Harper. His job is to extract useful resources from an apocalyptic Earth. We learn that the planet was deemed uninhabitable after years of war with an alien species. In other words, you’ll be forced to to suffer through endless shots of ruined landmarks.

Sometimes it feels like the makers of big Hollywood blockbusters have a standard script circling around, and all they do is fill in the blanks to cash in on the same old story.

Oblivion is a badly mixed cocktail. It is visually reminiscent of I Am Legend with a plot twist identical to that of Moon and a climactic scene ripped straight out of the last few pages of the Independence Day script. Yet, it’s not nearly as enjoyable as any of them. The day I watched Oblivion, I learned that Kinder Surprise chocolate eggs are banned in the United States. It’s quite sad when you realise that a stupid fact as this was more mentally stimulating that day than anything seen in a $120 million blockbuster.

A Good Day to Die Hard is the worst action film I’ve seen in years. John Moore, a filmmaker who hasn’t directed a single good film in a career that spans 23 years, directs the weakest of the Die Hard anthology. The fifth installment is set in Russia and even though poking at Russia hasn’t been “in” since 1985, the film does follow the series’ horrible formula. You see, as the anthology went along, the terrorized area expanded with it.

In the original classic, the threat was concentrated in a building. The second took place in an airport; New York was at risk in the third, and for the fourth film, the threat expanded nationally, putting the United States at risk. Naturally, what’s at stake this time is international in scope. I read somewhere, they’re making a sixth film; maybe rereleasing Armageddon in theaters with a different title would crack the universal extension of hazard. Anyway, the scope expands, and each sequel is worse than the one before. It doesn’t take a genius to do the math and see what they’re doing wrong.

That’s not the only problem. This is a perfect example of product placement completely ruining a picture. Mercedes-Benz is the official sponsor/distraction and they most definitely got their money’s worth, because A Good Day to Die Hard feels like an hour and a half Benz commercial; a very bad Benz commercial at that. Seriously, all the villains ride BMWs and we even get a shot of them all exploding. There’s another shot of the G-Class crushing a Porsche, and in one ridiculous scene the G-Class slams into a tank and drives it off a bridge, when it reality the car would fall apart merely touching it. Anyway, the product placement spans the whole runtime of the film and the Mercedes-Benz logo gets more screen time than Bruce Willis.

Which leads me to another issue I have. Whoever wrote the script should’ve capitalized on the fans love for John McLane. Not only does he share the action with his son, who is played by a horrible actor (I didn’t even bother looking up his name), but he also bores us with cheesy father-son talk in a film that is supposed to be anything but lovey-dovey. Finally, what we loved about John McLane in the past was seeing him all bruised up and barely in shape to save the day. Remember how cool it was in the first one when he walked barefoot on glass? Here, McLane is virtually invisible. He doesn’t get shot once while walking through showers of bullets. As a chopper tries to crash the floor he’s in, he jumps off the window and gives the pilot the finger mid-air for fuck’s sake.

Apparently, McLane has evolved into a dumb character too. I’m serious. He goes to Russia to see his son, but nevertheless keeps saying the horrible catchphrase, “I’m on vacation.” No, dude. You’re not on vacation; you booked the flight to see your son one last time before he gets sent to jail; idiot. Anyway, I kept watching the film hoping I’d at least get my money’s forth in the traditional badass “Yippe-Ki-Yay” scene, and guess what? He utters the line and a freaking Benz saves the moment. It’s a good day to retire this franchise.

Django Unchained is a very good film, but it’s one of Tarantino’s lesser works. Don’t get me wrong, I did enjoy the film quite a bit – just don’t go in expecting 90’s Tarantino. You won’t be blown in the way you were after first experiencing Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, or even the Kill Bill movies, for that matter. That doesn’t mean it’s not worth your while. Django Unchained features great scenes but never quite lives up to its very enjoyable first half.

The Ku Klux Klan scene, for instance, is quite possibly the funniest five minutes of any film this year. In fact, it alone is worth sitting through the three hours of runtime. It encapsulates everything we love about a Tarantino picture. You’re thrown off guard by unpredictable, humorous dialogue and exaggerated violence that feels like an artistic choice, rather than a pointless depiction of gory carnage.

Django Unchained is Tarantino’s third feature in his revenge trilogy, the first being Kill Bill and the second being Inglorious Basterds. Jamie Foxx is Django (“the D is silent”), a slave with a few words who wants to seek revenge against those who abused and separated him from his wife. To do so, he teams up with Dr. King Schultz (Christopher Waltz), a bounty hunter seeking the notorious slave owner Calvin Candy, played brilliantly by Leonardo DiCaprio.

The film is very much an ensemble piece with many great performances, my favorite of which has to be Samuel L. Jackson’s best performance since Pulp Fiction, as a grumpy head of slaves referred to as Stephen. The extended dinner table scene is another great moment in the film. The entire scene plays like a psychological chess game between everyone involved from the guests, the servants, to the landowners.

Despite many memorable scenes including a living room death match and Candy coldly ordering a slave to be ripped apart by dogs, Django Unchained feels like it was stitched together carelessly. For one thing, it seems like Tarantino wanted to reference too many Westerns in cameos and sacrifices plot to satisfy fans of the genre.

We also end up with an ending that feels rushed, in a cheap way, to tie everything up in a matter of minutes. I don’t know about you, but I felt like I’ve seen all that before. There’s nothing new to see. Tarantino does not break any new ground; he simply walks on soil previously fertilized by his former works.

I wouldn’t go as far and say Tarantino lost it, but I have my doubts if he has anything new to offer to his loyal fan base. In my honest opinion, I think Martin McDonagh, the director of the masterpiece In Bruges, seems to be doing better Tarantino movies than Tarantino himself lately. I enjoyed this year’s Seven Psychopaths a whole lot more than Django Unchained and find myself looking forward to his movies more than I’m looking forward to the next Tarantino flick.

I walked into Life of Pi with extremely high expectations. After all, Ang Lee is a masterful director who helmed two of the greatest modern love stories in film. The trailers assured me that it was a must-see for the visuals alone, and then a dear friend told me that it would transform me to another world through groundbreaking use of cinematography to manipulate the membrane of water. I walked in expecting the greatest use of 3D in film history, I walked out with much more.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Brokeback Mountain were both films that moved me deeply. Besides providing stories the viewer simply can’t shake off for days after the initial viewing, all of Lee’s films are feasts for the eyes. But perhaps none of his previous works match the visual poetry of his latest stroke of genius.

To say my expectations were met would be an understatement. Life of Pi reaffirmed that there is humanity in cinema. I understand that the film was an international bestseller, but this story was meant to be adapted to the greatest art form of the modern age: cinema. It’s one of those rare cases where words would not do the story justice. It has to be seen to be believed.

The film centers on the son of a zookeeper who, due to unfortunate events, finds his family and himself on a freighter to Canada. All the animals are on board and are to be sold once they arrive. A shipwreck later, he finds himself alone on a lifeboat with a tiger, zebra, monkey and hyena. Throughout the film, he forms a remarkable bond with the most beautifully realistic CGI tiger you could imagine.

This is all told in flashback as the story is being told to a reporter. Our adult protagonist promises that by the end of the tale, the reporter will believe in God. I don’t know how they missed a chance to market this story with the following tagline: “A story that will make you believe in God.” I suppose it doesn’t really matter, Life of Pi has already grossed over $450 million worldwide so far.

I’m glad my review will be published a week after the film’s initial release in Egypt, because it’s a film that invites analysis. Most of you have seen this film by now and this gives me some room to discuss the film’s message. For those of you who still haven’t seen Life of Pi at IMAX, I recommend you stop reading at this point to avoid spoilers and let the above serve as a very positive review.

The minute I walked out the theater, I could already hear groups of people debating endlessly about which version of the story is true. It’s a shame, because this very debate contradicts the message of Life of Pi. It’s up to the viewer to believe in one or the other. Here’s the tricky part. Viewers were using evidence from the mid-section/survival chapter to support their theories, but they were clearly looking at the wrong place. You see; Lee clearly gives enough evidence to support both stories. We are left with only one fact; there was a shipwreck and he survived.

To understand the film’s message, one can’t neglect the existence of the first half of the film. Everything pre-shipwreck shows our main character admiring one religion after the other. He finds faith and God in Jesus, Buddhism and Muslim prayers, but he also believes in science like his father. This is vital to the story, because it holds the key to this wonderful tale’s message. It doesn’t matter what religion you follow, or don’t for that matter. As long as you’re happy and find reason for your existence, it’s absolutely no one’s right to tell you otherwise. If only humans would live and let live, the world will be a better place for everyone.

The same applies for the film’s interpretation. There is no right answer, because it doesn’t matter which is true. Lee tries to let the viewer take a leap of faith and choose to believe in whichever version he/she wants to believe in. I suppose those who back the tiger’s tale are more spiritual and those backing the cook’s tale are governed by reason, science, and probability. Therefore, it’s completely pointless and contradicting to debate for either side, because you would be doing the very thing the film asks you not to do. For that simple reason, I won’t reveal nor back up which version I believe to be true, because that’s entirely up to you. Lee let’s the viewer fill in the blanks.

I’ll close this review with an applicable quote by one of cinema’s greatest directors, Stanley Kubrick: “I would not think of quarreling with your interpretation nor offering any other, as I have found it always the best policy to allow the film to speak for itself.”