June 2013 – Alternative Lens

WORLD WAR Z review

Starring: Brad Pitt (Moneyball), Mireille Enos (Gangster Squad), Daniella Kertesz, James Badge Dale (The Grey), David Morse (The Green Mile)

Director: Marc Forster (Quantum of Solace)

Writer: Matthew Michael Carnahan (State of Play) and Drew Goddard (The Cabin in the Woods) & Damon Lindelof (Prometheus)

Runtime: 1 hour 56 minutes

Release Date: 21 June (US, UK)

Zombie movies. Much like the undead, these movies just won’t stop coming. But World War Z (extremely loosely based on the book by Max Brooks) is Hollywood’s biggest attempt so far to cash in on the zombie craze. But does big money really make a better movie, or is it just going to get caught in the shuffle?

If there’s one thing World War Z does well, it is establishing the world. The first act of the movie does a good job at setting the atmosphere of the recently begun undead epidemic and treats the situation in a serious, realistic manner. The majority of traditional zombie lore is intact here, but the film also throws out some intriguing new ideas that keep things interesting. This is a refreshing outlook on the genre; most zombies movies these days are either about showing as much gore as possible or taking the piss, so it’s nice to see the material to be used for different purposes. Unfortunately, the second act of the film takes a large dip. It becomes a series of repetitive encounters: Brad Pitt goes someplace, finds out some info, s*** hits the fan and he has to escape. Luckily, the film’s third act is stronger but noticeably much more small scale; instead of the grand open landscapes infested with undead, the final act is limited to one building with only a few dozen zombies. But surprisingly, this is when the movie is at its best. It just goes to show you that no matter how much money you have, less is more.

Where World War Z mainly fails is in the character department. The actors in the film all do a fine job with the material given to them; it’s just a shame that none of them have very interesting characters to work with. Brad Pitt is a charming and likeable actor, and manages to find a good balance between everyman and bad-ass. But we never find out too much about him as a person, and his only motivation (to get back to his family) is simple and weak. His wife and children don’t do much of anything during the film, and even the movie forgets about them for long stretches. Most of the rest of the cast come in and out, with no one consistently staying the movie before they die or lose their purpose to the plot. It makes it hard to feel attached to anyone when they have so little screentime that there’s no time to give them any kind of interesting personality. The film’s bigger names after Pitt, such as David Morse or Matthew Fox, play bit parts that could have been played by anyone. Great zombie movies of the past relied greatly on the strength of its characters to carry the movie whenever zombies aren’t on screen, and it’s a shame World War Z doesn’t bother to do this.

Considering this film is rated 15/PG-13, don’t expect much gore. This surprisingly doesn’t affect the film too much, as the zombies here are scary not because of their bloodlust but more because of their numbers and ferocity. The way the zombies move in large swarms, evocative of an army of ants or locusts, makes them a completely new but equally frightening foe. The film uses a mix of practical effects and CG to bring the creatures to life, and both are done exceptionally well. The scale of the picture is impressive, taking many opportunities to show masses of infected crawling across the decimated landscape. It’s a sight most zombie movies can only dream of. The film’s score is dark and brooding, very similar in ways to John Murphy’s work on 28 Days Later. However, the cinematography is borderline annoying a lot of the time. The film seems to be have been shot mostly handheld, leading to a lot of shaky cam during action scenes. This, combined with some choppy editing, makes a lot of the action a little hard to watch. I’m guessing this was done to add intensity to film as well as a way of shying away from showing gore (a method previously used to the point of tedium by The Hunger Games), but it just took me out of the movie.

World War Z adds some good ideas to a genre that really needs them, but fails to make me really care about what’s going on. Considering the genre has always dealt with surviving as a team despite people’s differences, and the way the film wants to paint this bigger picture of a world in peril, the film doesn’t seem to care too much about the characters in this environment. What that leads to is an enjoyable but cold picture; one that has its moments but never reaches the heights of its more modest ancestors.

FINAL VERDICT: 6.5/10

THE LAST OF US review

Developer: Naughty Dog (Uncharted 3: Drake’s Deception)

Platform: PS3

Release Date: 14 June

From the creators of Crash Bandicoot, Jak & Daxter and Uncharted comes The Last of Us, an action-horror game set in a post apocalyptic United States. That may seem like a pretty generic set-up, but The Last of Us is anything but. It’s an absolute marvel on every level, and a must play for anyone who owns a PlayStation 3.

Naughty Dog has always had a penchant for telling familiar but well-crafted stories, and this is no exception. The tale of The Last of Us takes elements from many wasteland stories such as Children of Men, 28 Days Later and The Road. The story is bleak as you’d expect, but the humour the developers are known for is present though in a much more muted way. Protagonists Joel and Ellie are very much archetypes, but ones you spend so much time with and develop so much over the course of their journey that you can’t help but care. By the end of the story, you’ll for Ellie’s life just as much as Joel does, even when forced into morally questionable situations. Whilst the story is very linear with no choice in what way the story goes, the situations you must face and the choices the characters are forced to make puts you right into the experience. A particularly memorable sequence in a burning restaurant truly encapsulates the raw and terrifying nature of the game on both a story and gameplay level. What The Last of Us’s story lacks in originality, it more than makes up for with strong writing and excellent atmosphere. It’s not just “good for a video game”; it’s excellent on any level of the storytelling medium.

Survival horror games are a rare breed these days, at least in the classic sense. Most games that bare that name are really just shooters with jump scares. And though The Last of Us isn’t a pure horror game, it brings back the element that feels lacking from most games in its genre these days: desperation. Ammo and supplies aren’t handed out freely; you must scavenge them and use them sparingly, otherwise you’re going to end up dead. That combined with the fact Joel can only take so many hits encourages a much more patient play method, utilising stealth whenever necessary and meticulously planning the way forward. This really puts you into the mindset of a survivor and makes the confrontations with both the infected and the hunters that much more desperate. This is further amplified by the game’s decision to not pause during any action. Need to craft a Molotov or apply bandages? You’d better make sure the coast is clear or you will die. Continuing off the camaraderie aspect of the story, puzzle sequences frequently break up the action and force Joel and Ellie to work together; they are simple but bring some quiet relief from the threats of the world as well as emphasising the relationship between our protagonists. The game is very replayable and you most likely won’t unlock everything in your first playthrough, making the option of New Game Plus a very welcome feature. I’ve yet to play through the game yet, but I’m sure I will in the near future and probably several times after that. And yes, I did encounter the occasional glitch, but none of it is game breaking and I’m sure they’ll be ironed out with future patches.

The game’s singleplayer, which took me about eleven hours to finish on normal difficulty, is worth the price alone but Naughty Dog has increased the content value by adding multiplayer. In accordance with the nature of the main game, this isn’t simple deathmatch. Ammo and resources are again scarce, so a much slower and careful playstyle is required in order to survive, evocative of the multiplayer found in the Assassin’s Creed games. The expected perk and upgrade options are here, but the addition of metagame where you must collect enough supplies to keep your own camp of survivors fed adds some originality It’s addictive but punishing, constantly crushing you down but always making you want to come back for more.

Naughty Dog’s work on the Uncharted series has produced some of the best graphics in console history, and whilst the technology doesn’t seem to have progressed hugely since Nathan Drake’s last outing, the game is still a technical marvel. The design of the world, particularly the fungal freaks you must gun down on your adventure and the varied vistas you visit, are all executed flawlessly. Expertly handled voice acting and motion capture further adds to the story, and the soundtrack is simple but oh so perfect.

The Last of Us is honestly one of the best games I’ve played in a long, long time. Naughty Dog has by no means revolutionised the gaming landscape, but they have made a game that does so many things and does them at a level some game creators can only dream of. It perfectly melds together the story and gameplay to create an experience that truly draws you into the story and makes you never want to let go of the controller. It uses the mechanics of action and horror games in a way that appeals to fans of both genres and is just plain gorgeous to look at. Don’t delay. Pick up this game at your earliest convenience and just play it for yourself. It is an experience that you won’t forget.

FINAL VERDICT: 10/10!

MAN OF STEEL review

Starring: Henry Cavill (Immortals), Amy Adams (The Master), Michael Shannon (Premium Rush), Russell Crowe (Gladiator), Kevin Costner (Dances with Wolves)

Director: Zack Snyder (Watchmen)

Writer: David S. Goyer (Batman Begins)

Runtime: 2 hours 23 minutes

Release Date: 14 June (US, UK)

Superman has had an interesting career in the film industry. Richard Donner’s Superman was the first film to translate a comic book to the big screen and do it well, setting the standard for all to come and still holds up to this day despite its occasional lapses into goofiness. Superman II was enjoyable as well, but III was bad and IV: The Quest for Peace is arguably the worst superhero film ever made. After taking leave from the movie world for a while, Bryan Singer brought the hero back in Superman Returns to mixed results from fans (I, personally, think it’s pretty good and anyone who still feels differently should probably give it another shot from a different perspective). But how does Man of Steel fare? Does it soar to heights never reach by its predecessors, or is The Man of Tomorrow yesterday’s news?

The film’s story covers the basics that everyone and their dog knows about the story of Superman, but introduces enough new ideas and twists on familiar elements to keep it fresh. But on the whole, this is a fairly familiar plot on both a superhero and science-fiction level. It’s well done, but anyone can see the general direction this film is going in. The first act of the movie feels a bit jumbled, moving too fast and throwing so much exposition in your face that some may get lost in the shuffle. But by the time Kal-El dons the familiar blue tights, the film gets itself on the right track and works from there. The filmmakers have been making it clear they wanted to make a Superman that was more relatable and made more sense in a modern context. On that level, they’ve succeeded admirably. The events surrounding his reveal to the world and how they react fits with reality and the times we live in. But for a film that crosses the two hour mark, the lack of character development is disappointing. We get a general idea of who Kal-El and Lois and Zod and Jor-El are, but there is so much more they could have done but just don’t. What’s there is good but needs more built on top of it. Instead, Snyder fills the rest of the runtime with action spectacle. Good action, yes, but action doesn’t hold a candle to a well told story and fleshed out characters. The final act of the film is so packed with non-stop action that it starts to lose its lustre and becomes a bit stayed. After many complained that Returns was boring and needed more action, they’ve overcompensated and made a film with far too much action and a lack of patience.

Man of Steel boasts an impressive cast, and they all perform well with the material. Cavill looks the part as Superman, sounds the part and, thankfully, can act the part. He’s no Christopher Reeve, but who is? He certain embodies the character much more than Brandon Routh did (and I liked his performance). Amy Adams is a perfect fit for Lois Lane, providing that spunky charm and sheer determination the character is known for, though her romantic chemistry with Cavill feels a little too spontaneous. Michael Shannon is an imposing General Zod and he is clearly enjoying the opportunity to go crazy, but he lacks the menacing stoicness that made Terence Stamp’s Zod such an iconic villain (that and Shannon never gets to say “KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!!!). Antje Traue is a big surprise as Faora (basically the same character as Ursa from Superman II), often outshining even the mighty Shannon at points. Russell Crowe has more screen time than you’d expect and provides Jor-El with much more depth than the great but disinterested Marlon Brando did. Everyone else is good, but none really stand out as much as the aforementioned five.

The film’s marketing has been mostly presenting this film as a sombre, emotional piece more in line with a Christopher Nolan film. Don’t let that fool you. This is a Zack Snyder film, and that is plainly obvious from very early on. Whilst he does manage to avoid using his usual tropes, Snyder does rely heavily on his visuals and that is where his influence is mainly felt. Snyder has made the decision to shoot the entire film handheld, one that gives the film a very raw feel that mostly works to film’s advantage but does occasionally fall into the shaky-cam trap. Hans Zimmer’s score is suitably bombastic and fits the tone of the film, but nothing still beats the classic John Williams theme (my favourite film theme of all time). The production design emphasises the alien nature of the Kryptonians much more than previous adaptations but to mixed results. As cool as some of the technology looks, some of it comes across a bit silly (I’m looking at you, Kryptonian Supreme Council of Stupid Hats).

Man of Steel is nothing groundbreaking. It’s fun popcorn entertainment, just with a bit more effort and thought put into it than your average summer blockbuster. It sits on par with Superman Returns for me, but they are both good movies for completely different reasons. I know they were going for a completely different feel from the previous films, but I can’t help but feel that the original Superman is still the superior film. If this is to be the beginning of the DC Cinematic Universe, they’ve made a good start but next time around they need to calm down and tell a story more through character than through action. In their attempts to make Superman more modern and badass, they’ve lost what Superman truly represents as a character and what set Donner’s original film apart from every superhero film that has followed it: heart.

FINAL VERDICT: 8/10