It's a bird! It's a plane! No, it's...ZOMBIES!!!

Kym:

Despite our mutual love for The Walking Dead, and quite a few zombie movies, we'll be the first to admit that the genre is a little played out.

Rob:

Thanks to a constant deluge of 'zombie everything', now the only way to make an interesting zombie movie is to combine it with another genre, like comedy for Zombieland, or romance for Warm Bodies. 

Some genres don't work as well as others.

Kym:

This time they've chosen the combination Zombie - Apocalypse, with an Apocalyptic budget to match!  And guess what?  The movie's great!

Rob:

I honestly didn't expect it to be anywhere this good.  Iwalked into that theater expecting, for better or worse, 'pure zombie cheese'.  Instead, we got a fairly serious story, a brilliant performance from Brad Pitt, plenty of thrilling action, and quite a bit of genuine suspense!



Kym:

Thanks to the Walking Dead, it looks like zombie movies can finally be taken seriously again.

 Rick is certainly taking them seriously!

Rob:

The movie's greatest strength, hands down, is the standout performance from Brad Pitt himself.

 

Kym:

Like I've always said, he is...

Rob:

You usually say 'sexy' at this point.

Kym:

Well, yeah....

Somehow even hotter than usual

Kym:

Hotness aside, he's a really great actor!  Since so much of the movie, by design, is focused around his character, his subtle, yet completely believable performance as our somewhat 'mysterious' hero/family man really supports the rest of the film.

Rob:

The most important thing he does for the film is make it all seem believable.  Walking Dead does it with close-up graphic gore (not possible in a PG-13 movie) and its bleak atmosphere.  With World War Z's over the top spectacle, it's easy for things to occasionally seem silly or unrealistic (more on this later), but Brad Pitt sells it perfectly.  


Kym:

He seems genuinely worried, so we feel worried as well.  Even when a scene seems less than completely real, we see that he takes it seriously, and so we do as well.

Rob:

A lesser actor, a 'John Cusack' or 'James Franco' if you will, could have easily bungled the whole thing, which would've really dragged the movie down.

"Oh no!  Zombies!"

 "Let's get outta here!"

Kym:

Personally, I don't think the zombies looked ridiculous at all.  They looked very scary and threatening, actually.

Rob:

Close up, sure.  In all the up close/claustrophobic scenes, the zombies were great, moving at incredible speed, causing death in a matter of seconds.  However, a good deal of the action is unfortunately....well, let's look at these pictures for a moment.

Kym:

Looks good to me.

Rob:

Indeed, both of these shots/scenes work quite well, but let's see what happens when they pull the camera back a bit...

Rob:

As soon as you pull back to see the action, the CGI looks ridiculous to me.  It's too cartoony and uniform, with movement that goes from looking 'primal' in close up scenes, to 'silly' from far away.  


Kym:

I agree that the effects aren't quite as believable at a distance, but they did that in order to show the epic scale of the damage.  I think it was important in order to show how much danger humanity was in, and I liked how the zombies often moved more like swarms of insects rather than people.


Rob:

That's true, but I'm not so much criticizing their intention, as I am their execution.  These scenes 'could' have all looked amazing.  They just didn't.  There was nothing about the long distance shots that made me believe they were actually connected to the real world.  They could've fixed this (very cheaply I might add) by relying more on upclose scenes, showing the real imminent danger to the characters.  

RIGHT

WRONG

Kym:

I don't think it really hurt the movie though....although I admit it might have hurt the Jerusalem-arc of the story a bit, which is where most of those long range shots were used.  Of course, that arc was a bit ridiculous in any case.  They're really defending themselves with a high wall?  With no failsafes if they manage to get through it?!

Rob:

Even Lord of the Rings had multiple layers of walls within both Helms Deep and Gondor, in case the first wall is overrun.  Hell, even ancient Constinople would've kept the zombies out better, and they built their walls over 1500 years ago!

Ain't no zombies gettin' in here anytime soon.

Rob:

Yeah, the whole Jerusalem scene was bananas, especially considering they supposedly built the entire gigantic wall around the city 'on a hunch' and in only 10 days time.  Then  they proceeded to broadcast their singing far and wide, so all the zombies can hear them.

Kym:

What really helped the movie move past the weaker scenes like this, and really tie the movie together as a whole, is its fantastic pacing!

Rob:

If Brad Pitt's performance is the movie's strongest point (and I think it is), then it's second strongest aspect is indeed it's incredible pacing.  I can't think of an action movie since Die Hard that moved so neatly and quickly from scene to scene, keeping us nailed to our seats the entire time.

Shouldn't we stop and talk about how we feel... NO TIME!  LOOT AND RUN!!!

Kym:

Yeah, this is a movie that doesn't waste a single second, starting the apocalypse shortly after the credits, and not letting up for one second until the end...and what do you mean 'Die Hard'?  What happened to "The Avengers"?  

Rob:

Not sure if that was well paced or not.  I was too distracted by Scarlett Jo...


Kym:

I'm gonna cut you off right there, hon.

Rob:

Oh well.  Anyway, even in WWZ's quieter scenes it really holds your attention, for the same reason Walking Dead (yup, we're mentioning it again, deal with it) does: we're emotionally invested in the characters, and we honestly don't know what's going to happen to them!

Not gonna lie. Still a little traumatized from this one.

Kym:

It's been a while since we've had a film where we didn't have a clue how it was going to end and what's going to happen to the characters.  There's no assurance of survival, and danger everywhere!

Rob:

Just like being in a Joss Whedon show/movie.

Casualties include: the one you liked, the one you REALLY liked, & the series.

Kym:

This all really made for an exciting climax!  We won't ruin it for you, but literally anything is possible!

 

 Thanos?!  F*CK!

Rob:

If you haven't guessed by now, we both really enjoyed World War Z a lot more than we'd anticipated, and highly recommend you go see it.  That said, I don't think they should make any sequels.

Kym:

It's a very complete movie in itself, and I don't think there's anywhere more they can really go without repeating themselves.

Rob:

Also, I feel they succeeded 'despite' the movie's premise, rather than because of it.  A worldwide zombie apocalypse is a very difficult premise to take seriously, and to show it all on the big screen is not only very expensive, but potentially a complete disaster.  To me, the creation and release of the movie had a lot in common with an actual zombie apocalypse....

Kym:

I sense a strained metaphor coming.

Rob:

Bear with me.  In a sense, it's not so different from our character's struggles in the film.  They're doing their best to slap together a plan to save the day, and despite the odds and continual losses, they manage to persevere and come through alive, and overall a bit better for the journey.  

Kym:

And the metaphor has landed.

Rob:

Quiet, you.  Anyway, if the movie makes money, they shouldn't take it as a sign that the plan was foolproof, and certain to work again.  Our heroes succeeded, but it was dangerous and costly.  Just be glad you made it, and try to avoid making the same mistakes again.

Kym:

Also, it didn't need to be in 3D. 

Rob:

Uh...don't think that really works with the metaphor I was...

 

Kym:

Four extra bucks per ticket, and I can barely see a damn thing!

Seriously, 3D can go to hell.

...

Kym:

Look in the sky!  It's a bird!  It's a plane!  It's....

Rob:

Bland.

Kym:

Able to leap...wait, what?  No.

Rob:

Yes, I'm afraid so.  As bland as white toast and margarine.  As bland as a Family Circus cartoon.  More specifically, EXACTLY as bland as the image below.

Yay, apparently.

Rob:

I may be biased, being a fan of the original Christopher Reeve's movie, but I really don't think Man of Steel comes anywhere close to being as good as the 1978 version.

Kym:

I think you're being a little harsh.  I really liked it!  Man of Steel was a fun superhero movie, admittedly not as strong as most of the Marvel counterparts, but a hell of a large step forward from Green Lantern and Dark Knight Rises.

Rob:

Don't get me wrong, the movie has many elements that I really enjoyed.  For one, I really like the excursion to Krypton, where our story begins.  Not only is are there awesome Sci-fi effects...

Kym:

Like Prometheus, only without wasting everyone's time.

Much better.  No albino psychopaths here.

Rob:

Krypton really feels like a decaying empire, a people that had achieved unimaginable greatness, but were now losing it bit by bit, due mostly to their refusal to expand or change.  Sort of wish we spent more of the movie there, actually.  Very cool in a 'Chronicles of Riddick' sort of way.

For those unfamiliar, that's the 'Vin Diesel glowing eyes & sunglasses' series.

Kym:

Anyway, back to Man of Steel, I really liked Henry Cavill as Superman.  He's still the nice, clean Superman we all know...

Rob:

Sort of the 'down to Earth nice guy' alternative to Batman's 'cool brooding rebel'.  The Angel, rather than the Spike. (2 Joss Whedon references in a post! We're on a roll!)

Kym:

With all the Batmen and Iron Men movies, it's sort of refreshing to go back to a straightforward hero, without having to rely on nostalgia, like Captain America.  Superman is a modern man in present day, trying to get by and do the right thing.

Rob:

That's all well and good, but 'modern' doesn't exactly translate to interesting.  Whereas Wolverine starts as a bar brawler, Tony Stark gets kidnapped immediately, and Bruce Wayne starts in an Asian prison, we have to watch Clark do mundane jobs for 15 minutes.

Kym:

I wouldn't call crab fishing 'mundane', especially not when oil rigs are exploding nearby and you have to rush over to save the lives of the half dozen people trapped there.

Rob:

After-which Sig Hansen fires you for leaving your post.

Dang greenhorns with their super powers, messin' up my crabbin.

Kym:

Personally, I didn't find the first half of the movie boring.  We have to establish Clark's character.

Rob:

Which they don't really do.  I mean, they do show him struggling and suffering, which is a good move when you want your hero to be more sympathetic, but we really don't learn anything about him.  We don't know what he enjoys, what his personality is really like, or anything.

Kym:

I thought you'd appreciate the focus on action!

Rob:

Not when we don't understand the characters, or why they behave the way they do.  I mean, why doesn't Superman just push jerks over.  Because his dad says not to?  That sure wouldn't have stopped me at that age!  


Kym:

I think we just have to accept that Superman's a really moral guy at heart, and move on from there.


Rob:

Eh, that seems like sort of a cop-out  to me.  The movie often moves from scene to scene like Watchmen would if it was edited down to 95 minutes.  We'd have action, and we'd have bad things happening to our heroes, but we wouldn't really understand who they are, and why they're doing it.

Wait...explain again why we're freeing the fascist psychopath?

Kym:

Sounds good to me.

Rob:

Philistine!  Anyway, the lack of character establishment isn't just for Clark.  Despite all the screen time given to Lois Lane, Perry, and the office staff, we really know nothing about any of them.  Every scene they have is spent reacting to danger, or talking about Superman.

Or getting ready to jump Clark's 'super bones'

Kym:

Can you blame her?  Anyway, at least this Lois Lane is smart and good at her job.  She actually pieces the mystery of Superman together a long time before he shows up at her job with glasses on, calling himself Clark.

Rob:

Very true, but we never really get to know her, or see her interact with Clark in a casual way.  Even a 5 minute segment where they casually chit-chat would've helped a lot, and made their romantic tension mean more, sort of like they did in the original movie where they flew together at night.

I don't think Superman is having any trouble reading her mind.

Kym:

I think they're just saving all that for the sequel.  If they slow the movie down too much and lose the audience, then we'd just have another Superman Returns, and no one wants that.

Except perhaps Kevin Spacey.

Kym:

I think Man of Steel is focusing more on laying the foundation of the series, giving us a good jumping off point for sequels, with a far more modern and human Superman.  Now all they need to do for the sequel is introduce the perfect arch-nemesis...

Rob:

BIZARRO!

NO! (Which of course means YES, because it's Bizarro)

Kym:

I don't think that's the sort of tone they want for Superman movies.  They need something a bit more realistic.

Rob:

Say no more.

Expect a lot of 'Tricking evil space elves into saying their name backwards' in the next film.

Kym:

LEX LUTHOR!  Which they hint at with the 'Lex Corp' truck in one of the scenes.

Rob:

Well, I guess he'll do in a pinch.  As long as he's ridiculously crazy and evil, with the hidden underground lab and everything.

Takes a certain kind of guy to blow off Superman.  Gene Hackman is one of them.

Kym:

Of course, then it makes you wonder what they'll do for the third movie if there is one.  Lex Luthor is about as iconic a Superman villain as you can get, and actually, DC comics doesn't have many other iconic ones.

Rob:

May I offer a suggestion?

He even does magic tricks.

Kym:

Don't think that's feasible.  In any case, I really like Man of Steel the way it is, as it's focused on what's best about Superman.

Rob:

And the Avengers.

How do you say Deja-vu in Kryptonian?

Kym:

Yeah, a bit.  There are indeed some flaws here and there.  The similarity to Avengers is one, as is the repetitiveness of some of the action scenes. 

Rob:

I hope you like flying tackles through buildings!

Just for that, I'll tackle YOU mid-air and slam YOU through a building!

Kym:

You know, if Clark slammed them into the GROUND, instead of into buildings, maybe there wouldn't be so much damage.

Rob:

The villains also make some typical baffling decisions, like bringing Lois Lane with them onto their ship, not bothering to search her, and then leaving her alone with access to your computers.

Yup, even Clark thinks it's kind of stupid.

Kym:

You'd also think that being from Krypton, they wouldn't have Latin accents like Clark's mother, or a Russian one like the main villainess.

But then she'd just be evil, instead of evil and sexy.

Kym:

Finally, and this is perhaps the largest problem the movie has, METROPOLIS IS TOAST!

Kym:

This would easily be the worst tragedy in American history, and yet the city and its inhabitants all seem more or less fine at the end, with the city completely restored and everything back to normal.

Rob:

Unless Superman donned a hard hat and tool belt, I estimate it'd take at least a decade for Metropolis to look anything like it used to.  Hell, even with Superman's help, it'd probably still take a full presidential term to get the all the work done.

Which explains the existence of this toy set.

Kym:

Nitpicking aside, I really enjoyed the movie because...

Rob:

Yeah, I know why.

Sort of like Black Widow's outfit, only with a cape.

Kym:

No!  Although that doesn't hurt...

Rob:

Superman and Brad Pitt back to back?  How can a guy compete?


Kym:


I'm just glad to see Superman back in action in a good movie.  Man of Steel highlights everything great about Superman, and offers a great chance for him to leave the late 70's, and enter modern day!


Rob:

My complaints aside, it wasn't a bad movie at all.  It just didn't seem much like a superhero or Superman movie to me.  It seemed more like Transformers or Independence Day.  It's a summer blockbuster with alien invasions and loads of special effects.  This is partially because of...

  ROBERT DOWNEY JR!!!

Kym:

*Sigh* Man-crush ahoy!

Rob:

Thanks to Robert Downey Jr, we've just come to expect more from superhero movies, and I don't think Man of Steel brings that level of quality with it, except possibly with Michael Shannon as general Zod.

Lawful Evil hasn't been this cool since 'Empire Strikes Back'

Kym:

He did do a very good job as the Nazi-alien villain.

Rob:

They really gave him the chance to show his personality and character.  Zod always honestly believes he's doing the right thing.  No matter how cruel or destructive his actions, he sees it as justified because it's for Krypton, his people.  Also, Michael Shannon's a good actor, so he pulls the part off very well.

Pictured above: the exact moment Michael Shannon's acting 'laps' Henry Cavill's

Rob:

I'm also glad they moved away from the goofiness of Superman 2.

Kym:

The newspaper had a stock photo of General Zod?

Rob:

What can you say?  Jimmy Olsen really knows his job.

Kym:

In the end, I liked the movie a bit more than Rob did.  I think the film has a lot of merit, and isn't just a brainless action/blockbuster like Transformers. 

Rob:

All I'm saying is that if you're going to combine a Superman movie with a Transformers one, you might as well go all the way with it.

Man of Steel 2/Transformers 4 write themselves.

...

WORLD WAR Z FINAL RATINGS

ROB'S RATING: B+, bordering on A-

KYM'S RATING: buy as soon as it's available on blu-ray!



MAN OF STEEL FINAL RATINGS

ROB'S RATING: B- (meh)

KYM'S RATING: B+ (buy on blu-ray when it comes out)