Zombieland

Zombie movies, while occasionally overplayed, offer so many exciting opportunities to comment on so many aspects of human nature that despite wading through mostly garbage, it is worth filtering out the bad to find the real gems. Consumerism, teamwork, the evils of humanity, and racism are only some of the subjects a zombie film can comment on. For Zombieland, the focus is on family, and how important a family (real or created) can be, especially in trying times.

What may be most surprising about Zombieland, is that while the film is comedic in tone throughout, and inherently a zombie film - hence the title - the film features very little actual zombie action. Sure, there are a couple of great scenes, including a zombie-filled climax, and zombies do appear throughout, but they are certainly not more important than the characters. That is a rare find, considering the writing duo of Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick had to juggle keeping the film funny and giving horror fans enough of the gruesome stuff to keep them happy. But back to the characters themselves. In the newly formed "United States of Zombieland," nobody has names, only the towns where they once came from. It prevents everyone from getting too close to each other, so when they do end up biting it (he...he...ummm, sorry for that pun) nobody is too hurt. And thus we meet Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg), Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), Wichita (Emma Stone), and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin). Only one character is given an actual name, which is fair because it is a cameo of someone starring as themselves, but I won't spoil who, because it is one of the best parts in the movie.

The film is well directed, and I give the man behind the camera, Ruben Fleischer, credit for adding a creative and inventive style to the picture. Zombieland is bright and glossy, but only in a way to heighten the tone of the film. There may be terrible things happening in the world, but fun can still be had. And the decision to continually display the rules Columbus lives by on the screen as they are relevant is a nice touch as well. When running from a zombie, Cardio is key. When taking down a zombie, make sure to put an extra bullet in the head as insurance, thus the Double Tap. Also, be sure to avoid any bathroom you don't know for damn sure is safe and secure. And, as Tallahassee teaches young Columbus, you must remember to "enjoy the little things," because that may be the most important rule of all.

I give credit to Zombieland for keeping me both entertained and laughing during the entire run of the film. The tone was consistent from start to finish, which I maintain is especially important in comedies. And the characters, while the focus of the film, were given only the slightest bit of back story, so that we, as an audience, have the opportunity to feel what is like to live in this nameless world, where the past is meaningless and the future, and day-to-day survival, is the only thing essential. Zombieland, in the end, is a zombie film that has enough to say about the importance of family that it isn't simply a throwaway film, something entertaining but ultimately worthless. No, there is something more to the movie, there is meaning and commentary, and because of that it will likely stand the test of time and be included in the list of zombie films the next generation must see.

Genre - Comedy (3.5)

Screenplay (3)
Acting (4)
Production (4)
Directing (3)

Soylent Green

There are many great arguments as to why remakes should be avoided, but there can be as many good reasons for remaking certain films. Sure, most remakes are of films that have reached a near classic status, begging the question as to why bother toying with it at all. But then you have a film like Soylent Green, a "classic" sci-fi tale featuring Charlton Heston. While I respected many aspects of this dystopic film, there are so many areas ripe for improvement, I think an updated version is almost necessary.

The story is limited by its insistence to follow a murder mystery plot that doesn't really matter. We have no need for it, as its only purpose is seemingly meant to lead to the uncovering of what the Soylent Green product is. That should be the mystery, but instead we are stuck with Heston's cop character interrogating people we don't really care for, and having a relationship with a prostitute that comes completely out of left field. And the film is disjointed, which I blame mostly on the terrible directing by Richard Fleischer. There are bits and pieces of a great story here, certain images, characters, ideas, but none of these are capitalized on, leaving audiences with an incomplete experience.

Sol (Edward G. Robinson), Heston's aging partner, is one of the better parts of the film. As a character, he is the heart, the one that keeps interest generated and the link to what we know we love, yet often take for granted. Then there is the dystopic vision of the future, where over-population and crowding has drained resources and space. How the government deals with the problems was captivating, yet we saw so little of this world. Finally, you have the signature twist ending, and an extremely famous one at that. Soylent Green, revealed to be (spoiler warning for the 36-year old movie) people, as a food product fed to the world, is iconic and shocking. The rest of the movie should be as shocking, the focus pinpointed on uncovering the secret and not some random guys death.

So, remake or not, Soylent Green was an interesting watch. Not only for its classic status, but for the promise this frightening world had to shock the audience into fear of what their very future held. It should not be dismissed, and hasn't, just because of its failures. There are more to films than simple "love it or leave it" critiques. Soylent Green has more to it than meets the eye.

Genre - Sci-Fi (2.5)

Screenplay (2)
Acting (3)
Production (3)
Directing (2)

Inglourious Basterds

As if no time had passed, Quentin Tarantino is back. Occasionally a leap year, or even just half a decade, we as a humble movie going crowd are privileged enough to see Tarantino's latest. Inglourious Basterds, a film he has talked about making for many, many years, has finally arrived. And the verdict? Everything you want from Tarantino. Sure, his name may often be uttered with overestimation, or even disdain, but for me, the man knows how to make a damned entertaining flick. Inglourious Basterds is loosely based on an Italian war film from the late 70's, but is essentially it's own film. There are Nazis, American-Jews hunting Nazis, and a plan to end WWII. But like most Tarantino films, the plot may be the least important aspect. Trademark dialogue and wonderful acting usually are the marks of a great Tarantino film, and this one is no different. Christoph Waltz, as a Jew-hunting, Nazi officer, is probably the strongest and most interesting character in the film, though the likes of Brad Pitt, Eli Roth, and Melanie Laurent are certainly up there. Each have their own story to tell, and each one is equally interesting. Action may not be as high as expected, but when fighting does happen, it is usually bloody and in your face. But did you really expect a ton of action? I didn't think so. Either way, Inglourious Basterds is a 2.5 hour film that hardly feels like it, and is funny, dramatic, and disturbing all at the same time. That's all I need.

Genre - Drama (3.75)

Screenplay (4)
Acting (4)
Production (4)
Directing (3)

District 9

District 9 is a different breed of creature. Like the aliens showcased the film, District 9 is a movie that takes time getting used to. What kind of creature is it (action, comedy, drama), which is its real face (straightforward narrative or first person/faux-documentary)? In reality, it is a combination of all these, and the fact they are seamlessly stitched together makes the end product something fresh and new and exciting. So while the story itself is kind of thin, and typical storytelling techniques are used to tell it, the real power comes from the racial commentary the alien/human conflict generates. Some people love the aliens, while others hate them, wanting them segregated, even using racial slurs, like "prawns," to denigrate them. The first half of the film features a lot of these xenophobic relations, as the corporation, MNU, overseeing the aliens the last two decades decides to move them from Johannesburg to a facility some couple hundred kilometers away. But once our main "hero" becomes more deeply involved with the alien race, the action intensifies and some amazingly intense and raw footage is shown. The alien weapon technology is some of the coolest stuff you'll see on screen this year (decade?). It doesn't end where you expect it, but certainly where it should. District 9 is, for a lack of a better word, fun. And I mean ridiculously fun. Definitely one of the best of the summer. Blood, guts, and aliens. Is there anything better?

Genre - Sci-Fi (3.75)

Screenplay (3)
Acting (4)
Production (4)
Directing (4)

Halloween (2007)

It took a couple of years, but I finally decided to watch the remake of the horror classic Halloween, this one by Rob Zombie. Me and Zombie have a shaky history, and with the sequel fast approaching, it seemed like I should finally give it an actual shot. Could he do John Carpenter's original justice? Well, in short, no.

Problems: The backstory, for a couple of reasons. It shed too much light on a character who is more powerful and frightening when shrouded in mystery. Michael Myers is the embodiment of evil, and a tortured past just lessens this fundamental aspect of the killer. Plus, the backstory lasts far too long, which only hurts the second half of the film. By the time we meet Laurie Strode and her gang of soon-to-be-dead friends, we only spend a couple minutes with them before Michael comes storming in with that damned knife of his. No character development for the far too annoying characters. Too cap it all off, these time issues are even worse when the film runs too long, thus proving how mismanaged things were.

Successes(?): Zombie can shoot a decent looking film, that is for sure. There might not be any tension in the shots, but they look nice. And Zombie's casting choices can be especially great, especially with his Devil's Rejects friends (Ken Foree being the finest of them) and Malcolm McDowell. Maybe these better portions will be put to better use in the sequel. I'm hoping so at least.

Genre - Horror (2.5)

Screenplay (2)
Acting (3)
Production (2)
Directing (3)

Better Off Ted (Season 1)

Like some great shows before it, I was hesitant to watch Better Off Ted when commercials first began to air. The title was kind of dumb (still kind of is), the premise seemed 50/50 at best, and it appeared to be too sitcom-y for my taste. Yet, when the show was scheduled to hit the air, I was on the couch, ready. Good buzz, a solid looking cast, so why not try it? I would have skipped Arrested Development too, had I not got this strange pull from the commercials. I assumed I'd be let down, but tried it anyways, and thank god for that. Risk is sometimes the ingredient necessary to find really quality shows.

So Better Off Ted began and right from the get-go I was hooked. The writing was sharp and funny, each cast member handling their lines with just the right amount of over-the-top. I like all the characters, though scientists Phil and Lem are probably ranked just a little bit higher than most. But I return to the writing, which is probably the reason I love this show so much. The first seasons strongest episode is the fourth, titled "Racial Sensitivity," holds nothing back and goes for broke. I hadn't laughed that hard at a single episode of television since...well, probably since Arrested Development. There is nothing too strange for the show to handle, and that leaves an unlimited source for jokes. Plus, the fake Veridian Dynamics commercials they play near the beginning of every episode are awesome. Certainly, the show isn't perfect, but most episodes were solid if not brilliant. And because ABC decided to give the show a second season, there may be some (hopefully) positive changes that will lead to an even stronger season. The dysfunctional office comedy has seen success in recent years, with the likes of 30 Rock and the aptly titled The Office, and Better Off Ted has earned its place beside the two. If subsequent seasons are as strong as those other shows following seasons were, then the world is in for a treat. So now maybe more will watch and I won't have to see another great television series end too early.

Genre - Comedy (3.75)

Screenplay (4)
Acting (4)
Production (4)
Directing (3)

(500) Days Of Summer

Desire and reality are two forces that rarely seem to mix well. It's that whole oil and water thing. We want what we desire, believe it is attainable, yet in the end most will find only disappointing results. Which is sad, but made all the worse when you know from the beginning that what you want won't be what you get. And thus we delve into the little indie rom-com, (500) Days of Summer. Utilizing a time hopping narrative, we are told the story of a young man who falls in love with the girl of his dreams, Summer. In a traditional rom-com, there would be little doubt one could guess the outcome of the relationship without ever seeing the film, and the same would go for (500) Days of Summer if that damned narrator didn't shoot that idea out of the water in the first few minutes. And knowing the end doesn't ruin it, but forces the viewers to hope beyond reason that what they know to be true is false, which is kind of the point. I credit the writers, Michael H. Weber and Scott Neustadter, for using the disjointed narrative perfectly, getting both the good and the bad of the Tom/Summer relationship almost simultaneously. A couple of scenes are so great that you wish you could have watched a film entirely composed of like scenes. One is a dance number that goes on long and ends hilarious, pushing past cute and tiresome into funny. The other is shown in split screen, detailing what Tom, our main character, expects to happen at a party with Summer and what actually takes place. Again, desire and reality mixing to ill effect. But while the writing was solid, so was the acting. Zooey Deschanel plays her cute and funny and wonderfully weird role perfectly, making a great pairing for Joseph Gordon-Levitt. He is an actor who picks his roles carefully, winding up in a diverse and solid group of pictures, which one might have scoffed at the idea back when they were watching him on 3rd Rock from the Sun. So while desire and reality might not mix, the creative forces behind (500) Days of Summer do, which may make the whole thing that much more powerful.

Genre - Comedy (3.5)

Screenplay (4)
Acting (4)
Production (3)
Directing (3)

The Hurt Locker

Leaving a theater in stunned silence can either mean a film left you wanting, or left you satisfied. The Hurt Locker, a film both about the Iraq war and about bomb squad technicians, should leave you immensely satisfied. It is a war film largely devoid of commentary on war and is a story about a tortured man, without focusing on the specific aspects his tortured, crazy life. And these are components that build an interesting film. The Hurt Locker, directed masterfully by Near Dark and Point Break director Kathryn Bigelow and written by Mark Boal, is without a doubt one of the best films of 2009. From beginning to end, there are reasons to laugh, cry, and shrink into your seat. Watching these men, and one in particular, disarm amazingly dangerous bombs in the middle of a war zone is something to behold. Tension can be ratcheted up even when nothing happens, the inherent danger of the situation allows for it. There is no guarantee on who makes it out, especially in a film where big name actors can die as quickly and easily as a real soldier. Jeremy Renner, steals the show, despite it kind of being his show, simply by acting as passionately as his character feels about disarming explosive devices. He, along with Bigelow, are likely in contention for an Academy Award, which the film itself is likely to be recognized for, and I think all are deserving. Such a naked, honest examination of humanity and war, and especially one that doesn't overdo itself, is worthy of high praise at the very least. I am not the first to sing its praises, and likely not the last. For me, I wanted the film to draw to a close at certain points near the end, and thought the actual ending would leave a sour taste in my mouth, only to have an ending so pitch perfect to the tone of the film that it actually made me smile (albeit in a rather twisted way). Certainly worth time and money.

Genre - Drama/Action (4)

Screenplay (4)
Acting (4)
Production (4)
Directing (4)

Angel (Season 1)

Spin-off shows are fascinating creatures, existing only due to the inventive minds behind another show dreaming up the character(s) first, allowing them life in their own show. Angel is one such show, following the titular character who was first featured on the Joss Whedon show Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Whedon is responsible for Angel too, creating the show when Angel no longer was needed as a love interest for Buffy. While the two shows deal with supernatural forces, Angel is more grounded in a private eye/procedural structure. Angel is hired for cases and solves them, all with the help of his friends. Like Buffy, Angel is nothing without the supporting cast. Cordelia, a Buffy alum, and Doyle are just as important as Angel himself. And when Wesley Wyndam-Pryce, who also comes from Buffy, arrives part way through the first season, he too becomes integral. The first season is much lighter than what eventually follows, much like Buffy, which found darker story lines in its third season, when Angel was just beginning. But most of the writing staff had connections to both shows, so that only makes sense. There is much to love about Angel, especially in the different directions both the show itself and its characters (the transformation of Cordelia and Wesley being key). Another Whedon hit.

Genre - Supernatural (3.25)

Screenplay (3)
Acting (4)
Production (3)
Directing (3)

Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince

This may very well be the first no-nonsense Harry Potter film of the series yet. Viewers are immediately launched into the world of our title character, and done so with no background or catching up. Perhaps the filmmakers realized, and rightly so, that by the sixth entry of a seven entry series, audiences should know characters and locations without silly exposition to explain everything to newcomers. And I'm glad for that. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is an exceptional film, and perhaps the best of the series. The Prisoner of Azkaban was reigning title holder, at least in this reviewers eyes, until now. While I applaud Alfonso Cuaron for taking us into a darker, more grown-up world of Harry Potter, I think what David Yates and Steve Kloves, the director and writer respectively, have done here is more striking. All the fat of the novel - and yes, each of the Harry Potter novels had fat that would be an unnecessary burden for a film adaptation - is entirely cut from the movie, leaving only a rich and beautifully told story that essentially acts as a bridge between the beginning entries and the final chapter. But that isn't a bad thing, not in the least. We still get characterization, smart writing, funny one-liners, and excellent directing. Some characters, especially fan favorites, are pushed to the back, given only the briefest amount of screen time, appearing only to serve as a reminder of who will play a part in the final films. As long as you can embrace the Part 1 of 2 (or 3 to be technical) nature of the film, there is little doubt you'll enjoy Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.

Genre - Fantasy (3.75)

Screenplay (4)
Acting (3)
Production (4)
Directing (4)