"Warm Bodies" Review: Zombies Gone Hipster

It's not the best zom-com ever made. Certainly films like "Zombieland" and "Shaun of the Dead" take that prize. But, with a razor sharp, relatively inventive script/story, and a great performance from Nicholas Hoult, it's honestly not half bad.

"Warm Bodies" centers on a self-aware zombie, named R (Hoult), who cannot speak or control his urges. He spends his days at an airport, droning, groaning, and invading nearby cities in search of humans for food with the rest of his zombie horde. But, deviating from the rest of the zombie subgenre, the audience is in treated to R's narration. And surprisingly, we find out how remarkably self-aware he is. R feels conflicted about the things he does, he feels emotions, loneliness, appreciates good music and unique relics of the pre-zombie apocalypse world, and above all, simply longs to remember what it is like to be human. Then one day, uncharacteristically, he meets and falls in love with a survivor of the human resistance, Julie (Teresa Palmer), and R decides not to kill her, but rather save her. During his mission to save Julie from some "far-gone" zombies called "Bonies," R begins changing and becoming more human, which causes other zombies to follow in his example, leading to a major change in the war between humans, zombies, and "bonies."

It is a very unusual premise, I know. And the way it sounds, makes it appear Twilight-y. But fear not. It's at least more intelligent. If nothing else, I need to give it mad props for originality and cleverness of the writing. The movie has some funny moments and sharp snark to it--particularly R's entire narration. Hoult's comedic timing and self-conscious nervousness shines through, giving us the closest thing to a zombie Woody Allen (only, you know, more emo) that we've seen in a film. The beginning narration is probably the most smile-inducing moment in the movie, because it's so fresh. It sets you up for the great point of the movie-- giving zombies personality and humanity--and sets us up for the movie's overall theme of exploring what it is and means to be human. R's a well-rounded character. In fact all the zombies are, from R to R's best friend M (Rob Corddry), and beyond. And we are invested in the characters because Hoult and Corddry makes them likable and sympathetic. And the pieces of zombie backstory writer/director Jonathan Levine (50/50) treats you to allow us to identify with the characters and their desire to be human again. Admittedly, yes, you do get a little tired of the fact by the end of the movie, because it gets a little stale given the one-joke premise (insecure zombie), but at least its heart is in the right place.  

As mentioned Hoult and Corddry are great. And as far as other performances go Analeigh Tipton (Crazy Stupid Love) gives the next funnest performance in the film, as Julie's reasonably amusing and funny best friend. But the other supporting performances just aren't up to par with Hoult's anchor of a character. For example, Teresa Palmer is actually quite bland as Julie. Apart from aesthetics, I really don't see what R sees in her character. Also, surprisingly, John Malkovich isn't really anything to write home about either. He's sort of phoning it in as Julie's father, leader of the human resistance against the zombies, who's uncompromising and unwilling to change his beliefs that zombies can change back into humans (uh...when you say it like that, who really could blame him right?). Essentially he's playing the tough-guy John Malkovich, we've seen in all other films he's been in, only in an apathetic sort of way--unlike, say, his fun performance as the paranoid Marvin in Red, or even his own meta-performance as himself in Being John Malkovich. We get bits and pieces of Dave Franco (literally when R sort of chews on bits and pieces of him to feel his memories), and while there's a sweetness to his character, I'm starting to think young Dave is not as versatile as his older brother James. His character's a bit of a sweeter version of the character he played in 21 Jump Street--only, you know, in the zombie apocalypse. There is one scene that contributes a lot of character development to Franco's character, and that's the scene where he's forced to watch his zombie father being gunned down by his girlfriend. The character then changes into a soldier completely. It's a well written change for a minor character, but you aren't able to feel any of it with the way Franco sells it. A bit of a pity, really.

Speaking of "pity," the direction isn't all that great either. Levine has written a fun, interesting script, but he's hardly making things fun on screen. Everything is sort of blandly shot and executed, to the point where, despite the fact that you could feel there's a better movie in the words, characters, and actions, you don't really care much by the end of the film. I left not really feeling or taking very much with me, despite the fact that I initially was enjoying it. In other words, rather than making an impact on the audience with the direction, as Ruben Fleischer did with his visuals and comedic timing in Zombieland, we more or less just shrug "Warm Bodies" off. And there's something wrong with that, because, in essence, this is an original movie that's kind of the first of its own in its subgenre (in terms of having self aware zombies). He also injects heavy, heavy amounts of quirk into the film, which sometimes makes the movie feel like it's trying too hard to be way too offbeat and a little "too cool for school." We have zombies, and they are so cool, they listen to vinyl because "sound...better." Really? Did we need to make our zombies hipsters? (Admittedly, it does have a nice soundtrack though). Again though, there are some pretty funny moments--for example the scene where R watches Julie taking off her shirt while they prepare for bed in an abandoned house, and another ridiculous homage to Romeo and Juliet's famed balcony scene, between R the zombie and Julie. But in my opinion, I think the movie could have used more humor and pathos, and a bit less romance. 

Nevertheless, there's an innate sweetness to the film, and when it's comedic, it's often good material, even if it is trying too hard to be offbeat. The heart and comedy, along with a good, original script, and a great performance by Nicholas Hoult make the film acceptable overall. Though the other performances aren't great, and though the movie doesn't really resonate with you after, I'd say it's still a nice enough little excursion to the theatre on a boring Saturday afternoon (or a Netflix stream if you end up being lazy...I could see this as a good rental movie honestly).  And hey, at least that's more than we can say about most supernatural teen romances, right?

Overall Rating: B

"Gangster Squad" Review: or The "Un-"Untouchables

Back in 2009, Ruben Fleischer made his directorial film debut with one of the best movies in the zombie sub-genre with the refreshingly hilarious and fun Zombieland. Probably my favorite zombie movie of all time. Fleischer treated it with really fun unconventional visuals (like zombie-rules being posted on screen, pianos dropping on zombies, etc.) and the ability to command great chemistry between his ensemble. (Oh yeah. And Bill Murray's brilliant cameo certainly didn't hurt!) Under his guidance, the film garnered a 90%--most of the reviews praising his direction--on Rotten Tomatoes and $102 mil worldwide, on a budget of about $25 mil. It was the promise of a budding, brilliant career from a very strong visual director with a good sense for comedic timing. Fleischer has had 2 movies since Zombieland. And all I have to say is...

What the hell happened???

Between the terrible 30 Minutes or Less and this, I suppose the fanfare was premature. Once upon a time Gangster Squad was set to be released in September 2012. Most September movies aren't great, but they're typically not as bad as films released in January, when some of the worst films on a studio's slate are tragically dumped. Then the release date got shifted to January. And guess what folks--it lives up to the title of January crap-fest.

The movie has a shoe-string thin plotline--The LAPD puts together an off-the-books ragtag group of vigilante misfits to take down Mickey Cohen (Sean Penn), a ruthless mafia boss/former boxer who's slowly but surely tightening his control over the City of Angels in the 1940s. That's it.

Now a movie like this with a plotline so limited can be easily salvageable if the movie is fun. But Gangster Squad is so boggled down with cheesy cliches, over-the-top ridiculous acting (particularly on the scene-chewing Penn's part), that the amount of bland, recycled action sequences that occur just don't compensate for the clumsy, half-assed approach to filmmaking that Fleischer has on display for 2 hours. And I'm not asking for the film to be new or innovative, but literally every second of the film seems to be ripping off a better film before it--particularly De Palma's The Untouchables. The final shoot out in Cohen's hotel is essentially a rip off of the infamous staircase shootout (minus the bouncing baby carriage of course).

In fact, if you even break down the individual members of the Gangster Squad, we're treated to lame knockoffs of the exact members of the Untouchables. We split Kevin Costner's Eliot Ness into the tough no-nonsense straight arrow beat cop (Josh Brolin's character) and handsome, slick, emotional younger cop (Ryan Gosling). The team has an intelligence man (Giovani Ribisi) who figures out Cohen's schemes through his genius, but ends up biting it midway through, just like accountant Wallace from The Untouchables. And they have 2 sharpshooters--an aged veteran (Robert Patrick), and a newbie Latino gunman in training (Michael Pena)--obviously variations of Andy Garcia and Sean Connery's characters. And of course, Sean Penn--revered acting veteran--playing a tough as nails, ruthless murdering gangster--shades of them trying to copy DeNiro's Al Capone.The only characters without real doppelgangers from the Untouchables are Emma Stone's character and Anthony Mackie's. Stone's trying hard to fit the 40's femme fatale persona, and does a good job of it. It's just a pity the rest of the movie isn't trying as hard as she is. While Anthony Mackie's character is merely there as a token black guy who's good with knives. There really isn't anything further with his character other than that.

Apart from the fact that the characters were ripoffs, the movie itself is ridiculously cheesy. It's also schizophrenic. Allow me to explain both. Cheesy: We are treated to such sloppy, terrible writing. Characters spit out  lines like "When I came here I was nothing,back home I was a gangster, now I'm GOD" or "We're not solving a case here. We're going to war!" Everything in the film is a ridiculous cliche of obvious lines without a sense of originality or intelligence. There's even a terrible scene where Ryan Gossling's decides it's time for vengeance against Mickey Cohen because of the "tragic" death of his shoeshine boy street sidekick. Pathetic. Schizophrenic: The movie doesn't know if it wants to be serious or not. We start out with some pretty grisly violence. Then it randomly veers into some unnecessarily slapstick scenes of the Gangster Squad's failed attempts at a casino robbery and a jail break. Moments like this completely do not fit with the tone of the rest of the movie. So the whole time, we, the audience, are left wondering whether this is supposed to be a pulpy noir-ish mobster movie, ala Untouchables, or a semi-parody of the genre due to the hilariously idiotic choices made by characters.

Just to go off on a minor tangent, what's really disappointing is the terrible screenplay is written by the man who's contracted to do the Justice League movie (first-timer, Will Beal). Dear lord, I can only imagine how terrible that's going to be now.

But I digress. The only real saving grace of the movie, maybe, is the look and art direction. It really does fit in with the best neo-noir pulp films set in the 1940s. But unfortunately, good visuals does not a good movie make--and they're not even that great, as far as most movies nowadays are concerned.

All in all, there's really not a whole lot about this movie that's redeemable. The whole thing is a trite exercise in Monkey-See, Monkey-Do. I mean seriously, I'm a fan of "turn your brain off" fun blockbuster types, but it's more fun when it's something you haven't seen before, or at least has a serviceable story I can get behind. When it's almost an exact replica of another, superior movie beat for beat, only done in a much poorer way, it's simply a waste of time, money, and talent.

Overall Rating: D+

"Les Miserable" Review: Wolverine Vs. Gladiator with Much More Singing And French People Who Sound British

Sorry folks. Couldn't resist the goofy title. 

The modern day movie-musical is a very delicate sub-genre to tackle. In many cases across the 00's you have movie musicals that prioritize singers over actors (see Dreamgirls). In other cases you have movies that tend to prioritize actors over singers (see Mama Mia). With the former you have what I call "singing with feeling" only (Jen Hudson may have won an Oscar, but to me that wasn't acting. It was very passionate singing), whereas with the latter you just have really terrible attempts at singing (I'm looking at your Pierce Brosnan). Where Les Mis succeeds over most movie musicals is that it benefits from skilled actors who have very spectacular voices. Not since Moulin Rouge have I seen such a good blend of acting and singing, but unlike Moulin Rouge, the entire ensemble is reasonably fantastic at both (not just Ewan Mcgregor)! THAT is Les Mis's strongest asset. The performances drive the film completely, in spite of some questionable directing choices and lack of risk-taking from director Tom Hooper.

Now Les Mis is a very long, very complicated story. I mean it ought to be considering the original text is like 1,488 pages. Jean Valjean, a prisoner serving out a 20 year sentence for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family is paroled, but pursued constantly but Inspector Javert across several years after breaking that parole. Through those years Valjean makes a vow to God to become a better person as he inherits a position as the Mayor of a city, makes a vow to a dying factory worker to adopt and care for her daughter, and raises her daughter during the political unrest of France during the June Rebellion. We are introduced to several characters and more complex situations, all while watching this innocent man continue to dodge the ruthlessness of the law. In general, it's quite heavy on the melodramatic elements. I mean they wouldn't call it "The Miserable Ones" if it wasn't about bad things happening to miserable people right? But regardless, you're invested in the plight of our heroes because the circumstances in which they are led to be miserable aren't warranted (they're good characters overall) and because our actors who can sing are definitely selling it. 

Now I liked the movie a lot. But it is a chore to sit through. The entire screenplay is sung through from beginning to end, apart from, maybe, 30 words un-melodically spoken throughout a 3 hour film. If you are not accustomed to musicals, beware, because this one is a huge doozy. However, as stated before, the entire cast is game. Hugh Jackman has definitely secured himself his first Oscar nomination. As Valjean, his performance is breathtaking. Jackman is such a naturally great singer, with the ability to hit so many great, long, high, complex notes. I knew he was good, but I had no idea before seeing this film that he was great. But what's even better than the singing is his emoting. Jackman does more than just sing passionately. We feel Valjean's kindness, determination, desperation, mercy, etc, coming from Jackman's incredibly expressive performance, facial cues, mannerisms, etc. He's not just singing. He's reacting, and you can see it all in his eyes and facial changes/glances/looks, along with the subtle changes in the intonation and volume of his voice while singing. It's honestly just very brilliant acting. Anne Hathaway is most definitely a highlight as well. If Jackman is secured a nomination, Hathaway is secured a win. Like Jackman, her emoting and reacting to the situations happening to her, through song or otherwise, is raw, tragic, and powerful. Her performance of "I Dreamed a Dream" is the definitive centerpiece of the film--something the marketers at Universal probably believed as well, considering it's a) arguably the musical's signature song, and b) basically the entire teaser trailer. But you see Hathaway's performance, and you completely forget the song was ever covered by the likes of Susan Boyle. It is heartbreaking. I may also not that the sheer fact that both Jackman and Hathaway are particularly gifted at bringing real tears and real red eyes to their performances is particularly effective in getting the audience to want to cry with them. Commanding. Charismatic. Powerful. Both of them.

Now the rest of the cast fairs very well also. They may not be the highlights Hathaway and Jackman are, but we get some very solid performances from Eddie Redmayne as Marius, and Les Mis stage-alum, Samantha Barks as Eponine. The Marius/Eponine chemistry is completely fantastic--in particular the tear-inducing "Little Fall of Rain" scene. Barks, in particular, is great throughout her entire role, evoking the tortured sadness of a woman deeply, tragically, and one-sidedly in love with someone, knowing full well it would never be reciprocated. Barks makes you feel the sadness she's feeling, without ever coming across as bitter. She allows you completely to sympathize with the character. Granted Eponine in general is just a sympathetic character. But Barks' lonely expressions, subtle weeping--the cracks in her voice, the empty smiles at Marius indicating her overall facade to show him she's alright when she isn't--all get you invested in her plight completely. She becomes the easiest character to feel sympathy for after Fantine's death in the first act, thanks to Barks' performance. Redmayne, for the most part, starts off reasonably bland, only really showcasing his abilities as a singer, rather than an actor. However, this all changes after a lovely performance and excellent chemistry with Barks in the aforementioned "Little Fall of Rain" scene. From there, we are treated to Marius' big number, "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables." And Redmayne nails it. He's able to convey Marius' internal regrets, guilt, and woe about living while his cohorts have all died in a very expressive manner--vocally and physically. Next to Hathaway and Jackman, this duo and their chemistry come across as the next best reason to see this film.

The weaker links in the main cast are unfortunately Russell Crowe as Javert and Amanda Seyfried as Cosette. Seyfried's voice is pretty, if not a bit shrill, and her acting is fine. But for the most part she could have had the opportunity to do anything new or compelling with the role, which originally is actually an underwritten part, but I honestly didn't detect anything special about her performance. And unfortunately, while Russell Crowe does a fine job singing and acting, he pales in comparison miserably (see what I did there?) whenever he's on screen with Jackman. I feel like a lot of the reviews have been harder on him than they should be. Because in truth, hey, who knew Gladiator could sing as well as he does in this film. And naturally his performance in bringing Javert's dedication to the law to life is as good as you'd expect from a man used to playing a soldier. You get his mad dedication to the law, and his ruthlessness. But his singing is just not on par in terms of power with any other stage incarnation of the character on Broadway, nor is it on par with majority of the main cast. Considering that he's sharing the screen with the fantastic vocals and presence of Jackman, Crowe's performance ends up coming across as "good" rather than "great," and his singing, in the end, is really just slightly above mediocre. For minor-ish roles, Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen provide some necessary comic relief as the sleezy Thenardiers. Their roles and singing ability is not unlike what we've previously seen them do in Sweeney Todd. And, it must be noted, Aaron Tveit as Enjolras, leader of Les Amis de l'ABC is also very fantastic. Tveit makes you believe the convictions of Enjolras' goals as a character in a similar way Crowe convinces you his character believes in his. The only difference here is that Tveit can actually sing very very well. 

However, the giant lists of performance positives aside, the biggest, worst problem with Les Miserables lies in Hooper's direction and cinematography. Where we, as an audience, should be transported to the immense, impoverished environment of post-revolution France, we get a giant close up of a character's face, with a shot that stays focused solely on the characters face, as if they're talking directly to the audience, rather than reacting to the situations going on or the world around them. This happens more than once in the film, particular examples being Hathaway's "I Dreamed a Dream" performance, Redmayne's "Empty Chairs" number, and several of Jackman and Crowe's songs as well. Despite the amazing performances of each, so much more could have been done to many of these scenes. I honestly don't think it would have killed Hooper to move the camera once in a while, or let the visuals set some sort of mood or motifs for the songs and situations in the story. It's especially disappointing given how amazing the sets and scenery look. The environment of 19th century France is incredibly well established on a technical scale, so why not emphasize the magnificent production design/aesthetic of the film? Why not let this environment enhance your characters and the performance? While letting your actors drive the raw emotion of a scene is important (hence I somewhat understand his decision to make this stylistic choice), there's nothing at all special about taking a camera and shoving it directly in front of someone's face, expecting them to sing and emote. Any 4-year old with a Super 8 handheld camera could do the same. In some cases it works (For "I Dreamed a Dream" I understand it's necessary to capture the broken, empty, lonely condition of what's left of Fantine's spirit and hope), but for many others, it de-emphasizes the impact of the musical numbers. And Hooper is capable of more than this. He got very animated for the "Master of the House" number, and "Do You Hear the People Sing." And, yes, he's not expected to be that animated for the less upbeat songs. But he really completely does nothing for many of them, other than remain stagnant on an actor's face for the entire number. In some cases, we even get some "shaky cam" moments to make the film feel raw, when it really doesn't need to. Raw is good in a movie, yes. But that cannot be the only tone or atmosphere conveyed in a movie musical of this magnitude, honestly. And there's a point where "raw" ends up feeling more like "You Tube." Having said that, there is one decision Hooper made that benefits the movie greatly: the decision to have the actors sing on set, rather than pre-record and lip sync. In a movie as musically driven as Les Mis, acting and emoting genuinely through the song is key because the songs are your script. Having the actors sing up front, on set, in real time brings so much more raw emotion and sincerity to the performances than most other musicals with pre-recorded, lip synced tracks. And for that, Hooper deserves praise.

As indicated before though, again, the performances are what really save this movie. The actors are able to make you believe in the story and disregard any contrivances or melodrama the story may have. They make you invested in their characters' situations with their strong voices and intense charismatic emoting, even if the writing feels overly dramatic at times. And they do this all in spite of some uninspired, and oftentimes lifeless directing on behalf of Tom Hooper. Granted, the way the film is cut together is actually beautifully done--but that's more of an editing win than a directing one. There are just opportunities that feel wasted in several instances throughout the film--for example, as beautiful as the chemistry was between Redmayne and Barks for "A Little Fall of Rain," we're quickly forced to "unfeel" the impact of the situation, since Hooper just decides to move on without really taking time to acknowledge the gravity of the tragic situation. But hey, again, regardless of the direction, at the end of the day (see what I did there?), I still think it's the best, most sweeping, reverent movie musical in at least a good decade. And, ladies and gentlemen, there's nothing miserable about that at all.

Overall Grade: B+