FILM: World War Z (7/10)

Why did I watch it?
World War Z was my most anticipated film of 2013 (2013 anticipated films).

What's it all about?
After escaping Philadelphia with his family in tow, UN investigator Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt) is tasked with tracing the source of a global zombie pandemic that shows no signs of slowing.

Should you watch it?

I am going to dedicate one paragraph and one paragraph only to the subject of the film being massively different and inferior to the book it is allegedly based upon. Max Brooks' novel is a collection of accounts of the worldwide war against zombies and covers social, religious and political repercussions stemming from the global war. Marc Forster's film is a zombie based action film led by Brad Pitt with occasional references to locations (Israel) or terminology (Zeke) from the source material. The term 'based on' has never been so loosely used. Being a massive fan of the book, I lowered my expectations for the film to match my disappointment after finding out that the screenplay was not staying truer to the spirit of the book. Anyway, that's out of the way now and this review will now attempt to assess the film on it's own merits.

The film wastes no time, racing out of the traps with only a few minutes used to introduce the Lane family, father Gerry (Pitt), mother Karin (Mireille Enos) and two daughters, before the zombie outbreak takes over Philadelphia. From this point it's all zombie tension and action, including some well shot action sequences in an eerily lit apartment complex, until Gerry gets his family out to the UN fleet off the coast of America. This domestic introduction to the outbreak gives way to a more global perspective as the UN look to investigate the source in order to develop a vaccine. I felt this worldwide globe-trotting series of locations and discussions of the differing strategies of different nations following the outbreak was much more consistent with the spirit of the book.

Red light district

In my mind, introducing the zombies so early on in the film (we discover the world is overran within thirty minutes) underlines that Forster saw the film as more of a global thriller investigating the world's ability to cope with a zombie outbreak more similar to the likes of Contagion rather than a true zombie horror flick like Dawn of the Dead. I had no issue with this, and neither did I have any complaints (as I have seen consistently made) with either the lack of gore (only a 15 in the UK) or the speed of the zombies. Firstly with the gore, I personally don't see it as a prerequisite for a zombie film, if the director (or studio I imagine) choose to include it then so be it but I think there has been enough on The Walking Dead to see me through to the next season. Secondly with the zombies, there are some inconsistencies in their relative speed and intelligence and they did look very similar to the vampires from I Am Legend, but the fast nature of the herd is a change from the norm and does lead to some awesome looking scenes. Also, I don't think the film ever really confirmed that the infected were zombies or the undead, only that these were literal translations of terms used in other countries.

I found the film capable of a decent level of tension and suspense in places although I really did begin to get frustrated with the repeatedly clumsy nature of the cast as they banged into everything in their way and attracted the attention of zombies. Doesn't anyone look where they are going?

Brad Pitt's chopper takes off after a day's shooting in Glasgow

I thought that the rehashed ending (courtesy of rewriters Drew Goddard and Damon Lindelof) lost it's way in comparison with the more international nature of the film's first two acts and became more of a typical zombie film without being anything special, and this act was definitely the film's weakest part.

Considering the delays and re-writes, World War Z is a success, in that it made it to the big screen at all and I actually enjoyed large parts of it. However, it's inconsistent writing and ending, not to mention the huge divergence from the book will always be a source of frustration to many.

TV: Da Vinci's Demons (S1) (6/10)

Why did I watch it?
My interest in this new Starz show was three fold, one its historical, two it's set in Florence during the Renaissance and I enjoyed that setting when playing Assassin's Creed II and thirdly it was created and predominantly written by David. S. Goyer, a chief part of the writing brains behind The Dark Knight trilogy.

What's it all about?
Set in Florence, the show follows 25 year old Leonardo Da Vinci (Tom Riley) as he becomes embroiled in the political scheming between Florence and Rome all the while trying to uncover secrets of his heritage.

Should you watch it?
Ultimately I was disappointed with Demons considering it's creator. When the show was announced I wondered what 'demons' the title was referring to and it's these demons that for me detract from the narrative's stronger elements. The show is strongest when Da Vinci is caught up in the power struggle fought between the Medici's and the Pope through his sly nephew Count Riario. 

The 'demons' element weakens Da Vinci and has him fighting a repressed childhood memory while hunting for clues of his mother. He is contacted by the Son's of Mithras, who instruct him to access the Fountain of Memory to find the Vault of Heaven where he will find the Book of Leaves. Seriously, you couldn't make it up. The Book of Leaves will probably be followed by the Turd of Glory.


In terms of historical accuracy the show is tongue in cheek and pretty good fun. For me Da Vinci is a bearded old man, but here is he reinvented as a cool, fast talking, talented sword fighter. I wondered if Goyer would stay true to dialogue of the time but this was answered in the first ten seconds of the opening episode when Hugh Bonneville, in a cameo as the Duke of Milan, responds 'Balls!' to be told he was late! Tom Riley is charismatic as Leonardo and is well supported by Elliot Cowan as Lorenzo de Medici and Blake Ritson as Count Riario.

The production is glossy and features some decent CGI used to illustrate Da Vinci's brain at work as he plots and develops his inventions.

The finale was disappointing finishing not just following a cliffhanger but midway through one which I found incredibly unsatisfying. At only eight episodes, the season was the perfect length, short and punchy and the show has been renewed for another round in 2014.

FILM: Defiance (6/10)

Why did I watch it?
I recorded this film so long ago I can't remember what appealed to me. I generally like war films and this looked like a bleak survival tale set during World War II. Or maybe it was just the Bond factor.

What's it all about?
Defiance is an adaptation of the book Defiance: The Bielski Partisans and tells of the exploits of the Bielski brothers,  Belarusian Jews who led a stand against the occupying Nazi force during WWII. Daniel Craig stars as the eldest,Tuvia, Liev Schreiber as hot-headed Zus and Jamie Bell as the younger Asael.

Should you watch it?
I wouldn't go out of my way to watch it again. Defiance is a fairly run of the mill film that, considering the subject matter, is not as inspiring or emotionally intense as it could have been. The plot just seems to move along without being able to grab you and pull you in to the plight of the Bielski group, despite the deaths and suffering of it's members. Also, the plot doesn't really feature any twists, none in fact, so any increase in excitement or suspense is really limited.

The acting scores a plus for the film, if you are prepared to accept some fluctuating Eastern European accents. All three leads turn in good performances but the supporting cast of Alexa Davalos and Allan Corduner are more than worthy of equal mention.

A well made and acted film that surprisingly lacks in genuine drama and emotion.

  

FILM: Robin Hood (7/10)

Why did I watch it?
The Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe combo has served up some more than decent films over the years and I was definitely interested in seeing Scott's take on a British legend.

What's it all about?
Russell Crowe stars as Robin Longstride, an archer in King Richard I's army returning across France from the Holy Lands. Longstride interrupts a French plot to assassinate the King, who unbeknown to the French has already been killed. Impersonating Sir Robin Loxley, who was killed in the failed ambush, Robin escort the King's crown back to England with his closest soldiers and Robin continues to Nottingham fulfil a promise to the dying Loxley.
 
Should you watch it?
If the plot described above sounds nothing like any Robin Hood film or TV show you have seen before you would be right. This is Ridley Scott's story behind the legend. It's certainly a fresh take on the well known character and I think Scott should be applauded for not repeating the same story of Robin Hood and his band of merry men running amok in Sherwood forest. The true story of Robin Hood is shrouded in doubt and conflicting myths but I think that Brian Helgeland's (L.A. Confidential) screenplay probably stretches historical accuracy to the maximum you may expect of an American-produced film of a British myth.

That leads me onto my next point, the cast. Casting Russell Crowe as Robin, hmmm. Crowe brings a fairly stoic grittiness to the role but I can't help but feel that there were better options. The fact that Crowe is one of the films producers suggests his role as Robin was paid for. As angry as this may make Crowe, there is no denying that his accent in the film was plain off and seems to cover almost all UK regions at some point in time. With the exception of Mark Strong and Mark Addy, the cast is largely American and I found that frustrating as there are scores of British actors that could have played the likes of Little John, Will Scarlett and King Richard I at least as well as Danny Huston. Shows like Game of Thrones have shown that a largely British cast can deliver the goods. Cate Blanchett can be excused as I thought she was excellent as Lady Marian.

Towards the film's end I thought that the film began to morph into Kingdom of Heaven as Robin lead the British defence en masse against the French invasion force on the beaches of the South Coast. At this stage the story seemed to have veered too far away from the Robin Hood we know and love. 

An alternative take on the much told story of one of Britain's favourite characters and one that is worth a watch even if the gritty nature of Robin and his story take away some of the fun and adventure that always been associated with the character. 

BOOK: Without Remorse, Tom Clancy (8/10)

Why did I read it?
Time to continue Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan series. Without Remorse is the sixth book in the Ryan universe but chronologically it leads the series.

What's it all about?
Tom Clancy rewinds the clock to 1969 and tells the origin story of Ryan series character John Clark. Recently returned from Vietnam, Navy SEAL John Kelly loses his wife and finds love briefly in the arms of a another woman, Pam Madden, a tortured, drug-addicted prostitute on the run from her violent drug dealing pimp. Meanwhile the CIA hire Kelly to return to Vietnam and lead a clandestine operation to rescue a group of US POWs. After Pam is taken away from him, Kelly combines the demands of his country with his own mission for violent retribution.

Should you read it?

Without Remorse is probably the most atypical of the Clancy books I have read so far. Even with the Vietnam storyline it's the most domestic, the most personal and the least military based. It's an engaging, very personal tale of one man's retribution against those who wronged him and its interesting and refreshing to have a break from Jack Ryan's learned approach to uncover the back story of the more mysterious Mr. Clark.

The Vietnam side story taking place in parallel to Kelly's Baltimore killing spree is necessary for the sake of Kelly's back story but it is the deliberate planning of his revenge in a manner to a covert operation and Detective Ryan's pursuit of the unknown serial killer that makes Without Remorse a page-turner.

FILM: Immortals (5/10)

Why did I watch it?
I guess I watched this because I'm a fan of 300 and I was drawn in by a combination of the Greek legend and 300-style visuals.

What's it all about?
King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke) feels wronged by the Gods (the Zeus's) and plots to release the Titans (a race of deities previously beaten and imprisoned by the Gods) by finding the Epirus bow. Zeus won't allow the Gods to intervene directly in the lives of mortals so it's left to the warrior Theseus (Henry Cavill), trained by the Old Man (John Hurt), to save mankind.
Should you watch it?
I'm going to compare this Immortals to 300, I can't help myself. The film was marketed as 'from the producers of 300' so they can't blame me. If you want to watch a Greek mythology based film loaded with impressive visuals and special effects then watch Zack Snyder's.


Don't get me wrong, director Tarsem Singh delivers some eye-popping visuals and fight scenes that rival those of Snyder but in truth the rest of Immortals really falls short of being anything close to a great movie. 

Soon to be Superman Henry Cavill looks the part as Theseus but I thought he was pretty wooden although he certainly wasn't working with an award winning script. The army rousing speech scene (think 'tonight we dine in hell' with Gerard Butler, no acting great either) made me pity the guy for having to read the lines. Unfortunately, Mickey Rourke doesn't fare much better either, his performance made even more comical by his venus fly-trap/playboy bunny headpiece. Seriously, what were they thinking?

Immortals didn't even manage to hold my attention for the duration, which for me is almost unheard of, but hey, it looks good right.

Man of with Steel

TV: Treme (S3) (8/10)

Why did I watch it?
Regular readers of this blog will know of my deep affinity for anything David Simon related and yes that includes Treme. I've watched the show from it's beginnings so the third season was a must.

What's it all about?
The show returns to New Orleans for a third time, this time two years on from Hurricane Katrina and it simply carries on from where it left off with the ensemble cast of characters all continuing to rebuild in their lives as New Orleans begins to find it's feet following the storm.

Should you watch it?
I love Treme, I love it's wide array of characters, I love it's pacing and deliberate story telling and I love the way it's greatest character of all is New Orleans itself, its story told through it's culture of music, celebrations and food.

The third season is no different. The quality of story telling and acting is phenomenal. Melissa Leo, Wendell Pierce, Clarke Peters, Khandi Alexander, David Morse and Jon Seda, the list of experienced polished performers could go on. Simon is dedicated to all of his characters and provides each one a meaningful story-arc that runs the length of the season, all linked in some way with either Katrina-related drama or the city and it's history as a whole. 

People are bound to have their preferences and wish to see more of some than others but there is someone for everyone watching. My personal favourites are Toni Bernette (Leo), this time aggressively going after the NOPD, Antoine Baptiste (Pierce), becoming a dedicated school band teacher (the same can't be said for his dedication to his marriage) and Terry Colson (Morse), the cop being alienated for trying to clean house from within the NOPD. Added to the cast for this season is investigative reporter L.P. Everett (Chris Coy) who works with Toni to uncover more shady police work that went down following Katrina. Also, this time around Antoine's girlfriend Desiree (Phyllis Montana LeBlanc) gets a bigger piece of the action investigating the city's unscrupulous renovation and demolition policies.

'In every crisis, an opportunity" - Nelson Hidalgo

While not always being integral to the show's narrative, the music set pieces are welcome insertions to each episode and have introduced me to a whole genre of music I previously had no appreciation for (I checked out Fats Domino's version of Blueberry hill after Davis paid him a visit in Careless Love). On the crime side, I don't think the story lines live up to the standard set by Simon on The Wire but this is a different show, with different priorities.

Now renewed for a further five episode fourth season, the final episode of season three was, at the time, perhaps the final ever episode and Simon and co. closed with a brilliant finale. Typical for a Simon show finale, the episode contained a musical montage covering the majority of the cast, however for probably the first time in the show's history the narrative brought almost all of the characters together in a single place during this. Magic. Also, the story appeared to come to a natural conclusion for each of the characters. Granted there was not always a complete resolution, an example being Janette's realisation that she has signed away control of her dream, but you could certainly appreciate this being an end. Thankfully however it isn't!