The Grand Budapest Hotel

Director: Wes Anderson
Writers: Wes Anderson. Based on the works of Stefan Zweig

Starring: Ralph Fiennes, Tony Revolori, Saoirse Ronan, Adrien Brody, Edward Norton, Willem Dafoe and many many more. 

Wes Anderson is a highly talented man who makes wonderfully quirky films. They are not for everyone however, and while he has his devoted fans there are many who find his work quirky to the point of pretentiousness.

Synopsis:
Anderson's latest story takes us to 1930's Europe, between the wars, and to the country of Zubrowka.  In the mountains of  Zubowka lies the the fabulous Grand Budapest hotel, a luxurious hideaway for the elite of Europe. The Hotel is run by the enigmatic M. Gustave. The story is told by Zero, M. Gustave's Lobby Boy, protege and friend. After M. Gustave is accused of murdering one of the regular guests of the hotel and a very "close" friend, an adventure full of daring escapes, murder, romance, villains, skiing and pastries begins.

Ensue Hyjinx!

Anderson manages to attract his regular favourite ensemble of stars and many more. Certainly more than I care to mention here. But Ralph Fienne's performance as the elegant and efficient M. Gustave is maybe not his greatest, but certainly his most enjoyable. Fienne's comic timing with co-star Tony Revolori is perfect. They have a relationship which is naturally affectionate, but also strictly master and apprentice.

The adventures of M. Gustave and his lobby boy hark back to a civilized age. But a civilization which is declining due to the brutal face of war. That makes it sound a lot darker than this movie is.

The Grand Budapest Hotel  reminded me strongly of 1930's cinema. Anderson is a talented auteur director who manages to capture the feel of a certain period in time. Not the real time mind, but the world as a nostalgic Hollywood saw it.  Moonrise Kingdom  had a wonderful sixties feel to it, and Anderson has captured the sumptuous romance of 30's film here.

The Grand Budapest Hotel is a magical farce typical of Wes Anderson's sense of humour. Ludicrous, sweet and surprising all at once.  It is a great holiday movie, and if you are a fan then you will love it.

8 mad Monkeys.

The Hobbit II

Director: Peter Jackson
Writers: Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, and                                   Guillermo del Toro, from the Novel by J.R.R. Tolkein.
Starring: Ian McKellen (Gandalf), Martin Freeman (Bilbo),                                    Richard Armitage(Thorin), Orlando Bloom (Legolas),                            Evangeline Lilly (Tauriel), Sylvester McCoy (Radagast),                        Luke Evans (Bard), Stephen Fry (The Master) and                                 Benedict Cumberbatch (Smaug).

Yesterday I watched the second installment of the Hobbit trilogy, but this time in 48 FPS 3D.  I haven't had a great deal of luck with these movies. When we watched the first one we had rotten seats, and this time some overly selfish hippy parents brought their 7 year old who whispered throughout the movie and afterwards had to be carried out as he was terrified.  

But, like Bilbo, we soldiered on. 

The second installment starts off with some more exposition of the history of Thorin, then moves quickly to the Dwarves and Bilbo fleeing from Azog and his Orcs, through Mirkwood and Lake town to the introduction of Smaug. 

The hyper reality of 48 FPS 3D took a moment to get used to, but I think I liked it. However, if you do decide to go and see it I recommend that you sit in the middle as on the very edge there can be some blurring. It is certainly different and I think it is the next step in film.

As far as the story goes I enjoyed this considerably more than An Unexpected Journey. While I am not really sure that the exposition at the beginning added anything of value, and, like the previous film, Jackson has added combat where there was none in the book, this time it wasn't so tiresome. There were many points during the first movie when you could compare the antics of the Dwarves to a Keystone cops movie, however, Jackson appears to have found a better balance of action and humor here.

The look and production of the film was good; Lake town and Mirkwood looked fantastic. Lake town, especially with Stephen Fry as the corrupt master, has been well designed and had a great feel to it.

However, I think Jackson missed a great opportunity. Freedman is an excellent Bilbo and his performances were always good, and with the scenes between Smaug and Bilbo there was enormous potential for dialogue. Especially when you have the established relationship between Freeman and Cumberbatch to work with. But I thought the focus of the scene was not the dialogue, but the retrieval of the Arkenstone.  Also, the scenes with the Dwarves and Smaug seemed to drag on. I understand that Jackson wants to show off his wonderful dragon, but I think the execution was misplaced and the film suffers again for it.

While purists will be frothing at the mouth over the additions to the plot, the most controversial turned out to be the most enjoyable. Evangeline Lilly as Tauriel was a superb addition, and one of the best female characters I have seen in years. Her story line, while a departure from the book, brought a well needed feminine side to the story. It was also the most compelling. While I am usually on the side of the purists, the decision to add Tauriel to the story was probably one of the best creative decisions Jackson has made.

The new visuals work well and the film  doesn't drag on so much until the end. The performances were all good, and as you expect it is spectacular viewing. On the whole it was a better film than the first, but it still suffered a little from self indulgent film making.  I enjoyed it.

7 monkeys from me.

Philomena

Director:             Stephen Frears
Producer:            Steve Coogan
Screenplay:        Steve Coogan and Jeff Pope
Book:                  Martin Sixsmith
Starring:             Judi Dench, Steve Coogan, Sophie Kennedy Clark,                                   Anna Maxwell Martin, and Michelle Fairley. 

One of the more curious things people have said to me is, "I was born in the wrong time, I should have been born in (insert historical period here)".  Now I get the appeal of history I really do, but I think I like toilet paper, medicine, international travel and not being oppressed by the local nobility even more.

But not everything about our recent history is an improvement, like the story of Philomena Lee.

Film synopsis:

In 1952 in Ireland, an unwed Philomena Lee got pregnant. She had her baby, Anthony, at the local convent. She worked in the nuns' laundry for four years and she was allowed to see Anthony for an hour each day.

Anthony was adopted out by the nuns during this time and Philomena never knew what happened to him. Once she left the convent she did not tell a soul about him, until fifty years later on the anniversary of his birthday, she finally tells her daughter Jane.

Martin Sixsmith was a foreign correspondent for the BBC in Washington and Moscow, before working for Tony Blair's administration. Martin lost his job over an email he sent, and is now out of work.  While contemplating his future and his past, Martin is approached by Jane to help her mother find Anthony. Martin decides that Philomena's story would make a good human interest piece and agrees.

Ensue the search for the missing child.

At its heart Philomena is a road trip movie. It's a journey of discovery both figuratively and literally for the jaded atheist Sixsmith, and the irrepressible Philomena. They are from different generations, and social classes, with different values and beliefs about tradition, religion and authority.   Philomena accepts and endures life and, solid in her faith, she never questions authority. As a journalist, Sixsmith questions everything, especially religion and authority. Philomena comes from a generation which was brought up to be polite, courteous and with her faith comes an optimism about humanity.  Sixsmith, as a busy and important journalist, is dismissive, cynical and somewhat impolite.

The search for Anthony is challenging for both Sixsmith and Philomena, and the reality of what happened to Philomena in 1952 affects them both. It tests their own world view and their faith in human nature and God. Interestingly, despite the convent's, and the church's treatment of Philomena, the film never portrays her piety disrespectfully. It gracefully avoids that and portrays her with a simple dignity.

(Steve Coogan and Philomena Lee. Photo by Chris Pizzello/Invision/AP)(Credit: Chris Pizzello/invision/ap)

As you would expect Judi Dench is excellent as Philomena Lee. Her performance was also reminiscent of another important woman in history, my mum. In Dench's portrayal of Philomena I could see the mannerisms and the out look of my mothers generation. In reflection it brings home to me that Philomena's and Anthony's story could have been anyone's story in the wrong circumstances, even mine.

This is obviously a project that Steve Coogan was passionate about, and his performance shows that he is capable of more than Alan Partridge, but despite his thoughtful performance Dench's on screen subtle charisma steals most scenes.

In an age of three hour block busters, at 98 minutes Philomena seems to be over almost too quickly, but I think they get the balance right

The story is funny, thoughtful and horrible all at once. That is the thing about history, it isn't always fun, but it should always be told. It is a very good film, and I suspect it will put Dench in the running for an Oscar.

7 monkeys

Enders Game

Director:       Gavin Hood.
Screen Play: Gavin Hood (based on the novel by Orson Scot Card.)
Starring:       Asa Butterfield, Harrison Ford, Hailee Steinfeld,                                     Ben Kingsley, Viola Davis and Abigail Breslin.

Sorry this is a bit late, my PC has been having conniptions.

I think that Science Fiction films are having a good run at the moment, which will hopefully mean more and more hit the big screen.  Ender's Game  is the adaptation of a good book, by a bad author. That is my personal opinion and for this post I am just going to focus on the film.

Synopsis:

Earth came under attack by an alien race and millions died. But at the eleventh hour the alien threat was defeated and Earth was saved. Ever since, Earth has been preparing for the next attack.

The world has united under a single government and military against a common enemy, and they are recruiting children to train up to be the best soldiers in a war which could spell the extinction of the human race.  Ender is one such recruit. Both his older brother and sister have failed the training program; Peter, his brother failed for being too aggressive, and Valentine for being too compassionate. Ender is desperate to succeed where his siblings have failed.  Ender has a gift; he can observe and understand his enemy, their strengths and weaknesses, and in doing so he can defeat them. This gift is of great interest to the military, but Ender first has to balance his more aggressive nature and his compassion.

Ensue child soldier antics.

Asa Btterfield ( Hugo) is very good as the brilliant but conflicted Ender. Unlike the book this Ender is a slightly more identifiable character. Ben Kingsly as the half Maori Rackham was also good, but his performance was let down by his South African/Australian/ UK accent masquerading as what can only be intended as a New Zealand accent.  It was very distracting  for me, maybe the rest of the world will not notice, but I suspect Kiwis will disconnect from the film. Come on Ben we expect better, say it with me; fush und chups, and repeat.

Gud'day maate

At 71 Harrison Ford gives a superb performance as Colonel Graff, and while the younger cast are good in their respective roles, Ford's scenes as the tunnel visioned Graff versus Viola Davis's conscientious Major Anderson were the stand out performances.

Ender's Game  has some of the best visuals since 2001: A Space Odyssey. The image of the training station orbiting the earth is spectacular, and one that sits in my mind. The wonderful cinematography, matched by fantastic music by Steve Jablonsky, could have made this into a real space opera.

Unfortunately the film suffers from a lack of exposition and a rushed story. Like all film adaptations the writers and directs have to balance being true to the original story, with practically transferring that story to two hours on the big screen. They run the risk of departing from the original material so much that too much is lost to be enjoyed ( I am Legend) or far too much (The Hobbit). Ender's Game really needed about 30 seconds of exposition to clarify the world we entered. Why was the fact that Ender was a third child so important for example? Also the training of Ender appeared to be too quick, while we don't need to see fifteen minutes of battle room training, maybe the montage could have been extended by another thirty seconds to really show the passage of time.

The ending also seemed forced and weird. But I don't really want to discuss that too much. Fans of the book may be dismayed by the slash and burn of story from the book, but of course the book covers a long period of time (around six years from memory) and the minor political story lines would only detract from Ender's own story.  It is not a bad film, it looks and sounds great, and has some very good acting. But there is so much lacking in the film's execution, you will probably walk out feeling that that it was wanting in some way.

Six monkeys from me.

The Hunger Games Catching fire

Note wee spoilers follow

For the fans of the Hunger Games series the second film has finally been released.  Catching Fire continues on from The Hungers Games with Peeta and Katnis now living the high life as victors. The high life apparently consists of living in a house with running water and a roof in the isolated victors village.

But success has brought Katniss new problems. Even though her family is safe and she is free to be with Gale, she still struggles to let herself open up to Gale. This is further complicated by the public perception that she is with Peeta, and the PTSD that she suffers from.

But victory isn't just electricity and  access to regular food, as the victors of the 74th Hunger Games they must conduct a tour of the Districts under the close eye of President Snow and the Capital.

Unbeknownst to Katniss her performance in the last games has triggered something in the districts. The discontent of the poor has risen to boiling point and various districts are rioting.  The people have found a symbol to rally behind, and it that is the defiance and compassion that Katniss demonstrated during the games. For President Snow the 74th games were not a exhibition of power and oppression, but of hope.

But as a victor Katniss has fame and a certain security which makes it difficult for Snow to eliminate her.  However, a new game maker and the 75th Hunger games gives him the opportunity. This year the reaping will be from the existing pool of victors.,which means Katnissas, the only female victor in district 12, must return to the games.

Ensue more death!

Francis Lawrence replaces Gary Ross as the director. You might know Francis Lawrence from I am Legend and  Constantine, but despite those films Catching Fire doesn't suck. He has given the film a newer flashier look, for example the peace keepers are different and more Haloesque, and less of the classic science fiction feel that the  Hunger games  had which I missed.

However the new look works though as the story spends less time in the ghettos of District 12 and more in the Capital. The film needs that flash to create the decadence of the Capital.

The performances are still very good, Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson have a plausible awkward on screen chemistry, although poor Josh gets regulated to almost a damsel in distress figure.  Lawrence is a more sympathetic and considerate character than the Katniss of the books, which makes her more enjoyable to watch. I thought the scenes depicting her suffering with PTSD were particually well done. 

The confusion and tension between Liam Hemsworth and Lawrence as the other side of the love triangle continues at a believable pace. Hemsworth as Gale trying to connect with Katniss, but with Gale's concerns over Peeta, and their contradictory views on the future of Panem, they find their romance stuttering. It certainly seems more real than most love stories aimed at teenage girls.

But the real stars of Catching Fire for me were Elizabeth Banks, Stanley Tucci and Donald Sutherland.

I particually liked Elizabeth Banks as the vacuous Effie, whose dedication to the Capital and the games is starts to unravel once Peeta and Katnis are called to fight again. Effie is still a ridiculous figure, but Banks gives her more depth than you expect.

Sam Claflin as Finnick and Lynn Cohen as Mags as the tributes from District 4 were also favorites of mine. 

The elderly Mags was Finnick's mentor when he was in the games, and the bond the two have  as adopted mother and son is probably the best on screen chemistry in the movie.


I was worried that the violence would be too much for the 12 year old that I watched with, but it turned out to be fine. She loved it and now has 12 months to anticipate the final in the series.

Catching Fire is well made, with a good pace and story it was over too soon, which for a 146 minute film is a great sign. . As a sequel it carries the franchise on without trying to be the first. I think I enjoyed this more than the first film, but now that I have read the books that may have made the difference.

If you are a fan you won't be disapointed, and unlike most film adaptaiton of books this is not only very close to the original stories, but in someways a lot better.

 7.5 from me.

The Butler

I love a good ensemble movie I really do. The well placed combination of excellent performers can make for a spectacular movie. This film interested me not just because of the ensemble cast; Alan Rickman, John Cusack, Vanessa Redgrave to mention but a few, but because these great actors are only cameo roles. 

That is because this story is, as the name maintains, about the White House Butler, and not so much about the Presidents. But more than that it is a story of the civil rights movement in America as told through a man who lived through most of last century. Born on a plantation and then serving every American President from Eisenhower through to Regan.  

Forest Whitaker plays the central character Cecil Gaines and gives a very  balanced, if quiet, performance of a man devoted to service, even at the expense of his family. It is certainly a good performance of  a man who is exceptionally grateful for his lot in life, and  is completely alienated from his son Louis (David Oyelowo, who I still remember as Danny from Spooks) who is heavily involved in the civil rights movement. 

But I think that it was Oprah Winfrey who gave the strongest performace as the mother and wife who had to cope with both. Yes both Whitaker and Oyelowo gave good performances, but Oprah gave the most memorable. It is easy to forget that after years of being a day time talkshow host that she is an academy award winning actress. 

But of course it is an exceptional cast and wonderful to see. James Marsdon, Alan Rickman and Robin Williams were great as JFK, Regan and Eisonhower respectively. Vanessa Redgrave retains a screen presence even now at 76 that stays with you despite being in the film for less than 2 minutes.
Cuba Gooding Jr and Lenny Kravitz were also very good. And this film is carried by the strength of these performances very well.

 The Butler  has gotten a fair bit of comment for its subject and its depiction of the almost mythologcal heroes of Amercias past, its presidents. It is hard for me as a non American to understand their devotion to their leaders. In my country our prime ministers are hardly the sort of  men and women that inspire that sort of loyalty or affection. 

The most notable is the depiction of Ronald Regan by Alan Rickman.

 

Michael Regan  the son of the president wrote in an article on Newsmax

"'Portraying Ronald Reagan as a racist because he was in favor of lifting economic sanctions against South Africa is simplistic and dishonest," 

Writer Danny Strong and director Lee Daniels have certianly taken a "creative" approach to this story. The Butler is inspired by the real life White House butler Eugene Allen. His story was captured by Wil Haygood five years ago in an article in the Washington Post.

But it is important to remember that unlike a film like Rush,  The Butler  is a work of fiction. An artistic vision inspired by Eugene Allen's career in the White House, to depict the struggles of the civil rights movement in America, not so long ago.

But in trying to depict one aspect of American history does it distort another? Was Regan as unsymapthetic to South Africa as he was depicted, or were their wider considerations. Another criticism has been the influence that the Gaines character has on the presidents he served under. But I am not so sure that I agree with that.

I think this year is an interesting year for Hollywood with films like  The Butler, and 12 years as a Slave show casing African American history and talent. These films are important and certainly controversial.

But more  importantly to you my reader, it is a good film to watch, and not just because of the subect.  The Butler  is entertaining, interesting and packed with good performances.

8 Monkeys

About time

 

I hadn’t heard much about this film, but after a particularly poor choice on my behalf I had given my girl a golden ticket. This ticket is basically an IOU voucher to see any film she wanted, without complaint or wriggling from me. The ticket also included the added value of an apology and possibly a dance.  I cannot remember the particular cinematic breach of human rights that led to the golden ticket, but there you are. 

Richard Curtis is the king of the British romantic comedy.  With his awkward and very sympathetic characters stumbling and bumbling through their stories, Curtis usually manages to draw us in despite ourselves. He is a good writer and director, and while there is a regular familiarity about Curtis’s films, they remain enjoyable and entertaining.  

 His latest film is full of familiar faces like Rachel McAdams and the great Bill Nighy, who is usually reason enough to watch any film.  But it seemed fun, and with her choice confirmed my girl presented me with her  golden ticket and off we went armed with a orange choc chip to see what Mr Curtis had to offer.

Synopsis:

Tim Lake  (Domhnall Gleeson) has a pretty reasonable life, he has a good and loving family who are well off, his best friend is a complete dick, and he is utterly socially awkward, especially around girls. After a typically disastrous new years eve party Tim's dad (Bill Nighy) reveals a fantastic secret. The men in the family can time travel.  Only backwards, and only within their own experience.  Tim decides he will use his power to to his best advantage. He is going to get a girl friend! After moving to London he meets Mary (Rachel McAdam) and tries to use his power to win her heart. 

Ensue time travelling hijinx.

Like Curtis' Love Actually, About Time is not a cliched story about an awkward young man eventually finding love. The story progresses far beyond Tim's quest for Marys heart, it is really about how we spend our time with the ones we love. Curtis (that clever bastard) keeps his romantic comedies fresh and funny, because he incorporates the recognisable with the eccentric and ludicrous. 

His characters are charming, interesting, useless but still human. Unlike the sometimes perfect characters we see in Hollywood, Domhnall Gleeson and Rachel McAdams (who seems to be addicted to men who can time travel) are convincing as the central characters. Bill Nighy is wonderful as Tim's dad, and easily my favourite character. But I want to mention Richard Cordery who played Uncle D. It is hard to describe his performance, but it was highly memorable. 

If you liked  The Boat that Rocked, Love Actually  or Death at a Funeral  I think you will really enjoy this film. It is a funny entertianing and thoughful film and an excellent choice for a date night. 

Seven and a half Monkeys

P.S. bring tissues.

 

Review of Thor: The Dark world. Or pants are compulsory

I was lucky enough to be gifted with two tickets to the pre-release of Thor: The Dark world.  I wasn’t incredibly enthusiastic, but my girl was, and the promise of seeing the movie first was exciting.  We fortified ourselves with wine and sat down in the Titan XC cinema in Reading to watch.

Synopsis:

After the battle in new york (Avengers) Thor has returned to Midgard. But the destruction of the Bifrost Bridge has brought chaos and war throughout the nine realms.  Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is leading the Asgardians in battle to restore order and peace, which he does so successfully, but his heart is with Midgard and the mortal Jane Foster.

Sif

Loki (Tom Hiddleston) has been imprisoned for his crimes against Earth by Odin (Athony Hopkins). His life was spared after his mother Frigga (Renee Russo) pleaded with Odin to spare their adopted son that she loves so much. Now he rots in a dungeon below Asgard.

Back on Earth Thor has been away for two years and Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) is trying to get on with her life.   She is in England at the request of Doctor Selvig (Stellan Skarsgård) who has discovered the alignment of the nine realms, and the danger this alignment poses to Earth. 

As the alignment of the Nine realms approaches, it is watched by Nelson Mandela (Ildris Elba) the guardian of Asgard. But hidden even from him an ancient enemy of the Asgard stirs, wating to return and threaten Asgards authority,and the very existence of the nine realms.

ENSUE Stan lee action.

Thor: The Dark world is a well-constructed movie.  It manages to carry action, humour and a little poignancy surprisingly well. The direction by Alan Taylor and good performances by Hemsworth, Portman and Tom Hiddleston, who plays Loki, keeps the pace flowing and the audience entertained.  The humour is well placed and entertaining, but does not diminish the story in anyway.  Little elements like Loki’s choice of disguises and Dr Selvig thinking better with his trousers off were great comic moments.  The chemistry between Hiddleston and Hemsworth as conflicted brothers is good, and Loki adds a degree of wit and humour to balance Thor’s brooding.

Dude less of the brood

But while he does brood at times Hemsworth is able to play the hero, the conflicted son, and the roguish warrior equally well.  He is a talented thoughtful actor with the build of an 80’s action hero. Which brings me to the last element of his and the movie’s appeal. Not only does Thor have good action and humour, it also has Hemsworth in a gratuitous bathing scene. Oh yes the gasps and delighted murmurings from the ladies (and the gentleman in the front right of me) told me that the female demographic thought their money was already well spent.

Just a quick note to add the Skargard, Ildris Elba, Renee Russo and Anthony Hopkins were also very good, as you would expect. 

Marvel has really learnt a lesson that Warner Bros should learn, fight scenes can be epic, but also need to balance with the pace of the movie, and do not require the destruction of an entire city. If you compare the big fight in the end, with the one in Man of Steel, it is shorter, funnier than and just as violent as you would want.  You will not be bored.  Oh, my favourite fight scene, Frigga kicking ass.

The production was very good, and the scenes set in Asgard were magnificent. The production team really took to heart a Scandinavian theme, and the dark elves look great, if a little reminiscent of Hellboy2. But I didn’t mind that at all.

Fine I admit it, I really liked it.  I didn’t think I would, but I think that with this Marvel franchise of Avengers and their own movies that Thor: The Dark world will be right up there with Avengers. While you could say that that the character development for Thor’s friends was lacking, or the tension between Sif and Foster was incomplete there is only so much you can put in 120 minutes before it gets dumb or muddled.

 I saw it on a massive screen in 3D, but while I recommend you see this on the big screen, the 3D was pointless and added nothing at all.

 

Thoroughly entertaining movie

7 and a half monkeys

World War Z

I finally watched the controversial  World War Z. A film plagued with controversy and pre and post production problems. There were expensive re-shoots and re-writes with what seem to be  five different writers by the time the film was completed.  Paramount was unhappy with the first ending and the third act was rewritten and shot, not to mention several delays with the release.

But the controversy was not about the expense or the problems, rather with the complete departure from the book it is based on. World War Z is an excellent novel, an oral history of how the world survived the Zombie apocalypse. Based on a book written after World War II, it is very popular. And while there was initial excitement with the project, the internet went sour as the film's premise was released.

But despite all this the film was rated 67% by rotten tomatoes, 7.1 by IMDB and 63 on Meta critic. More importantly it has made a lot of money. I guess it must be ok right?

Right Brad?

Both my girl and I loved the book, and we were both apprehensive about the film. But we decided to watch it and be objective. Sadly life got in the way and we missed it at the cinema. But it is out now and we sat down and watched it.
Synopsis:
Ex UN investigator Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt)  is caught up in a global Zombie apocalypse. After fighting his way through New Jersey, he and his family are rescued by his friend Thierry (Fana Mokoena) a survivor form the UN. Thierry and the military send Gerry out with a scientist (Elyes Gabel) to try and find the source of the plague.

Ensue Brad running from Zombies.

Run Brad Run!

Putting aside that the film is not the book (as disappointing as that is) we sat down to objectively watch and hopefully enjoy the film. The first act is all about Gerry trying to keep his family alive, in typical zombie movie fashion. Nothing new, but the action and the acting is fine. Brad Pitt as Gerry is both a tangible character and also an excellent  everyman character for the audience to identify with.
The film was shot in a way that as Gerry was working to keep his family alive; he was also taking in every detail of events as they unfolded which I liked.  Mireille Enos was a bit wasted really, you could see the humanity in her character and  she added depth to Pitts Gerry.

However from the second act on the film started to fall apart. As we watched the action (sadly most of which we had seen in the trailers) we started to question the story. By the end of the film our questions were quite vocal and our irritation was the only thing keeping us awake.

The story just didn't make much sense. I kind of appreciated where they tried to go, but not enough to derive enjoyment from the story. The film had its moments, Brad Pitt and the other actors gave fine performances, and I did like the manic depiction of the zombies. But with such a poor story it ceased to matter. Either a disaster movie and/or a zombie movie it was fragmented and poorly executed.

While I remain disappointed that the movie is massive departure from the book, the film ultimately fails from a poorly crafted story with too many plot holes.  I think the original concept was a potential trilogy, but that as not clearly communicated to the studio. Paramount did not like the end of the original film and wanted something more “up-beat” so we got the ending that they reshot.  It is clumsily executed and you are left wanting.  World War Z is very disappointing.

4.5 Monkeys