World War Z & Man of Steel
Not been writing a lot of film reviews lately - I haven't been consuming a lot of films. We have bumbled about too long, stagnant in the realm of the couch watching Telly and YouTube. However, the nice weather did get me going and so I set off to town to see two of the most anticipated films this year... at least, that is what their elaborate advertising campaigns tried to convince me into believing!
The two films I saw were for one the muscle hardened "Man of Steel", the new Superman Flick, the other the stroke of fate documenting "World War Z". Both films targeting a wide, but diverse Audience. They both serve the Nerd Crowd, Superhero and Zombies do actually sync well and Nerds seem to be the new target audience to rake in money! What better opportunity than to compare the two films? Side by side! "Never" - you readers declare! "These Genres aren't to be mixed, it is like comparing Apples and Oranges!"
Well, what I can compare are the flaws of the two films, mainly because I have identified them to be of the same origin. The films are not bad, they are even fairly good and entertaining, but both suffer from over-dramatised and heavy scripts, which benefit neither film. In case of World War Z the end was even reshot and rewritten - and not to the most favourable results. Both films have a similar dramatised setting, starting right in the middle of the action/story, "In medias res" as it is called. However, in both cases, this exact idea, which should lead to a thrilling and tingling movie experience falls flat on it's face! Let me explain why:
In the case of the Superman film, the chosen plot leads to a dead boring and overly drawn out introduction after the establishing scenes. The film just rambles on and on about the different aspects of young Clerk's life amongst humans. The direction tries to get the "Medias in Res" situation established with some very nice visuals, some fast paced editing and short scenes. Family Drama and the Destruction of Krypton are eventually followed by Lois Lane investigating the Curious Cases of Mr. Clerk Kent, who lives under cover. This would be a phugging good idea to narrate the introduction, but the screen-time is limited to a few shots. Instead we have a identification seeking Clerk Kent, interspersed with Flashbacks of Father - Son moments, school bullying, oil rig rescuing. This is at times so overwhelming and cut short, it all gets - I have no better word for it - random. And random scenes, especially when you actually know the story of young Clerk Kent is simply boring, like watching multiple soaps on telly at the same time and switching over every odd scene. It is more than half the film worth before antagonists appear and director Zack Snyder can really start to shine. I understand, that folk new to the Superman franchise need some kind of exposé, but dragging it out longer than bearable is not necessary, as even the Newbs are in the cinema to see the fights! We know from the trailers, that there will be huge opulent fighting and battles later on, so why put them off this long? In a world, where Iron Man 1 happened to define how to introduce a superhero with pomp and circumstances, there is no setting nor time for boring exposé! Simplicity works, because at the end of the day (and I am being very sarcastic here) simple audiences want simple stories from simple comics. We aren't striving for Cannes, we are striving for Popcorn Entertainment!
On the complete other side of the spectrum, World War Z does everything right in the first half, the medias in res is super and Marc Forster is at his best to portray desperate characters within vast lost nothing, even if this "Nothing" is a zombie-overrun city. I felt the desperation and distress of the main characters and the view point of telling a world wide Zombie epidemic by focussing on survivors and not on the actual zombie threat is refreshing. The direction focuses on strong visual storytelling (which also relies on the audience anticipating off camera occurrences), grand sweeping totals of either bare land or huge cities infested with the walking dead and a lot of screen time for the Hero. Also, they manage to get most of the action money-shots right (but more on that below). After a cumulating, staggering climax the tone of the film abruptly changes. We are thrown into confined spaces for a nail-bighting showdown in a plane and a centre for disease control. Although this Kammerspiel is also something Forster can execute brilliantly, it is bland and uninspiring compared to the beginning of the film. The hearty, happy-end conclusion leads the cynical viewer to the confirmation that indeed the film was rewritten and the director overruled. Just to please a more mainstream clientele and keep the film PG-13, the film was given a thrillingly set but overly boring (as done before so often) showdown and a dreafuly sticky sweet happy end. So you see, actually. combined the good first acts of World War Z with the fulminant showdown of Man of Steel, we'd be left with a really thrilling and good entertainment three act drama everybody can be excited (or bored) about!
Okay, what else to compare in the films? Let's start with Hollywood and their addiction to mask their mishaps with special effects. I have covered this time and time again, good VFX don't make up for bad script, direction, cutting, editing or production! Let's add a further observed No-Go of that to the list: The craving to set everything in 3D. There are technical and physical limitations to 3D, first observed in Transformers 3: The implementation of simulated handheld camera in a energetically moving surrounding in Real 3D doesn't work! Stop this S*** Get this into your thick skulls: Shaky Cam no worky in thee dee! The viewer is confused at best, loosing focus on the actual focal-point up to actually feeling nauseous! Yes, I felt sick during some of the transformers shaky 3D shots, and I encountered it in Man of Steel and World War Z again! Also, it is about time that someone quote the late Mr. Ebert on his observations that 3D glasses tone down the viewing fidelity. When you know your dark glasses cut out a bit of the light, you should not shoot interior scenes in near darkness with just the occasional splash-light accentuating silhouettes. 3D as a current tool in the cinema has limited merits. The "In-your-face-poking-foreground-object" aside (which worked well nearly 20 years ago in the Red/Green 3D :)) the real added depth to film scenes is really the strong point of the new 3D tech. Cameron and Avatar apparently set the tone there, Snyder and Forster are both very "European Directors" which like to give large, calm Totals a lot of screen time. And by god, 3D looks good there! More of that! Please! I like this kind of cineast artistically! (The Great Gatsby was also full of that) This is where 3D as technology can emphasis the film as a visual art form and media.
So, here we are this Summer, with blockbusting flicks by producers and directors I cherish and like. Those films are being turned upside down or not turning out as I would like them to be. This is really making basically good films mediocre with a sincere bitter aftertaste. On the Internet you can find various articles on the true ending of World War Z and they read far better than the actual ending on screen itself. I could be on about other films I enjoyed far more, for instance Gatsby (now that's Drama and a melancholy end!), Cloud Atlas (I still don't know what I saw, I only know I loved it) or the new Trek (Wheeeeeee... new direction and ideas! Oh, look it's Khan!), but then I couldn't be all whiney and complainy :D
The two films I saw were for one the muscle hardened "Man of Steel", the new Superman Flick, the other the stroke of fate documenting "World War Z". Both films targeting a wide, but diverse Audience. They both serve the Nerd Crowd, Superhero and Zombies do actually sync well and Nerds seem to be the new target audience to rake in money! What better opportunity than to compare the two films? Side by side! "Never" - you readers declare! "These Genres aren't to be mixed, it is like comparing Apples and Oranges!"
Well, what I can compare are the flaws of the two films, mainly because I have identified them to be of the same origin. The films are not bad, they are even fairly good and entertaining, but both suffer from over-dramatised and heavy scripts, which benefit neither film. In case of World War Z the end was even reshot and rewritten - and not to the most favourable results. Both films have a similar dramatised setting, starting right in the middle of the action/story, "In medias res" as it is called. However, in both cases, this exact idea, which should lead to a thrilling and tingling movie experience falls flat on it's face! Let me explain why:
In the case of the Superman film, the chosen plot leads to a dead boring and overly drawn out introduction after the establishing scenes. The film just rambles on and on about the different aspects of young Clerk's life amongst humans. The direction tries to get the "Medias in Res" situation established with some very nice visuals, some fast paced editing and short scenes. Family Drama and the Destruction of Krypton are eventually followed by Lois Lane investigating the Curious Cases of Mr. Clerk Kent, who lives under cover. This would be a phugging good idea to narrate the introduction, but the screen-time is limited to a few shots. Instead we have a identification seeking Clerk Kent, interspersed with Flashbacks of Father - Son moments, school bullying, oil rig rescuing. This is at times so overwhelming and cut short, it all gets - I have no better word for it - random. And random scenes, especially when you actually know the story of young Clerk Kent is simply boring, like watching multiple soaps on telly at the same time and switching over every odd scene. It is more than half the film worth before antagonists appear and director Zack Snyder can really start to shine. I understand, that folk new to the Superman franchise need some kind of exposé, but dragging it out longer than bearable is not necessary, as even the Newbs are in the cinema to see the fights! We know from the trailers, that there will be huge opulent fighting and battles later on, so why put them off this long? In a world, where Iron Man 1 happened to define how to introduce a superhero with pomp and circumstances, there is no setting nor time for boring exposé! Simplicity works, because at the end of the day (and I am being very sarcastic here) simple audiences want simple stories from simple comics. We aren't striving for Cannes, we are striving for Popcorn Entertainment!
On the complete other side of the spectrum, World War Z does everything right in the first half, the medias in res is super and Marc Forster is at his best to portray desperate characters within vast lost nothing, even if this "Nothing" is a zombie-overrun city. I felt the desperation and distress of the main characters and the view point of telling a world wide Zombie epidemic by focussing on survivors and not on the actual zombie threat is refreshing. The direction focuses on strong visual storytelling (which also relies on the audience anticipating off camera occurrences), grand sweeping totals of either bare land or huge cities infested with the walking dead and a lot of screen time for the Hero. Also, they manage to get most of the action money-shots right (but more on that below). After a cumulating, staggering climax the tone of the film abruptly changes. We are thrown into confined spaces for a nail-bighting showdown in a plane and a centre for disease control. Although this Kammerspiel is also something Forster can execute brilliantly, it is bland and uninspiring compared to the beginning of the film. The hearty, happy-end conclusion leads the cynical viewer to the confirmation that indeed the film was rewritten and the director overruled. Just to please a more mainstream clientele and keep the film PG-13, the film was given a thrillingly set but overly boring (as done before so often) showdown and a dreafuly sticky sweet happy end. So you see, actually. combined the good first acts of World War Z with the fulminant showdown of Man of Steel, we'd be left with a really thrilling and good entertainment three act drama everybody can be excited (or bored) about!
Okay, what else to compare in the films? Let's start with Hollywood and their addiction to mask their mishaps with special effects. I have covered this time and time again, good VFX don't make up for bad script, direction, cutting, editing or production! Let's add a further observed No-Go of that to the list: The craving to set everything in 3D. There are technical and physical limitations to 3D, first observed in Transformers 3: The implementation of simulated handheld camera in a energetically moving surrounding in Real 3D doesn't work! Stop this S*** Get this into your thick skulls: Shaky Cam no worky in thee dee! The viewer is confused at best, loosing focus on the actual focal-point up to actually feeling nauseous! Yes, I felt sick during some of the transformers shaky 3D shots, and I encountered it in Man of Steel and World War Z again! Also, it is about time that someone quote the late Mr. Ebert on his observations that 3D glasses tone down the viewing fidelity. When you know your dark glasses cut out a bit of the light, you should not shoot interior scenes in near darkness with just the occasional splash-light accentuating silhouettes. 3D as a current tool in the cinema has limited merits. The "In-your-face-poking-foreground-object" aside (which worked well nearly 20 years ago in the Red/Green 3D :)) the real added depth to film scenes is really the strong point of the new 3D tech. Cameron and Avatar apparently set the tone there, Snyder and Forster are both very "European Directors" which like to give large, calm Totals a lot of screen time. And by god, 3D looks good there! More of that! Please! I like this kind of cineast artistically! (The Great Gatsby was also full of that) This is where 3D as technology can emphasis the film as a visual art form and media.
So, here we are this Summer, with blockbusting flicks by producers and directors I cherish and like. Those films are being turned upside down or not turning out as I would like them to be. This is really making basically good films mediocre with a sincere bitter aftertaste. On the Internet you can find various articles on the true ending of World War Z and they read far better than the actual ending on screen itself. I could be on about other films I enjoyed far more, for instance Gatsby (now that's Drama and a melancholy end!), Cloud Atlas (I still don't know what I saw, I only know I loved it) or the new Trek (Wheeeeeee... new direction and ideas! Oh, look it's Khan!), but then I couldn't be all whiney and complainy :D