World War Z (2013) - Reviewed

World War Z is 2013's big summer blockbuster starring Brad Pitt. You know how it goes - in a big U.S. city, everything is fine until one day, an unknown infection spreads and turns people into maniacal biters. Gerry Lane (Pitt), a retired UN investigator, is asked to find the source of the disease and if possible, a way to thwart its spread. To do this, he has to leave his family behind and travel to various places on the globe.

Let's begin with what I liked about this movie, because there's not much. Zombie movies rely on the suspense, the fear that our main character might get injured, and there were some good intense scenes. The fact that the zombies weren't just dead creatures walking around (like in The Walking Dead) but actually aggressive, fast runners added to that. And of course, Brad Pitt is a convincing actor that fits into roles like these well (even if it is the generic Brad Pitt character).

Where to start... the plot. To put it simply, the story is boring and cliched. If you've read any article about this movie, you'll know that it went through countless rewrites by practically everyone in Hollywood. That's probably the reason why it's so bland and out-of-focus. Pretty much, this is the story: Gerry flies somewhere, shit goes wrong because, you know, something has to happen - he's the main character! Then he goes somewhere else, and guess what, shit goes wrong there too. The plot holes are pretty amazing as well. From beginning to end, it's filled with conveniences for the main character. Of course, in any movie, the main character will be luckier than everyone else and he/she will survive harsh, even seemingly-impossible circumstances. But there's a limit to that. There was a part of the movie when I just continuously shook my head. (I'll explain it in the spoiler-alerted section.)

To give you a feeling of the quality of the writing without spoiling anything important, here are some problems in the first 15 minutes. Gerry and his family are stuck in traffic and people in the streets are starting to panic and run. Then suddenly, a huge truck accelerates through the traffic jam, smashing everything in its way and killing a police officer who was right next to Gerry's car. The camera shows his two little girls in the car, and they're just - panting. Panting? Wouldn't they be screaming or crying if they just saw a person killed right next to them? This wouldn't bother me as much if in the next scene, the girl hadn't started screaming when they're driving fine on the road.

The truck that smashes through everything is driven by a zombie - but why would the zombie be pressing the accelerator? Every other zombie in the movie seemed to be chasing people. Just another way for our characters to escape the traffic jam. So they're driving along fine until an ambulance crashes into them. It seemed like a fatal accident (especially if they weren't wearing seat belts - oh wait, the girls weren't) - if not, then there at least should have been some major bleeding and broken bones. But no, Gerry and his family are perfectly fine. A kind citizen decides to abandon his perfectly fine RV with a gun inside, and our characters exit the chaos safely.

Hopefully, that gave you an idea of World War Z's quality. Now, as for the characters, there is absolutely no development or meaningful interactions between them. This movie primarily features Brad Pitt, and he's the usual bad-ass, smart, handsome man and nothing more. The fact that he has a wife and kids is supposed to makes us care for him more, but that connection is so weakly portrayed that he might as well be single. In fact, that would have been better.

To add one last remark in the spoiler-free section, the ending was incredibly anticlimactic and disappointing. The next part contains spoilers so just scroll down to view my rating if you haven't seen the movie yet.

---

Analyzing the beginning wasn't enough for me because there are more important scenes that I have greater problems with. First, the plane scene. Gerry and his partner get on the plane, they're at high altitude, and of course, there's a zombie on the plane. Why would the zombie wait silently in the bathroom the entire takeoff, wait till they can't land, and then come out and attack? They obviously aren't that smart, judging from the entire of the movie. So the entire back of the plane gets infected and slowly Gerry realizes that at this rate, everyone's going to get infected. So he decides to blow up a hole in the plane with a grenade. What was he thinking? 'Since we're all gonna die, I'll just kill everyone instead!' So the plane crashes and (this is where I shook my head) of course, the only two survivors are Gerry and his partner. And the plane crashed at walking distance from where they were headed to anyways. How convenient.

The crux of the movie, the point where Gerry figures out the mystery behind the zombies, is scene where he observes a massive wave of zombies simply running past a child. He figures out, from that, that zombies ignore terminally ill people since they aren't healthy hosts to the virus. So say that was the case. But why would the zombies run past the kid? Shouldn't they simply trample over him since he's in the way? The wave was huge, and every zombie avoided him, as if they saw him through the crowd and consciously avoided him. Okay - even if the do avoid the sick, there should have been at least one zombie in that huge crowd that didn't see him and ran into him. If there was a concrete pillar in place of that kid, they would have ran into it - I mean, they seem to like bumping into walls and obstacles in any other scene. Anyways, my point is that that scene shouldn't have happened like it happened, which would have prevented (or at least delayed) Gerry from figuring out the key fact.

There, I'm done ranting about World War Z (although the ending does invite another paragraph or two). If you wanna watch a similar(?) apocalypse-type movie that actually does it right, watch District 9. There's a good movie for you.

6.0/10

Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009) - Reviewed

Fantastic Mr. Fox features Mr. Fox and his family - wife, son and nephew - along with some of his other animal friends as they live their quaint lives. But one day, Mr. Fox decides to give into his beast-like instincts and his mischief gets the entire animal community in danger. As their human neighbors, Boggis, Bunce and Bean - some of the nastiest farmers in the area - threaten their lives, they have to work together to overcome and beat their enemies.

Okay, so you're a fan of Disney/Pixar and all the classic stories they've brought us over the years; or, you love the different atmosphere that Hayao Miyazaki's masterpieces provide. But behind Aladdin, Toy Story or Howl's Moving Castle, there is this hidden gem brought to us by Wes Anderson.

If you've seen a Wes Anderson film before (his most recent and famous one being Grand Budapest Hotel), you'll understand when I say that his style is quite unique. The characters have a quirky side, the story is a bit absurd, and not everything goes as you'd expect. Now, this could mean good or bad. I'll be honest, I didn't really enjoy Moonrise Kingdom... it didn't quite work for me. But for Fantastic Mr. Fox (and Grand Budapest Hotel), his style worked perfectly.

The animation isn't the clean-crisp CGI animation you're used to but rather a claymation-like(?), stop-motion picture, but it somehow makes it more likable. The premise is very easy - animals fighting against humans, and from here, you know that the plot isn't going to be the most realistic. As I've said, Anderson's stories are a little ridiculous and maybe even silly, and you can see how that works so well with this movie. You may argue that the story is too simple or childish, but I think it embraces that and uses it to its advantage to create a marvelous story. The voice acting, the music, ... they're all great.

I've skipped analysis of other aspects to examine its biggest strength: characters. I can state without a doubt that of all the movies I've seen, Fantastic Mr. Fox has one of the best characters. They really make the movie fantastic. Mr. Fox's dominant personality and battle with his instincts, Mrs. Fox's quiet yet strict ways, Ash's constant jealousy and grumpy mood, Kristofferson's peaceful charm and meditations, Rat's flirty meanness, ... The list could go on. Even the main villains are not all the same boring character. They each have their own story, diet, and personality. Of course, the interaction among them is almost flawless as well, being genuine but also humorous at a lot of times.

However, there is another layer to these characters. What makes this movie stand out from the rest is that they have subtle traits and (maybe not so subtle) habits, which really sell them as more than just animals (or humans) on a screen. The most obvious one is Mr. Fox's whistle-snap repertoire (which is honestly pretty contagious) and he does it very often in the movie. Other ones include Ash's ears fluttering when he's mad, the hand motions that always accompany the phrase "just... different," the way Mr. Fox eats his pancakes like a true animal, Kylie's zoning out, or "what the cuss!". None of these details are really 'necessary' to the story, but they make the characters all the more believable.

There are countless other marvelous tidbits that I didn't mention here - you'll just have to experience it yourself! If you've been judging this movie as merely a children's source of enjoyment, you'll be surprised to discover one of the most unique, memorable animated movies of all time. (But if you have seen it and didn't enjoy it, that's okay - I guess Wes Anderson is not for everyone.)

10/10 - A truly fantastic movie.

"Boggis, Bunce, and Bean,
One fat, one short, one lean,
Those horrible crooks,
So different in looks,
Were nonetheless equally mean."

Wreck-It Ralph (2012) - Reviewed

Wreck-It Ralph is one of my favorite animated movies - probably second on the list. Now, there are the classics that everyone praises: Toy Story, Finding Nemo, Up... All of these I've seen as a kid and do exist in my list of great animated movies. But I watched Wreck-It Ralph in high school when I began to understand films more and enjoyed the heck out of it - and that's why it's so high up on my list.

Wreck-It Ralph is about Ralph, the bad guy in an arcade game called 'Fix-it Felix'. Ralph is sick of being the bad guy all the time, for which he gets no credit, and decides to go earn his honor and admiration by winning a medal in another game, Hero's Duty. He gets his precious medal, but through a series of accidents, ends up in a different game called 'Sugar Rush' and loses his medal to a little girl, Vanellope. Ralph's search for his medal turns into an adventure in which he meets new friends, learns about the arcade's past, and rediscovers his identity as a 'bad guy'.

Before anything, we have to look at Wreck-It Ralph's setting. In an arcade full of games connected by a power-strip, the game's characters "come to life" when the arcade is closed (kind of like how the toys in Toy Story come to life when people aren't watching). They can visit each other's games by going through Game Central Station (the power-strip) and are free to interact, but if they die outside of their own game, they will not regenerate. This ingenious idea is combined with short appearances of our childhood games' characters - Pac-Man, Sonic, Bowser and even Q*bert - to create a solid foundation for an amazing movie.

The movie's theme is one we can all relate to - a mistreated character desiring acceptance. If you've experienced a form of bullying or ostracizing, you'll be able to connect. And even if you haven't, I'm sure you feel uncomfortable when someone is getting treated unfairly. We can see that Ralph is such a character and we feel bad for him. So on top of all that, when Vanellope takes his medal, we get frustrated at her - and this is why some viewers may dislike her at first - but her character is further developed and later we understand her actions.

The two main characters are fantastic. They are similar in many ways, but also quite different. Watching their relationship evolve throughout the movie, not just uphill the whole time but with slumps, makes it possible for us to believe in and get attached to them more. In fact, we get so attached to them that the movie reaches a genuinely emotional level that you would not expect from it. Supporting characters include Sgt. Calhoun, a strong female character (a rarity in animated movies) from Hero's Duty, and the goody-two-shoes Felix, the good guy in Ralph's game. These two and their interaction are more comedic (as apparent from their polar characteristics) but are also essential to the overall movie. From Calhoun's incomprehensible analogies to Felix's "dynamite gal," these two are very entertaining to watch.

About the story - when watching an animated movie, I tend to value qualities such as originality, characters, and relatability more important than the storyline. But I've been getting tired of movies that sacrifice a good story for other factors (Big Hero 6, Inside Out...). The reason I like Wreck-It Ralph so much is that it doesn't have to make that sacrifice. In fact, it's story might be a little complicated compared to other children's movies (which is why I think teenagers and adults will like it more than kids). From Cy-bugs to glitches and game-jumping... it's a great story.

The humor ranges from simple bathroom-jokes ("Hero's doody") to very clever ones ("You wouldn't hit a guy with glasses, would you?"). Also, there are so many clever word-plays that they incorporated with the entire candy-themed land and sugary characters. Bonus points go for the Oreo song, deviled-dogs, and the fact that the policemen were donuts.

Overall, Wreck-It Ralph has all the essentials of a great movie. It did miss a catchy soundtrack that gets stuck in your head for months, but I'm glad it didn't depend on music to make it memorable. If I had a problem with it though, it would be the ending, at the climax of the movie. It seemed too convenient - to spoil nothing I won't say what - but you'll see what I mean.

9.5/10

Midnight in Paris (2011) - Reviewed

Midnight in Paris is directed by Woody Allen and stars Owen Wilson as Gil, an american writer dissatisfied with his current line of work (writing movie scripts that he is assigned). On vacation, he visits Paris with his fiance and her parents and slowly falls in love with it. He gets the thought of moving there to do what he really want to - write novels, but in order to do so, he must give up his whole career in the states. Although Gil is ready to make that sacrifice, his wife Inez definitely isn't, and it's clear that her values do not match his. As they tour around Paris, Gil decides to take a nighttime walk on his own instead of accompanying his wife to a party, and he discovers the hidden mysteries of the city.

To begin with, this review will contain spoilers. However, even if you haven't seen it yet, I think it would be okay to read on - here's why. Midnight in Paris isn't about the plot points or specific happenings in the story. With other movies (such as Memento or Fight Club), giving away specifics would ruin the entire viewing experience. But for Allen's film, the main substance is its charming tone, and "spoiling" details will not alter that. 

Now, about the tone - the movie isn't meant to be taken all too seriously, but neither is it a pure comedy. The nicely balanced, light mood allows all audiences to appreciate it. Gil's time travels at night show us the beauty and glory of the past through amusing depictions of famous writers and artists. Watching on screen the people we've studied in textbooks is definitely a unique experience. Both the interactions among artists and their interactions with Gil show, in a believable manner, what it would have been like to meet them. I especially enjoyed Hemingway and Dali, but more notable was Gertrude Stein, whom I could truly believe in as a character. 

In addition, Allen knits in a lesson to be learned from the story. Usually for a movie of this style, adding a lesson would be harmful as it detracts from the mood. However, Midnight in Paris does a nice job of incorporating this small message.

On the other hand, the movie itself isn't too special or relatable. I wouldn't be surprised if artists or people in a similar situation to Gil would really appreciate this movie, but for most people, it's someone else's story. There simply isn't much to connect with. Even the lesson in the story can only be empathized by a few. The result is: you watch it once, get impressed by the characters of the past, and forget about this movie.

Midnight in Paris isn't a bad movie, but it doesn't stand out either. Again, I would understand if some people really like it. But for me, it's just - okay.

8.0/10 - an okay score.

Inside Out (2015) - Reviewed

Inside Out is the latest Pixar movie and it's brought to us by the creators of the beloved Up. The story features Riley growing up through her childhood and adolescence, and the emotions that exist in her head during these times. There are five 'emotions' - joy, sadness, anger, disgust, and fear - and they basically 'control' Riley's feelings from inside her head. We are introduced to how it works through her childhood events as she builds sweet memories that define her as a person. But as she gets older, her thoughts and feelings become more complicated and this leads to some trouble among the 'emotions' inside her head.

I'm sure that by now, you have all watched the trailer and gotten a grasp of the concept of Inside Out. This idea of emotions interacting in your head may have been done before, but nonetheless it was still fresh for me. Watching the five players interact was intriguing and amusing. The whole system was really cool - how memories are stored and some serve as core memories that build 'islands', which represent the most important values of a person.

The beginning of the movie was excellent. While Riley's childhood is a normal one, it was presented in a genuine manner that allows us to connect and empathize. There was a good balance between scenes in and out of her head to build Riley as a character. Her interaction and experiences with her parents were also well portrayed. Then, when the problem starts to unravel inside her head, joy and sadness's journey through Riley's head begins.

The strongest point of this movie in my opinion is its creative portrayals of different things in your head. There are minor ones that are just a play on words, with the most frequently used one being the 'train of thought'. Others include actual parts of our brain or thoughts. They enter the 'abstract thought factory' and experience the process of abstraction, which I really enjoyed. The subconscious was also well-realized, but I wish it was developed further. Probably my favorite of all portrayals was dream productions. I loved how it was similar to shooting movie with a script and actors, and the addition of a filter that makes dreams crazy like the usually are. Other details I enjoyed include the basic layout of long-term memory storage (the endless rows of memory balls) and little characters like Bing-Bong and the memory-janitors that live in this space. Oh, and you can't forget the gum-advertisement song.

That being said, there were some weak portrayals as well. Overall, it did seem like an over-simplification of complex phenomena in the brain. I know, it's a children's movie... But I still have to point it out. For example, the fact that there are only five emotions or just a few islands was a bit distracting. When joy and sadness are missing, the movie makes it seem like Riley cannot feel happiness at all (which is understandable) but then she also shouldn't be feeling sad - and I'm pretty sure she was sad a lot.

Inside Out's story was alright. Since the trailer shows the dinner table conversation and each of the family member's 'emotions' interactions (a great scene), I expected the whole story to focus on more people than just Riley and her 'emotions'. It would have been great to see a continuation of that. In fact, I really enjoyed the scenes during the credits that showed inside the heads of different people/animals. Instead, they chose to focus on one character, which isn't necessary a bad choice. However, the journey in the head was a bland one, with two characters who don't get along but later learn to appreciate each other, the sacrificial helper, and the convenient wrap-up. I knew they were going to return safely, so I eventually got a little tired of following through their journey and it did feel a tad drawn out.

The movie had good humor and consistent laughs with play-on-words and funny situations. I feel bad for the majority of the Koreans who were watching it with me because most of the humor couldn't be translated appropriately. (Thus I often found myself chuckling alone in the big theater.) The adequate amount of humor allowed Inside Out to be much more enjoyable. Overall, it was a creative work with many relatable themes but lacked a corresponding original story. However, it did leave me thinking about the 'emotions' and 'islands' that are dominant in my own head.

8.0/10

A final note: As soon as the credits rolled, I was ready to give this an 8.5 or 9.0. This was a few days ago. Now, looking back at the movie, I realize that it's not as high as I thought. What changed? - the following can happen with a lot of movies, especially with movies that I go to watch because of its amazing reviews and ratings. (Inside Out currently has an 8.7/10 on IMDb and 98% on Rotten Tomatoes.) What happens is - as I'm watching, I tend to focus on its strengths and overlook some weaknesses to align it with my expectations. Leaving the theaters, I usually overrate it. But after a few days of contemplation, the hype surrounding the movie wears off and I'm left with a more objective point of view. Thus my final score it an 8.0.

Before Sunrise (1995), Before Sunset (2004), Before Midnight (2013) - Reviewed

The Before Trilogy (Before Sunrise, Before Sunset, and Before Midnight) is directed by Richard Linklater who brought to us Boyhood, one of the most memorable film of 2014. In these series, he worked with Ethan Hawke (as he did in Boyhood) and Julie Delpy, and we pretty much just watch the interaction between them for the entire three movies. You might think, 'how do you make three whole movies about the same two people? This is probably a boring series about a corny love story'. But when you watch the first 30 minutes of Before Sunrise, you'll change you mind completely.

Before Sunrise begins with Jesse (Hawke), an American, and Celine (Delpy), a French, on a train in Europe. They begin conversing and soon enough they feel a connection to each other. When the train stops at Jesse's station, he spontaneously asks Celine to get off with him, to which she eventually agrees. As they explore the city of Vienna together, their feelings for each other grow stronger. But they know the moment will not last long, as Jesse has to board a plane to the U.S. the next morning.

Before Sunset takes place some time later when they meet in Europe again. I won't even give an introduction for this one, because even from the beginning, I was pleasantly surprised by the setting of the second movie in the trilogy. Before Midnight is years after it's precursor. For the same reasons, I won't introduce this one, but let me tell you that this one is more serious in tone and adds an essential element that brings the series to an amazing close.

When most of today's romance movies are plagued with the same plot, cheesy dialogue, and fake romance, I was hesitant to watch Before Sunrise. But soon enough, I fell in love with it and made my way onto the second and third. Probably the strongest characteristic of these movies is that they feel very genuine. The way the characters talk and interact, it doesn't seem like the usual "movie-dialogue" and there are no forced jokes that are thrown in for laughs. On top of that, the characters are very interesting. They share similarities but also differences, they have their unique views on issues, and when they converse, these traits and preferences subtly but truly come out. This is the result of an excellent script, direction, and acting (man, are they good actors) and it allows for three very captivating movies to be made about just two people.

The series doesn't rely on a complicated plot to keep the audiences attention. The plot is extremely simple, but it makes you want to get to know the characters more. In each movie, they have to face an unfortunate circumstance - for example in Before Sunrise, Jesse has to leave the next morning but they don't want to be separated. To watch the two deal with these problems together gives you something to look forward to - it adds an element of mystery. The endings of each movie are especially notable. They are very appropriate - it doesn't tie up the story completely (except for the last one) or give everything away. It's not a sugar-sweet ending that most romance movies have, but it's also not an extremely emotional, sad one. Then, to watch how Linklater continues the story in his second, and then third, movies is marvelous. You expect the sequels to be at certain settings (as I mentioned above), but they aren't. In the beginning you may desire what you expected, but you'll soon realize that the setting that Linklater chose is actually a much better choice.

The Before Trilogy paints a genuine picture of romance - and not just the lovey-dovey part, but also some of its ugly sides. This well-directed, wonderfully-acted movie reminded me what love is like and I'm certain it will for you too.

Before Sunrise - 9.0/10

Before Sunset - 8.5/10

Before Midnight - 9.0/10