World War Z

31 Days of Horror: Day 6

If you are a big fan of Max Brooks' sweeping zombie novel, World War Z, you should prepare yourself before watching World War Z.  The film has absolutely nothing in common with the book, aside from a multi-national scope and the presence of zombies.  If you watch zombie movies for creative and excessive amounts of gore, then you might want to slow your proverbial roll.  These aren't your classic, slow-moving, flesh-falling-off-the-bone zombies and there is no channeling of Tom Savini with these special effects.  So, that is what World War Z is not.  What is it like?

Gerry (Brad Pitt) is just a normal guy, hanging out in a traffic jam with his wife (Mireille Enos) and kids, when the zombie apocalypse happens.  That's not a euphemism for being stuck in traffic with small children.  All of a sudden, the streets are filled with a raging mob that is becoming more and more undead with every passing moment.

You know, your basic zombie movie opening scene

Gerry survives Z-Day through a combination of cleverness and knowing somebody with a helicopter.  I won't spoil the movie and tell you which is a better trait to have.  The reason Gerry is valuable enough to save via airlift is because he is a retired UN investigator and one of his old work chums (Fana Mokoena) needs someone to discover the origin of the outbreak.  

"Oh.  That's all you need?  Great."

And that's the premise.  Gerry does some globetrotting, sees how different areas are handling the end of the world, and works his way towards a cure.  If there is one.

The quality of the acting in World War Z boils down to how much you like Brad Pitt.  That's not a knock on the other actors; Pitt is simply the only one with an emotional arc and more than ten minutes onscreen.  As far as that goes, Pitt is solid.  You can make an argument that he's a little bland here, but this isn't a character piece.  It's a zombie movie, and he serves his purpose by giving the audience something to care about.  Mireille Enos was okay as his worried wife, but her expectations for a husband in the post-apocalypse were a little unreasonable.  If one of them had to work for a living in the real world, why wouldn't one of them have to work to keep them from un-living?  Daniella Kertesz was better as Gerry's unwilling surgical patient, but her part was pretty basic.

It looks like Pitt is going to throw her at someone here, right?

Everyone else in the cast basically amounted to cameos.  James Badge Dale was charismatic as a bad-ass soldier, but his part was super-brief.  Matthew Fox might not have even had a line in the ten seconds I remember of him.  David Morse managed a few lines before Gerry globe trotted elsewhere.  Fana Mokoena had a bit more screen time than the others, but his character was just a boring bureaucrat.

Marc Forster directed World War Z, and he succeeded in one of the most important aspects of this film: the scope.  The movie looks and feels big, as a global zombie epidemic movie should.  Most zombie movies have a small scope --- a mall or a house, or the like --- because the costs associated with a large-scale apocalyptic film are so high.  Forster did a good job upping the ante and making this feel appropriately large.

There are more zombies in this shot than in every Romero movie combined

Forster also did a good job making this movie look good in a variety of ways.  The World Health Organization looked distinctly different from Jerusalem, which was significantly different than New York, etc.  I thought the action looked pretty good, although there were no truly great action pieces.  The special effects, which looked wretched in the trailer, actually worked well in the context of the film.

Surprise!  This didn't look like crap in the movie!

My only real problem with Forster's direction is the huge change of tone and pacing in the film's final third.  There has been a lot of press about that; apparently, the original ending was awful and this ending was the result of extensive rewrites and reshoots.  I actually like this ending, but there is no denying that the difference is jarring.  This was a tough project that was notoriously difficult to bring to the screen, and I think Forster delivered a movie that successfully avoided being a monstrous disappointment.

Speaking of disappointments, let's address how well World War Z fares as a zombie film.  In short, not well.  I don't have a problem with the fact that the zombies here are the fast variety, as opposed to the classic slow creatures from the book.  These zombies like to run.

...and stage dive.  Unsuccessfully.

Here's the thing, though.  These zombies don't feel much like zombies.  For starters, there aren't any outstanding examples of gore in this movie.  The coolest bit of gore came from Brad Pitt chopping off a hand.  That's fairly unusual in a zombie movie (the lack of gore, not the hand-chopping), but I'm sure there is a precedent for it.  Not a good precedent, but a precedent.  These zombies don't act like any movie zombies I have seen, either.  Instead, they were clearly inspired by swarming insects.

Big insects, though.  The kind you need a hatchet for.

That's actually a pretty clever idea.  The overall effect was threatening and unsettling.  They didn't feel like zombies, though.  That's not a bad thing, necessarily, but in a movie based on the highest-profile zombie novel ever (maybe?) and has a title that implies zombies...?  These choices don't really make sense.  I wouldn't mind so much if the movie worked around the Z-word --- 28 Days Later got away with a "rage virus," after all --- but the term "zombie" is front and center, even if the zombies in question are pretty uncommon.

Example: this is a buffet for "real" zombies

The most frustrating and rewarding parts of World War Z stem from the same ultimate cause: the script.  Having read the book, I can assure you that the process of creating a screenplay from that source material would be very difficult.  That this film has a coherent story is an accomplishment in and of itself.  However, to get this much of a narrative, a lot of sacrifices had to be made.  When you couple that with budget constraints, you end up with a finished product that bears almost nothing in common with World War Z.  To be perfectly honest, the money spent securing the film rights to the book was a complete waste, as the finished product is unrecognizable from the source material.

And yet...World War Z manages to do zombies on a scale that we haven't seen before (at least, not done well).  This is a flawed movie, no doubt, and a few well-placed and gory zombie kills would have gone a long way toward making this more fun to watch, but it's not bad.  It wasn't the zombie epic I was hoping for, but it brought some new elements to the table that I thought worked out pretty well.  Since the film grossed over half a billion dollars, we will probably (eventually) see a sequel pop up, and that wouldn't be a bad thing.  It should probably add some gore, though.

Man of Steel

I don't get all the hate heaped on Superman Returns.  Granted, I don't think I've seen it since it was in theaters, but it's not a bad movie.  If you want a bad movie based on a DC comic character, there are plenty to choose from --- ignoring the low-hanging fruit of Superman IV and Green Lantern, do you remember Steel?  Superman Returns' only real crime was being a movie that didn't act as a proper tentpole for a franchise.  It was designed to look and feel like a Richard Donner Super-film, and it succeeded in that regard.  That doesn't make it very exciting to watch, maybe, but it wasn't bad.  DC and the movie producers were not shy about their intentions for Man of Steel; if this movie was successful, it would be the first in a string of DC superhero movies, culminating in a Justice League film.  Basically, they saw what Marvel did with The Avengers and thought, "We should probably do that, too."

Aside from Superman being a hitchhiking hobo and direction from Sucker Punch creator Zack Snyder, the trailer looks pretty good.  I was curious as to whether or not they would explain what Superman uses to shave, since even flames don't affect his body hair, but that is a fairly minor point.

SPOILER ALERT: they don't

Man of Steel begins on the planet of Krypton.  Actually, we spend a surprising amount of time on this world, following Jor-El (Russell Crowe), the preeminent bodybuilding scientist on the planet, as he tries to convince the ruling class that their world is going to end.  They don't believe him, which turns out to mean absolutely nothing because they are promptly murdered by Krypton's preeminent shouting soldier, Zod (Michael Shannon).

"Kee-rist, Zod!  Inside voices, please!"

So what's the point of these scenes?  Well, Jor-El takes some desperate chances while Zod's forces battled the government; he grabs something of great importance to Krypton's people (a skull) and does something questionable with it (dissolves it over his infant son), because science.  Sure of his apocalyptic conclusions, Jor violates almost every FAA rule and sends his baby boy to Earth, via rocket, all by his lonesome.  And then Zod kills Jor and Krypton explodes.  Not before Zod and his forces are overcome and punished by being trapped in another dimension, though.

Zod looks like the sort of guy who types with the caps lock key on

On Earth, that infant grows up to be Clark Kent (Henry Cavill), and his alien physiology makes him different from normal folks in a variety of ways: super-strength, heat vision, super-speed, etc.  You know the super-drill.

Or maybe this super-drill is a little more angry than what you're used to

Clark was taught by his adoptive father (Kevin Costner) to keep his head low and hide his extraordinary abilities.  The logic to this being that people fear what they do not understand and...um...a super being might get his feelings hurt?  Whatever the reason, Clark grows up to be a do-gooding drifter, helping random people out whenever he can and then slinking off into the shadows before they can ask him any questions.  Eventually, Zod and his minions come to Earth, looking for the son of Jor-El.  Their entrance is dramatic, and they essentially offer to spare the Earth if their fellow Kryptonian turns himself over to Zod.  But what does Zod really have in mind for the people of Earth?  And what does this mean for Clark?  Where does Clark fit in, as the child of two worlds?  What kind of "man" is he?  (The answer is "super.") 

The acting in Man of Steel is all pretty much above-board.  Henry Cavill carried the angst of his character very well; this is easily the best acting I've seen from him.  Cavill also looks fairly tough, so the concept of him being able to punch through your face seems a little less far-fetched than some other actors who have played the part.  While Cavill's Superman was certainly sympathetic --- I would argue he gave the most vulnerable Superman performance on film to date --- he doesn't show much personality beyond the angst; but that is more of a script issue than a fault in Cavill's portrayal.

"Alright Henry, for this scene, imagine that your iPod has nothing but Morrissey on it"

Superman's love interest, Lois Lane, is played by Amy Adams, and this is the best Lane we've seen on the big screen.  She actually seems strong and intelligent, like an award-winning reporter should.  Almost as important, her "plucky reporter" bit wasn't obnoxious.  I thought Kevin Costner did a pretty good job as an overprotective parent; Costner can be a little one-dimensional in this role, but it was refreshing to see anyone in this movie look genuinely concerned over Superman's well-being.

"Son, just calm down...and please don't murder me and your mother"

I have some serious issues with the writing of his character, but Costner did a fine job acting.  Diane Lane was also okay as Clark's mother, although her part is pretty conventional.  I will say that it felt odd seeing her play a part that was a touch too old for her.  Russell Crowe was good as Jor-El; he was suitably stoic when he played a hologram, but his action hero turn on Krypton seemed a little un-scientist-like.  Still, he was in a lot more of the movie than I expected and wasn't bad by any means.  Ayelet Zurer had a small part as Superman's Kryptonian mom, but it didn't really amount to much.  Michael Shannon's work as Zod was tough for me to rate.

And, at times, identify

Yes, he was suitably intimidating.  Yes, he provided a physical threat to Superman, something that most Superman villains do not do.  I think my issue has less to do with Shannon's performance than with how the character was written; when given the opportunity, Shannon made this awful monster sympathetic --- but we have to wait almost the entire movie to get to that point.  Until that moment of insight, he comes across as a gigantic asshole.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Antje Traue was Shannon's right-hand-woman, and she was decent; I liked what I saw, but she didn't really do much more than glare.  Christopher Meloni had a fairly substantial part and he played an aggressive authority figure.  Go figure.  I like Meloni, but his movie roles have been pretty bland lately.  Richard Schiff and Laurence Fishburne did very little aside from lending their familiar faces to bit parts.

I have to admit that Zack Snyder didn't do a terrible job directing Man of Steel.  Snyder curbed his tendency to throw needless slow-motion in every scene and instead played to his strength: visuals.  This is a fantastic-looking film.  The set and costume designs were good, the cinematography felt epic, and the super-battles were suitably huge.

Above: epic super-fart

Snyder still can't direct his actors to do much more than shout, but that's less noticeable in a superhero movie.  I did start to get bored during the action sequences, though.  Superman and Zod knocked created a lot of collateral damage, but a lot of it looked awfully similar.  The important thing is this: Snyder is a director with visual flair, and he made a gorgeous Superman movie.  He didn't write the movie, though.

That was the work of David S. Goyer and, to a lesser extent, Christopher Nolan.  This screenplay certainly achieved one of its goals; I can definitely see this film spawning sequels and tie-ins, just as Iron Man set the stage for the films leading to The Avengers.  It also told a solid origin story and left some plot threads dangling that will doubtlessly be used in the inevitable sequel.  From a branding perspective, I suppose this script also sets the DC movie universe apart from that of the Marvel universe; there is a distinct science fiction vibe to this superhero movie, and that could open a promising door to some of DC's other characters.  Having said all that, I must admit that I didn't actually like the writing in Man of Steel.  For every character that was done well (Lois Lane, Jor-El), there were three or four that took everything with straight-faced indifference.  I don't blame the actors or the director for that.  The script leaves very little for them to do, aside from pose and look upset.  The worst case of this was Zod, who was a raving lunatic for 90% of the movie and then, finally, had a humanizing moment, although it came an hour too late to make up for his behavior in the rest of the film.  But that's not the biggest problem with Man of Steel.

My biggest problem with Man of Steel is with the tone.  To say that it is "dark" doesn't do it justice.

***SPOILER ALERT***

Superman's Earth-Dad straight up tells his son to not save people.  Hell, his character basically commits tornado-assisted suicide just to teach his son a lesson.  What's worse is the fact that our Superman-to-be lets it happen.  He could have easily saved the life of his adoptive father, but he opts not to.  That is not exactly the sort of thing you typically see in a movie with a hero in it, super or otherwise.  Of course, the back story is also pretty bleak.  The Kryptonians had colonies spread across the galaxy, equipped with terraformers to make hostile environments suitable for their settlers.  When Krypton decided that they did not want to expand their empire, they sent out a bus to pick everyone up and bring them home cut off provisions to those colonies, and everybody died.   Later, when Zod is preparing to end the human race by terraforming the planet, he ignores the fact that Kryptonians can, over time, get used to Earth without killing every living creature on the planet.  Why?  Because he would rather eliminate an entire species than be patient.  Of course, he also could have used the terraformers on any of the other dozen former colonies that he visited, but that would have robbed him of the chance to destroy all human life.  That's pretty bleak stuff.  And then there are the approximately three million civilian casualties from the Superman/Zod battle.  The city of Metropolis is ruined.  Completely.  Most of those collapsed buildings had to have people inside them, and that ignores all the people running for their lives as their world fell on top of them.  

Yeah, hold on to your coat.  That will help you.

Similarly, Smallville will take a decade to recover from Zod's visit.  The nameless Asian city off the coast of where the terraformer was probably took a lot of damage in the form of tidal waves, too.  Some people have issues with Superman killing Zod, but it makes sense in the context of this movie.  Zod was going to kill those stupid people in the railway station, and Superman did all that he could to stop it, because those random people were more important than the several hundred he punched Zod through during their battle.  Actually, I was a little surprised at Zod's execution, but there weren't many options, and that thematically confirmed Superman as a citizen of Earth.  Still, the presumed off-camera body count in Man of Steel is mind-boggling.  And that sort of destruction could work in another movie.  But in a Superman movie...?  I'm not so sure.  Hell, I'm not sure that more than one of those depressing-ass factoids makes sense in a Superman movie, much less all of them.  There is usually a sense of hope and optimism accompanying this character that can sometimes come across as corny Americana.

Not this time.  Man of Steel feels like someone saw what a gritty tone did for the Batman franchise and decided "If they like gritty Batman, they'll love gritty Superman!"  And I suppose they gave the people what they wanted, if the box office numbers are to be believed.

As a standalone film, Man of Steel is decent.  It was a relief that this movie didn't completely suck, and I hope to see more DC movies in the future, thanks to the success of this film.  Amy Adams and Henry Cavill are a solid core for this franchise and I wouldn't even mind Zack Snyder returning for another movie.  I honestly believe that they're going in the wrong direction with this, though.  Sequels have to up the ante, and the angst, death and destruction in this movie are already turned up to eleven.  Man of Steel was well-executed and impressive, but the questionable thematic choices kept me from truly enjoying it.

Amour

Amour tells a story that is universal and easily understood and sympathized with by any audience.  However, the audience that actually wants to watch Amour is decidedly more specific.  I'm not referring to the fact that, by being a French language film, most Americans won't want to watch it (which, sadly, is true).  I'm not referencing the disdain the general public has for "artsy" films, either --- although Amour is certainly a result of a filmmaker who wanted to make a Film with a capital "F".  No, despite its universal themes and uncomplicated story structure, the reason Amour is (in America, anyway) destined for a niche audience is because of its unflinching gaze into old age and death.  That's not a spoiler.  This, however, is a pretty piss-poor trailer:

If the trailer was simply the old man sitting silently for two minutes, that would give you a better ideas of what Amour has in store.

Old Age: The Movie

Amour opens with some firemen breaking down a door in an apartment building and immediately covering their noses and reacting to a stench.  Behind a locked bedroom door --- which has had all the cracks around it taped, for some reason --- they find an elderly woman's dead body, surrounded by dead flowers.  The film then flashes back to an audience at a piano concert.  The camera doesn't focus on anyone in particular, but my eyes were drawn to an older couple.  What attracted my attention to them?  I don't really know; the only thing they did that was special was stand up to let someone else get to their seat.  So, aside from noticing that they're not jerks, I don't know exactly what drew me to them.  The concert begins, and the camera does not switch from this shot of the audience.  When that scene ends, we are introduced to Georges (Jean-Louis Trintignant) and Anne (Emmanuelle Riva), the older couple from the concert audience.  They're a cute old couple, the type that seem to have been together forever.  The next morning, at breakfast, Anne drifts off while she is eating.  It's not a matter of concentration, either; Georges talks to her, touches her face, and dabs her forehead and neck with a damp rag, but she does not respond.

He even tried the "pull a quarter out of her ear" trick.  Nothing.

And then Anne snaps out of it, with no recollection of the previous few minutes.  This was a stroke.  Anne hates hospitals, but Georges insists on calling their doctor.  An operation is required, and it does not solve the problem.  Anne is soon paralyzed on one side and requires Georges' constant attention.

This may look creepy in a still shot, but Anne is doing donuts, which is awesome

There is no silver lining to Anne's situation.  She is going downhill, and both she and Georges know it.  Anne makes him promise not to take her to a hospital or hospice, no matter her condition, so it all just becomes a waiting game.  A watching and waiting game, where the end comes as no surprise.

The acting in Amour is excellent.  Emmanuelle Riva has received acclaim for her sadly realistic portrayal of someone helplessly and unflinchingly approaching death, and with good reason.  It is tough to watch her onscreen because it feels so real and is so sad.  I was actually more impressed by Jean-Louis Trintignant, though.  His role is definitely the more passive of the two (which is odd, considering that his does not involve paralysis), but the camera is on him almost the entire film.  This movie is more about him watching Anne die than it is about Anne dying, and Trintignant was depressingly convincing.  Realizing that helped me make sense of the audience scene from the beginning of the film; we're watching them watch someone else, which prepares us for our role in the rest of the movie.  The only other actor worth mentioning is Isabelle Huppert, who played Georges and Anne's daughter.  She was fine, but her purpose was to approach the situation from another angle, not to add much to the overall story.  I did find her bit about listening to her parents making love a little creepy, but that may simply be because I ***vomit explodes out of my eye sockets from contemplating my own conception***

"You listened to us...?  No wonder spanking didn't bother you!"

Michael Haneke wrote and directed Amour.  This isn't the first time I've heard of Haneke, but this is the first of his films I've sat down to watch.  Haneke has a firm grasp on cinematography, and he makes a lot of interesting choices throughout the film --- the camera placement and choice in cuts offer enough subtext to gratify a film class for several weeks.  Haneke also deserves credit for getting such remarkable performances from his cast.  He also makes the brave choice to let the audience figure out what the characters are thinking instead of spelling it out.  This is a slowly paced film, as the main premise would suggest, but Haneke also managed to insert a surprisingly effective scary moment and a few sprinkles of humor here and there.  From a technical standpoint, Amour had excellent direction.

That doesn't mean that I actually like Amour, though.  It had great acting and direction, true.  But for a movie to be this far from enjoyable, I needed to feel more.  And I was never that invested in Anne or Georges.

Don't look shocked.

I was expecting Amour to be a great big ball of artsy pain, but I was surprised at how little I felt when the movie ended.  Was I a little uncomfortable?  Absolutely.  But did I tear up?  Not at all.  And that's bizarre, given the fact that this is the old age equivalent of a snuff film.  I'm an easy mark for characters that have under-appreciated devotion, too, and while I understood Georges' pain, I was never connected to it.  It's almost like the artistic statement being made via the cinematography (we are an audience watching an audience) separated me from the tragedy, so I was emotionally divorced from the culmination of the plot.  I saw this in the theater, and the response from the audience was muted at the end.  I looked around and saw nothing but dry eyes, so this isn't just a weird Brian Thing.  I appreciate the craftsmanship that went into Amour, but I think it was a missed opportunity for a truly touching film.  Oh, and for the record, this movie is the absolute worst advertisement for old age ever.  I've never taken too much stock in the "live fast, die young, and leave a good-looking corpse" life plan, but Amour makes that look like a wise choice.  Now, if you'll excuse me, I think I need to look into how to find some hookers and blow...and --- let's be honest --- probably research ways to dispose of the bodies of prostitutes.

If you have seen the movie, then you'll appreciate this: the mouth-breathing idiots sitting next to me in the theater (who liked to discuss not-at-all-confusing plot points out loud) actually said this when Georges is having his nightmare: "Uh-oh...somebody's in the apartment!"  Really?  Really???  The movie about old people dying is suddenly going to turn into a hostage movie a third of the way in?  I heard them discussing the plot summary before the movie began, and yet they still mistook this European subtitled drama for The Strangers.

"I just dreamed that someone confused this for a horror movie!"

Here's a clip of what I've had running through my head while writing this reveiw.  I had never actually heard this version, from The Caddy ever before, so I was shocked when it hit 1:29.  Someone should have shot that poor animal and put it out of its misery.

Hostel (Unrated Director's Cut)

31 Days of Horror

I was not looking forward to Hostel.  Judas Pato claimed that it was pretty hilarious --- and I almost always agree with Judas --- but my horror movie guru, Danny O'D, pointed out that this was a movie about torture, which I share John McCain's attitude toward: it's a no-no.  Ugh.  But I'm pretty open to watching whatever someone suggests, so I chose to finally watch Eli Roth's Hostel.  I liked Roth's Cabin Fever, but this...?  This feels like something that is just outside my comfort zone.  Will that be a good thing or not?

Hostel begins with a few stupid Americans, Paxton (Jay Hernandez) and Josh (Derek Richardson), and their randomly picked-up Icelandic buddy, Oli (Eythor Gudjonsson), partying in Europe.  They like to party, Josh has no game with the ladies, and Oli wants to stick his penis in anything that moves.

Yes, even them, with their Eli Roth-nipples

The guys, being stupid Americans (and Icelanders), come back to their hostel after curfew.  Thankfully, a cool guy, who totally smokes pot and has a weird mole on his lip, lets them into his apartment.  There, he tells them that sure, Eurpose is okay for sluts, but Eastern Europe -- Slovakia, in particular --- will have them up to their necks in pussy in no time.  Failing to take the time to realize that "up to their necks" could be face-first or feet-first (let alone the desirability of such a state), the boys head to Slovakia.

"We do not fear vaginal asphyxiation"

On the train, they meet an unnamed businessman (Jan Vlasák) who is creepy as you can get, while still eating salad.  Nothing happens on the train, though.  Once they arrive in the Slovakian hostel, they are told that they are going to have to share a room with other people, which is totally lame.  Until those "other people" are total slut babes, that is.

If this was CSI, we would hear Roger Daltrey screaming "YEAAAAHHH!!!"

After a night of booze and sex with their roommates, Paxton and Josh awake to find Oli missing.  Well, maybe he walked his one night stand home, and he'll be back in time for breakfast.  Or lunch.  Or dinner?  That's weird.  Oli's a horn-dog, but he also loves to send text messages with photos of him boning random chicks, so it's especially odd for him to be absent AND silent via text.  You might think that a missing friend would ruin the party for Pax and Josh, but that's not the case; Paxton rationalizes that they will be leaving tomorrow (for Spain) anyway, so they can either be bored or have sex with beautiful sluts.  Emotional angst takes a backseat as the boys try to consummate that thesis.  There's just one problem...the boys seem to be getting drugged.  Pax accidentally gets trapped in an alley and passes out, but when he wakes up, Josh is also missing.  There's something sinister at work here, and Paxton is determined to get to the bottom of it.  That's a choice he's definitely going to regret.  Why?  Um...in a hyphenated word, torture-porn.

If this looks too "edgy" for you, then it is

The acting in Hostel is surprisingly decent.  There are no good actors in this film, but Jay Hernandez was as good as I've seen him here.  Granted, he's usually pretty mediocre/awful, but even his limited acting ability didn't get in the way of his character's believable reactions and motivations.  Derek Richardson was fine as the bitchy, conservative member of the troupe, but that also made him fairly unlikable.  Eythor Gudjonsson, though, was the saving grace of the main cast.  Oli was awesome.  In a film filled with profanity and lewd remarks, Oli stood out, thanks to the joy and unique nature of his work.  Jan Vlasák was suitably creepy in a small, but important, role.  It could have been a more substantial part, but I blame that moer on the script than on Vlasák. 

"I'm the one paying them!" could have been epic with a better script

Barbara Nedeljakova and Jana Kaderabkova were absolutely perfect as the bait for this trap; both girls were sultry and sexy when they needed to be, but sinister and strung-out when they were outside their assigned playtime.  There are only two other (substantially supporting) roles worth mentioning in Hostel.  The first is the absolutely random appearance of Japanese director, Takashi Miike, who plays a member of the Elite Hunting group; this cameo is obviously a show respect for Miike's awesome Japanese horror movies, but I wish he had something more substantial to contribute in his few lines.  On the bright side, the special features interview with Miike was occasionally interesting, in a philosophical way.  The final noteworthy member of this cast is Rick Hoffman, who excelled at being a hateful stereotype of American business aggression; I think I liked Hoffman's performance, but he does such a good job of being unsympathetic that I'm not sure whether to appreciate or hate him.

"Hey, dick, I'm a little preoccupied here"

Hostel is only the second film directed by Eli Roth, but it shows a surprising amount of confidence on the part of the director/writer.  One thing at a time, though.   Roth's direction shows a talent for building suspense; the torture scenes bordered on masterful, with regard to suspense.  The overall pacing of the film is a little uneven, and it would have been better if that sense of suspense or dread was carried through more of the movie, but this is a torture/horror movie --- let's be honest, we're lucky to get anything this competent.  Roth's best moments lie in particular scenes; he does a fantastic job making uncomfortable moments feel absolutely excruciating.  That doesn't translate into the movie as a whole, which has an almost comedic tone at times, but those moments are what sticks out most in the memory.

In other words, you recall the torture more than the boobs

Roth's writing is, at times, a strong point in Hostel, but not so later.  If you like profane penis references, then Hostel has the script for you.  Personally, I don't care about dick jokes one way or the other, but I prefer it when they are legitimately funny, instead of just foul-mouthed.  Hostel doesn't have a lot of clever lines in it, but it is jam-packed with semi-comedic rudeness, disguised as the-kids-really-talk-like-this.  While that may be true, I would have hoped for funnier dialogue.  The script feels a little forced, like it's trying too hard to be edgy.  As for the plot as a whole, I think Roth missed the mark with the final act of the film.  I don't buy Paxton as a savior, even with his drowning story, and I definitely don't buy him as a ruthless kidnapper/probable killer.

[To be fair, that was my reaction to the Unrated Director's Cut, which has a different ending than the Theatrical and Unrated editions.  After seeing the other ending, I stand by my statement.]

Hostel is a movie about torture, so how violent is it?  Not as bad as you would think.  The first half of the movie is almost devoid of violence and gore, so it really isn't until Josh gets kidnapped that the viewer sees anything gross.  Even then, the violence is not nearly as unbearable as I had imagined it to be.  Of course, "not as unbearable" does not mean that this is a gore-free film.  The worst moments are probably when Josh has his Achilles' tendons slashed and when the Japanese girl gets her face torched.

I don't want to look for it, but I'm sure there is a Japanese fetish porn site that loves this picture

Well, okay, the dangling eye was obviously a makeup job, but the puss that oozed out of her wound was disgusting.  There just wasn't as much torture as I was expecting, I guess.  While a lot of people die in the film, most of them get their just desserts in action-ish sequences, where they are not helpless victims.  There is far more implied violence than there is actual onscreen violence; that doesn't mean this is a film that is violence-free, it just has a lot of dead bodies in the background of the main action.

Thankfully, the hunchback body-part-retriever doesn't deliver puns.  In English, anyway.

Eli Roth is famous for supporting both extreme violence and nudity in his movies, and Hostel is no exception.  If you are a fan of female nudity, there are over a dozen breasts pairs to ogle.  Are they gratuitous?  Mostly, yes.  However, they are gleefully gratuitous, which somehow makes it seem less sleazy, although I'm not sure I can explain why. 

What's the verdict on Hostel, then?  I fully expected that I would cringe my way through this movie, but I found it surprisingly watchable.  There are some elements in this film that I loved --- the fact that there were no subtitles added to the sense of isolation, the girls did a good job, and there was enough humor to offset the uncomfortable moments --- but there were just as many that I disliked --- the inconsistent tone, the "edgy" dialogue, the action movie final act.  If I could change only one thing in this movie, I would have had more suspense, even if that meant longer torture scenes.  The fact that the most memorable scenes are so short, and yet have such a central importance to the plot makes this an uneven story, at best.  Given the actors Roth was working with, I think this movie turned out surprisingly good for what it is.  "What it is," though, is a couple of graphic scenes wrapped in another hour-plus of stupid character syndrome.

Chocolate

I'd had Chocolate in my Netflix Instant Queue for a good long while, collecting dust.  Well, virtual dust, anyway; that's like real dust, only with less dead skin and insect poop, and probably more memes.  I like the occasional martial arts movie and this was directed by Prachya Pinkaew, who has handled the two best Tony Jaa movies, but I was just never in the mood for what appeared to be a kung-fu chick flick.  And then I read this article from Cracked.com.  While I have loved Ricky-Oh: The Story of Ricki and The Crippled Masters for years, I had no idea that Chocolate was such a conceptual gold mine!  I mean, really --- mental retardation as a martial art skill?  What's not to love?  I mean, aside from a fundamental (and probably intentional) misunderstanding about mental handicaps and their repercussions.

Chocolate is, as the title implies, the story of a sweet piece that gives people pleasure when they pop it in their mouth.

On an unrelated note, image searches for this film rank this picture pretty highly

Actually, Chocolate is the story of Zen (JeeJa Yanin), who is not to be confused with an Intergalactic Ninja who starred in his own NES/GBA game and comic book.  Zen is the result of a star-crossed romance worthy of Shakespeare (or the corresponding Thai knock-off).  When her mother, a Thai gang enforcer/gangster moll named Zin (Ammara Siripong), fell in love with Masashi (Hiroshi Abe), a Japanese Yakuza boss, she knew that their romance couldn't last.

Much like the allure of her huge gang tattoo

Zin's criminal boss, Number 8 (Pongpat Wachirabunjong), is incredibly jealous and very territorial.  While I'm not 100% sure that Zin was his girlfriend, Number 8 makes it clear that he will not stand for their love.  To give them an idea of how crazy he is, Number 8 shoots his own toe off his foot; I guess the idea was something along the lines of "If I am willing to this to myself, imagine the toes I will shoot off you!"  After breaking up with Masashi, Zin quits her gangster ways and devotes herself to raising her Thai-Japanese love child, Zen.  The girl turns out to be rather "special," though.  I would say that Zen's behavior puts her on the autism spectrum, but that's selling this plot short; Zen exhibits a variety of mental illness symptoms, until they become a hindrance to an action scene, at which point they are generally ignored.  So, yes, I am aware that autism is different than mental disability/retardation/illness, but nobody told the writers of this movie.  Zen grows up, gains a best friend/creepy kid that is always hanging around her, named Mang Moom...

"Would it be less creepy if I told you I was manipulating her?"

...and the audience sees what makes Zen so special.  Thanks to Zen's mental disability, she can learn anything, as long as she's seen it done before.  Riding a bike?  Easy.  Kung-fu practice?  Done.  Tony Jaa and Bruce Lee moves?  Hmm...I wonder if that talent will come into play here?  That might not make an ounce of sense in the real world, but apparently this movie takes place in a universe where autism gives you high-end martial arts abilities.  Anyways, Zin is sick.  It's probably cancer, and she doesn't have the money to pay for treatment.  Mang Moom finds an old memo book of Zin's, which shows a list of people who owe her money.  Of course, Moom knows that no tough gangster-type person is going to willingly hand money off to a pudgy kid that really ought to be in school.  That's why he brings along Zen.  It's kind of like bringing a knife to a gun fight, but if you replaced "knife" with "handicapped girl" and "gun fight" with "any fight, whatsoever."  Oddly enough, it worked.

She brought a kick to the face to a jumping contest

Zen was able to kick some ass and take home money for her mom.  Meanwhile, Number 8 and Masashi both noticed Zen's success, and each takes steps to finish her quest, one way or the other.

In my mind, any discussion of the acting and direction of Chocolate is missing the point.  This is a movie about a mentally handicapped girl who --- as a direct result of being mentally handicapped --- became a master of the martial arts.  It's essentially Rookie of the Year, only with "baseball" and "arm injury" being replaced by "kung fu" and "developmental disability."  Let me put it another way: are you the sort of person who can laugh at The Crippled Masters?  Or perhaps your favorite episode of South Park is the "Cripple Fight" episode?

Cripple Fight
Get More: SOUTH
PARKmore...

If that's the case, then you will definitely enjoy Chocolate.  In fact, you should rent it the next time you need to make a Schlitz run.  If, on the other hand, you think laughing at autism will give you a "Go Directly to Hell" card, then you might not want to take a pass.

Hell is for children...to kick your ass

If you can get beyond the basic idiocy/brilliance of the core concept of Chocolate, though, there are several points of interest.  First and foremost, JeeJa Yanin is pretty damn impressive in the film's action scenes.  The primary fight style is inspired by Muay Thai; if you can imagine a young girl kneeing people in the face, then you've got a decent idea of the action in the movie.  Thanks to Zen's ability to mimic anything she sees, though, there are moments where the fighting style shifts noticeably. 

This scene was obviously inspired by Bruce Lee.  No joke.

That's a pretty cool way to change things up.  It helps that Yanin is also a very small girl, so her acrobatics also added some unusual spice to this genre flick.

The villains are also pretty entertaining.  While I would hesitate to call any acting in the film "good," the bad guys were consistently nonsensical and over the top.  Number 8 was the main baddie, but he wasn't all that weird.  His transvestite second-in-command, though, was hilariously ugly.  I would post a picture of him/her, but doing a Google image search for "chocolate movie transvestite" proved to be rather unpleasant.  My favorite bad guys were the mini-bosses.  The basic setup for any scene has Zen going to a group of meat/fish/pig/box packers and demanding the money owed to her mom, the bad guys laugh and refuse, and Zen kicks all their asses.  One of the guys holding the money flat-out dared Zen to take the money from him; when she beats the shit out of everyone in the warehouse, the same guy whines about her overreacting.  I had to pause the movie there until I was finished laughing.

Another thing Chocolate does well is introducing unintentionally funny conceptual moments.  This doesn't include the core concept of kung-fu-autism, mind you.  Let's take Zen's buddy, Mang Moom, as an example.  I can ignore the logic of treating Zen as a street performer whose talent is to catch what you throw at her.  I can ignore the shock of seeing his character (remember, he's a child) on the receiving end of a gunshot wound.  Both of those are kind of unintentionally funny.  Or terrible.  Whatever.  What was fantastic about his character, though, is when he is offered candy by the evil killer transvestite and is specifically told to give it to Zen --- and he does!  Even better, the candy is poisoned!  There is just so much gold in that simple idea, I just don't know what to do with it all!  First and foremost, giving a fat kid chocolate candy and expecting him not to eat it, especially if nobody else knows about it, is a pretty terrible start to any evil plan.  But what kid takes candy from a stranger...and saves it for someone else?!?  It's not like Zen would have known anything was missing, because she's shown as nearly oblivious to everything.  Also, if you're a creepy killer trannie, you might want to have a middle man offer the kid the candy in the first place; kids are stupid, but even they keep their distance from obviously creepy folk.  Unless, of course, they happen to be named Mang Moom.

Please tell me she's practicing this move for Moom

Prachya Pinkaew did a decent job balancing the action and story in Chocolate.  There are rarely stretches without action of some kind, and I think that is the best way to make a movie like this.  The action choreography was varied and impressive, but it wasn't fantastic.  Beautiful?  Yes.  Worth rewinding immediately after seeing?  Not so much.  The problem isn't with JeeJa Yanin, who looked about as tough as a teenage Asian girl can look.  The scenes were just not gory.  This is a martial arts movie where the main hero fails to kill most of her foes.  They're using all sorts of weapons, but she just beats them down and then makes the rounds to make sure nobody is getting back up.  In theory, there is nothing wrong with that.  In fact, it might have been downright unsettling to see Yanin massacring people on the big screen.  And yet the lack of awesome (or any) finishing moves undermines one of the main pleasures found in martial arts movies.

Don't get me wrong, this can be an entertaining movie, as evidenced by the above clip.  The action is pretty cool and there is the added bonus of another mentally-handicapped-but-violently-blessed character to add another layer to Chocolate's ridiculousness.  It's fun and totally worth watching, but it's not bad-ass and it's not a classic.  Unless, as I've pointed out before, you're going to Hell and you want to laugh on your way down.  As a legit film, Chocolate deserves...

 But if you're in the mood to laugh at a modern martial arts movie that actually has solid action, this deserves a Lefty Gold rating of...