Argo (2012)

Running Time: 120 minutes

Media: DVD

There are very few Ben Affleck movies I dislike, I think Ben is a reasonable actor and he does fairly well. He's made mistakes along the way and he seems to have gotten himself a decent momentum with which to forge on. Argo is no exception, it's a film I did enjoy, and seeing it was based on real life events, I wanted to find out more.

So I took it upon myself to go to Wikipedia and check out details of the Canadian Caper and I was intrigued... There was even an illustrated children's book about the event called Escapes! Now while there were there already was a TV film made back in 1981, based on the original cover story (i.e. "the Canadians saved the day") Argo is based on the true events, namely, that the CIA were responsible for the cover story and development of a fake film studio and fake press releases and fake this and fake that, just to provide a definite background story to prove to the Iranians that the six escaped staff from the U.S. embassy were actually six Canadian film crew members getting locations for the film. Basically the CIA used some serious bull[CENSORED]t in order to complete their mission. And boy, did it pay off!

This two-hour movie has a strange property, it makes you feel like you're watching a documentary that's only half the size. The events that led to the seizure of the United States embassy in Tehran seemed somewhat minimal in length, and the process of the set up of this Canadian film crew cover story took some considerable time to be put into effect, but once that was done, from the moment Affleck's character of Tony Mendez touches down in Tehran, the rest of the movie seems to disappear in the blink of an eye.

Interesting thing about the events that transpired in 1979-1980 which were the inspiration for this movie; when the Canadian Embassy became hosts to the six refugees from the now seized US Embassy, the Canadian Government started the ball rolling by getting six fake passports ready, complete with fake identities ready to be sent through to them. The only thing is, they lacked the resources to pull it off. Enter Tony Mendez and the creation of the fake film studio, press releases, etc. with thanks to the CIA, and it all came together...

So, is it convincing? Yes... And yet no... Here's the thing, just like the pretext of the movie within the movie, Hollywood has a way with artistic license. I took the liberty of reading more into the events of the Canadian Caper and they're actually quite dull... In a way it's no surprise that they decided to add extra bits to jazz it up. By doing so, the historical inaccuracies have been criticized considerably and have resulted in a few disgruntled critics bad mouthing the film despite the various awards won by this film.

I'll be blunt here; I did like the film, even though the film kinda smacks of the old Mission: Impossible TV series of 1969-1973... Given that the events took place some seven years after the TV series finished, the analogy kinda fits like a comfy old pair of gloves. I have to admit though, that the number of "Hollywood" thriller clichés within the film kinda added to the effect of the film. According to the Rotten Tomatoes, 96% of critics gave a positive review for this film... So why people keep pummeling these movies based on real life events puzzles me... I mean, why didn't they pummel Titanic or Men of Honor or Apollo 13 just as equally? 

I think the whole point of Hollywood is to add a layer of glamor to everything it touches, just like within Argo and its fake film counterpart. And that's what makes this movie work on so many levels... Even though there are various clichés that permeate the film. There's the doubting people to be rescue; the rescue plan that's so crazy that it may just work despite the lack of confidence by everyone involved; the near-capture scene; the quick thinking actions of one of the people to be rescued (who conveniently speaks fluent Farsi like a native) and the protagonist's right-hand man who seems to stop at nothing to help his friend in need...

Cringeworthy as each of these clichés seems to be, I think a number of us have grown rather accustomed to them being present in films such as this. The funny thing is, during the film they're not as noticeable as they are in retrospect. I guess the convenient Farsi speaking embassy worker cliché kinda haunts me a little but otherwise I'm okay with it...

Ben Affleck, he starred, directed and produced this film... He's done pretty well, I think, with George Clooney also sharing production rights along with Grant Heslov, who was also responsible for The Men Who Stare At Goats... I think he's made an exceptional performance as exfiltration specialist Tony Mendez. What made Affleck so believable in this film was that he didn't bring an overconfident, cocky and expert-of-everything character to the screen. Tony Mendez in this film was a vulnerable man; separated from his wife and son, self-doubting at times and has a genuine demeanor about him that doesn't feel it's forced.

You then have Bryan Cranston, who has been one busy man. Amid starring in seasons of Breaking Bad, and fourteen movies over 2010 to 2012, Cranston's character of Jack O'Donnell is bold and determined which is a credit to his acting stamina... I honestly don't know how he does it to be honest...

John Goodman as John Chambers, a perfect fit. Both Johns were big men and Goodman must have studied his namesake very carefully as I had difficulty seeing anything but Chambers on the screen. I know Goodman has been selective of late choosing his roles but I got to hand it to him, he's done well with this role.

Finally Alan Arkin, one of the first films I saw him in was the 1968 film Inspector Clouseau... A spin-off film from the Pink Panther series... I haven't seen him in much else of late, save for "Get Smart", but like Goodman, Arkin doesn't hammer out films like Affleck and Cranston do... He too is selective, and in his case his roles are more a subject of quality than quantity. Nevertheless, his portrayal of Lester Siegel was remarkable... Arkin's cynicism and candor come out strong in Siegel in aiding Mendez to get the script for the mission, in fact, it stays with you for the length of the film... But not in a bad way. Arkin's good at what he does, he adds a little wit to help quell the tension within the film, as he seems to do.

The film, all in all, was quite enjoyable and I'd watch it again... My only regret is that Hollywood, in the name of making it a great film, took an interesting story, and added more Hollywood to it to make it worthy of screening... Sort of like the film cliché where the girl who is the ugly duckling gets made over so that she'd fit in with the rest of society... Given that, I'm happy to award 4½ stars to Argo.

Superman III

Running Time: 125 minutes

Media: TV Broadcast (Late night movie)

You know, I always have been a fan of the original Superman series (known by various fans as the Donnerverse series of the Superman movies. It's different to the stuff we've seen with Brandon Routh or the new one with Henry Cavill, and also different to the Tom Welling series of Smallville. Most people are aware of these movies, probably though, less and less so as we go further into the series... Everyone remembers the first one, and the second one about as much... Once you start getting into the third and fourth films, you start scratching your head in confusion... 

And with Superman III, it's pretty much that, it's a bit of a head-scratcher, alright... What with the five or so minutes of introduction credits with the additional footage of the previous two films, followed by a five or so minute long slapstick routine that featured a lot of men getting injured from accidents resulting from ogling Pamela Stephenson. This is just the top of the food chain of stupidity that has culminated from the plot of this movie.

I think this seems to have resulted from one thing, and one thing only: the introduction of Richard Pryor as the focus of the film, as opposed to Christopher Reeve; and with the redirected focus, things definitely go wrong... Pryor stars as August "Gus" Gorman, a chronic suffer of unemployment who decides to try his luck with computers, and miraculously develops a talent for it... He gets a job, and decides that because he's not being paid enough, to start "salami-slicing" everyone else's salaries and whack all those shaved pennies into his pocket. This alerts his boss, Ross Webster (played by Robert Vaughan), who with the help of his sister, Vera (there's no explanation why she's there...?), blackmails Gorman into helping him rule the financial world.

Let me stop right here for just a second... okay, maybe more...Webster's immediate plan is for Gorman to hijack a weather satellite that measures weather changes like any other weather satellite and turn it into a weather controlling satellite to ruin Columbia's entire coffee crop... Now bear in mind, the last time I had seen this movie in full, I may have been seven, maybe eight years of age... Back then I would have smiled and nodded and thought "Cool, I'm still watching Superman III!" Now, I just had my jaw drop in shock and thinking "What the hell is this bulls[CENSORED]t?!?"

This attempt to switch everyone from Columbian beans to slow-roasted Arabica is thwarted by Superman. Not only that, but Supes also decides to go to his high school reunion in Smallville as his alter ego, Clark Kent... On his way he stops a chemical plant from going up in flames, inclusive of preventing several hundred vials of "beltric" acid from bringing down the plant. He does this by freezing the top part of a nearby lake and dropping it on the burning buildings... I can't imagine the number of fish that may have perished from Superman freezing the lake.

The concept of these things happening just gets weirder and weirder as time goes by... Once again, another love interest, this time Lana Lang, played by Annette O'Toole, fails to see that Superman is just Clark Kent without glasses. Superman rescues her son Ricky, who for some unknown reason is found unconscious and lying in the direct path of a crop harvester. At a celebration to honor Superman, Pryor once again, dressed as an army officer goes into some weird tirade about plastics with the citizens of Smallville and in a roundabout way manages to thank Superman for saving the chemical plant, presenting him with some faux Kryptonite. This crap Kryptonite manages to turn Superman into an evil version of himself. You would think that Superman was clever enough to avoid any hunks of green rock by instinct given the information he would have learned based off the first two movies...

I could go on and on, but to do so would make my brain melt... The focus seems to be more on Richard Pryor and his supposedly bumbling but logic-defying computer genius than it is on Christopher Reeve and the struggle to free himself of his evil self... In the end, the creation of some super computer that is capable of doing anything that Gus tells it to do seems quite illogical considering we barely can program iPhone's Siri to recognize the words "Call my wife at home", but yet there it is... The idea of it then coming alive and trying to kill off Superman by the attempted conversion of Webster's sister into a cyborg of sorts is far-fetched, but then again, there it is...

All I can ask is, what the f[CENSORED]k were Ilya and Alexander Salkind thinking by allowing David and Leslie Newman write the script? I would never have let the script leave the desk... well, save for making a bee-line for the trash bin. Argo, the script that helped fuel the Canadian Caper in 1979 made better sense than this... And even the film based on the incident was a better film than this. Robert Vaughan's portrayal of Ross Webster proves to be nothing save for a Lex Luthor wanna-be. Pamela Stephenson who plays Lorelei Ambrosia, his "psychic nutritionist" (what?!?) seems to have more lucid moments of clarity than anyone else in the film, and it seems was really hiding her intelligence for some other reason... I wish I knew what that was... Margot Kidder, our lovely Lois Lane, and even Gene Hackman (who played Lex Luthor in the first two movies) were more or less punished for their anger towards the Salkinds' treatment of Richard Donner in the first two films, and he refused to reprise his role for Superman III, only to be persuaded to reprise his role for Superman IV: The Quest for Peace. Kidder on the other hand, suffered an even more embarrassing scenario of having her role in Superman III reduced to a brief cameo in the beginning and the end... Surprisingly Ilya Salkind denied these allegations in his commentary in the 2006 DVD release of this film.

The film itself left me with so many unanswered questions, that I thought I was on an episode of Jeopardy. I've never really considered this previously when I was a child because, hey, all young boys love their superheroes, but now that I'm thirty-seven, I'm now seeing a movie with more holes than ten pounds of Jarlsberg cheese, and ironically, was just as cheesy in plot, if not moreso. When Richard Donner was hired to direct the first two films, he thought the Newmans' scripts were somewhat distasteful, and so he hired Tom Mankiewicz to do some serious re-writing of the scripts... As they were not attached to the franchise come Superman III, the Salkinds were able to bring their vision of Superman to the big screen, hiring the Newmans to write the script. I think this is what happens when super-egos get in the way of Superman. Sadly, this failed the film considerably. Despite these shortcomings... Reeve does get some praise for his portrayal of his corrupted version of Superman, the junkyard battle scene was kinda predictable with respect to the good side winning. However, Superman III has not won me any favor of any kind, and as a result gets two stars.

Iron Man 3

Running Time: 130 minutes
Media: Cinematic Release (Hoyts Penrith)

I have two comic book heroes that I absolutely love, no questions asked. One of them is DC Comics' the Flash, and I have always loved anything that has come out regarding him in all of his various incarnations.

The other is Marvel Comics' Iron Man. And I have to confess, when I first heard that Robert Downey Junior was going to be playing the part of Tony Stark, I was fist pumping the air in celebration! He was the most perfect fit in my personal opinion... RDJ was a broken man, rather much like Stark was in the comics... And if I do say so myself, the Iron Man franchise has pretty much resurrected Downey's career. Four movies on and a cameo to boot (see "The Incredible Hulk" for a lovely little Easter egg most would miss because they don't watch past the credits, let alone stick around for them...) and it's plain to see that Iron Man and the Avengers are here to stay... And will be coming back for even more.

And most of you may think I've pretty much written the review in my head and made my mind up... I have, but before I write a glowing review on what I already consider a great film, a few caveats. I'm writing this as a fan of film and comics, not as someone who has been endorsed by Marvel Studios (if only!) Secondly, I'm a bit of a traditionalist and appreciate when good ideas can be translated seamlessly from one medium to another, the Harry Potter franchise comes to mind (book to film, albeit with a few minuses here and there... But I'll get to those in future reviews...), but at the same time I will, on occasion mark down attempts to push the boundaries too far... For example, the original Spider-Man series using organic web creation... And a much wimpier and vulnerable Peter Parker...

So, Iron Man 3... Where do we begin? Good or bad? Let's start with the bad and work our way up...

Gwyneth Paltrow as Pepper Potts, undeniably gorgeous, but I've noticed her hair has gotten lighter and lighter with each film... Where's the redhead from the first film?? Granted, the sassiness is  still there, but why did Pepper let her red locks fade to blonde? Am I being a little sentimental? Possibly, but as I said I'm a bit of a traditionalist...

Next, Stark's near brush with death against the alien race trying to enslave the planet, what were they called again, the Chitauri... That's it... Now, I was still trying to figure out what it was that keeps freaking Stark out when people mention the battle of New York... He pretty much killed them off with the nuclear device he pointed at the Chitauri mothership... He then passed out until the Hulk... er... "jolted" him awake... So the question begs, what the f[CENSORED]k makes him break down at the thought of recalling the events of that day?

Also, I know Marvel Studios is owned by Disney but did they have to hammer that point home by borrowing elements from "The Incredibles"? You don't follow? Okay, prepare for spoilers...

In Iron Man 3, Tony Stark (aka Iron Man) is approached by an idolizing young scientist, Aldrich Killian, hoping to join forces with Stark, but is turned down by Stark; only to come back as an evil version of himself several years later, who is then subsequently killed but not by Stark.

In The Incredibles, Robert Parr (aka Mr Incredible) is approached by an idolizing fan, Buddy Pine, but is turned down by Parr; only to come back as an evil version of himself several years later, who is then subsequently killed but not by Parr.

They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery... I guess when you consider the parallels between "Avatar" and "Pocahontas" are far greater, then this thing with "Iron Man 3" and "The Incredibles" is considerably forgivable in comparison.

So let's go through the main cast... Robert Downey Junior... RDJ, well what can I say? RDJ is RDJ, he was born for the role in my personal opinion and I can't fault him... His role is serious with a side of funny, though his little freak-out episodes throughout the film seem odd...  They seem... "out of place", and I'm having trouble making sense of it... And his collaboration with this kid Harley just seems a little fortuitous, almost convenient... This was the only part that has made me question the film really...

Well, that and Pepper Potts' ever fading red hair to blonde... That's questionable too. Paltrow's portrayal of Potts, however, is much stronger than the original character portrayed in the classic comics or even the two/three minute cartoon mini-series I used to watch when I was younger. And you know what? It suits the franchise; Potts is the Jiminy Cricket sitting on Tony Stark's shoulder to help guide him... with Stark, just like Pinocchio, striving to be more than he currently is.

Guy Pearce as the bad guy, it seems a little... "odd"... Don't get me wrong, I think he's a great actor and he's a fellow Australian, but his character, Aldrich Killian, comes off as snobby, arrogant, his fake tan looks a little bit too fake... Perfect teeth, and, perfect pecs… and a very petty attitude to those who aren't perfect like he is... Basically, he looks and acts like a complete douche bag. When I think about it though, that's probably the whole objective, make Guy Pearce a douche so that Robert Downey Junior looks angelic by comparison, and you know what? I think they succeeded.

Wait a second, almost forgot about Ben Kingsley as The Mandarin... Remember all that hype that was made when they announced The Mandarin as the baddie for Iron Man 3? Well, take that hype, stick it in a luxurious envelope, seal it, add a pretty bow on it... Got that? Good, now take that envelope and promptly feed it into the nearest document shredder you can find... As soon as I saw his face and heard his voice I knew that something suspicious was up... Being known as The Mandarin and yet sounding like a Texan sheriff with a fake over-enunciated drawl rang alarm bells from my cinema seat... This Mandarin was (from my already-formed opinion) merely a figurehead or a patsy or rather, the "customer sales representative" to something more sinister. How anticlimactic my conclusions were when I found that I was right... It's rather disappointing...

Now enough of the cast, let's go to the visual effects... I can't fault them, I really can't... That's more because of the forty-something special suits that Tony Stark has created since the New York incident in "Marvel's The Avengers" some months back... Though a question is raised regarding the suits, that one being why he didn't use them all in the first major battle scene as he did in the final scene... Once you see the film, you'll be wondering the same. The transition of Stark hopping from one suit to the next is seamless... and left me wondering "where's my god damn Iron man suit?" The other somewhat cool effect is this "Extremis" virus thing... It seems very heat and fire orientated and the visuals for that are pretty awesome.

The ending of the movie, well, what can I say... It's left me wondering, will Stark take on the mantle of Iron Man ever again? It's left it somewhat very open-ended and although it seems to point to a definite retirement, what's gonna happen seeing there's plans of a sequel to the Avengers? Lets just say that I'm still wanting more... In the mean time, Iron Man 3 receives four stars...

Warm Bodies

Running time: 97 minutes

Media: Cinematic release

I saw this movie a few months ago after an aunt's birthday party, and I have to admit, I actually enjoyed this considerably. And while I normally tend to read the books of these book-to-film conversions, I didn't know that a book existed until I read about it in its respective Wiki article.

I kept looking at the two lead characters, R, the zombie and Julie the non-zombie, and I realized I had seen them in other movies recently. R is played by Nicholas Roult, who played Dr. Hank McCoy in X-Men: First Class who also became Beast in that film. Julie, is played by Aussie girl Teresa Palmer, who was the love interest in the Disney movie The Sorceror's Apprentice. It's a thing I do, it's not a sign of a mental condition or anything, I just try to recognize everyone I can in a film where possible, just for my own interest and curiosity... But I digress...

The premise of the film is that we have the post-apocalyptic world scenario where zombies are rife throughout the area in question, and there's small fortified cities where survivors venture out to find food, medical supplies, etc. It kinda reminds me of an iPhone app I have called "Zombies, Run!", which, I kid you not, is a fitness program to help with running away from virtual zombies! Anyhow, in one of these missions Julie and her somewhat ass of a boyfriend, Perry are trapped in some medical facility. Perry gets killed by R (that's all he remembers of his name... just the R), who proceeds to also eat Perry's brain... Now supposedly a zombie eating someone's brain somehow makes them telepathically aligned with the person they're eating, feeling their emotions and thoughts. So as a result, R starts having feelings for Julie, which turn out to be feelings of love as far as it can be told. Julie is freaked out about some zombie trying to woo her... And probably not as much as her dad, played by John Malkovich... Who thinks that the only good zombie is a dead one...

Just as an aside, here's a quick thought-provoking question. When R eats someone's brain, he absorbs their thoughts and feelings... If R were to eat some of his own brains... would he find himself in that restaurant scene in Being John Malkovich? I have no idea where that thought came from... I think my glass of Sprite may be tainted or something... 

Anyhow, R tries to woo Julie, and at the same time tries to avoid both of them being torn apart by "boneys" which are zombies that have gone off on a bender, never to return; or being killed by Julie's dad and his troops, as well as preventing Julie from being eaten by fellow zombies like R's friend, M (played by Rob Corddry). But it seems that not only is R changing, the love R feels for Julie is spreading to other zombies like M, and they're changing too... It's a little leap if faith on the part of the audience, but it does pay off a little... It's a kind of a feel good movie, but without the bubblegum goodness that makes you want to gag like you've had a cup of fake-cherry flavored cough syrup.

Now while I haven't read the book, I would suspect that the movie ties in very closely to the plot of the movie; and for that I am actually quite thankful. Though I may have to question the almost convenient way that the movie resolves to its final conclusion. It's a little cutesy-putesy to say the least, but it's tolerable, probably more tolerable than say, World War Z. I have to admit though, there were times that I thought that the zombies had more character than any of the non-zombie ones... Well, they seemed the funniest, after all, they were trying to become more and more human again.

In summing up though, Warm Bodies is one of those films that is a film that you could take your other half to see, as there is a somewhat touching relationship... You know, girl meets ghoul per se. The acting is fairly decent, even though Malkovich is seen as quite an obnoxious bastard. But the way the movie plays out the relationship being built up is quite enchanting and it does draw you in. I enjoyed this movie immensely and I'll have to look far and wide for the DVD or Blu-Ray to enjoy later. Warm Bodies receives a very heart-warming four stars.

World War Z

Running Time: 116 minutes

Media: Cinematic Release

The only reason I managed to get to see this was because my lovely wife is away seeing a friend of hers who just had a little boy... Me, I normally don't get time off... Wait, yes, listeners, that's right, I did say "wife"... I got married back in May and so far things are going rather swimmingly. It also explains my three month absence, so I do apologize... Things have been hectic with work and all, and so I have a number of reviews to write and little time with which to do them.

That being said, I decided to see this on a whim, seeing my wife was away and I needed some down time... and come to think of it I seriously need to find time to do yet another movie marathon... I am so itching to see six back-to-back... And who knows I may even be able to make it seven if I'm really clever... Anyway, I digress... 

Okay, World War Z... was conceptualized by Max Brooks, and yes, it is based on a novel... well, not a novel per se, but a "written oral history of the Zombie War" in a matter of speaking... I have read the novel, and it covers the geo-political, socio-economic, religious and environmental changes to society resulting from the spread of zombies and the ensuing battle for survival by the human race. That's the book. The movie, slightly different... It has Brad Pitt shooting, hacking, slicing and wrestling with zombies while at the same time out-running explosions and surviving miraculously with each turn in his quest to save humanity.

So naturally, what the book and the movie have in common is that they're both entitled "World War Z"... It's a bit of a stretch, isn't it? Well, here's where we have the closest thing to a plot in this movie. Brad Pitt a former United Nations investigator (it seems his "new" job now is to make pancakes for the rest of his family), called Gerry Lane, finds himself running from a swarm of rapidly turning zombies whilst waiting in traffic with his family. Miraculously, the Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations manages to reach him with pretty much clear reception and offers to pick him and his family up from some high point somewhere in Philadelphia where they manage to escape even more zombies, including the newly zombified family of a Hispanic child called Tomas, whom they take with them.

Guess what? The Deputy Secretary-General wasn't doing Gerry a favor. No, he needs his help... he's supposedly the only man for the job? No, there's a virologist who is to team up with him to help find the answers. It seems the virologist has a thing for loaded weapons, as audience members will soon discover... 

Gerry finds that he must travel to Korea, Israel and Wales in order to find the answers. And of course, he finds he just can't get away from those damn zombies, they're everywhere, man! So in his process of running from zombies, explosions and anything else preventing him from running, it seems that he finds solace in Wales along with a research team in Cardiff, only to miraculously figure out a solution that may help sort out this nasty zombie business... 

The climax towards the end, really isn't, because, let's face it, it's so f[CENSORED]king predictable that it just had to have that Hollywood type ending... And my worst fears were founded when the scene played right before my eyes, almost schmaltzy in nature... A whole spray can of Easy Cheese has nothing on this... To add insult to injury the anti-climax is followed by a thirty or so second scene which involves a soda pop dispensing machine; and will send you cringing as you try to stifle forced laughter as the disbelief-a-meter rises, and lo, and behold, the great Messiah Brad Pitt has pretty much saved humanity.

The only other name I recognized in the cast of the film was David Morse, who barely gets a mention as a toothless weapons merchant who sold guns to people in North Korea. Total amount of screen time? About five minutes... That's about 4% of the total screen time of this film... To be honest, he was there as filler, nothing more.

J. Michael Straczynski, who also wrote 92 of the 110 episodes of Babylon 5 was responsible for the adaptation of the book to film... Did he do a good enough job? I literally have to think about this... Yes... and then No... Yes, in the sense that there is enough action and thrills to get the heart racing and the blood flowing fast enough to make you watch to the end... And no, in the sense that there are a number of points in the film which are never mentioned in the book, as well as scenes which would make a Babylon 5 episode seem more believable. I found myself shaking my head at the time-again-tested predictability of the film. It was enough to make me want to cry at times... 

I also stuck around to watch the credits... And I just have to ask... why are there so many rotoscopers in the film crew? What are they rotoscoping? The last time I heard the phrase used it was regarding the graphics required for the lightsabers in the newer (but older) Star Wars movies.

To sum it up, the make up was good for the zombies, it seemed fairly suitable given the nature of the film, but everything was taken from the book and ramped up several notches. It's like taking a Bugatti, adding a nitrous oxide booster, and then slamming on the gas pedal... yes, you get a ride, but it's one that feels too out of control, too unbelievably fast and hard to escape from. And then the anti-climax comes and it's like driving that Bugatti straight into the walls of the Hoover Dam. Alonso Duralde of The Wrap reviewed this film as well, saying, "For all its effectiveness at portraying the horror of possible human extinction, the film's actual humans are so soulless that this could just as well be the movie version of the video game Plants vs. Zombies." I couldn't agree with Duralde more, there's no real advancement or development for the characters in the story save for that of Pitt, explosion-dodger extraordinaire. If it wasn't for the heart-jumping scenes at the start, this movie would have gotten far less than what I'm prepared to give it. When it comes to recent zombie movies over the last few years, even Warm Bodies will earn far higher than this. World War Z receives 2½ stars... You know, zombies may not be real, but after seeing this... I feel like my brains been eaten anyhow...