In Review: Warm Bodies

Directed By: Jonathan Levine
Stars: Nicholas Hoult, Teresa Palmer, Analeigh Tipton, John Malkovich

What I Liked
Levine managed to mash a dozen of genres into an entertaining genre-bending feature film, Analeigh Tipton outdoing Teresa Palmer

What I Disliked
Teresa Palmer feels and looks like Kristen Stewart, incosistent zombie behavior

Gist
Warm Bodies successfully mashes several genres into a darkly comic oddball full of quirks. And while its resolution or its casting of Palmer is not as strong as the other leads, direction, or its screenplay, Warm Bodies still makes for an enjoyable take on the zombie genre.

Nicholas Hoult plays a zombie named "R." He narrates his daily goings on as he walks around their airport home. One day, while searching for food with his horde, they stumbled upon a group of humans looking for medicines in an abandoned lab. This encounter result in him falling in love with Julie (Teresa Palmer), prompting him to rescue her from his fellow zombies and take her home. But something in him is changing, and slowly as he protects Julie, he is starting to feel less dead and more alive.

I once read that of all the popular horror creatures, zombies are least likely to get the Twilight treatment.They stink, they have no humanity in them, and they eat you the first chance they get. This assumption was put to shame by Levine's Warm Bodies, adapted from the Isaac Marion book of the same name. Nicholas Hoult from UK E4's TV series Skins, and films like About a Boy, and 2010's X-Men: First Class plays quirky narrator  and dead walking who can only remember a fraction of his name, "R," opposite I Am Number Four's Number 6, Teresa Palmer as Julie, daughter of the leader of remaining human survivors (Malkovich). Levine, who directed 2011's cancer comedy 50/50, directs and writes a film quite difficult to adapt.

Immediately, one has to ask, will this be a movie one would like? Anyone would answer you with a canned "that depends." Initially, I was put off. "Ugh, they finally are ruining zombies and making a Twilight material out of the beloved brain-eating dead." But the final product from Levine is delightfully far from a disaster, at least in my books. But here's the thing, it would only work if you accept the central premise that in the universe where Marion's story is set, zombies are capable of thoughts. Yes, unfortunately, for zombie purists who grew up with titles like The Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, and played games like Resident Evil, this is unthinkable. Zombies think?! And not only that, this zombie (R) narrates, too, cracks jokes, and is given to school boy anxieties--heck he even grew a vocabulary and maintains a house. If you remain unaccepting of the central premise, then this movie will frustrate you since that premise is its main source of humor, too.

At an early point in the movie, I felt it did a full stop when it tried to explore the humanity in R after he rescues Julie. This part, I felt, Levine failed to take advantage of. It felt slow and given to teenage tendencies.  There were scenes that felt out of place or inconsistent with the whole premise. For instance the scene when Julie and R went driving a car on the airport for fun because Julie was bored--and yet no zombie could smell Julie, but we were shown early just how keen zombies are to the presence of the living, come on, why would Julie even do that after the traumatic experience early on?! Then there's also a scene when R narrates that zombies can't run. Yet later on, zombies run.

But that's not my main concern at all. The inconsistencies are forgivable because I didn't really take the movie as seriously as one would, say, Inception or No Country for Old Men. Of all, it was Palmer's casting that bothered me most. Palmer, in most of her shots, looks and feels like Kristen Stewart--something I cannot find pleasure at. The initial impression to me was that this casting was made to ensure investment returns and that it feels comfortable for Twilight audiences--probably the same target audience of this film--to watch this film. After the movie, I was able to research about how she was cast and it bothered me less. I mean, it's not her fault that she looks like K-Stew. She fought for the role and got it after working hard. Still not a fan of her acting, though, and for those who are bothered by the existence of Kristen Stewart will be bothered by Palmer's casting, too.

K-Stew on the left, Palmer on the right

After the slow parts at the airport, the movie begins to enjoy itself. Levine manages to throw in several genres into the mix: at one point it was funny, in another it was rife with suspense, in another it was full on horror, then action, then romance, then soon enough you can't tell just what genre it is because it stirs so many emotions (sports fan beware, it doesn't transform into a sports flick, though. Sorry).

Analeigh Tipton, who plays survivor Nora, occasionally trumps Palmer in their scenes together. In the film, Nora is the sort of girl who doesn't feel shaken by the Apocalypse or by the fact that she saw her comrades get eaten by zombies--which makes little sense but whatever. She is lively through out and another source of humor for the the remainder of the film as well as a dependable companion.

In the end, the resolution might still be divisive for those who remained and enjoyed the film thus far. For me, it wasn't as weak or corny as one would expect--although you'd know it's going that way and feels predictable. It  manages to be humorous--a bit awkward at spots, but altogether works, albeit limping. As I said earlier, zombie purists wouldn't last the film halfway if they reject the premise. But those who are open and stuck it with Warm Bodies will be rewarded with a film that successfully mashes several genres into a darkly comic oddball full of quirks. And while its resolution or its casting of Palmer is not as strong as the other leads, direction, or screenplay, the zombie purist in me who opened himself up and didn't take the movie as seriously finds that Levine's (or Marion's, for that matter) take on the zombie genre makes for an enjoyable 97 minutes.

Judgment: Zombie purists exercise caution on watching this film. Do not expect this to have a Walking Dead treatment, think Zombieland with a wtf twist. The romance is also light and does not go cheesy so this one is also for the guys. 3.67 stars out of 5.

In Review: Skyfall

The Gist

Tense, gripping, and pays for every second of its rather extended two and a half hours running time, Skyfall is the sort of movie that engages and does not lose its grip throughout.

The Good

• Fluid, tense, and engaging storytelling
• The long running time is worth it and mostly ignorable
• Top-notch casting, Bardem shows good acting chops--crafting a memorable antagonist of endearing ambivalence
• Sets a good stage for future Bond films, pays enough nods to the originals it rebooted

The Bad

• Doesn't feel long but could've been shorter
• Nothing much to complain about

Synopsis

During a chase in Turkey to retrieve a stolen hard drive with the confidential list of NATO agents, Bond (Craig) was shot by another MI6 field agent, Eve (Naomie Harris), was never found, and was declared dead. With his presumed death, Bond chose to live a carefree life of drinking and merriment until he saw a news broadcast of a terrorist attack on MI6 that killed 6 agents. Resolute to get to the bottom of this attack, Bond "resurrects" in order to defend England.

Author's Note:

The speed bump I hit for starting this review is that basically I have zero working knowledge of the previous James Bond films--and also I have zero wanting to leave my bed during the long weekend to endeavor this review. Anyhow, the reason for being is that Skyfall is the first Bond film I've seen--eventhough I have a copy of Casino Royale practically begging to be played. All I know is that it was a fault to miss Casino Royale when it had its theatrical run, and that I shouldn't make the same mistake twice. I still haven't figured out the connection in the continuity between Die Another Day and Casino Royale, but I believe Casino Royale was a reboot, which further confuses me because this reboot seems to be set in the past, but the Brosnan Bond films seems to be set in a timeline after Casino Royale. So I don't know, I couldn't find anything on the net that I quit tying it up altogether and just thought that Casino Royale is to the James Bond franchise as the JJ Abrams Star Trek is to Star Trek franchise.

Dressed to Kill
Wherever you look in the internet, Sean Connery is hailed as the greatest "Bond." But I can see, with Skyfall, why there is a buzz that Daniel Craig is reaching the same level of greatness--or at least popularity. For instance, he exudes the same magnetic screen presence that is possessed only by Jeremy Renner, his nearest contemporary--a charm that Connery possesses, too, during his run, only with Craig, this presence is more raw, more intense, more coarse. Craig is equally sexy and possibly edgier than Connery, owing perhaps to his anti-hero flair and his need to use his fist more often than his honestly empty arsenal. Craig's Bond persona in a nutshell is more raw than any of his predecessors'. In short, this is a Bond tailor-made for modern media. Less squeaky clean and more prone to action, one that commits more mistakes than his counterparts--more human than the film would usually allow. And perhaps that's why it worked well. It's a Bond that we, with our slips and lack of polish, can easily relate to.

On the Third Day He Rose Again
Casino Royale was the reboot that the Bond franchise needed. It heralded a fresh start for the then 46 year old franchise that was ready to run out of stories to tell. It was a risky move that paid off. Daniel Craig, back then, was for the most part unknown--his highest grossing film was the critically panned Tomb Raider, and he wasn't the lead role even. Criticism for Craig was large before Casino Royale was screened, and did it shut everyone up when the receipts came back to make Casino Royale the highest-grossing Bond film (as of this writing), with Craig's performance as Bond being critically acclaimed. If anything, Skyfall proved that this success wasn't a fluke and that Craig is here to stay. Skyfall, the third installment in the reboot, the proverbial third day to this resurrection process, seals the fate of the golden series in modern cinema where heroes and villains threaten to tread the same lines. And that's where Skyfall focused: make the heroes and villains close enough to be indistinguishable from another, then dissect them farther from one another with each choice they make.

Going back to the film, Mendes avoided convoluting the storyline and decided to stick with a very discernible central plot that would pit Bond and Silva (Bardem) against one another--a plot that puts Bond's good side to the forefront. Unlike, say, Nolan's work, where you are not welcome to know the plot as it unravels the story, Mendes was very clear with what Silva was trying to accomplish, there were mind games, and you would even see that coming, but the direction of the story was obvious from the beginning. Yet, it still thrills and occasionally surprises.

The film's main antagonist, however, is not as simple and as straightforward that it perhaps might as well have taken a page from Nolan's book. Silva, the blond-haired antagonist, is one of the most interesting villains in recent memory. Bardem, another actor that exudes raw persona, fits perfectly into the shoes of Silva who needs to be in equal measures enigmatic and deranged, cunning and open to being outwit--the type of villain that moviegoers couldn't denounce completely. And well, Bardem pulled it off with flying colors, being equally charming and detestable, making Silva the sort of villain that you would actually care to reach out and understand what's going on inside his head, and think that maybe, maybe he can still be saved, he was once good after all--but he goes for the kill only to reveal what really fuels his intentions. Bardem's performance alone, a picture of a train wreck, is enough reason to watch Skyfall.

Another amazing thing about Skyfall is how it managed to utilize its running time to its full potential that you would forget how long the movie is. Comparing another similarly lengthy action flick Looper to Skyfall, Looper felt completely excruciatingly long, whereas Skyfall leaves no time for its audience to breathe that 2 1/2 hours would feel an hour shorter. The fluid narration is packed with tension from start to finish, barring a few scenes filled with humor and amusing dialog. The action set pieces were executed expertly, save your occasional need to hold your disbelief. I think Sam Mendes did very well and I couldn't find enough fault that I am now nitpicking on the little details in the action set pieces--particularly the chopper fight.

The other actors on the film were also laudable. Dame Judi Dench was an endearing presence that commanded attention and Bond girl or not, Naomie Harris was particularly likeable, especially with her character's reveal in the end. Ben Whishaw's portrayal of this Q is enjoyable, particularly his banters with Bond on their first meeting. Bonus points for the hispter / nerd factor that this Q puts to the table.

Understandably, the score is expected to be typical Bond: excellent. And Skyfall didn't fall short of this expectation. Though, I feel that an opening track by Adele that eats up a good 4 minutes and feels a bit too Saturday morning Super Sentai (Bioman, Maskman, Shaider, anyone?) and quite excessive. I wouldn't say it's not impressive. It is. I just thought that it got too contrived that it felt tacky overall. And the excess time could've made the movie shorter, though, what is 4 minutes if not for listening to Adele--then again, I honestly find the song tacky.

My verdict:

Touted as the best Bond movie ever, contesting Casino Royale for the title, I don't care, I love this film!

4.6 out of 5 stars. Passed and highly recommended (as if it needs recommendation)