13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi

Some three-plus years later, the 2012 Benghazi attack is still a bit of a mystery. Well, sorta. What prompted the attacks? How much was the American government aware of...and still potentially chose to do nothing? It is a messy, nasty business, a horrific incident that claimed four American lives and threatened many more. So a movie adaptation about the attack....we're talking potentially very messy, very uncomfortable. What's the final verdict on 2016's 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi?

It's late summer 2012 and Jack Silva (John Krasinki) arrives in Benghazi where he's met by Tyrone 'Rone' Woods (James Badge Dale). Rone is the leader of a six-man security team of a classified CIA outpost in Benghazi, meant to provide security for the intelligence-gathering agents and also, the U.S. diplomatic compound about a half-mile away in the city. Jack is the newest member of the team, six men, each with a variety and abundance of military training to their name. They serve six months at a time at the CIA annex, but things are especially tense in Benghazi, a city and a country in Libya still recovering from a civil war a year later. Intelligence reports indicate an American embassy could come under attack somewhere around the world. But on the night of September 11, 2012, over a hundred gunmen attack the diplomatic compound with a U.S. ambassador on-site. A half-mile away, Rone and his security team must decide what to do. Listen to orders and stand down? Or do what they believe is right and head for the under-attack compound?

First things first, the book. This film is based on Mitchell Zuckoff's book of the same title. HIGHLY recommended. Check it out HERE. The movie is not difficult to follow, but the book is able to delve into the people involved and the incident as a whole with a little more detail. An excellent companion piece, book and film working very well together. An excellent read.

My biggest concern going in? Michael Bay is the director. Would it be too much Michael Bay? Come on. You know what I mean, all those little touches you've come to expect out of movies like Armageddon, The Rock, The Transformers movies and many more. How do I put this nicely? Bay is not...subtle. This is a true story that requires at least a little subtlety. Not a ton, but some. So with this action-heavy thriller, it thankfully is not too much. Yeah, there are slow motion action set to a sweeping score, shots of the billowing American flag against a Benghazi backdrop, the vivid colors and the hyper-fast editing. Like anything though, it works better in doses and Bay never overdoes it. Thankfully, '13' is able to tread that fine line right down the middle. 

Nowhere is that more important than tackling the prickly political issues permeating throughout the Benghazi incident. How much was the Obama administration -- especially Hillary Clinton -- aware of? Was the lack of assistance intentional? Following in the book's footsteps, '13' doesn't go down that path. This isn't a film specifically interested in the politics. It is instead solely interested in the men on the ground, the CIA annex security team as they undertake a horrifically dangerous mission, undermanned and outnumbered, navigating a city where anyone and everyone could be an enemy waiting for a chance to pick them off. There's no uniforms, no way to identify those who are with you and those who are against you, until they starting shooting at you. In other words, basically a worst case scenario for these highly-trained, efficient warriors who quite literally have to make a life or death decision when gunmen attack the U.S. diplomatic compound.

These were real men, real soldiers with years of experience. We follow the story almost entirely through their eyes. As they see and figure out what's going on, we see and figure it out with them Along with Krasinki and Dale, look for Pablo Schreiber (frat boy Tanto), David Denman (Tanto's all-business handler of sorts), Dominic Fumusa (Tig) and Max Martini (Oz). One criticism many reviews had was the thin characters, a lack of depth. I disagree. It isn't a character study of these men. We learn little snippets about most of them, a majority of family men with wives and children back home. It just isn't a character movie. It's a specialist-type movie, men in combat, tried and true under the harsh reality of live fire. They come alive in a firefight and struggle to cope at times when the shooting stops. I thought Chuck Hogan's screenplay did a great job showing the camaraderie among these men as they experience a potentially hellish six-month tour at this dangerous, remote outpost. 

Who else to look for? David Costabile as the frustratingly stubborn CIA station chief, Meypan Moaadi as a local who works at the CIA annex and is enlisted as an unlikely translator, Matt Letscher as US ambassador Chris Stevens, Demetrius Grosse and David Giuntoli as his personal bodyguards, and Toby Stephens as Glen 'Bub' Dougherty, the head of the security team 400 miles away in Tripoli.

Where '13' takes off so effortlessly is when the attacks of Sept. 11, 2012 begin as the sun is setting on Benghazi. It isn't quiet long as heavily-armed gunmen descend on the diplomatic compound, setting the bullet-riddled night with a shock. Bay films his story on the ground with the security team, always giving a sense that we're right there with them as they navigate the streets, as they explore the compound, and then as they desperately defend their own annex. This is visceral, frightening combat. Death is sudden and quick without warning. What '13' does so well is to build up the tension, both in the daytime hours before the attack but also the quiet moments in the dead of night when the security team gets a moment to regroup. Is help coming? Any help at all? How many gunmen are massing to attack outside the walls? If help is slow arriving, how long can they hold out? Can they? It produces some very moving, emotional moments as the team must face some unpleasant realities.

The violence is quick and startling, graphic but not obscene. It is almost matter of fact without trying too hard to glamorize anything we're seeing. Here it is. Here's what happened. Deal with it. It is only in the final scenes that things got a little too heavy-handed for me in delivering a message that is patriotic, pro-American while sending a message to the government officials and those in charge who watched what was going on in Benghazi and did nothing (apparently. We'll never know the full truth). When it works though, this is a gem, a surprising one at that. The book was excellent, the truths of it all incredibly unsettling, frightening and very inspiring as to what these men went through. Highly recommended. I loved this one.

13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi (2016): *** 1/2 /****

The Walk

Heights scare the bejesus out of me. Let's get that out of the way early. I'll do roller coasters, I'll go up in skyscraper, and the upper upper deck at a baseball game doesn't do me in. But something about heights, it just gets me. So naturally 2015's The Walk seems a perfect fit for this guy, doesn't it? Putting aside my genuine fear, I still had to check it out!

Working on the streets of Paris in the early 1970's, 20-something Philippe Petit (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a street performer who specializes in sleight of hand, magic, his mime-esque performances and above all, performing tricks on a rope he ties up and acts as a street-improvised "high-wire." He's worked for years to improve and become great as he performs his high wire act, but for several years now, he's had one huge dream. Philippe wants nothing more than to string a high-wire at the very top of the newly-built World Trade Center towers in New York City. It seems impossible for any number of reasons from the whole it's illegal to do it to the obvious and inherent dangers, but Philippe will hear none of it. He will get it done no matter the risks. Assembling a small crew of friends and accomplices to help him pull off his "coup," Philippe begins to put it all together, hopefully pulling off the impossible high-wire act.

I saw the trailer for this film from director Robert Zemeckis (Back to the Future trilogy, Forrest Gump) and was instantly hooked. The camera flies up the still under construction World Trade Center, finally revealing where it is at the top of the tower when a man walks out toward the ledge and proceeds to almost walk off, only to stop and balance off a steel beam. How about that for going for the jugular, huh? I must have seen the preview for Zemeckis' film each time I went and saw a new flick in theaters. Finding out it was based on a true story, I went into curiosity lockdown, not wanting to know what really happened on the World Trade Center in 1974. If you don't know already, I recommend doing the same. Go in with a clean slate and no knowledge of where 'Walk' is going.

So how does the finished product measure up against the impressive trailer? It's a good film, a very interesting story, but not one I loved. I liked it. In a way, 'Walk' is impressive because it is simply a story about a man trying to achieve his dream. Though there is a love interest, it isn't a love story. There's adventure, but it isn't an adventure film. It is a solid, well-told character study of a man -- Philippe Petit (<--- avoid="" don="" if="" nbsp="" p="" pesky="" spoilers="" t="" those="" want="" you="">
Long since removed from his Third Rock from the Sun days, Joseph Gordon-Levitt is one of the best actors working out there. He dove headfirst into this role, both learning how to speak French and more importantly, to look like a competent high-wire walker. It is a performance bursting with energy, Petit coming to life with a glee for life, a stubbornness to do what others say he can't, and maybe an obsession. The French accent gets laid on a little thick at times, and through no fault of his own, the performance does hit some overdone moments, but I'll give credit. It is a very interesting part for a very talented actor. Petit is an artist who isn't doing his death-defying stunt for publicity or fame or money. He sees something beautiful and simply wants to do his act, do something profound and beautiful, while paying tribute to something so awe-inspiring as the towers of the World Trade Center.

The rest of the cast is solid, but nothing flashy. Charlotte Le Bon is Annie, Philippe's supportive girlfriend who begins to realize how truly driven her boyfriend is to accomplish the walk. Clement Sibony plays Jean-Louis, Philippe's closest friend, confidante in his "coup," and right-hand man in putting it all together. Oh, he's also the official photographer! Their motley crew of assistants and accomplices is headlined by the always solid James Badge Dale as J.P., a New Yorker with some connections, and Steve Valentine as Barry, the inside man working at the World Trade Center. The team also includes Cesar Domboy, Ben Schwartz and Benedict Samuel. And last but not least, Ben Kingsley is excellent in a supporting part as Papa Rudy, Philippe's mentor and teacher who tries to teach him all the ins and outs of being a high-wire performer.

Admission of guilt...I didn't see 'Walk' in 3-D. Maybe I should have. Why? Well, there's that whole walking between the World Trade Center towers scene....if you're into that sort of thing. It's an incredible sequence that really puts into perspective the absolute insanity of what Philippe is attempting to do. He can do everything humanly possible and still fail because the wind picks up, he loses focus, his equipment fails, any and all. The build-up can be a touch slow in the process getting to this point, but the high-wire finale is well worth the price of admission (3-D or not). My counter is that the actual build-up to the act is far better. What Philippe intends to do is HIGHLY ILLEGAL so it's not like he can just walk up to the still under-construction tower and do his thing.

The end result? An extended sequence of about 25-30 minutes of Philippe and his team of accomplices getting into place. It develops like a heist sequence and for me at least, was absolutely as intense and riveting as the actual high-wire act. A spectacle movie with some character and heart, it's a flick well worth catching up with. As for the 3-D, that's up to you. A good movie is a good movie regardless of where or how you see it.

The Walk (2015): ***/****

Stretch

Way back in 2004 -- good Lord, that's 11 years ago already -- I was introduced to Patrick Wilson with one of my favorite movies, the newest version of The Alamo. In the decade-plus since (again, it's 11 freaking years later), Wilson has worked steadily and turned in some very solid performances. He hasn't taken that next step though, no star-making role that helped him take the next step. Courtesy of some studio shenanigans, this next flick might not be that role, but Wilson, well, he absolutely steals 2014's Stretch.

After several years in Los Angeles trying to become an actor, a man named Stretch (Wilson) has cleaned himself up after a particularly bad break-up with the girl (Brooklyn Decker) he was about to propose to. He kicked a drug and drinking problem and has slowly but surely been paying off his gambling debt. Well, all his plans are kinda up in the air now. Working as a limo driver, he's threatened by his boss to pick things up, to help the company, and to do so NOW. That's the least of his problems though. As he's off to pick up a client, his bookie chases him down with a menacing thought. His debt has been bought by a rival bookie, and now Stretch has until midnight to pay up the $6,000 he owes. What sounds impossible might not be too bad if his next client, eccentric billionaire Roger Karos (Chris Pine) somehow comes through with a huge tip. What's getting that tip entail? Even Stretch doesn't know what awaits.

This helter-skelter crime thriller (with some very funny moments mixed in) from director Joe Carnahan (who also wrote the screenplay) has a less than pleasant production run. Originally scheduled for a theatrical release March 2014, it was scrapped and only released via iTunes, Amazon and On-Demand this past fall, October 2014. Biggest takeaway? I don't know what kind of response 'Stretch' would have gotten in theaters, but I loved it. Smart, funny, stylish and featuring a deep, talented cast that looks to be having a ball. It isn't your normal old action thriller either, trying to be something different, something better. In a movie age of lowest common denominator -- what appeals to the most viewers -- it's cool and refreshing to see a movie just try something different. When it works? All the better, and Stretch works in a big way.

It starts with a style. Voiceover narration is nothing new in crime thrillers, but this one is almost non-stop. If Wilson's Stretch isn't actually talking on-screen, the narration kicks in. That could be a deal-breaker, but man, it works. Stretch wants to be an actor and as he gets deeper and deeper into this whirlwind of a night, he becomes that actor, pretending to be all sorts of things to get in and out of all these messes. As a CSI Miami producer once told him, 'Own your space.' Well, he does. The basis for the story is a sub-genre, the overnight movie where a whole bunch of stuff happens in one extended night. 'Stretch' was filmed in Los Angeles at night, a world unto itself and all the people and goofs and crazies that our intrepid, troubled limo driver will come across. It gets crazier by the minute, and I laughed and loved it throughout. Style to burn but not a style that tries too hard.

There's a certain charm to Wilson's titular character and a credit to Wilson in general. Our desperate, not so heroic limo driver isn't the most likable character. He's a bit of an a-hole. Now that said...I did like him. You're rooting for him because it's just too goofy not to. I thought Wilson was great here. He's excellent delivering the narration as the action develops, as we hear his thoughts in the moment of how to improvise, how to get through this night alive and with some cash. By the end of the movie, he's beat up, bloodied and bruised, and you feel like you've been through the ringer with him. A sign and show of the talent he has, talent that will hopefully lead to more bigger and better parts.

I thought it was odd that co-star Chris Pine went uncredited for his part here. He's previously worked with Carnahan on Smokin' Aces and has the second-most screentime of the entire cast. Blah blah blah I guess. He's a scene-stealer. His Karos is unhinged, possibly a lunatic and an alpha-male who doesn't have a care in the world...although he definitely should. Similar to his part in Horrible Bosses 2, Pine just commits to the craziness/goofiness and goes for it. The result is that it feels real and funny, not forced. His chemistry with Wilson is perfect as the night goes on, two guys playing off each other seamlessly. Also, stick around for the outtakes in the credits. There's a ton of laughs, but the best scenes have Wilson and Pine trying not to crack up in what looks to be an improvised scene. Very funny stuff.

The cast overall is excellent. Also look for Ed Helms as Karl -- with a 'K' -- a limo driver who killed himself and now serves as Stretch's conscious of sorts...while sporting a mustache he grew in Hell. Yeah, go with it. It works. Jessica Alba plays Charlie, Stretch's dispatcher trying to help him out with some major clients while James Badge Dale plays Laurent, a mystery man caught up in the nighttime full of betrayal and international intrigue. Appearing as themselves as clients are David Hasselhoff and Ray Liotta (another Smokin' Aces co-star) while Randy Couture appears in uncredited fashion as El Jovi, a rival limo client with some extravagances. Matthew Willig is memorable as Boris, his tow-truck driving brother and enforcer.

In the end, things are wrapped up a little too tidy for my liking, but overall, I loved this movie. A thrill ride in 94 minutes, the pace never slows down and it's entertaining and fun throughout. Highly recommended tracking it down.

Stretch (2014): *** 1/2 /****

The Lone Ranger

It is a character who's name is instantly recognizable, the Lone Ranger. First appearing in radio serials in 1933, the Lone Ranger has seen has his own very successful TV show in the 1950s, a brief run as an animated star in the 1960s, a disastrously bad (so I've heard) film version in 1981, and most recently, a reboot of the character of sorts, 2013's The Lone Ranger. Where does it stand? Well, it was one of the biggest financial disappointments of the year. Give it a try though, keep an open mind and I think you'll like it. I did.

It's 1869 in Colby, Texas and a young, naive, idealistic new district attorney, John Reid (Armie Hammer) arrives in town ready to clean up the area. The country is expanding, the railroad racing across the state, and Reid wants to be a part of it, to bring some civilization to the area. A problem has arisen though, a sadistic outlaw, Butch Cavendish (William Fichtner), escaping from custody. Reid heads out with a posse of Texas Rangers to catch Cavendish, but they're ambushed and Reid is the only one to survive, albeit getting shot in the process. He awakes to find a Comanche warrior, Tonto (Johnny Depp), looking out for him, claiming that Reid is now a Spirit Warrior, a man who passed to the other side and come back to normal life. Tonto too is searching for Cavendish with his own reasons for revenge. Forming an unlikely partnership, Reid -- disguising himself because Cavendish believes he's dead -- and Tonto decide to work together to find Cavendish, all amidst the railroad issues and cavalry intervening with a possible Comanche uprising.

Released last summer in theaters, 'Lone' had quite the checkered history in actually getting to theaters. When it did reach audiences, it flopped. Odd to think of any movie that earned $260 million internationally being a flop, but when a film had a budget somewhere between $225-250 million and another $100-plus on promotion, well, it's a flop. Well.....I liked it. For me, my enjoyment started because it is an entertaining movie. Plain and simple, it's entertaining. More than that though as a western, it knows where the genre has come from. Hans Zimmer's musical score is solid if not up there with his best, but it samples spaghetti western master composer Ennio Morricone's scores from Once Upon a Time in the West and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly in some nice nods to genre classics.  'Lone' was also filmed in Monument Valley, made famous by director John Ford, and even some of the shots are reminiscent of iconic Ford shots. It's nice little touches that this that start 'Lone' off on the right foot.

With a film directed by Gore Verbinski and starring Johnny Depp, my worry was that I would be watching a western version of Pirates of the Caribbean: Western Style. The end result is a positive and negative. Yes, it is in the same vein of the Pirates movies. It's big and loud and colorful and schizophrenic at times. There's a lot of characters, a lot going on, blending in the drama with some laughs and some action. In other words, 'Lone' tries to be that perfect summer blockbuster, succeeding for the most parts. What then are the biggest issues? A framing device in the story department comes up short, an aged, wrinkly Tonto in 1933 San Francisco telling the Lone Ranger's story to a little boy, is forced and tries to lighten the mood too much. The elements of the mystical and spiritual are overdone as well, Tonto's insistence that John is a Spirit Warrior good but just used too much. Also, is Tonto a spirit himself? Just have fun with the story. Don't overdo it like that.

One of the original hero/sidekick duos, the Lone Ranger and Tonto are two pretty cool characters no matter what Ranger incarnation we're talking. I wasn't sold on Hammer (The Social Network) as John Reid, but he grew on me with each passing scene. The same for Depp, the casting looking like he'd play Capt. Jack Sparrow in the west. His Tonto is quirky, a little off in the Capt. Jack vein, but it is most definitely a fun part. He definitely doesn't deserve the flak he's received, including a Razzie nomination for Worst Actor. I also don't think it's fair to criticize Depp for being cast as a Native American. Is it in poor taste? It's a movie. Cool your jets. Above all else, I liked the chemistry between Hammer and Depp. Hammer's John is somewhat suspicious of Tonto, wanting to do things his way. Depp's Tonto thinks John is a little off himself, his idealistic motivations having no place in the wild west. They're funny together, both given some background to humanize them a bit, Tonto's background providing some of the emotional background.

Who else to look out for? Fichtner is very creepy as the infamous outlaw Butch Cavendish who enjoys eating his victims' hearts as they die. Look for James Frain and Leon Rippy in small parts as members of Butch's gang. Tom Wilkinson plays Latham Cole, the railroad executive placed in charge of advancing the rails as fast and far as possible. It's Wilkinson so you know he's up to something. Otherwise, why would he be here? Ruth Wilson is solid too as John's sister-in-law, a past love, who married John's brother, a Texas Ranger, played in a nice supporting part for James Badge Dale. Also having some fun is Helena Bonham Carter as Red, a brothel owner with an ivory leg, siding with John and Tonto in their troubles while Barry Pepper plays a God-fearing, gung-ho cavalry officer working with Cole to control the Comanches. Even Stephen Root makes an appearance late as a higher-up in the railroad company who's checking on the progress his company is making.

Again in the vein of the Pirates series is the rollover in the action department. What's there is surprisingly gruesome in terms of on-screen violence, if not particularly graphic. So be forewarned, this may not be the movie for younger kids. Mostly though, the action is flashy and fun, big and entertaining, gigantic action sequences full of CGI, crazy stunts and scenarios that no real-life human being could accomplish. The opening sequence where John and Tonto meet is pretty cool, the duo chained together and trying to stop a runaway train. The same for the finale, a train packed with silver lode being chased by another train, anyone and everyone jumping on and off one train and then the next, one ridiculous thing after another. It's goofy and fun right from the start, keeping things entertaining throughout the 149-minute running time.

Fans of the Lone Ranger will hopefully enjoy this one. I didn't come in as a huge fan with high expectations, just looking for a fun movie. It is, doing the Lone Ranger justice from his capable, maybe super-horse, Silver (his "Hi-yo, Silver, away! providing a good laugh), and of course, the Lone Ranger theme -- listen HERE -- from the William Tell overture, all those touches you're looking for in a movie with this iconic character. It's a reboot, but because of the financial struggles, this will probably be it for the series/franchise. So what are we left with? A movie that is overindulgent, goofy, schizophrenic and a whole lot of fun with some great characters, good laughs and lots of entertaining moments.

The Lone Ranger (2013): ***/****

Parkland

How quick time flies. Fifty years ago today, November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas as he drove in a motorcade through the downtown area, sniper Lee Harvey Oswald doing the shooting. It was and still is a tragic moment in American history, one explored in pop culture with books like Stephen King's 11/22/63 and films like JFK and Executive Action. Add another flick to the list, 2013's Parkland.

To describe the plot here would more than defeat the purpose. With a little build-up to the actual assassination on that November morning, we're shown the actual shooting Dealey Plaza, mostly from the people that see it. We never see President Kennedy get shot, never see Lee Harvey Oswald shoot him. This isn't a movie about Kennedy, instead it is how the President's death sends ripples throughout Dallas, including the hospital, law enforcement, Kennedy's staff, the witnesses, the FBI, how they all responded to it and handled the assassination. The story follows the immediate aftermath and the subsequent days, mostly from the perspective of Parkland Hospital, where Kennedy died less than an hour after being shot. Plot? Not really, it's more a lot of characters in an episodic story that packs a whole lot of stuff into its 94-minute running time.

From director/writer Peter Landesman, 'Parkland' had a $10 million budget and was given little to no theatrical release, making about $600,000 in theaters. Why did it struggle so mightily? I'm not really sure. I liked it a lot. With a short running time, it is slightly schizophrenic in terms of storytelling. It is basically on the go non-stop. We meet countless individuals -- from known individuals like Oswald, Jackie Kennedy and LBJ -- to lesser known but very real people, the hospital staff, the FBI, the witnesses, all affected by the assassination that rocked the nation. I liked that Landesman's film gives an almost fly on the wall look at the history that we've all heard about, all knew it happened, but to actually see it, it's interesting, startling and unsettling, like we're a witness to history.

Maybe that's why it struggled getting much of a theatrical release, why it couldn't get much of a positive word of mouth. Beyond being a turning point, a defining moment in American history, the Kennedy assassination is one of the first spawns of a real conspiracy theory. Was Lee Harvey Oswald alone in his attempt? Were there other shooters? Was the government involved? Was there a massive cover-up in the wake of the assassination? So for all you conspiracy theorists out there....this may not be the movie for you. 'Parkland' isn't interested in a single tidbit of that 'what if?' aspect. In general, it doesn't take a stance about much. It shows rather than tells what happened. We see it as it happened, nothing else. If you're looking for a comprehensive, analytical investigation of the Kennedy assassination, this isn't it. Instead, it's a well-told, interesting, informative look at a part of history that we've never seen before as a viewer.

To tell the countless stories, Landesman assembles quite the cast to fill out the countless speaking parts here, all those involved and effected by Kennedy's death. The Parkland Hospital medical staff includes Marcia Gay Harden, Zac Efron , Colin Hanks, Rory Cochrane and Jackie Earle Haley appearing briefly as the hospital priest. James Badge Dale plays Oswald's brother, Robert, surprised as anyone at his brother's actions, Jacki Weaver playing their delusional mother, Marguerite, Jeremy Strong giving a strong portrayal of Lee. Billy Bob Thornton and Tom Welling play Secret Service agents pursuing all leads, especially the film of the assassination shot by Abe Zapruder (Paul Giamatti). Ron Livingston and David Harbour have good parts as the FBI field agents working in Dallas who make a startling revelation about Oswald. Not necessarily huge stars, but one really solid actor after another.

I liked this movie, simple as that. The style is simple and straightforward, blending archival footage from the Kennedy's trip through Texas that eventually ended in Dallas with footage shot for this film. It is eerie and uncomfortable watching the archived footage, knowing in the matter of an hour or two President Kennedy would be dead. The sense of doom hanging over that footage is unreal and beyond uncomfortable to watch. The whole movie is, and it'd be hard not to be difficult to watch. Exactly 50 years later, it's still hard to believe this tragic event actually happened. This film had little to no buzz upon its release, but Parkland is definitely worth catching up with.

Parkland (2013): ***/****

World War Z

Thanks to AMC's The Walking Dead (among other things), the zombie genre has gotten an energy boost the last couple years from film to books to TV shows. I read Max Brooks' World War Z and loved it, an interesting twist on the zombie genre, most of all a smart, well-written book not interested in horror(ish) shock value. It was apparent the book just couldn't be adapted for one feature length film, making me suspicious of 2013's World War Z. Long story short? It has little to do with Brooks' novel, but it's pretty good just the same.

A former United Nations employee, Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt) lives in Philadelphia with his wife, Karin (Mireille Enos), and their two daughters. Caught up in traffic driving to work, Gerry and his family are caught up in mass chaos, seemingly deranged human beings attacking other ones at will. The Lanes manage to escape the city and all its death and violence, Gerry getting a call from his former boss with the U.N., Thierry (Fana Mokoena), asking him for help. The attacks are not an isolated events, something happening across the world, thousands and maybe millions of people dying. What's going on? The word 'zombie' is beginning to pop up, the undead attacking live human hosts, the victims then turning into zombies themselves. Working with survivors among the military and government, Gerry is tasked with finding a solution; a clue, a lead, something that will help the human race survive. The world is tearing itself apart. Can Gerry survive long enough to find those desperately needed answers?

The difficult part of Brooks' novel is that it isn't a novel, but an oral history. It is a series of interviews with people who survived World War Z -- the zombie takeover -- and what they saw. We meet common people, government officials, brilliant minds working to combat the zombies, military, medical staff and everything in between. We see nothing live, simply hearing about it later. There is a subtle brilliance to its storytelling device. The trick then...how does any two-hour film somehow manage to pack all that detail on a worldwide level into such a short run-time? Basically, it doesn't. The film makes a valiant effort to do so -- Pitt's Lane globe-trotting to find a solution/cure -- but if you're looking for a literal, spot-on adaptation of Brooks' novel, you're going to be disappointed. Take solace in the fact that the movie is still really good.

What I liked about director Marc Forster's film is that it doesn't spell everything out for us in crystal clear fashion, just like the novel. We never find out exactly what caused the zombie takeover, whether it be a disease, a virus, Mother Nature rearing its ugly head. Early on, we don't see the zombies directly, just blurry motion as they race by the camera. It's only as Gerry learns what's going on that we start to see these undead attackers head-on. A doctor (Elyes Gabel) does a great job with a monologue that lays out what's going on, and maybe more scary, if there's anyway to stop it. Without explaining every little detail, we get a picture of what's going in the world as the epidemic takes over. We hear in the background that Washington DC is gone, that other cities aren't far behind. I thought that was a really smart movie. We get that big picture, but it doesn't lose the personal element we get from Gerry, his family and those he meets along the way.

As the only cast member who is in basically every scene, Pitt does a fine job carrying the movie. We learn tidbits about his past, but mostly we're in the here and now. With his past work as a respected, trusted United Nations employee on an international level, his Gerry knows how to handle himself in sticky situations. The rest of the cast is an ensemble (a nice nod/attempt to adapt the novel), the people Gerry meets in his investigation. We meet Segen (Daniella Kertesz), a young Israeli soldier, Capt. Speke (James Badge Dale), an Army officer with a small crew of surviving soldiers in Korea, Warmbrunn (Ludi Boeken), an intellectual helping Israel survive the epidemic, David Morse as an ex-CIA agent caught up in Korea, (Pierfranceso Favino), a World Health Organization doctor in Wales, and Tomas (Fabrizio Zacharee Guido), a young boy caught up in the chaos with the Lanes from Newark. Even Matthew Fox makes a blink and you'll miss it appearance as a parajumper who helps the Lanes. The variety of the people we meet does help give a touch of what Brooks' novel did so well.

The scale is pretty impressive, as it should be with a film featuring a $190 million budget. We go from Philly to Newark to following the U.S. Navy in the Bahamas to Korea, Israel and Wales. There are some pretty impressive set pieces, especially the initial takeover in Philadelphia and a surprising attack in a walled-in Jerusalem. A nighttime encounter with Speke's troops at an isolated base in Korea is the most action you'll see, small scale but unsettling and highly effective. The same goes for the finale in a half-infested W.H.O facility, Lane and several doctors trying to navigate their way through its sterile, fluorescent hallways. It's the finale that was supposedly re-shot by Forster and his crew (at quite the cost), replacing this finale with an epic zombie vs. human battle in Red Square in Moscow. I'd be curious to see that ending, but this one's pretty cool too on that smaller scale.

So there we are. I think this zombie flick is missing something from being a classic, but that didn't take away from a very entertaining, very tense movie. I really liked Brad Pitt leading the ensemble cast in a movie that does a good job balancing out the large scale with the personal. Also worth mentioning is Marco Beltrami's score (listen HERE) as well as dropping in some songs from one of my favorite musical groups, Muse, including Isolated System and Follow Me. Both provide some nice electronic touches to Beltrami's very solid score. Well worth checking out, whether you're a fan of the book or not.

World War Z (2013): ***/****

The Grey

When the trailers for 2011's The Grey were released, I was skeptical but at least a little intrigued. It was another movie that had very talented Liam Neeson being a bad-ass again (Taken, The Dark Knight, Titans), this time fighting wolves in a survivalist story. Then, when it was released, I heard all sorts of arguments and dissension over the ending...mostly, that it was lousy. So Neeson killing wolves with an ending that did its best to divide viewers? Color me curious.

Working for an oil drilling company in Alaska, hired gun and wolf-killer Ottway (Neeson) boards a plane with 20-some oil drillers, the dregs of society as far as anyone is concerned. Flying in horrific weather, the plane crashes in the isolated, desolate wilderness with only seven survivors, including Ottway. Low on both food and water, the survivors try to band together to make it from day-to-day, but there's something else. A pack of wolves is patrolling around the wreck site, and they're not waiting long. Just hours after their arrival, the wolves start attacking the survivors. Can Ottway lead them to safety, or at least hold off the vicious animals until help arrives?

Trailers, commercials and most TV spots built this Joe Carnahan-directed movie as an action-packed thrill ride, a group of supermen doing battle with wolves. Yeah, long story short? That's not the movie this is at all. It is a story about surviving, about battling through extreme adversity, about a will to live when everything in you and around you begs you to give up. Filmed in British Columbia, it is a lonely, chilling story that isn't necessarily entertaining, but I don't think it's supposed to be. By the end of the 117-minute movie, you feel cold, tired, wiped out and just plan exhausted. Yes, the small band of survivors fight wolves, but it's survival. They do so or die. They don't attack. They defend themselves. The will to live is a powerful weapon, one that can be hard to beat.

Going in another more fan-friendly, crowd-pleasing story, Neeson is a perfect choice to play the steely-eyed, cold as ice lead, Ottway. With his sniper rifle, he hovers over the oil sites, protecting the drillers from anything nature can throw at them (in this case, wolves). As we meet Ottway, he's hit his limit and only through a mechanical glitch is he still alive after a suicide attempt. But once the plane crashes and the survivors turn to him and his expertise, he has a reason to live, a reason to keep on fighting. Neeson is a very talented actor, but there's nothing wrong with being very talented and playing roles that are a little fun too. His fellow survivors include Diaz (Frank Grillo), the pessimist, Talget (Dermot Mulroney), the scruffy single father, Hendrick (Dallas Roberts), the rational medic, Flannery (Joe Anderson), the frantic worrier, Burke (Nonso Anozie), the sick survivor, and Hernandez (Ben Bray).

In not doing two hours of continuous wolf attacks, Carnahan has a lot of time (and that's a good thing) to develop the situation. The plane wreck is harrowing without being incredibly detailed, a terrifying ordeal to survive. The aftermath in all its carnage -- including frozen corpses -- is just as gruesome, but it's the more personal, emotional moments that work better. One dying driller (James Badge Dale) is freaking out, looking for someone to tell him he'll be okay, Neeson's Ottway instead being honest with him. He quietly and assuredly explains that death will not be painful, it will be a peaceful moment in a highly memorable scene for Neeson. Later as the survivors trudge across the landscape, several scenes around fires have the men talking about their situation, about life and death, their beliefs. Subtle and moving, they're great scenes. Grillo as Diaz, the doubting (and cynical) Thomas, Mulroney as Talget and Roberts and Hendrick stand out from the group in a good way.

I also feel the need to defend the movie because so many viewers took it upon themselves to rip it, most notably its portrayal of wolves. Basically, wolves -- even packs of wolves -- don't attack humans, they're scared of them. Yes, it's a fair issue, but an unnecessary one that misses the point of the story. This isn't a nature documentary on Discovery Channel or Animal Planet. The wolves are a means to an end, a reason to drive these men to their limits. In the end, they become worthy adversaries, lurking in the shadows and waiting to strike. Carnahan gives them the Jaws-treatment, we rarely see the animals in their entirety. Their attacks are surprising and in a few cases, shocking. Great rivals for Ottway and his motley group of survivors.

And then there's the ending, a finale that did its best to divide the viewers. As the movie develops, I'm trying to figure where 'Grey' was heading. Is it all a dream? Were they all killed in the crash? I can thankfully say....NO, no dreams, hallucinations or metaphorical looks at life and death. The ending instead is ambiguous to a point (and watch through the credits for a quick follow-up scene). For me, it's a moving, appropriate ending, one that isn't ambiguous in the least. But it doesn't spell every little thing out for you, and ta-da! Viewers are pissed! How you come away from this one? Personal taste and judgment I suppose. I liked the ending a lot, even more so the more I think about it. Carnahan has carved a nice tough-guy movie niche for himself, and he continues it here. Not what it was as advertised as, but it's better because of it.

The Grey <---trailer (2011): ***/****