World War Z

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

 by Frederick William Springer III

 

World War Z in 3D

Release Date:  21 June 2013                                                                 Runtime:  116 Minutes              
Review Date:  17 July 2013                                                                   Rating:  5 (of 6)

      I don't have much to say about World War Z (and the fact that I saw it nearly a week ago while on vacation doesn't help matters any) other than it's worth checking out.

     Another zombie flick thrown in the foray, there's some new things thrown in the mix, which is always needed to keep a repeated concept fresh.  Here, it takes the form of the cause as well as the way to fight back.  Though it doesn't dwell on the medical too much, it does just enough to leave one feeling satisfied that there is plausibility to the zombies' existence, more so than I recall in any other undead movie I've seen.

     World War Z works well as a standalone piece but is set up to support sequels, which I'm sure was the intention.  However, a month after its release, only grossing a mere $16 million more than it cost to make, those plans may be scrapped indefinitely.

     I'll leave you with a fun fact:  World War Z is (very loosely) based on the novel World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War written by Max Brooks, the son of Mel Brooks and Anne Bancroft.

42

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

by Frederick William Springer III

42

Release Date:   12 April 2012                                                               Runtime:  128 Minutes              
Review Date:  2 July 2013                                                                     Rating:  5 (of 6)

42 is an all-around good movie.  The acting is superb and it was interesting to watch Harrison Ford portray a character so far from the roles he's taken on in the past as he very much becomes Branch Rickey, complete with distinctive way of speaking and moving.

Besides a good story well executed, 42 has several other things going for it.  It should appeal to baseball fans.  It should particularly be of interest to baseball history buffs.  But it should also be of interest to history buffs in general, myself falling into the latter camp.

I must say writer/director Brian Helgeland did a spectacular job connecting to a bygone era.  As I sat in my seat, throughout the film I had an overwhelming simultaneous feeling of anger and sorrow that anybody, any group of people were ever treated that way.  In a mere minute or so of screen time, he also effectively conveyed how a happy-go-lucky, innocent child can suddenly, confusedly, adapt such behavior, learning it from a parent and accepting it as the right way to act.

The film also stirred up the feeling of how much I hate politics.  How they infiltrate and infuse absolutely every facet of our lives.  Decisions made not based on what's right and wrong or logical but based on whose favor you're going to obtain or maintain.  As was the case with the firing of Durocher. 

Speaking of which, that was the only weak point in the film.  Rickey made a big deal about how, in Durocher's absence, there were big, important shoes to fill, a captain able to steer this ship in choppy waters to new frontiers now needed but when they found his replacement they showed absolutely nothing about Shotton's leadership (other than his rather lame introduction to the team) and how effective (or ineffective) it was.  Considering the Brooklyn Dodgers went on to the World Series that year, I'd think the leadership pulling the team together must have been somewhat effective so it's a little of a disservice not to display it in some capacity.

In any case, 42 is a homerun.