White House Down

Seems that the new generation of Action heroes are now coming up, replacing old favorites such as Harrison Ford, Bruce Willis and Jackie Chan.

Once again,
Copyright belongs to the distributor of the film
and other relevant entities 

-Spoilers Below-

I just finished watching White House Down.

John Cale (Channing Tatum) is stuck in the White house with his daughter (Joey King) when the White House gets taken over by a mish-mash group of radicals, mercenaries and disgruntled Delta Force operators orchestrated by retiring Head of the Secret Service Detail Martin Walker (James Wood), and masterminded by the Vice-President Alvin Hammond (Michael Murphy). Starting with a stroke of chance, he end up rescuing President James Sawyer (Jamie Foxx) and saving the day with the help of, well everyone.

It seems to be the season of White House Invasions with the premiere of Olympus has Fallen just a few months back in march. However, unlike the serious nature of Olympus, White House Down (WHD) seems to take itself much more lightly. With this in mind, I find the casting rather good, with Jamie Foxx as President. While many critics have flamed him as a mediocre actor ill-suited to such a role, I find his portrayal of the president to be apt for this movie, where you have hilarious fight scenes (forced to replace shoes, takes down leather shoes. Reconsiders it a second later and chooses shiny white sport shoes instead). While it is hard to explain humor in the situation, when you catch the movie, you will find Jamie Foxx to be able to carry out the amusing scenes needed to keep the film light-hearted.

This is especially as it keeps the concepts raised in the movie from being too deep. Why is being deep bad? For a movie with this setting to occur, various plot-holes must be addressed. Another way is to add in humor so that people will look past the gaping plot-holes and appreciate the movie and be able to absorb more of what the movie is saying instead of being preoccupied with the minute details. One can view the movie in 2 different parts. Firstly, we have the overt action comedy movie that it is, with Tatum diving over furniture, through windows or the amusing scenes. (The presidential limousine driving around the fountain while being chased by other vehicles.) It is a decent PG13- movie that can be enjoyed with friends and family.

On the other hand, we can analyze the macro situation presented by the screenwriters and shown to us via the actors. We have the idea of the pen vs. the sword definitely, as well as the reactions of the weapon industries if the USA pulls out all military operations in the Middle East. Of course they are not developed extensively in the movie (it is not a documentary) but it does raise such points and we can think about it and progress further but thinking about how such ideas can be progressed, what can come out of it.

Overall, I find it a good 4/5 for general entertainment value. (I generally do not watch Hollywood films for their plots or philosophical ideas; those are bonuses when they crop up)

-ARP

World War Z

I watched World War Z today with my good buddy.

Copyright belongs to the publisher, Crown
or the cover artist.

Starring Brad Pitt, based of a book with the same name, World War Z is an action, horror movie about an apocalyptic outbreak of Zombies (supposedly originating from some form of rabies) and ex-UN top-dog investigator Gerry Lane (Pitt) races to find a cure for the outbreak.

I have not read the book. But from what I heard, (and Wikipedia Yay!) the book explores geo-political issues as well as questioning how effective a modern army will be against a Zombie outbreak.

While critics go about saying the movie diverts itself from the source material. I feel that the movie (surprisingly?) does cover the general idea although a viewer might have easily missed them amongst the tension generated with the horror elements. This is especially so with the zombies’ tendencies to do Dynamic Entry-Style body slams into the scene. Well, I have not read the book so I cannot be sure about the source material.

DYNAMIC ENTRY!

Scenes I find interesting are.

-Spoilers below-

This promotional poster image does not belong to me.
Copyright belongs to PlanB Entertainment and
other relevant parties

In the supermarket, the policeman rushes to grab his share of the supplies instead of investigating a murder(self-defense) or the gunshot. What this can be said to show is the societal breakdown as law enforcement members will be more concerned with surviving then upholding the law, as people’s lives seem to be worth less and less. The pharmacist dude (not sure of that one) was a little odd though, seemed like a cool character but was not explored afterwards.

The US Carrier Group that acts as a safe harbor from the outbreak operates in a really practical manner, to the point of kicking out ALL non-essential persons cold-heartedly. Okay, they are not exactly abandoning them but you were not supposed to know that till the end. For example, they threw Lane’s family into a containment camp (or was it concentration camp), later mentioned as a safe zone, the moment they thought Lane died in the plane crash. This practicality may be necessary but an attitude that is very different from all (excepting dictatorships) government system now.

A consistent image is that of military troops getting overrun by the Zombie horde. While minute outbreaks were taken out or held back by troops, in the Jerusalem and various parts of USA scenes, the sheer mass and numbers of the Zombies totally overwhelmed the military. As my brother puts quite bluntly, it is hard for us to fathom what it will be like fighting such an enemy. Imagine a million enemy combatants. Now if you have a battalion of troops (approx. 600) with each soldier carrying 2 combat loads (1 combat load = approx. 3-4 magazines of 30 rounds each) assuming every shot is a guaranteed kill, which is not the case in the movie, the battalion will only be able to kill (600 x 2(4x30)) 144,000 zombies. You will still be facing 800,000 more zombies and chump change.

Okay, there were some portrayals in the movie that I find particularly irritating. I mean; Lane is presented as some super survivalist where everyone just seemed to be slowing him down. From his daughter screaming for her blanket at a real dangerous moment, to the scientist falling and killing himself with his pistol or the (other) scientist who seems to find something particularly noisy to step on and lure zombies. In the WHO part of the movie where they had to grab the viruses, Lane practically went ahead and did it all by himself while the doctor and the IDF soldier went running back to safety. Yeah, it made for some nice action scenes and they were justifiable but it still irks me as a moviegoer.

All in all, I found the movie interesting (feels like a L4D match) and I loved the ending scenes, especially the sight of Russians roaring their defiance in the Zombies face and wading in with pickaxes, but I do not judge it as worthy of re-watching. A decent 4/5 if you like this kind of semi action semi horror films.

-NURR BRAINSS

ARP