Voice of Reason #14: Haters Gonna' Hate

Man of Steel may be raking the big bucks across the globe, but critics haven't been as impressed as the audience- with a Rotten Tomatoes score of 56%, Man of Steel is classed as 'rotten', as well as being outstripped by World War Z, Fast and Furious 6 and Iron Man 3. So, this week, we ask this; "Is Man of Steel getting an unfair bashing?" and "Why is this blockbuster season so filled with hate?"


With an opening weekend that broke box-office records for the month of June all over the world, Man of Steel can only be considered to be a whopping success for Warner Bros. Up there with Iron Man 3 and Star Trek Into Darkness as one of the highest grossing films this year, Man of Steel has been a gigantic hit with audiences.

It has already surpassed 2006's Superman Returns (which earned a total of $391 million) and is pegged as totalling somewhere around $700-800 million overall. Not bad for a comic-book character that is 80 years old huh?

However, Man of Steel hasn't been universally appreciated by both audiences and critics alike. In fact, the critical reception has been surprisingly frosty.

The glitz and glamour of Gatsby didn't win over many critics

Many of the reviews written on Man of Steel have been less than favourable, commenting on the excess of action and over-reliance of CGI - I myself found that the final hour seemed to abandon any narrative coherence in favour of gigantic explosions and destruction.

Justin Craig from FoxNews remarked that Superman had been stripped of his "greatest assets: wit, charm, and most importantly, hope" whilst Australia's ABC Radio concluded that Man of Steel "suffers most when it degenerates into a seen-it-all before, CGI-laden action fest".

Hardly the acclaim and praise that Warner Bros. would have hoped for when launching their latest superhero behemoth - a score of 56% on Rotten Tomatoes even puts it behind Superman Returns, the film deemed bad enough to justify rebooting the franchise in the first place. This vast divide between critical and audience opinion left me wondering; how come there is so much hate surrounding some of this years' summer blockbusters?

Man of Steel isn't alone when it comes to dividing opinions. Other big-sellers like Baz Luhrmann's The Great Gatsby have raked in the big-bucks whilst being slammed by critics.

The same can be said about last week's big release, The Lone Ranger, starring Armie Hammer and Johnny Depp. Whilst the film has under-performed at the box-office, I found that it was nowhere near as goddamn awful as Rotten Tomatoes had me believe.

It was silly, it was over-the-top and it was goofy but that's the films big selling-point. It basked in tongue-in-cheek humour and didn't pretend to be anything other than an entertaining summer thrill-ride, something which critics need to realise doesn't constitute a scathing review.

The Lone Ranger is set to make a loss
at the box-office despite being
a lot of fun

Yes, we've all seen Johnny Depp put on a silly hat and make a funny face a thousand times, but does that mean The Lone Ranger is a complete disaster? Many critics would reply "Yes" but to that I say this; "Haters gonna' hate".

It won't win any awards for film-making, but The Lone Ranger was perfectly acceptable at being what it was; family-friendly, silly and most importantly unashamedly fun.

The same can be said about Man of Steel; it coated the final third in action and explosions because that is what audiences wanted to see. They wanted to awe at Superman laying into Zod through the magical wizardry that is CGI and experience pure cinematic escapism for an evening. Is that not good enough for critics anymore?

This trend that films must now be something more than 'just a bit of fun' can be interpreted many different ways and is probably not going to go away anytime soon (in my mind it has something to do with what I am now calling 'the Dark Knight effect'). There will always be haters' who hate on films for trying to please as wide an audience as possible. Just don't let them put you off enjoying something you enjoyed. At the end of the day, it's only their opinion.

Read More

Film Review: The Lone Ranger

Tonto was becoming increasingly jealous of
the Lone Ranger's cool mask

Starring Armie Hammer and Johnny 'Jack Sparrow' Depp as vigilante duo The Lone Ranger and Tonto, this latest Disney action-adventure flick is a fun, energetic and zany Western that all ages can appreciate from director Gore Verbinski.

After adapting roller-coasters (Pirates of the Caribbean) and video games (Prince of Persia) into films with  varying degrees of success, Disney and Jerry Bruckenheimer have looked to something a little more conventional by working on a big-screen outing for The Lone Ranger.

Good guys never look back at explosions

Based upon a long running radio-serial from the 1930's that spawned thousands of episodes, a television series as well as tons of novels and cartoons, The Lone Ranger is a cultural icon that has come to define the Western genre to many. And whilst this latest family-friendly action adventure flick won't come to be considered a classic in years to come, it most certainly isn't the unmitigated disaster that many critics make it out to seem.

First off, let's talk about the cast. I quite liked Armie Hammer as the Lone Ranger; his development from naive city-boy to gritty vigilante might have been ill-paced, but he wasn't an unlikeable lead. He's funny, affable and able to convincingly carry off the action sequences.

Meanwhile, Johnny Depp is in back in Jack Sparrow mode as Native American accomplice, Tonto. The lead duo continually bounce quips and jokes off of one another in a light and genuinely funny script. The majority of the jokes come from Depp and his punctuated delivery, as well as his vast array of funny faces that audiences know and love. You could go as far as to say he steals the show a little.

There's also a lot of sight gags involving The Lone Ranger's horse, Silver. It's clean, kiddy-friendly fun that should entertain teens and adults alike. The action set-pieces, from silver mines to locomotives, are as elaborate and over-the-top as you would expect from the people behind Pirates of the Caribbean.

One particular sequence in which Tonto uses a ladder to step from one train to another whilst speeding through the mountains will have critics snorting in derision at the ridiculousness of it all, but if you suspend disbelief and enjoy the ride, The Lone Ranger is a whole lot of fun and will have you in stitches along the way.

The film's weak-point is the excessive runtime. At two and a half hours, The Lone Ranger is a very long film and it needn't be. It does take a long, long time for Armie Hammer to don the black mask and for the William Tell Overture to kick in. Before all of that, the plot tries to squeeze in as many characters and side-motives as possible, leaving it feeling kind of bloated. The film would have worked better had the script been tighter, with some of the excess shaved off in order to stick to a stricter runtime.

For example, the 'legend of the Lone Ranger' was told through Tonto telling the story to a young child in 1933; everything that happens from then on is a flashback. Whilst it was a nice touch, it added time to the film and could have been cut for the sake of simplicity.

Also, there are something like three or four 'baddies', including William Fitchner's malicious Butch Cavendish and Tom Wilkinson's scheming tycoon Latham Cole. One or two would have done the trick as the plot starts to suffer from the same over-complexity that Pirates 2 and 3 didn't need.

On the whole, The Lone Ranger doesn't deserve the drubbing it is receiving from many critics and is worth a shot if you are looking for some zany escapism this weekend. It suffers from a long-run time and an excess of villainy, but other than that, it is a genuinely funny and silly Western that should appeal to all ages.

I give The Lone Ranger: 7/10

Read More

We're now on Facebook!

Yep, you read that right, your new favourite film, TV and music blog has just gone and set-up a Facebook page. I know, it really is cutting-edge and simply proves how ahead of the game this blog is.

If you haven't already, feel free to head on over and like the page in order to receive receive updates on new posts and other random stuff that tickles my fancy.

If you don't want to then whatever man, that's totally your decision dude. Like, peace and love man.

Ew, that last paragraph made me sick in my mouth a little.

So yeah, Facebook page; like it and stuff.

Read More

Voice of Reason #13: Crafting the Justice League

Zach Snyder's Man of Steel

The release of Man of Steel (and its huge box-office success) has left movie lovers and aficionados all pondering one thing; is this the start of something bigger and greater? Are DC about to 'do a Marvel' and get all of their heroes onto the same page?

I do of course refer to the much discussed Justice League of America movie. Long-rumoured, never confirmed, Justice League would bring together some of the biggest names from the DC Comics roster; Batman, Superman, Green Lantern, The Flash, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and Martian Manhunter, as well as many others.

Christian Bale has recently confirmed he
won't be donning the cape and cowl for a potential
Justice League movie

Effectively, a JLA movie would be the DC equivalent of last years bombastic blockbuster The Avengers. Not too much of a gamble then.

Despite already having written a post on this last September, the recent release of Man of Steel has meant the topic is once again being widely talked about in the press.

Many fans saw Zach Snyder's reinvisioned version of Superman to be the launch pad from which a Justice League movie could be crafted, much as Marvel did when they kicked off their interlinked Marvel Cinematic Universe with 2008's Iron Man.

Thing is though, it kind of hasn't achieved that. Man of Steel didn't do a very great job of setting the scene in the way that Marvel had. Whilst a lot of internet forums and sites have been frothing at the mouth at the sight of a supposed Wayne Enterprises logo and such, this kind of throwaway reference or 'Easter Egg' isn't exactly the kind of thing that kick-starts a whole interlinked franchise of Justice League characters.

It just seems like a weak attempt to get people talking about a potential JLA movie. Throwing in little logo here or a 'wink wink nudge nudge' there doesn't cut the mustard. What the movie needed was something explicit, something obvious that said "look, we're doing it, Justice League is on its way!". Man of Steel had nothing like that. There was no mention of the Dark Knight trilogy, the Green Lantern movie or any post-credits teaser for something else entirely.

Nothing, naught, nada. Just some 'blink and you'll miss it' Easter Egg that is most likely Zack Snyder trying to mess with our heads.

The way I see it, Man of Steel is either a stand-alone Superman adventure that doesn't exist within a wider universe or DC are going to have to hold off on JLA and release a sequel to Man of Steel that does a better job at setting the scene for other characters like Wonder Woman and Aquaman.

This means we probably won't be seeing a Justice League movie for a long, long time yet. I read a story recently that said Warner Bros planned to rush Man of Steel 2 into production and release it as early as 2014 but that seems too soon to me.

Man of Steel took a whole 3 years to put together so a 12-month turnaround for a sequel seems overly ambitious to say the least.

That isn't the only problem that DC are going to have to overcome if they want to launch a JLA franchise that rivals The Avengers.

2011's Green Lantern

News broke the other day that Christian Bale (who played Bruce Wayne/Batman in Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy) has decided he definitely will not be returning to play Batman again in a potential JLA movie.

So, what does this mean?

It means DC either have to recast Batman or reboot him. Yep, again. With The Dark Knight Rises having only wrapped up last year, audiences aren't exactly clamouring for another feature length film featuring the World's Greatest Detective. Likewise, Green Lantern (which tanked in 2011) has such an in-depth and specific back-story, surely he also needs a satisfactory reboot/re-imagining?

In addition to that, The Flash, Wonder Woman and Aquaman aren't exactly characters that can be shoehorned into a JLA movie for their first appearance. DC are going to have to take the time to craft each origin story separately and link them together.

At the end of the day, DC have got their work cut out if they want to bring Justice League to the big screen. Man of Steel hasn't changed that one jot; in my mind, they're still as far away from producing a successful big-screen outing for JLA as they were this time last year. Don't hold your breath people; I don't reckon we'll be seeing the Justice League all line-up alongside each other this side of 2018-19.

In the meantime, Marvel continue to romp home with each and every film in their ever growing MCU bagging the big bucks. Iron Man 3 has already blasted past the $1.2 billion mark and Thor: The Dark World is set to hit screens this November with Captain America: The Winter Solider and Guardians of the Galaxy hitting screens in 2014.

Whilst it might frustrate many fans out there, it's pretty obvious that if DC want to get on the same level as Marvel right now, they're going to have to play the long game.

What do you guys reckon? How should DC go about making a Justice League movie? Do you think Man of Steel did a good enough job of setting it up?

Read More

Feature: Casting Lara Croft (Tomb Raider Reboot)

2013's Tomb Raider reboot

Ever since Square Enix released their reboot of the Tomb Raider game franchise in March to widespread critical acclaim, speculation has been building as to whether this would lead to a new film franchise; critics and fans alike were big fans of the gritty realism Lara Croft's latest console adventure offered and so talk of film that reboots her silver screen likeness has built in recent months.

With news was preliminary work on a new Tomb Raider reboot was already in progress, the big question now is this; who should take up the tomb raiding duties from Angelina Jolie? Well, here's a quick short-list of actresses who I think could take on the role...

Camilla Luddington

Known for: Playing Kate Middleton in a TV-movie on Wills and Kate

She's been there, done that, got the t-shirt

She may not have many film credits to her name (she's best known for her multiple TV roles in Grey's Anatomy, True Blood and Californication), but she has more experience with playing Lara Croft that anyone else you'll find on this list; Ms. Luddington lent her crisp English accent to Lara in the very same video game that has inspired movie execs at MGM to think about making a film.

One of the games greatest strengths was the impressive voice acting, so let's face it, Ms. Luddington is already halfway there.Not only that but she looks the part; she could pull of Lara Croft fairly easily I reckon. 

The only question mark whether she could pull it off throughout an entire feature film rather than standing behind a microphone for a game.

Gemma Arterton 

Known for: Getting all oiled up as Agent Fields in Quantum of Solace

After her supporting roles in varying degrees of crap like Quantum of Solace, Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, Clash of the Titans and Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters, Gemma Arterton seriously needs to fire her agent and get herself a seriously meaty lead role along the lines of Lara Croft.

She's been getting some good reviews for her acting in Byzantium (she plays a sexy vampire), so a role that mixes this emerging acting prowess with her proven arse-kicking skills could be the trigger that launches her into the Hollywood A-list.

She ticks many of the boxes required to play Lara Croft. Firstly (and probably most importantly), she's English and has the posh accent to match. She also looks the part to boot. What's not to love? Well, at 27 she might be a touch to old for a younger, more innocent take on Lara Croft. 

Emma Watson

Known for: Witching it up in Harry Potter

This might be wishful thinking on my part, but think about it; Emma Watson would suit Tomb Raider pretty well.

Not only is she a household name that would sell the new movie on her name alone, she's also often voted high in "Sexiest Woman Alive" polls and she's got the acting chops to pull off the 'vulnerable, innocent' character from the new game. Just check out her role as Sam in The Perks of Being A Wallflower if you need any convincing.

Whether Ms. Watson is interested in taking on another mega-franchise is another question entirely - she's been laying low since Potter wrapped up in 2011.

Since graduating from the Hogwarts School of Withcraft and Wizardry, Watson has starred in lower-key, more indie productions that aren't action or CG heavy so taking on a potentially big franchise might not be the direction she wants to head.

Regardless, I still think she'd be fantastic as Lara Croft; please MGM, make this happen.

Hayley Atwell

Known for: Representing Great Britain in Marvel's Uncle Sam 'fest, Captain America.

Much like the lovely ladies discussed above, Hayley Atwell is the kind of actress who would fit into the role of Lara Croft without much trouble.

After playing the prim and proper (but kind of sassy) Peggy Carter in Captain America: The First Avengers, Atwell has been on many people's minds as taking the role of Lara Croft to the big screen once again.

She's got the face, the voice, the acting credentials. She's also little known which would please movie executives who are looking for an actress who isn't a bigger name than Lara Croft is herself. At 31 however, she might be a touch too old for an origin story. Lara in the game is 17-18 so it might be a little bit of a stretch of the imagination.

With a schedule that is looking pretty empty once her role in Captain America: The Winter Solider wraps up, bagging an iconic role such as this would pretty much shoot Atwell into the stratosphere of Hollywood. Look what it did for Angelina Jolie...

Anna Kendrick

Known for: Being good at singing in Pitch Perfect and playing Stacey in Scott Pilgrim vs. the World.

The first non-British gal on this here list, Anna Kendrick is starting to make a name for herself with some big roles in the last year or so.

In 2012, she pretty much took off; from taking centre stage in the surprisingly well-received Pitch Perfect to a supporting role in What to Expect When Your Expecting and lending her voice to the kooky animation that was ParaNorman, Kendrick is practically something of a household name. 

A good pick for Lara Croft then? Sure, why not. She's an emerging up-and-comer that might fit the role reasonably well.

There are few little niggles; I mean, she's American so putting on a convincing British accent could be a challenge (I mean, Jolie's was a little shabby to start off with) and she's also, much like Atwell and Arterton, in her late-twenties to early-thirties.

Ideally, MGM are going to be looking for an actress who can look the part of an late-teens Lara Croft. Kendrick might be making a name for herself, but there might be better options out there.

Yvonne Strahovski 

Known for: having that gravity defying arse in Mass Effect 2 and 3. Alright, it's not her arse, she's a character in a video game but whatever. Oh, and playing that chick in Chuck.

Okay so this one might be a bit of a long-shot but I reckon she'd be a good pick. She's a good actress who isn't adverse to putting on an accent or two (she's Australian in real-life) and has the good-looks to be Lara Croft.

Yes, she's too old to play an origin story but I can overlook that little niggle if it means we get a decent Tomb Raider film fronted by an attractive and talented gal like Yvonne.

Read More

Super Film Review: Man of Steel

Director: Zack Snyder
Starring: Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Russell Crowe, Michael Shannon, Kevin Costner
Running time: 143 minutes

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's the obligatory bird/plane reference that any movie reviewer feels the need to cram into a review of Man of Steel. Now, with that out of the way, let's get on with it shall we?

Amy Adams as Lois Lane

After Superman Returns divided critics back in 2006, the audience has been patiently awaiting this; the big-screen return of the Man of Steel with the comic-book film aficionados behind the Dark Knight trilogy (writers Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer), 300 and Watchmen (director Zack Snyder). With a washed out colour palette, a fresh cast and 'darker' tone, Man of Steel should be the definitive Superman film for the 21st Century; down-to-earth (pun?), straight-faced and inspirational. An instant classic.

Right?

Erm, no, not quite. Man of Steel is not flawless, not even close. Hell, to some audience members, it might not even be the best Superman film released this side of the year 2000.

First of all, let's deal with some of the positives. Man of Steel has a cracking cast. Henry Cavill is fantastic as Clark Kent/Kal-El; he looks, sounds and is like Superman. Likewise, Amy Adams is brilliant as Lois Lane. She's defiant and feisty and still an attractive and likeable character which is good.

Also, the way in which Goyer, Nolan and Snyder paced the first half of the movie was done brilliantly. An opening prelude that charts the downfall of Krypton is awesome; the film spends a lot more time on Krypton than I had expected and that is a good thing. This opening prelude was, in my opinion, one of the best parts. It was like something torn straight from one of the Star Wars prequels and then improved upon
tenfold.

With the planet is collapsing in on itself and General Zod (Michael Shannon) stages a coup to save his people before being outwitted by Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and sent to the Phantom Zone. Whilst Russell Crowe is great as Jor-El (he brings the necessary gravitas the role needs), I found that Michael Shannon's depiction of General Zod to be amusing rather than terrifying.

Admittedly, it would take a special breed of actor to make prancing around a space station with a cape yelling things like "Unleash the World Engine!" and "Open the Genesis Chamber!" sound anything other than a absurdly funny. I felt that Shannon overacted Zod to the point where he was so batshit crazy that is wasn't threatening, just silly.

Antje Traue stole the show as Faora

It was almost as if a cartoon version of Zod had somehow found himself in a more grounded version of a Superman movie. He snarled maliciously, he spat dialogue and he generally had the "crazed villain" dial cranked up to 11.

Instead, I found that Zod's second-in-command, Faora (Antje Traue) pretty much stole the show. She's a much better and more badass villain.

Anyway, the film soon settles down and is all about Clark Kent keeping himself out of trouble with numerous different jobs. He never stays in the one place and lives a solitary life. It's a nice introduction to the 'human' side of the character. One scene in particular where Clark is taunted by a trucker in a diner and walks away instead of beating him was a nice touch. It makes him relatable and likeable.

Clark childhood (and the troubles he faced) were told through a series of flashbacks. These flashbacks were spaced throughout the first half of the film and I liked the way in which Snyder see-sawed between the past and present. One flashback in which Clark's human father, Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner), was killed was stupid  (as it messed with the lore a little too much) but other than that, the way in which Snyder told Clark's past in several key chapters rather than one solid block was good.

Clark soon discovers an ancient Kryptonian scout ship in the Arctic and the truth about his powers, his heritage and his home-world; he realises that he must make the choice between defending his adoptive planet from Zod or embracing his Kryptonian counterparts.

Clark Kent and his mother, Martha

From this point on however, things start to go downhill. I liked the sequence in which Kal-El played around with his powers and flew for the first time (the way in which Snyder envisions Kal-El flying was very visceral and exciting), but once battle commences between Kal-El and Zod, Snyder abandons all pretence of this being anything more than a bombastic summer blockbuster with more brawn than brains.

For the next hour, Snyder bombards the audience with more destruction than you'll see this side of a Michael Bay movie. Kal-El and Zod tear at each other endlessly, ripping trucks, girders and entire buildings apart in their climatic duel across Smallville and Metropolis.

And whilst you can't fault Man of Steel on the sheer scale of the action (at one point, the duo take their fight into space), I found that I tired very quickly of the two (seemingly immortal) enemies tearing Metropolis a new one. The battle just rolls on, and on, and on and on. Not only this, but surely in the process of throwing Zod through several skyscrapers, Kal-El is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people. Isn't Superman supposed to protect humanity?

When the credits finally began to roll, I found myself thinking that less would have been more when it came to the final hour of Man of Steel. It felt as though the writers got halfway through the script and went "Oh crap, we've written a Superman film and so far no buildings have fallen down! Quick, add loads so people woop and punch the air in excitement! Screw the plot, let's just throw in lots of Zod and Kal-El punching the crap out of each other!"

The end result was a film of two distinct halves; one well-paced, well-written and well-acted. The other, CGI heavy, lacking in plot and overly long and repetitive. Man of Steel is a disjointed and underwhelming attempt at rebooting the Superman franchise as a result. It's got all the right ideas in place but is executed poorly by assuming the audience craved action and explosions.

I give Man of Steel: 6/10

Read More

Film Review: World War Z

After lengthy delays, re-writes and put-offs, Marc Forster's zombie/action epic World War Z finally hits cinema screens this week. With edge-of-your-seat tension and apocalyptic destruction, World War Z aims to satisfy the appetite of an audience who enjoyed 2012 and I am Legend. So, how does it stack up? 

Starring Brad Pitt, Mireille Enos and Peter Capaldi, this action-heavy apocalyptic blockbuster charts the initial outbreak and spread of a virus that converts swathes of the human race into mindless, mouth-frothing zombies. And not the walking, shuffling kind either. These dudes can sprint, climb and pile onto one another like ants.

I thought that the initial outbreak was written and shot well; it managed to capture that sense of panic well. The fear that spreads through the crowd of people on-screen is relayed to the audience through the way in which director Marc Forster only affords us brief glimpses of the undead through some flashy, shaky editing.

Whilst the technique is effective at first, I found that the use of shaky cam and rapid editing in all of the action sequences was overused and slightly nauseating. I know that it is meant to evoke a sense of panic and adrenalin (like in Bourne or Craig-Bond films), but here it just felt tiresome and really took me out of the action. It wasn't until the final third of the film that Forster let the camera linger on the characters a little more.

If your a fan of the zombie genre, you might be slightly disappointed to know that this rapid editing technique also means there is a complete lack of blood and gore. If you were hoping for a Hollywood-budget version of The Walking Dead, complete with spurting arteries and veins, you will be disappointed.

Forster ensures that the film quickly cuts away from any potential MA15+ style neck-biting. There are three or four jump scares that might send your popcorn cascading onto the floor, but other than that, the zombies in World War Z are positively family-friendly and contain zero squelching.

Throughout the film, Brad Pitt's character, Gerry Lane, zig-zags his way across the globe in search of a cure (from the USA to South Korea, Israel and Wales), and whilst this allows for the film to live up to its 'world war' moniker, it does mean that most of his characterisation is lost beneath swarming seas of the undead.

If he isn't being hunted by zombies in New York, he's being chased by zombies in Jerusalem or stalked by zombies in Cardiff. Once Pitt is made to leave his family behind on an aircraft carrier in the Atlantic Ocean, the attention is squarely on action and destruction. I found that the CGI was okay, but not great. The massive swarms of zombies aren't going to make your jaw hit the ground or anything like that.

The numerous re-writes and script revisions are evident in the final product; The films narrative is annoying episodic, veering from one place to another without time to settle down. I found that I preferred the film's stripped-back, creepier final 30 minutes to the rest of the film combined.

On the whole, I wasn't overly impressed by World War Z. Whilst I enjoyed the final half an hour and the genuine tension it generated, I found that insistence on huge CGI set-pieces diverted attention away from the simplistic plot and underdeveloped characters. It was also fairly tame for a zombie film, almost certainly in an attempt to draw a wider audience.

If your looking for a epic, action-orientated science-fiction blockbuster then World War Z is better than something similar After Earth, which is also in cinemas now. However, if you like your zombie films gooey, scary and gruesome, best leave this one be.

I give World War Z: 6/10

Read More