Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Z for Zachariah


Directed by Craig Zobel.

2015. Rated PG-13, 98 minutes.
Cast:
Margot Robbie
Chiwetel Ejiofor
Chris Pine 

Ann (Robbie) doesn’t see people anymore. That’s not a surprise since she seems to be the only survivor around of the nuclear holocaust. Though the rest of the world seems to be totally radioactive, the little valley where she lives has been largely unaffected. She gets by on her farming skills. One day, someone else stumbles upon this area, scientist John Loomis (Ejiofor). He’s been wandering the land for a while after leaving the underground bunker where he was and is extremely happy to find a place where he can take off the cumbersome radiation suit he’s been walking around in. To celebrate, he jumps in some water he mistakenly thinks to be clean. This is when Ann finds him and lets him know of his faux pas. John gets sick, Ann takes him in, nurses him back to health, and the two strike up a relationship of sorts. For the most part, things are hunky dory. Their big point of contention is what John wants to do to generate power. He wants to build a water wheel in the same waterfall where Ann found him. The problem is to complete the project they would have to tear down the small church that Ann’s father built. Being understandably sentimental, along with being devoutly religious, she’s not having any of it. John happens to be an atheist, so there is much butting of the heads over the matter. Still, they realize they’re all they got and prepare to stick out the rest of their days together. Things change when a wanderer named Caleb (Pine) stumbles across this idyllic place and they decide to give him a place to stay for a few days before he moves on.

The first thing that must be noted about Z for Zachariah is that it’s an incredibly slow burn. This is a snail paced journey rather than a high octane adventure. The three people I mentioned in the opening paragraph make up the entire cast. The water wheel and discussions on religion provide the major conflict, initially. Later, we’re watching a love triangle, sans most of the hijinks and shenanigans of lots of other movies. In that regard, it’s a very mature look at what is happening between the three people involved. In lieu of the outward histrionics that come with the cinematic territory, we get introspection, and the dialogue that comes from that. Each move made by the people on the screen makes sense. Given the predicament in which they find themselves, they do things we can easily envision ourselves doing.


Carrying such a movie requires performances that feel genuine. All three actors are just that. As a couple of guys involved in a sword fight, so to speak, yet still looking to be cordial to one another, both Ejiofor and Pine are excellent. Pine is a perfect ruggedly handsome country guy who has just been roaming around trying to find a safe haven. Even when it’s clear he’s a duplicitous character, he’s a total charmer. If we know this guy in real life, he would come across as a phony. Pine is genuine in that phoniness, if that makes sense. Ejiofor might have a tougher task. His character has a big brain filled with all the science they’ll need to survive and, possibly, thrive. Still, he’s a relatable guy that never talks down to the others and never sounds as if he’s bragging when he’s imparting some of his knowledge on them. If you don’t think that’s tough think back to conversations with people who knew they had to explain something to you because they were sure, or just assumed, they know something you don’t. They tend to be condescending. We don’t get that from Ejiofor. He endows his character with a refreshing sense of humility. That’s not to say he’s a totally heroic character. As the film progresses, some unsavory things are revealed about him.

While the boys are both really good, our lady might outshine them both. Margot Robbie gets to be the focal point of the film and handles the responsibility exceptionally well. Her Ann is never anything less than one hundred percent believable. She is a real person, through and through. Her strengths, fears, insecurities, and motives all make perfect sense even though they occasionally contradict each other. Better than that, her naïveté comes across in an authentic manner. It never seems like she’s stupid, just not terribly experienced. How could she be? She’s clearly younger than both of the men suddenly in her life and went years without any human contact, at all. Robbie generates a very real innocence. I didn’t think she was capable of doing such a thing after seeing the rather worldly characters she played in such movies as The Wolf of Wall Street and Focus. This may not be the best movie she’s ever been in, but of what I’ve seen, it’s the best work she’s done.

I did just say Z for Zachariah is not the best movie Robbie has been in. However, it is still very good. Despite the sparseness of human life on the screen, it creates a world that somehow feels lived in. This is a credit to not only the actors, but to director Craig Zobel. He handled a similarly minimal, but a bit larger, cast to great effect in the underseen Compliance. Here, he crafts a focused film that uses its slow pacing very well. While not a lot is “happening,” there is a bunch “going on.” We have lots of things to sink our teeth into. Not least of these things is the film’s ending. It’s really ambiguous about what actually happens. We have two options on what that might be. Which way we lean depends on how honest we think a particular character is being in those last few moments before the closing credits. Once we decide what we think happened, we then have to decide if we agree with it. More important than that, we must also ask if we can see ourselves doing that very thing. It’s an interesting position in which to find yourself. I say this fully realizing that some of you hate such endings. I rather enjoy them. In any event, Z for Zachariah is definitely a romance. Granted, it’s an unconventional one, but I love that about it.

21 comments:

  1. I have this in my watchlist but due to the fact that I recently changed digital cable providers recently, it's very unlikely I'll see this unless it becomes available to me somehow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hope you get to check it out. It is definitely worth a watch.

      Delete
  2. I don't remember much from this now, but I did remember liking Margot Robbie here. This is definitely a slow burn, but still a good film to watch. Great review!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not her biggest fan, to be sure, but she was excellent, her. Thanks!

      Delete
  3. I love slow burn movies, and I'd check this out just because of Ejiofor, if for no other reason. :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In that case, you should definitely check it out. He gives another superb performance.

      Delete
  4. I was in BEFORE you mentioned it shares a director with Compliance, one if the most gripping movies I've ever seen.

    I think the premise sounds interesting enough, and I'm a fan of all three actors, so sign me up. Great post, man.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it's very good, and you might too, but it has the potential to be a two or three nighter for you because it most certainly is slow. In its favor, it only runs 98 minutes.

      Delete
  5. You liked this film more than I did. It was really slow, but I felt the character of Caleb was completely unnecessary and did nothing to really advance the plot. It felt forced to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting. I had the exact opposite reaction to him. I thought the only reason he was there was to advance the plot as every action he made pushed the other two along.

      Delete
  6. I don't mind slo-burn films, in fact I just reviewed a vampire film I quite like that some critics say are incredibly slow. I'm mostly curious to see this because of Chiwetel Ejiofor, but I'd say the trio is pretty intriguing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are we talking Only Lovers Left Alive? Ugh. I hate that movie. That was a different kind of slow for me. It was completely uninteresting, whereas this had me locked in. And Ejiofor is great.

      Delete
    2. Oy, I just replied to you on my post that I'm still keen on seeing Only Lovers Left Alive! Oh well, it sounds like Byzantium has plenty of action compared to this. In fact, the last third of the film is the most interesting.

      Delete
    3. No worries. The last third of this is interesting, as well.

      Delete
  7. I enjoyed your recap of this far more than I did the actual film. I was really looking forward to it since it reminded me of a film I did like from the 60's-The World, the Flesh and the Devil-and I'm a fan of the two lead actors but it bored me to death. More than a slow build it seemed to me to have no propulsive energy whatsoever but was trapped in an ennui that it never shook off. The performances weren't bad but that didn't help the overall inertia of the movie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Joel. The thing about a movie like this is it either sucks you in right away and you're willing to ride it out no matter how long it takes, or it doesn't and your sitting there bored. Obviously, we fell on opposite sides of that fence. I imagine lots of people feel the same way you did. There's just no way around it.

      Delete
  8. Nice review man. Remember seeing this last year and while I certainly admired it, I cant say I really liked it. Ultimately, for me the movie just raised these kinda interesting arguments and went nowhere with them. Glad you liked the ending because I absolutely hated it, and that's the thing I remember most about this movie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the ending is of the make-it-or-break-it sort. Either you'll love it and really like the movie, or hate it and dislike the film. Thanks!

      Delete
  9. Coincidentally I also just released my review on this. I liked it and it reminded me a lot of Ex_Machina in terms of setting and the thought-provoking themes it explores. It truly is a slow burn and I felt that there were times when it was running on fumes. I think this was Margot Robbie's 'breakout' role because this is the first film I've seen her in where her acting (and not her body) is the focus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly my thinking on Robbie. Before now I had no idea that she could "act." I will check out your review.

      Delete
  10. Really glad to hear you liked this one. I'm a big fan. It made it into my top 20 films of last year. I really liked Robbie as well. As for ambiguous endings, I'm mixed on them. I tend to think they serve some movies better than others. As for this one, I think the ending works really well.

    ReplyDelete