Review: World War Z

Paramount Pictures

I haven't read the novel from which World War Z is adapted, but fans of the novel seem to think it brought a level of intelligence and reality to the possibility of a zombie pandemic that hasn't been seen before in the genre. A viral epidemic spread worldwide much like other legendary plagues or diseases of the past, except this one spreads a hundred times faster since its victims become the ravaging undead that we all know and love (for some weird reason). The Walking Dead (although an extremely silly and mostly bad show) made zombies popular again with the mainstream public mostly because it's what people like about zombies: a close-quarters, blood and guts fight for survival against the zombies but also dealing with the potential evil in humans when put into such a post-apocalyptic-ish scenario. 

From what I've heard and read, World War Z strays a great deal from the source material, but the main idea of a world-wide war against zombies is there. Instead of focusing on one family or small group of people like  The Walking Dead, WWZ attempts to cover a lot of ground between New York, New Jersey, South Korea, Jerusalem, and Budapest in depicting the level and reach of chaos and destruction. All the while, the film focuses on Brad Pitt's character Gerry Lane, an employee of the United Nations, traveling to these destinations looking to find the source of the virus in order to discover how to stop it. So, one side of the story tries to connect the struggle of one man and his family while the other strives to keep the idea of a worldwide struggle alive. Combined, these two story-lines limit what this movie could have been and what a lot hoped it to be.

Over all, WWZ doesn't do much to advance the zombie genre. The idea of a world-war created expectations of something grand, epic, on a scale we've never seen before. Like 2012 epic. What we get are a few sequences of zombies flooding over walls and through streets that are pretty fun and vistas of great cities like New York, Paris, and Moscow on fire. But then we keep getting restricted to Gerry's story-line and perspective. Speaking in terms of film and not in regard to the novel, to create a broader sense of chaos and action, it would've been better to create multiple main characters across the world. In doing so, the audience would get to see more happening at different locations and feel like the world really is fractured, divided, and all seeking ways to survive in their own way.

Paramount Pictures

The result of WWZ's chosen structure and story is that this film is overly ambitious. In order to create a compelling character out of Gerry and develop and expound upon the state of the world it would take several movies or a TV series to do justice to a story of this scale. As it is, things feel hurried even though the movie clocks in at almost exactly 2 hours. Taken individually, certain scenes and sequences are quite intense and entertaining, but end too quickly in order to move on to the next location. As soon as the audience feels like they're beginning to get some sense or hold on the setting, Gerry and his mates up and fly/run/drive to the next country or city. In the end, threats to Gerry and his family and larger threats to the world as a whole could've been given much more attention and development. I don't think I'm alone in saying that I could've easily used and sat through another 30 minutes at least, if not an hour, in order to get more action and a better look at what this zombie war has done to the world.

In terms of the film's technical side, we don't get anything unique or interesting. That's not to say that the editing or cinematography or anything else was necessarily bad. It's fine, but it's obviously driven by the plot and doesn't take steps to augment the tone or what we see on screen. I don't have any specific suggestions for what could have been done otherwise, but it felt stale as it was. Danny Boyle did something unique with the cinematography and color of 28 Days Later by using a lower quality camera and a high frame rate to create a saturated, grainy, gritty experience. I'm not saying WWZ should've done the same thing, but I'm sure they could've come up with something better than the standard style that they used.

Besides the story's uneven and limited structure, the one thing that bothered me the most about WWZ was Gerry himself. Pitt did a fine job with the acting, although I wouldn't say it was "strong" or "great" like some reviews do. If anything, Pitt was almost too chill and relaxed in many situations. He could've used a bit more aggravation and emotion if you ask me. Nothing on the level of the eternally shaking, sweating, and angry Andrew Lincoln as Grimes in The Walking Dead, but something more at least. But I still didn't really mind Pitt's acting itself. The real problem was who is Gerry Lane even supposed to be? We know he works for the U.N. and someone mentions how he was in Liberia, Bosnia, and other places that American movie-goers understand as examples of really "bad" or "dangerous" places. But that's it. We don't know if he was a spy, assassin, doctor, or anything else. Apparently he's just a really smart guy who knows important people? And let's not forget that he works for the United Nations that somehow has more power and the means to do a lot of things in WWZ's universe. Still, whoever he is, Gerry is apparently the world's go-to-guy to save humanity. And as the movie ends with Gerry's voice-over explaining some things, I'm still sitting there asking "who are you?!" To me, he remained Brad Pitt through the entire film rather than a fictional character. And for some reason he just HAD to wear this scarf:

Paramount Pictures

My friend who I went to see the movie with made a good point as we were walking out of the theater: characters in WWZ actually referred to the infected people as zombies! I find it irritating and unnecessary how every zombie show exists in a universe where the concept of zombies somehow doesn't exist. So they call them something stupid like "walkers" (can you tell I dislike The Walking Dead?). My friend and I also felt ourselves undecided on whether or not it's easier to make fun of WWZ or accept it as a pretty good movie. I believe the reason for such an inclination is because WWZ remains your typical blockbuster and zombie, apocalyptic tale with all of its inconsistencies and impossible-to-explain details. It's premise and some half-hearted attempts try to avoid such a result, but I think they ultimately realized that a single, feature-length film can only do so much. Still, I'm sure Paramount and the production studios are quite satisfied with how much money it has made so far. In the end, WWZ has some solid, entertaining, intense scenes but can't quite hold together or make sense as a whole. And so continues this Summer's pattern of underwhelming releases. Here's to hoping that Elysium may break that pattern!