Film Review: Marc Forster's World War Z

Now I have not read Max Brooks' best selling novel upon which this film is based, so I am not among those who are up-in-arms about how drastically the story was changed when going from page to screen - and it was apparently altered quite a bit, from everything I have read and heard on the subject - and because of this, I cannot judge the film as an adaptation, but only as a zombie film, on its own merits.  Doing that very thing, I can say that World War Z, as a zombie film, on its own merits, ain't half bad.  Granted, I had expected more out of the film, but what I got, what we all got, the aforementioned nay-saying source material lovers aside, was a fun Summer blockbustery romp, that may not go down in the annals of film history as one of the apex-setters of its genre, but is surely something with which to waste an afternoon in the dark. 

That being said, I must make one note, repairing a misconception that is only made more evident by that big blaring Z in the title, and was even added to by my own necessitative use of the word in the above opening salvo.  World War Z isn't exactly a zombie film per se.  Yeah, yeah, the Z-word is used more than a few times in the film, and I assume, in the book as well, but this film, this sub-genre if you will, is much more akin to something like 28 Days Later than it is to the likes of George Romero's gut-wrenching oeuvre or AMC's The Walking Dead (best damn show on TV btw).  World War Z is an outbreak movie more than a living dead film, but then there I go again, griping about apples and oranges, when I should just be reviewing the damn movie.  And speaking of that, as an outbreak movie, on its own merits, World War Z is a damn fine romp indeed.  Perhaps not great (the aforementioned 28 Days Later being the apex-setter of that genre) and perhaps lacking the depth of The Walking Dead or the balls-out intensity of Zack Snyder's Dawn of the Dead remake, but still a fun film.

As for the acting, there are some fine actors hiding away in this film, but let's face it, this is Brad Pitt's show, and there is nothing wrong with that.  One of the more overlooked actors around (he's too pretty to be truly talented seems to be the general, subconscious response), Pitt is actually quite the chameleon.  From 12 Monkeys and Kalifornia back in his early days, to Moneyball and Inglourios Basterds as of late, Pitt can more than stand his ground with the best working today.  Granted, there really isn't all that much acting needed in a film like World War Z - the CGI-action, sometimes good, ofttimes not so good, is the real star here - but Pitt still gives it what he's got (see Brad run below - run Brad, run), and the grand scale entertainment is let loose.  Even so, the film never quite reaches the heights it is most likely aiming for here.  Apparently Brooks' novel is as much an indictment on government corruption and isolationism as it is on balls-out zombie action, and it would have been nice to see more of that aspect in the screenplay, a screenplay that has been written and rewritten several times, including by Cabin in the Woods' Drew Goddard (he also did a lot of work on Buffy and Lost, if that is your thing) and comicbook writer J. Michael Straczynski (he had a great run on The Amazing Spider-Man and his current recurring book, Ten Grand, currently on sale via Image Comics, is one of the best comics of 2013), but flaws and foibles aside, it is still a more than competent take on the subject matter.  

In fact, flaws and foibles aside once more, there are several moments in the film that can be called rather breathtaking.   From the taking of the walled city of Jerusalem to the airplane ride from hell to the penultimate set piece taking place inside a World Health Organization facility overrun by those damn Z's (the latter is actually some of the best use of subtle intensity on film in a long long time), and even if the film doesn't quite deliver as much as this critic had hoped for, it is still a damn fine piece of popcorn entertainment.  And in the throes of a long hot summer, what more could one ask for?  Okay, that was a rhetorical question, but hey, the film was fun, so who am I to complain?  I'll leave that up to those who have read the book and are crying bloody apocalypse.

Film Review: Jonathan Levine's Warm Bodies

The undead are quite hip these days.  Between The Walking Dead on TV and a slew of video games and comics on the subject, zombies are the thing.  I know, I proudly call myself an Undead Head.  So why not try your hand at a zombie rom com - a zom com if you will.  Such an undertaking is a slippery slope however.  One wants to make humour out of the zombie apocalypse, aimed at a relatively younger audience, but not so young that you delve into the tweeny Twilight territory that such an endeavor could easily find itself lost within.  What writer/director Jonathan Levine manages to do with the material - based on the novel of the same name by Isaac Marion - is to create a (pun very much intended) living, breathing zombie movie that not only pokes fun at the genre, but also acts as a loving homage to said genre.  A biting (yes, pun intended once again) fun-loving deconstruction of both zombie films and romantic comedies.  All-in-all, Warm Bodies is a surprisingly spry and humourous tale.

Warm Bodies, both book and movie, also takes a stab at being an updated, post-zombie apocalyptic rendition of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, with the story of Julie, one of the survivalists living in a walled-in city, away from the walking dead, and one of those very same dead, named R by Julie, who saves her from harm, and hides her away in his airplane hideaway.  A story of star-crossed lovers, one of whom happens to be a brain-eating undead kid who could be shot in the head at any moment by Julie's dad, who just so happens to be the head of the survivalist city.  Meanwhile, all of R's "friends" just see Julie as their next meal.  See, Romeo and Juliet...with a twist.  However, the crux of this post-modern Romeo and Juliet tale is not how these two warring "families" do not get along, but how they can come together.  When R rescues Julie from marauding undead - corpses they are fondly nicknamed by the survivors - something in him begins to be reborn.  Slowly this happens to most of the so-called zombies, including M (I am guessing, standing for Mercutio), and hope for the human race begins to spark.  Of course, Julie's dad still wants to shoot R in the head.

Actually, the film is quite enjoyable.  Playing with the genre - we are even given a wry joke about the typical musical montage - the director (the equally wry 50/50) gives us a loving tribute to the rom com, while birthing a whole new sub genre, the aforementioned zom rom com.  And no, I cannot take credit for coming up with that one, but I'll use it to death anyway.  But I digress.  The film stars Nicholas Hault (you know, the boy from About a Boy, as well as Beast from the revamped X-Men, and the title character from the upcoming Jack, The Giant Slayer) as the intrepid R, and Theresa Palmer (the Sorcerer's Apprentice's girlfriend and the requisite hottie kick ass alien sidekick in I am Number Four - she was Number Six), and both do a fine job with the roles.  Why John Malkovich appears as Julie's dad, I do not know.  The role is rather lackluster, and anyone really could have played such a role.  I don't think we needed Malkovich, or if we did, we could have at least given him something more interesting to do.  Anyway, in sum, Warm Bodies, holds its own in the genre.  It may not have the satiric wit of its closest genre brethren, Zombieland, and never even comes close to the biting wit of its own godfather, Shaun of the Dead, but it definitely ain't that bad.

Survival of the Dead Reviewed at The Cinematheque

Before going on, I must first admit to an unnatural (but wholly rational I tell you!) fear of zombies.  Forget vampires and werewolves and chainsaw-weilding maniacs.  Forget giant lizard like things burning up Tokyo, it is the undead, more than any other movie monster (as it were), that scare the living bejeezus out of me.  Don't know why (perhaps it is the fact that with most movie monsters, they can be stopped by daylight, but with the walking dead they just keep coming and coming and coming and...well you know) and don't care why.  I just know it is true and that is my (some may say ridiculous) burden to bear.

Anyhoo... my newest review is on George A. Romero's Survival of the Dead (the sixth in the 42 year old series!) and (ir)rational fear aside, the movie just isn't that good.  It's not terrible (as it could have easily been) but it is certainly not very good either.  The weakest of the set, Survival does have its moments (including the hottest undead chick this side of never!? - yeah, I said it!) but not near enough to claim a seat in the class with Romero's first four ...of the Dead series (number five, Diary of the Dead, though better than most give it credit for, falls short as well).  The worst (or best) part is that the film never scared me.  The admitted zombiephobe!  Not scared!?  What worse of a criticism for such a movie could there be!?

Read my review of Survival of the Dead at The Cinematheque.