World
War Z is Marc Forster’s loose adaptation of Max
Brooks’ novel of the same name, one of the few remaining similarities between
the source and the film. It stars Brad Pitt, who also produces, as Gerry Lane-
a UN agent and a family man, given the task of answering the question ‘why?’
when a virus outbreak leads to a global zombie epidemic. Forster’s background
in both human dramas and action thrillers has been utilized here to create a
large-scale apocalypse movie with heart and people we care about.
There is nothing new in World War Z. The huge visions of
disaster evoke any of Roland Emmerich’s blockbusters from the past 10 years, while
the third act looks like it could have been lifted straight from the cutting
room floor of 28 Days Later (including
a laughably similar soundtrack for this segment). And although it asks a
similar question to that of I Am legend, it
manages to surpass all of these films. Why? It is free from the constraints of
simply being a genre vehicle, whether that may be horror or disaster. Instead,
this is an apocalypse with soul, a disaster with more than just CGI to offer.
It delivers precisely where most zombie and apocalyptic movies attempt, and
fail, to do – in its realism. Often small-scale is mistaken for realism, because
it is gritty, at street level, and therefore the huge budget and visual effects
team at Forster’s disposal, would tend to be overlooked as glossy and
ungrounded. But it is quite the opposite- Forster’s vision is probably far
closer to a real zombie apocalypse than any other film has reached before
simply because of the scale and the
breadth of what we see (we are privy to action and drama in the USA, Israel,
South Korea and the UK).
Another reason the film works so well, is
that it is given a 15 rating and while in most areas it acts like a film with a
12 certificate, the higher rating comes from the fact that the film opts for
consequential violence. A lot of disaster films are enjoyed because destruction
happens without consequence- the delight is in seeing a building crumble and
not being faced with what this means for the residents or tourists. But this in
turn leads to characters and plot we do not care about, disaster that does not
matter. So when World War Z adds
consequences, the outbreak and destruction means something for the characters
and therefore for the audience.
It is disappointing, then, to see the
ending of the film not deliver in the same way the rest of it has. I favoured
the way it suggests the acts of the film have been more of a delay than a cure,
but too many times are narratives wrapped up with media headlines instead of
drama. Relying heavily on an emotional score and news report montages, the film
displays a potential lack of conviction in the last five minutes.
World
War Z takes multiple genres and almost delivers on
all fronts. It may not be the Summer blockbuster you were expecting, but with
the disappointments of The Great Gatsby
and Man Of Steel, my advice would be
to enjoy this one while you can.