WORLD WAR Z (2013 - Cert 15)

Right, let's get it out of the way - I am a huge fan of the book my Max Brooks. And I do mean huge. So much so, that when I first saw the trailer for the big screen adaptation, I resolved to vote with my feet and boycott the film completely. This was perhaps a slightly childish decision at it was based pretty much completely on the fact that Marc Foster (Quantum of Solace) had opted for fast Zombies (think 28 Days Later) rather than the shuffling, rotting undead corpses of the book (Think Romero or Sean of the Dead). Then as the delayed release date approached (it was initially due come out in December 2012) rumours surfaced of extensive reshoots, a third act that had to be completely rewritten, first by Damon Lindelof and then he didn't have time to finish it, so Drew Goddard had to step in. So all things pointed to an absolute turkey and a wasted opportunity for taking the Zombie genre into new territory.

Then reviews started to indicate that it wasn't dreadful, that it was actually decent. Some reviews claimed it was fantastic and there were even a few 4 star accolades being dished out. So I decided to attempt to be mature (anyone who knows me will know that this is quite a challenge) and go to see it, surely I could watch a film and take it on it's own merits and not be concerned by how it compares to the source material.....



Well, as it goes, I didn't have to try very hard because the film bears absolutely no resemblance to the book whatsoever, the only things in common being the title and the fact that the action takes place in more than one country. Admittedly, the book doesn't really have a narrative structure (it's made up of interviews and reports from different people who lived through the Zombie War), so I accept that something had to give in that regard. Brad Pitt is Gerry Lane, a retired UN operative who, after the outbreak of the plague, is forced (in a very laboured and unbelievable plot development) to find Patient Zero, find the source, you may find a way of stopping this thing. This takes Pitt around the world, well, just to South Korea, Israel and Wales in what feels like a cross between Outbreak and a James Bond film. Action, exposition by someone dispensable and a clue, action in a different place, exposition by someone dispensable and a clue, action in a different location, repeat to fade. So there's the formula and I suppose it's one that has worked before and it has to be said that it does generally work here, it pushes the film along at a good pace, not pausing to give you a chance to think 'hang on, surely it takes longer than 30 seconds to fill a fuel tank on a plane' and 'why have they stopped to let Brad Pitt on and not the other people with him?'.

The film's main selling point is the action set pieces. They are very good and look lovely. It has to be said that there is a lot of pleasure to be taken from seeing Zombie's on this scale. The vast majority of the films in the genre focus on small groups of people (partly because budgets impose certain restraints) and the clashes with the undead are in confined, claustrophobic spaces which of course is part of the scare. World War Z's reported budget of $190m has given Marc Foster the opportunity to open everything up, the Israel sequence in particular stands out visually, sweeping long range camera shots of a Zombie onslaught. This hasn't been done before with Zombies. Having said that, it all looks too CGI. The opening scene where the outbreak starts, is a lot more effective as the effects are more tactile, cars crashing are real, people running are real people not CGI ants, the Zombies themselves are real until they leap on a victim and they get a little bit of extra zip with some CGI. It still doesn't have the same sense of panic and peril as the opening of Zach Snyder's Dawn of the Dead remake or even of the opening of the new PS3 game, The Last of Us. It felt a bit flat.....

Having said all of that about the budget and the scale, the parts of the film that are scary are when the action is scaled down and put in a confined space, such as the section on the passenger plane and the closing sequence in the World Health Organisation building. Those are the moments that you feel tense,  when your palms start to sweat. Maybe Zombie's don't need a big budget....

The film has a 15 certificate but I can remember absolutely no gore whatsoever. Perhaps it's a bit churlish of me to expect a bit of splatter and claret in a zombie film, some may feel it's not a necessity, but it did detract from the experience for me. It was really noticeable when the camera shied away from the things that a genre film wouldn't normally shy away from, a hand being chopped off by a knife for example, the camera was so keen to look away that it actually wasn't clear what was meant to have happened for a couple of seconds. The same applies when Pitt takes a Zombie down with a crowbar to the skull, only to have the weapon get stuck in the skull. Panic ensues as another corpse approaches, but the camera stays on Pitt's face, you can't even really see that he is trying to free up his crowbar. It's a minor thing I admit, but it really stood out to me. Shaun of the Dead was a 15 and I definitely remember Dylan Moran's intestines being ripped out and the camera not even flinching.

A major part of the book's appeal is the political aspect, it asked how would each country and religion react to a Zombie plague. For example the Chinese tried to cover it all up and censor any information that was released, the Catholic Church retreating to a town in Ireland where it's holiest place is. There are one or two moments where it seems that there was a script at some point, before the committees got involved, that tried to use some of these ideas, although it couldn't obviously criticise the Chinese, that's a good market to sell a film (See the recent Red Dawn remake). There is a interesting line about the North Koreans and the Israel exposition conversation has one or two interesting ideas, but that is pretty much the full extent of it.

It's also obvious that the third act was a complete rewrite, it feels like it's from a different film, although not necessarily in a completely negative way. It contains quite a novel idea on how to fight the Zombies, which you can tell probably comes from one of the writers of Lost, and has a tense stealthy action sequence. It also has Peter Capaldi which is a joy, although he doesn't swear which is a waste as far as I'm concerned. It also contains a wry little nod to slow Zombies which I quite liked (perhaps a Drew Goddard gag?). However, the fact that it is so different in tone from the rest of the film pretty much sums the whole film up.

It's a mess.

As the first real big budget zombie film, there's enough in there to enjoy, but there's also more than enough to leave you scratching your head and sighing with disappointment. Essentially, more through luck than judgment, they have thrown a lot of ideas at the canvas, so much so that some of it had to stick. Essentially, it's a decent enough action film that happens to have Zombies in it. Does it need to be seen at the cinema? Probably not, DVD will suffice (if anyone still watches those). It's very much left open for a sequel, and it has since been confirmed that there will be one as the figures on opening weekend were good, hopefully the second instalment will be a bit more intelligent and will at least attempt to channel the spirit of the source.

It seems that the makers of this film have taken the Zombie folklore too literally by destroying the brain.

If there is one lesson to be learnt by this, everyone should read the book. Did you hear that? Everyone should read the book.