World War Z Movie Review

From the moment I heard about a World War Z movie I was beside myself with enthusiasm and anticipation. That was all destroyed when I saw the first trailer for the 2013 movie. I'm a fan of Max Brooks World War Z novel, and I had high hopes for a good movie but it was blatantly evident just from the teaser trailer that the movie would have little, if anything, to do with the book. I became dead set on boycotting the movie based on the trailer. Curiosity got the best of me and I went to see World War Z in theaters and I have to admit, I'm glad I swallowed my pride.

Life for former United Nations investigator Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt) and his family seem content. News of a mysterious infection that is rapidly becoming a worldwide pandemic is everywhere, and it's not long before the Lane family sees the plague hit their Newark, New Jersey home. Infected people quickly become rampaging mindless zombies. After barely escaping the chaos, Gerry is persuaded by the UN Deputy Secretary-General to go on a mission to investigate the disease in exchange for keeping Gerry's family safe. What follows is a perilous trek around the world where Gerry must brave horrific dangers and long odds to find answers before the entire world's human civilization falls.

Max Brooks' novel reads like a non-fiction book. It's a series of oral interviews conducted by an agent of the UN Postwar Commission with people who have interesting personal stories about the global zombie war (World War Z) and gives a broad overview of the fictional event that nearly wiped out humanity. If I were in charge of the world, World War Z would be a sort of mockumentary with interviews and footage from the zombie war. District 9 did something like this and it was fantastic! Had World War Z been structured similarly, the movie would probably have appeased a lot more fans.

While World War Z is absolutely a zombie movie, it doesn't revolve specifically around the zombies being gross and killing people. That is present and there is plenty of it, but the movie focuses primarily on the outbreak and public panic. There's a crisis and people panic and there are innumerable complications that arise from it; stampeding panicked mobs, traffic jams, looting stores for medicines and emergency supplies, people so on edge that they accidentally kill each other for fear that someone might be a zombie, etc. This is played out really well; it's actually more unsettling to watch society collapse under insane panic than it is to see a twitchy, screeching zombie tackle someone to the ground and bite into them.

Fans of blood and gore horror movies will probably be a bit disappointed with World War Z; there is hardly any blood and gore in the movie. Generally zombie movies will focus a lot on the violence and try to generate some kind of shock value from  seeing limbs torn off or blood gush and splatter from wounds. Yes, I suppose that can be fun for some viewers, but again the zombie mayhem wasn't the primary focus in the movie. This easily could have achieved an R rating by focusing more on individuals resisting zombie attacks and the bloody conflict that would ensue, but the movie has a broader scope. Taking the time to focus on the open wounds of a few individuals would have detracted from the macro-level scale of the film. It also kept the film in the much more marketable rating of PG-13. Besides, zombie blood and gore effects are so simple to make that even low-budget independent films can pull it off easily. Having a zombie film without those sorts of effects and still manage to put audiences on edge suggests that the director, Marc Forster, did an excellent job.

I loved the mood of World War Z. It was remarkably tense. I've had several people say they haven't been so on edge during a film since they saw Ridley Scott's Alien movie. I have to agree! The movie focuses a lot on mood and atmosphere and amps up the tension substantially. Many contemporary horror movies don't focus enough on creating that sense of dread and palpable foreboding. Not only did World War Z do this, it did it very well! There's a scene where Gerry has to navigate through a building full of dormant zombies and the slightest stimulus will wake them. Every little sound is like a death sentence. That is what horror movies are supposed to be like and this movie achieves that sense of tension exquisitely.

The mood, setting, and tension are beautifully done, but the script and characters are kind of flimsy. The script does an excellent job of establishing the world setting and the "rules" for its particular brand of zombies. The story itself is pretty repetitive. Gerry arrives at a place that has the situation mostly under control, and then all hell breaks loose. He arrives somewhere else that is reasonably calm and contained, then things fall apart. It sticks to a fairly predictable pattern throughout the movie. The characters weren't developed in much detail. Sure, Brad Pitt plays his role well, but the character isn't very deep. His family members even less so. I wouldn't really have cared had his family died at the beginning of the movie. Gerry's wife seems to be present exclusively for the purpose of having Gerry call her between scenes to let her know he's still alive. Again, the movie is focusing primarily on the setting and atmosphere, but I think the overall quality of the film would have been improved if Gerry at least had been fleshed out more as a character.

The special effects were pretty impressive for the most part. Yes, there are scenes that are obviously achieved by CGI, but for the most part, it all looks pretty convincing. My favorite scene is in Jerusalem where countless hoards of zombies are trying to get over the large wall built around the city and they mindlessly pile on top of each other trying to chase a single target. The zombies actually pour into the city looking for all the world like a cascading river of bodies flooding the streets. What's more, the scene takes place during the day where nothing is left to the obscurity of darkness. It's incredible to watch and made me wish each shot would last a little longer so I could just watch and appreciate how amazing the movement and detail is.

If you are a fan of the World War Z book, you really should try to distance yourself from the book and just go watch the movie. It's pretty good on its own even if it has little to do with the book. The setting is remarkable, the tension is palpable, the visual effects are excellent and have made World War Z one of the most expensive zombie films to date. The story and characters are a bit weak, but most everything else in the movie is pretty solid. If you've read the book or even Brooks' The Zombie Survival Guide (both of which I recommend), you may notice some subtle references in the movie here and there. I think the World War Z movie will ultimately be accepted into the zombie movie cannon. I recommend seeing World War Z, but it can probably wait for a home video release; the cinematography is good, but I don't think it gains anything significant by being on a big screen.

Here's the trailer for World War Z so you can catch a brief shot of that cascading river of bodies scene:

What is your favorite zombie movie? Comment below and tell me why!

28 Days Later Movie Review

Danny Boyle is responsible for some great and critically acclaimed films which include 127 Hours (2010) and Slumdog Millionaire (2008). Once, while discussing zombies with friends, I was shamed for not having seen Danny Boyle’s 28 Days Later (2002). Apparently you can’t discuss zombies with any kind of authority without having seen it. I managed to see it recently; now I can talk about zombies.

British animal liberation activists break into a laboratory in Cambridge to free some chimpanzees being used for medical research. A scientist begs them not to free the chimps because they are infected with a virus that causes rage. He is ignored and the chimps escape. Twenty-eight days later, a young man named Jim (Cillian Murphy) awakens from a coma, alone, and in an abandoned hospital. He wanders out to find London completely empty. Jim draws the attention of some zombie-like humans who begin chasing after him. He’s rescued by Selena (Naomie Harris) and Mark (Noah Huntley) who explain about the rage virus and how it has decimated the country in a matter of days. They meet up with man named Frank (Brendan Gleeson) and his daughter Hannah (Megan Burns) who are following a radio broadcast promising a cure for the virus. When they reach the source of the radio, they find some corrupt renegade military personnel, lead by Major Henry West (The Doctor Christopher Eccleston). The military platoon quickly proves as much a threat as the rage-zombies.

Zombies have become such a common theme in movies, literature, comic books, and video games that I’m starting to wonder why people in zombie movies don’t seem to know what zombies are when they see them. I know several real people who have zombie survival strategies planned out, yet no one in movies or video games ever seems to have heard of zombies.

I don’t recall hearing the word “zombie” in 28 Days Later. I think that’s a good thing; actually calling them “zombies” would have weakened the movie and made it seem cliché. The infected weren’t your average zombies. They weren’t shambling, decomposing corpses; they were awake, alert, and filled with uncontrollable rage. The rage virus had more of a psychological effect than a physiological one. This seemed like a modern metaphor for social rage (road rage, air rage, etc). Rather than having a virus that kills victims and turns them into monsters, the virus amplifies something negative that is already in each and every person to levels beyond their control. Having the existing negative qualities deteriorate us into monsters is much more disquieting, I think.

Good science fiction makes commentary on contemporary issues in a unique, metaphorical way. The drive behind classic zombie movies revolved around fear of nuclear power and its possible ramifications. I think the rage-virus is more applicable to this generation; society seems much more frightened of disease than of nuclear power. Just think of the real world reactions to anthrax bioterrorism, the bird flu, swine flu, mad cow disease, and foot-and-mouth disease. Does a viral outbreak really terrify us these days more than a nuclear holocaust?

I could go on about the social commentary derived from this excellent film, but how does it stand as a zombie movie? Pretty darn well. Even if you just want to watch a movie about a few people struggling to survive a zombie apocalypse, 28 Days Later is a good movie to watch. It’s got a fairly small cast which gives the movie ample amount of time to develop the characters into people we care about. We even see them spiral downward from a civilized state into a survivalist mentality that doesn’t differentiate them much from the rage-zombies they are trying to avoid, even without becoming infected. And there is plenty of blood splattering gore to appease fans of zombies and the horror genre.

Parts of 28 Days Later are so obviously cheap that it is sometimes distracting. A lot of the sets were claustrophobically small; there even was a scene filmed with a Canon XL1 digital camcorder that anyone could get on Amazon.com. However, in spite of its low production budget, the movie is so well executed that you can’t help but get drawn into it. You become aware of how cheap the movie is only fleetingly, and then get sucked back into the film right away.

This movie is really great; Zombie mayhem, some excellent actors portraying good characters, social allegory, suspense, and fun, unabashed violence. I wouldn’t recommend this to younger audiences; the imagery gets pretty intense. I cringed watching it and occasionally had to hide under my zombie-proof blanket. 28 Days Later was a fun zombie flick to watch and was highly satisfying. I’m looking for a copy on Blu-Ray for my shelf.

There are lots of types of zombies in movies and video games. What’s your favorite kind and where are they from? Comment below; let’s talk zombies!