‘WWZ’ greatly diverges from source material, but fun in itself
“World War Z,” the latest version of the zombie/infected craze to hit the big screen, epitomizes the phrase “based on.” In this instance, we’re talking loosely “based on.” And that’s being generous.
But don’t let that (or the 3-D) distract you. Yes, the film adaptation of “World War Z” and its source material — the 2006 novel “World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War” by Max Brooks — have about as much in common as Democrats and Republicans. And for ardent fans of the book, that may be a bridge too far.
But let it be known, for those who were wondering how the documentary-style book was going to be converted into a summer zombie fest, you just may be surprised.
The novel on which the movie is based details an apocalyptic war through the recounted tales of survivors against a zombie infestation. The film, starring a surprisingly effective Brad Pitt, strips the long-winded-ness of the book and replaces it with a fleet narrative: Gerry Lane (Pitt) searches for answers as to why somehow-infected undead creatures are viciously attacking and then infecting — with “what” still the big unknown here — any human within biting distance.
Director Marc Forster doesn’t give us a scenic entrance into this nightmare. We’re dropped off from the start right in the middle of a quickly deteriorating Philadelphia, and the action is almost nonstop from there. Lane’s family fights to survive the first night, holding out hope his former United Nations colleague, Under Secretary Thierry Umutoni (Fana Mokoena), can evacuate him, his wife (Mireille Enos) and his two daughters. The price for that safety: Lane, who stopped being a U.N. investigator in order to spend time with his family, has to leave his family in order to investigate the outbreak.
The goal is simple, really: Find the cause (or Patient Zero, if you will). However, we all know that’s not going to be so easy. Lane teams up (after some less-than-veiled threats) with scientists and military personnel from across the world to find answers and, more importantly, to protect his family.
As in the book, it’s the details that matter here. The seemingly unnoticeable acts play a large role in Lane’s endeavors to stop the craze. But those finite observations only work when seen in a larger context. In contrast, the world’s smartest scientists banter over the phrase “zombie” without ever doing much about it. It’s a striking difference nicely highlighted.
That’s clever dialogue dispersed throughout the film (one of the most notable being a small rant by a virologist about how Mother Nature is a serial killer; it’s a bit disturbing, if only because it’s more or less true). As a whole, the film is atypically intelligent for a zombie movie. You more often than not find yourself suspending your disbelief simply because the logic makes a dark kind of sense. That, and because the film moves at a brisk clip.
The film style, for the most part, holds your attention, though the 3-D does seem like a bit of an afterthought. There’s plenty of tight editing and several jump scares scattered throughout. Director Forster does well in keeping your eyes on the small things, rather than any expansive, Michael Bay-like showstoppers. It’s a relief, to be honest, in today’s world of “more is better.” As for the zombies themselves, you’ve seen them before. Nothing special there.
As for flaws, “WWZ” has its share. That brisk clip rarely allows for any connection to anyone other than Lang and his family, or any emotion to be fully developed by the supporting cast. There are some interesting characters — from a boy who flees from his murderous, infected parents to the tough-as-nails, female Israeli soldier (Daniella Kertesz) who joins Lang on his travels — we don’t get to know as much as we may like.
But wouldn’t that be the reality of such a situation? These types of stories tend to focus on the lost of a loved one (either through attack or having to fell the infected ones) in tense, personal terms. Look at “The Walking Dead.” The most intriguing aspects involve the main group and the misery and success that befalls it. In “WWZ,” that group veneer is stripped clean off, because no one particularly cares about anyone else here, and when they do, it never ends well. Take that for what you will, but it does possess a certain romance to it (“no good dead goes unpunished”).
Either way you look at it, “World War Z” is interesting, which is more than you can say for plenty of other films, and Brad Pitt deftly filled the role as action hero/possible franchise lead. It’s a bit uneven in its execution, and its soft ending leaves a bit of a stale (maybe even undead?) taste in your mouth, but it’s a solid effort at recreating a premise that wasn’t necessarily made for film. It definitely beats getting eaten by a zombie, that’s for sure.
Three glassy-eyed stars out of five.
Silver Screening Reviews 