Never in my lifetime would I have expected to see Brad Pitt, a major talent and one of the biggest household names in Hollywood, not only star in, but produce a big-budget zombie film. And never in my life would I have thought that it would be a disappointment.
World War Z, based on the best-selling book by Max Brooks (son of Mel Brooks), is the story of a large-scale zombie pandemic and how the world reacts to it. After Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt) and his family escape from the flesh-eating chaos which has consumed Philadelphia and almost every other major city, they are taken to a U.N.-protected ship. Lane is thrown back into the job from which he retired, using that know-how to help figure out where the zombie virus came from, and, more importantly, how to stop it.
That’s great. There are just a few problems . . . .
One, the filmmakers, in all of their infinite wisdom, never bother telling us what it is Mr. Lane does for a living. Whatever it is, it’s obviously very important. We know he’s not a doctor, as he only has a handful of medical experience and training, and he wrote a book. Aside from that, who the hell is he? We make such a big deal about this guy and getting his family safely onto this chopper because of what he does, and . . . what does he do again?
That MASSIVE, UNFORGIVABLE PROBLEM aside, this film really doesn’t cover new territory within the zombie subgenre at all. Which is a huge shame. We see the same chase from 28 Days Later seen up a flight of tenant-building stairs, or the same zombie-infested hospital we’ve seen time and time again. Seeing zombies in a plane is pretty cool, but that wears off quickly and is under-used.
Character in general seems to be an issue here. All the other characters are really flat, including Lane’s wife and the mysterious CIA operative who is somehow still in prison for selling guns (you’re just going to leave this guy in there?). The film tries to mask that by giving certain characters weird, out-there philosophies (like the goofy-ass doctor who equates Mother Nature to being a serial killer—give me a break, please).
You had so much potential here. It’s a global stage for one of my favorite genres that ultimately leads to nothing. It’s a dead end.
Additionally speaking, I’ve heard some people say the film is unfaithful to the book. Now, I own the book, and as of this review haven’t read it. I did read an earlier draft of the film’s script, and there seems to be a day-and-night difference between the two drafts. I have a feeling that if you were to combine both stories you’d have a pretty cool concept.
But we don’t. We have this. It’s an entertaining ride for a few minutes, until the ride derails. The end result is a movie that is going to leave people saying something stupid like, “Zombies as a genre can’t be done anymore because we’ve covered all the territory there is to cover.”
SPOILER ALERT: The film ends with Brad Pitt injecting a mysterious virus/bacteria into his arm, which magically does nothing to him but saves the day. What did he inject into his arm? I mean, this could have been herpes for God’s sake. Just a line addressing what it was would have been fine. I’m not asking for the world here.
If you want to like this movie, fine. I’m not trying to keep you from having a good time at the movies. I want you to have a good time. But people should be more intentional about scrutinizing films they watch. That’s how progress is made, by scrutinizing. You should question why things happen in movies the way they do. Everyone seems so desperate to want to have a good time at the movies that they’re willing to do anything, including take the opiates of the “suspension of disbelief.” But that’s wrong.
Why should you have to pay money to work to enjoy something? If you’re paying someone money for a service, shouldn’t that service come to you? Or should we have to keep wading through the nonsense of a motion picture just to have five, maybe ten minutes of a good time?
