United Nations
employee Gerry Lane traverses the world in a race against time to stop the
Zombie pandemic that is toppling armies and governments, and threatening to
destroy humanity itself. Short synopsis of World War Z taken from IMDb.com
Remember when zombie films were low budget? World War Z certainly isn't. It globe trots mightily, staring on the East
Coast of the U.S., then to a rain-soaked locale in South Korea (but it's dark
there when our hero arrives - played affably by Brad Pitt - and so we never see
anything other than a few people who appear
Korean, so really this could have been filmed in Iowa for all we know),
then to Israel, to Wales (I think it was supposed to be Wales... the scenes in
Israel were so stunning, including the iconic human ladder of zombies up the
wall - as seen in the trailer - that I missed where exactly we were going
next), and finally to Nova Scotia (which also could have been anywhere, based
on the ten seconds or so that we see it).
The travel budget for the film was definitely not cheap. The aforementioned over-running of the safe
zone in Israel alone must have cost a fortune to shoot. Thus my previous statement about this not
being a "low budget" zombie movie.
But is it any good?
Well, I thought so. And somewhat
realistic, compared to most "zombie" movies. For one thing, this is a global pandemic, so
globe-trotting is in order. For another,
people move like they would if they were subject to a disease that caused
"zombie-like" symptoms. They
run, for one thing. The classic
shambling zombie is archetypal, but face it, a real human-turned-walking
"dead" would need to use its body for best effect if it was going to perpetuate
itself. And since this is a
disease-based zombie outbreak, our zombies do their thing extremely well.
Brad Pitt, zombie bait? I must confess, I found the movie's resolution a bit Deus Ex Machina, but hey - we gotta wrap this up nice and tidy, now don't we? / Source: tgdaily.com |
For another thing, there is no flesh-eating. People get bit, they get infected (this is
dramatically shown in the opening moments when Brad Pitt character's first encounters the zombies) and turn into
monsters. And then they go looking for
someone else to infect, as fast as they are able. I had read Brooks' other book on zombies before seeing this film; the one that which purports to be a
guide for handling a zombie apocalypse, and this movie both holds up to his
previous statements made in that, and to fairly sensible reasoning, in my
opinion. A zombie apocalypse like this
would be massive and nearly wipe out the human race.
World War Z is
quite exciting, and as I have said, seems to do a good job of staying fairly
well-grounded in the plausible world.
There is one clear screw-up I noted, though it is excusable in my eyes
due to the movie's requisite budget, and then another probable budget-related
error. Both have to do with the various
aircraft used in the film. The first is
the use of a large military cargo plane to transport Brad Pitt to South Korea
and then from there to Israel. This large cargo plane first takes off from a
U.S. Navy aircraft carrier, which is a bit implausible due to the lack of
carrier landing gear equipment on such aircraft, but could possibly be done in
a real emergency (and this scenario seems like it would qualify). Probably with rocket-assist. Would be worth investigating further,
anyway.
A top-down comparison of the C-130 (left) and An-12 (right). The profiles are similar, but you can see some distinct differences. / Source: airvectors.net |
But in the next scene, the plane is flying over the
assembled group of ships, and it has gone from clearly being a U.S. C-130
Hercules to a Soviet/Ukrainian designed and built An-12 Cub. Very similar aircraft, yes, but big
difference. Then a few scenes later, the
plane is seen from behind and its a C-130 again, but then in South Korea and in
Israel, it is a An-12 again. A budget-related
continuity problem, I'm sure.
The other aircraft issue is the fact that the same model of
helicopter is seen throughout the entire film.
I believe it is a French Dauphin type, though I'm not as sharp on
helicopters as I am on fixed wing birds.
This is silly, as the U.S. users would probably be using Blackhawk derivatives. The Israeli helicopters might include this
type, but not surely not exclusively as seen in the film. At the least, U.S. made Apache attack
choppers would be involved in the air-cover of the city (as Israel bought
Apaches from the U.S.). Anyway, both
issues mentioned are probably budget related.
But I am sure that moviemakers on a budget are forced to hope that an
audience member will think that a helicopter is a helicopter, and not mince
over the differences.
What else can be said about World War Z? The ending is
pretty good as well, though a little anti-climactic when compared to the
globe-running zombie-choked mess that we've seen so far. And it stays fairly tidily within its PG-13
rating for a zombie film. There is
little in the way of swearing (though honestly, the plot probably would have
drown my notice; its very edge of your seat stuff), and the blood is
surprisingly scarce for a film about zombies.
For instance, while escaping from the collapsing safe zone in Israel,
Pitt's quick-thinking character saves a young Israeli soldier when a zombie
bites her and then deftly chops her injured hand off. But no blood seen. Just the same, the scene is gut-wrenching. Ouch!
Then later, Pitt dispatches a zombie using a blow to the
head with a crowbar. In the cable TV
series The Walking Dead, this would
be a gory affair, but all we see is Pitt trying desperately to remove the
would-be weapon from his fallen opponent's skull as another zombie charges down
a hall toward him. Still, its tense. A nice example of how a movie can be exciting
and even violent without resorting to gore and such. Just the same, this is definitely a PG-13
movie, and is not recommended for kids.
It's adult material (or mature teenagers), in my opinion.
The bottom line? I
actually liked World War Z, and
thought it was worth the full price ticket admission. Since writing this review, I have heard
complaints about World War Z, and
have actually read the novel it is based upon (and won't go into that now, as
the book, even in abridged form as I listened to it, was much better than the
movie). But still, I'd recommend it
to anyone who is interested in zombie films or disaster films. There is a mild theme running throughout of
self-reliance and being prepared for disasters, but this certainly isn't a bad
thing. Then again, after having read
Brooks' book on surviving a zombie apocalypse, I'd say the plot is fairly
well-thought out, but is dangerously close to taking itself too seriously. If you are a hard-core believer in the coming
zombie apocalypse, you'll eat it up (or again, based on reviews I have seen
since my writing this review, maybe not).
But if you don't buy into such a thing, and think the film takes itself
too seriously, you'll probably feel that it was only an exciting action
movie. Either way, it was worth the
watch, in this reviewer's opinion.
The parting comment:
Source: LOLSnaps.com |
Don't let kids watch zombie movies. They'll just try to eat somebody's brain. Ummm... tasty bwainz...
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments welcome, but moderated. Thanks