Zombie-A-Thon #4 - World War Z (2013)

World War Z - based very loosely on the book of the same name by Max Brooks - wants to be an epic action movie with horror overtones. Taking place in the early days of a global zombie apocalypse, it fails to be much of an epic, horror or otherwise. Even without the large-scale action scenes that were central to the marketing of the film, the movie could still have worked. That would require a coherent story and acting that rises above the level of bland competence; neither of these things are evident.

Synopsis

The story follows Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt), a former United Nations investigator. It's never exactly clear what kind of "investigator" he is; based on dialogue, I assumed war crimes or human rights abuses. What matters is that he was the best at his job. Retired and living with his wife (Mireille Enos) and children (Abigail Hargrove, Sterling Jerins) in Philadelphia, the film wastes no time dropping them into the middle of the zombie holocaust as the city rapidly descends into chaos. After escaping with his family, he is recruited by what's left of the UN to find the source of the zombie plague. Leaving his family behind on a US Navy vessel, he travels to South Korea, Israel and Wales. While never finding the source of the plague, he does find a way to give mankind a fighting chance at defeating the undead.

Anaylsis

Told in that form - a one paragraph synopsis - the movie doesn't sound too bad. Unfortunately, the story is full of holes, the dialogue is boring, and the actors - when they are given anything to do - seem disinterested in actually performing.

Before going into those issues, the first thing look at is the much touted "epic scope" of the film. The pre-release buzz - and the trailers - implied a zombie movie on a huge scale (it is called World War Z, after all). What is actually on screen, however, is not much of an epic. Looking at the settings for the scenes gives a good idea of the limited nature of the film. From the beginning, we see:

• a generic suburb and house interiors;
• a generic city street, with some establishing shots showing the city is Philadelphia;
• driving along a generic highway and the interior of an RV;
• a brief aerial shot of New York City with CGI smoke and flames;
• interior shots in supermarket;
• night scenes in the streets of Newark (we're told it's Newark) and interiors in a dark apartment building;
• CGI of a UN naval flotilla and interiors in a ship. Throughout the movie shipboard scenes take place in four different sets - a bunk-room, a mess hall, a command center and on the deck;
• interiors in a plane, exteriors at a US base in South Korea - all at night and in the rain, so, basically, most of the screen is black - and a few rooms in a building on the base;
• interior of a plane's cockpit;
• a large-scale sequence set in Jerusalem, with multiple exteriors, all during the day, and fighting through the streets of Jerusalem;
• more aircraft interiors;
• a few exteriors in Wales - basically walking across the countryside and through a deserted town;
• a number of interiors set in a World Health Organization research center, which looks like a generic office building or a standard movie laboratory;
• and, finally, a brief scene set at beach in Nova Scotia, where the family is reunited.

And that's it. Other than the Jerusalem sequence (about 20 minutes long) nothing in this movie suggests an epic scope. Things that might have been interesting to see - the failed attempt to hold Washington DC, for example - are just mentioned, occurring off-screen. There are shots of maps with bright red splotches over the cities that have been lost to the zombies; but, we are never shown what's actually happening in those cities. Much of the movie is in tight, generic interiors: the RV, the apartment building, the ships and planes, the entire third act in the WHO facility. There is a sense of visually interesting things happening off-screen - A-10s flying overhead as Gerry and family drive out of Philadelphia, a nuke going off in the distance as Gerry flies from South Korea to Jerusalem - but there is no payoff. Even the Jerusalem sequence, which comes closest to delivering a visually impressive, large-scale zombie attack, is limited. There is a neat scene of zombies climbing over each other to scale a wall surrounding Jerusalem, a few scenes of waves of zombies filling the narrow streets, a bus overturning as a mob of the undead spill over it; but, that's it. This part of the film does hint at what the "epic" version could have been like and makes the third act even more visually drab.

The film was originally conceived around three escalating spectacles. The first, the attack in Philadelphia. The second, the siege of Jerusalem. And, the finale, a massive battle in the heart of Moscow. The problem: with the scenes in Philadelphia (and Newark) not being very impressive and with the final part of the film becoming much smaller in scope (a fight within a building instead of retaking a city), this escalation does not happen.

Even without the visual thrills, the movie still could have been worthwhile if the story had been coherent or the actors more engaged. However, this is not the case. Things just happen to push the story forward, whether they make sense or not. For example, Elyes Gabel is introduced at the end of the first act as Andrew Fassbach, a virologist who goes to South Korea with Gerry. He exists solely to deliver a little exposition and then accidentally shoots himself in the head. Unless this was supposed to be a bit of slapstick humor, then the audience reaction that I experienced - laughter - was probably not what the film-makers intended. But, he had served his story purpose. There is nothing wrong with having supporting characters who are there to provide plot points; but this was so perfunctory and the method of removing him from the story was so ludicrous, it brought the viewers out of the story.

The film might still have worked if it had memorable character moments, rather than epic visuals. These character moments do not exist. Other than Gerry, none of the characters are developed. The main supporting character, an Israeli soldier named Segen (Daniella Kertesz) has no personality, is given no background and has few lines of dialogue. It is unclear what her purpose in the film is. It appears that her character was given more to do (and was better developed) in the original third act; as it is, she serves no purpose.

A major sub-plot is Gerry's attachment to his family, who have been left in military care while he heads off on his mission. Since none of them are developed, there is no emotional resonance when he expresses reluctance at leaving them or when he is afraid for them, after they are relocated from the ship to Nova Scotia. Gerry could just as easily have been single and the general plot of the film wouldn't have changed at all. Except, of course, for losing a pointless subplot involving getting asthma medication for one of the the daughters that pads out the first act, as well as the plot-point that he will only help the UN if they keep his family on-board one of the ships. Even this threat is hollow. When the family is eventually sent off the ship to a refugee camp in Nova Scotia we don't see them again until the end of the file. They're fine and there's no indication that they were ever in danger.

Could this story, even with these flaws, still have been engaging? Perhaps; but, that would have required a more engaged cast and developed characters. No one seems to be particularly involved in the movie. Brad Pitt seems to have spent all of his emotional energy on getting the film made. He turns in a bland performance, one with little energy. While he can turn in intense performances (12 Monkeys, Fight Club) here he slips into a generic "reluctant hero" mode. It's not a bad performance; but, like the rest of the film, it has a distinct "going through the motions" feel to it. For some of the actors - like Kertesz - it may be a function of having little to do or say. Others appear to have had their roles significantly cut (Matthew Fox's role, for example, was almost completely removed once the third act changed). And some are just oddly written. The most obvious is that of Thomas, a young boy rescued from the apartment building in Newark and adopted into Gerry's family. The problem; he has just witnessed his entire family being killed by zombies, but seems to suffer no trauma from this. Not that it matters much; after the first act, he is forgotten about until briefly reappearing at the end of the film.

Notes

Being a glutton for punishment, when I saw that Netflix is running the unrated version, I decided to check it out. Aside from a little more blood and a handful of character moments that mostly go nowhere - with the exception of a brief expansion of David Morse's role as a CIA agent who explains how North Korea has survived and tells Gerry where to go next - this is more of the same. If you haven't seen the movie, want to and have Netflix (or Amazon Prime; I think they are running the unrated version as well) you might as well check this version out. It's marginally better.

Of course, marginally better than terrible is still...terrible.

Verdict

A film can be carried by stunning visuals. It can also be carried by a gripping story or great acting. When a film has none of these, when it comes across as flaccid studio product, thrown out like chum into the summer film-going waters, then it it not worth seeing. And World War Z has to rate as an overall failure, as both story and spectacle.