.jpg)
Review Of World War Z
Review Of World War Z
Same as the hollywood has been filled with pandemics and zombies, here is another Mark Forster's WORLD WAR Z which is going to notch higher the obsession giving you epic scaled, fast paced zombie invasion movie that is extremely gripping and fully entertaining.
This movie has everything a zombie blockbuster can be expected to has from the origin of virus, after effects, destruction caused, investigation involved to solve the crises. Some moments Forster gave over than what was needed.
The film is impressive in its big set pieces. The initial panic on the streets of Philadelphia is thrilling, as is the fall of Jerusalem to the undead horde and an airborne sequence that might easily have been called Zombies On A Plane.
But the film is horrifyingly feeble when it comes to characterisation. All we know about Pitt’s Gerry is that he loves his family, but no one has given this hero any exceptional qualities. The same goes for the other characters: as uninteresting a lot as I’ve seen in a disaster movie.
World War Z had what might euphemistically be called a troubled history, with producer-star Pitt publicly at odds with Forster, who shows here once again that he is more confident with small-scale projects (such as Finding Neverland) than action adventures.
After negative reaction within the studio, the final 40 minutes were rewritten and reshot, at an unprecedented cost of £125 million. It’s hard to know where the money went. The climactic sequence inside a Welsh research laboratory looks about as lavish as the average episode of Doctor Who. Pitt introduced the screening I attended and called the film ‘original’ and ‘genre-bending’. If only it were.
If you’ve read Max Brooks’s original book, published in 2006, you will know that Pitt’s character is a UN worker trying to piece together the truth from a variety of sources.
Disappointingly, the final product is much more conventional than the book. Brooks’s purpose was to satirise the bungling of government, the excesses of survivalism at all costs and the dangers of corporate power. He took a particularly cynical stance on George W. Bush’s ‘shock and awe’ tactics in Iraq; like Muslim extremists, his zombies are too obsessed with slaughter to be shocked or awed.
In the book, the zombie virus spreads from China via refugees and an illicit trade in human organs. Pakistan and Iran destroy each other in a nuclear dispute over border controls, while Cuba becomes the world’s most thriving economy.
The people at Paramount evidently think all this political stuff is too difficult for a cinema audience. Maybe they’re also nervous about how it might go down in China, Pakistan and Iran.
So they’ve played safe, cut it all out and turned the story into a one-man triumph for an American UN operative blessed with movie-star looks.
World War Z isn’t terrible. Parts are impressive and exciting. But the incredibly long distance it falls short of its source material means it is a woefully wasted opportunity.
It has been estimated that the movie will have to gross £350 million merely to break even. Yet its lack of ingenuity and personality — all avoidable at the script stage — means it has virtually no chance of making that back.
 |
Last year’s most under-performing blockbuster, John Carter, is said to have lost Disney more than £125 million and resulted in regime change in the studio. If I were a senior Paramount executive, I would be afraid. Very, very afraid.
0 comments: