Review of World War Z (2013) by Kevbo85 — 18 Sep 2013

Your enjoyment of World War Z doesn't hinge solely on your enjoyment of the book which it claims to be based on, but owes it to anyone who has read the book to disclaim "loosely based". That being said, if you've read the book beforehand, the trailers alone should let you know that the film is going in wholly different direction that Max Brooks laid out in his novel.

I am a huge fan of the zombie franchise, which George Romero essentially put a patent on and dozens of films have branched off from over the years. What "World War Z" does is attempt to mesh the behavioral patterns of the "28 Days Later" infected undead (I refuse to call them zombies, zombies are the slow, shuffling Romero staple) with the essential ideas behind Brooks' book. It does this admirably, but it's a direction that ultimately didn't need to be taken in order to make the film successful. In my mind, it felt like a lazy way of telling a story that builds itself up, cutting time off of the reel in favor of a more fast-paced, energized film experience.

Being a huge fan of the book, I refused to shell out the $10 to see it in the theaters; as I said, the trailers told me clearly that the film was going to diverge far enough from the book for me to lower my expectations. As a rental, and for what it is, it's nowhere near terrible. Remove all comparisons to the book it takes minor inspirations from, and Brad Pitt does a solid job of weaving his way through a decently scripted and constructed horror film.

This ended up being Pitt's highest grossing film to date, and a combination of factors play into that, not least of which being a rather stale list of opposing options in theaters at the time of its release. Still, it's an enjoyable film, however far it deviates from the source material, and however ridiculous some of us may think calling something that runs a zombie. Could have been better...and could have been a whole lot worse.