It's blockbuster season, we've had Iron Man 3, Star Trek, Man of Steel and now joining the list is World War Z. At least World War Z saves us from another terrorist/American domestic terror plot that's been very common in this season of blockbuster films.Instead of deranged terrorists, we have nature unleashing a plague of super fast zombies out to eat our flesh 'cause we never listened to those eco-warriors.
Fortunately the UN, not Team America this time, has a scheme to save all of us and this will need Brad Pitt's character Gerry Lane; ex-commando-ex UN investigator but now is a stay-at-home dad, who needs to come out of retirement to save the world.
Ja nee, the first hour is actually good, it's the second part of the film that's less than inspiring. The first hour has a lot of intrigue, suspense, action and horror to be had. There's something spectacular and epic about seeing the fall of our civilization captured on film. The film is able to capture the "what if" ,on an epic scale,"what if" such a calamity or plague was to occur during our times; how would cities collapse and moral fibre be tossed aside. How would the different regions of the world , react to such a plague.
Watching mass panic as the world collapses and no-one knowing what's happening has its own pleasures of purging some deep seated fears we all have.The fear that one day we may find ourselves facing a plague we don't understand. Probably not in the form of zombies but in our ever-so-connected and global world a plague like the Spanish flu could travel faster now around the world than ever.
When the movie is cooking it feels like The Walking Dead on a grand scale but unfortunately it isn't. Once the set-up is done, the story starts to lose steam; the intrigue, drama, thrills become too one-dimensional. The choice to go with a run-of-the-mill one man on a quest to save the entire world robs the story of it's grand scheme.
Even though we get to travel with Gerry to other lands, the story is constricted by Gerry's perspective. Unlike the source material for the film - the book World War Z, written by Max Brooks, showcases multiple characters with different perspectives from around the world on how they survived the zombie plague.
The film is poor for not having the regional perspective from the people on the ground - we see the world through Gerry. Gerry's story of trying to get back home to his family has been done way too many times and it's not that interesting - including Gerry's character. It's quite telling that the story is thrilling with the set up before the plot of the movie kicks an hour in,this is when Gerry andfamily have no idea of whats going on.
A lot has been said about Fana Mokoena being in the movie, he has a lot of screen time but unfortunately his character does not test the man's acting skills. Actually this film suffers from not having a lot of interesting characters, which includes its lead. The characters are not engaging or illuminating. Matthew Fox, of the series Lost, has a somewhat wonderful short performance as a leader of small band of soldiers in South Korea ,his like the only outstanding performance in a somewhat blend of characters that the film tosses up.
All in all, World War Z could have been something far superior than the commercial shoot em up we get. If only Pitt and company were willing to be brave and gutsy but in the age of pop-corn films that seem to cater for the 12-year-old market we have a film that deals with a global plague and the only interesting thing about it is that the zombies are able to stack-up on each other,ja nee.