Respond to these rapid questions in our World War Z quiz and we will tell you which World War Z character you are. Play it now.
A similar scenario could be imagined if someone saw the similar “28 Days Later” and thought, “That was a good movie, but it would be better if it cost $200 million, there were armies of zombies, and the hero were perfect and played by Brad Pitt.” This is exactly what happens in “World War Z.” Which is another way of saying that if you’re looking for evidence that sometimes more is less, look no further than this. If rumors are to be believed (though only three writers were given credit), this adaptation of Max Brooks’ oral history of a zombie apocalypse will be directed by Marc Forster and written by everyone in Hollywood.
Hold on a minute. Excuse me, but before we dissect this film, let’s take a closer look at the last phrase: “oral history of the zombie apocolypse.” I’m sorry for bringing this up, but it’s important to understand what that phrase means. Those six words encapsulate everything that this film sacrificed by taking a more conventional path. It excites me to think about telling this story in a roundabout way, with survivors of the conflagration sitting there and talking to an unseen cameraperson—perhaps against a plain black background, with or without cutaways to still photographs or “news video”—which is something I’ve never done before and have no plans to do in the near future. Such an approach could have resulted in the first new zombie film since “Rec” in terms of originality. Because so much of horror’s effectiveness lies in what you don’t see, the latter approached an undead attack through the lens of a home video camera and treated the result as “found footage” — a great post-“Blair Witch” embellishment, given how much of the genre’s effectiveness lies in what you don’t see. A more accurate transcription of Brooks’ source could have pushed the boundaries of fright-film minimalism even further. The survivors’ stories of their homes, loved ones, and limbs lost in the battle were amplified even further by a camera’s unblinking eye fixed on them as they spoke about the horror of the dead attacking the living. The audiobook version of “World War Z” was described as “theater of the mind” by a friend who had listened to it. “It reminded me of old time radio drama,” she said.
“World War Z,” on the other hand, is nothing more than bloodthirsty visual and auditory entertainment. To judge a film on the basis of what it could have been is difficult, but when a film replaces an original vision with one that is far less intriguing and original than the one offered by its source, it is a reasonable strategy. What’s onscreen here is just another zombie movie, a massive but otherwise unremarkable production. Until you get to the end, it’s not that frightening. Contrary to popular belief, what makes the film work in the end is its embrace of classic zombie film values such as intimacy, silence, and suggestion, as well as the strategic deployment of boredom to lull viewers into complacency and prepare them for the next big scare. While Forster’s close-up camera swings all over the place to generate unearned “excitement,” the majority of “World War Z” is composed of David Lean-style panoramas of computer-generated zombies swarming ant-like up walls and over barricades and taking down computer-generated choppers. The final setpiece sees three people sneak into a lab that has been overrun by a few dozen flesh-snackers who are both sleepy and disinterested. It’s a slow process. It’s very quiet. It’s a little frightening. It is effective. When you try to re-invent the wheel, you may find that the result does not take you very far.
But you shouldn’t waste any more time and start this World War Z quiz.
Gerry Lane is played by Brad Pitt, a former United Nations field agent who has retired to spend more time with his wife Karin (Mirelle Enos) and their two charming daughters, who are also played by Brad Pitt. Basically, he’s the same as every other character played by Robert Redford in the 1970s and ’80s: noble, brave, calm in a crisis, endlessly resourceful, kind to his spouse and children, respectful of authority but not slavishly so, independent-minded but not arrogant; a complete snooze. We should give credit to Forster and his collaborators for putting us right in the middle of the action: the Lanes discover that society is collapsing when a seemingly ordinary urban traffic jam is jolted into surreality by an explosion, a stampede of terrified civilians and their vehicles, and a furious attack by people who have been infected by a virus that has turned them into ravenous ghouls. (I’m not sure about the specifics, but I believe they are ghouls in this film, rather than just rabid and homicidal mortals, as in the “Days” films.) The rest of the film is a globetrotting medical mystery that just so happens to involve zombies, with Lane and a slew of other characters, some of whom are military and others scientific, attempting to figure out what caused the disease and how to combat it before the undead take over the entire world. It’s similar to “Contagion” or “The Andromeda Strain,” but with zombies instead of humans, and with less panache.
World War Z Quiz
Despite the fact that Mirielle Enos’ abilities are underutilized (she currently stars in a police procedural on television, but this Hollywood film is content to cast her as a standard-issue Dutiful Wife), there are some amusing cameos and supporting performances. Daniella Kertesz as Segan, an Israeli soldier whose unwavering spirit helps the hero save the day despite the fact that she has suffered unimaginable trauma, is one of the film’s standout performances, along with David Morse’s one scene as a twitchy, traumatized CIA agent who knows something about the origin of the disease and James Badge Dale as a U.S. Special Forces captain whose gung-ho competence is no match for the zombie
Also, you will find out which character are you in this World War Z quiz.
However, with the exception of Segan, none of the characters rise above the level of purely functional placeholder-types, and there are far too many scenes that repeat zombie film tropes, minus the passion and innovation that other films have brought to the task in previous films. In the case of a supporting character who becomes infected and “turns,” I was reminded of the brilliant sequence in “28 Days Later” in which Brendan Gleeson’s jovial father gets a drop of contaminated blood in his eye and battles the virus while his daughter watches. In less than a minute, the poor bastard goes through the full spectrum of existential crisis. Rarely has the sheer terror of losing one’s soul been conveyed in such a concise and effective manner. Nothing in “World War Z” comes close to the emotional impact of that scene.
About the quiz
Forster deserves some credit, I suppose, for figuring out how to make a PG-13 zombie film without completely softening the subject matter. However, despite the fact that horrific violence occurs off-camera or below the frame line, it does not lack in impact. Gerry gets too close to a walker who has snicker-snack rat-teeth near the end of the film. This is one of the most chillingly good scenes in the film. However, in other cases, you may feel as though the essence of a genre has been betrayed. Forster has created a zombie film that will appeal to those who are not fans of the genre. The kind of accomplishment that should be celebrated is not this.Also, you must try to play this World War Z quiz.
For more personality quizzes check this: World War Z Quiz.
