World War Z 2013 Movie Dawnload
WORLD WAR Z 2013
Director:Marc Forster
Writers:Matthew Michael Carnahan,Drew Goddard,Damon Lindelof
Stars:Brad Pitt,Mireille Enos,Daniella Kertesz
WORLD WAR Z 2013 Review
"World War Z" plays as if someone watched 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." Which is another way of saying that if you need proof that sometimes more can be less, here you go. Directed by Marc Forster and written by everyone in Hollywood, if rumors are to be believed (though three got credit), this adaptation of Max Brooks' oral history of a zombie apocalypse...Hold on. I'm sorry, but before we take this movie apart, let's take a closer look at that last phrase: "oral history of a zombie apocalypse." Those six words tell you everything this film gave up by going in a conventional direction. I've never read Brooks' book and don't have any immediate plans to, but the notion of telling this tale in a roundabout way, by having survivors of the conflagration sit there and talk to an unseen cameraperson—perhaps against a plain black background, with or without cutaways to still photographs or "news video"—is electrifying to consider. Such an approach might have yielded the first fresh contribution to the zombie picture since "Rec".
The latter viewed an undead attack through the eye of a home video camera and treated the result as "found footage" -- a great post-"Blair Witch" embellishment, considering how much of horror's effectiveness lies in what you don't see. A faithful transcription of Brooks' source might have taken fright-film minimalism even further. What better way to amplify the hideousness of the dead attacking the living than by fixing a camera's unblinking eye on the survivors as they talked about the homes and people and limbs they lost in the struggle? A friend who's heard the audiobook version of "World War Z" said it reminded her of old time radio drama: "Theater of the mind," she said.
"World War Z," in contrast, is just bloody eye and ear candy. I realize it's problematic to review a film on the basis of what it might have been, but when that same film substitutes a vision that's vastly less intriguing and original than the one offered by its source, it's a fair tactic, and what's onscreen here is just another zombie picture, gigantic but otherwise unremarkable. It's not that scary until you get to the end. Ironically, what makes the end work is its embrace of old fashioned zombie film values: intimacy, silence, suggestion, and the strategic deployment of boredom to lull viewers into complacency and set them up for the next big scare.
"World War Z," in contrast, is just bloody eye and ear candy. I realize it's problematic to review a film on the basis of what it might have been, but when that same film substitutes a vision that's vastly less intriguing and original than the one offered by its source, it's a fair tactic, and what's onscreen here is just another zombie picture, gigantic but otherwise unremarkable. It's not that scary until you get to the end. Ironically, what makes the end work is its embrace of old fashioned zombie film values: intimacy, silence, suggestion, and the strategic deployment of boredom to lull viewers into complacency and set them up for the next big scare.
"World War Z" is mostly David Lean-on-caffeine panoramas of computer-generated zombies swarming ant-like up walls and over barricades and taking down computer-generated choppers while Forster's close-up camera swings all over the place to generate unearned "excitement." The final setpiece watches three people sneak into a lab that's overrun by a few dozen sleepy and distracted flesh-snackers. It's slow. It's quiet. It's scary. It works. Sometimes when you re-invent the wheel, the result doesn't get you very far.
Comments
Post a Comment