Skip to main content

Most people don't believe something can happen until it already has. That's not stupidity or weakness, that's just human nature.


World War Z
(2013)

(SPOILERS) Summer 2013 has proved unfortunately consistent in one key respect so far; movies have engrossed and enthralled for the first half-to-two-thirds of their running time, only to fizzle into narrative incoherence or disappointment during the final act; Oblivion, Star Trek, Man of Steel, now World War Z. Only Iron Man Three is left standing proud. It is never less than apparent that WWZ is no more than a string of well-executed set pieces; an increasingly familiar rendition of the apocalypse on an enormous scale, but with absolutely nothing new to say about it. But it’s still something of a miracle World War Z is as good as it is, given the turbulent production history and its director’s lack of distinction in the action department.


Of course, summer action movies aren’t renowned for social or political commentary even if they are often ripe for discovering such (unintended) subtext. One could even argue that the zombie movie, which under George Romero provided some of the horror genre’s most overt texts for such analysis, has been exhausted of merit. Zombies are just zombies now, validated on the basis of the number of humans they can eviscerate and the amount of blood they can splatter across the camera. There’s no room for the reflections on Vietnam or consumerism found in the earlier films. In a postmodern landscape we have reached the point where the meaning of the undead is the artifact of their undeadness, and their modern incarnation, enabled with a turn of speed, is surely a reflection of this understanding. They have been rendered shallow and purely aesthetic; devised for maximum shock value.


Zack Snyder’s remake of Dawn of the Dead was remarkably effective, for all it’s literalness (the mall is just a mall), particularly in the opening stages of the outbreak; there’s a real sense of an inexorable acceleration towards the end of the world during the scenes before a temporary safe harbour is reached. Snyder’s running zombies took their cues from Danny Boyle’s low budget 28 Days Later (or rather, not zombies but those infected with the “Rage” virus), an effectively relentless little movie. The social allegory of 28 Days is of the most obvious kind (unsurprisingly, since it was written by Alex Garland, known for his subtlety), to the extent that you could argue that any zombie/apocalypse movie is a social allegory by definition. These scripts write themselves, so even if your societal collapse is entirely derivative of other movies depicting societal collapse (a pastiche) you can still claim to be of social relevance.

28 Weeks Later is arguably an even purer synthesis of the modern zombie movie; it opens with its focus on the rot at the heart of family life (Robert Carlyle bitches out and leaves his wife to a zombie death) in an astonishingly effective nightmare sequence. But, after nursing the theme of mistrust and betrayal for a period, it steadily deteriorates into standard shocks and gore.


The latest zombie success story is The Walking Dead. Its an ever-expanding cable phenomonon it seems, but the (for TV) fresh horror trappings belie an extremely traditional core structure (admittedly, I haven’t yet seen Season Three) of soap opera melodrama and inaction; as long as you can punctuate that standing around with a zombie every forty minutes or so, you’re sitting pretty. It doesn’t really matter that the storytelling has hardly moved on from your typical ‘70s TV show.

One aspect of The Walking Dead to note is the producers’ (whoever they are this week) disinterest in exploring the cause of the outbreak. To an extent that’s understandable; they’re focussing on the remnants of humanity and the disintegration of society; shifting to solving the problem would make it a different show (24 with zombies?). As it is, the structure is really not that different to Terry Nation’s ‘70s virus series Survivors (and the recent, merely okay-ish remake). Just with a bit more flesh tearing.


Does this mean there’s nothing left to say in the genre? Possibly it does, at least on the societal angle. All that’s left is the bleeding obvious. One thing I Am Legend got right (and it got a lot of things wrong), at least in the early stages, was that it told the story not of the breakdown of society but of the disintegration of the mind and spirit of one man. Without a distinctive idea for end-of-the-world movies you’re left with perfectly serviceable button pushing; stir-and-repeat fare that becomes cosily familiar in spite of its apparent intent to evoke fear and dread.

That could be why the reaction of those I saw WWZ with was first and foremost one of weary predictability; the word “bored’ was even uttered. My response was more positive, and I had a good time with it for the most part. But I too was left feeling a little deflated come the end, as if something was missing. It’s not the absence of gore, as that’s not really my thing (but I do get that it might be a deal breaker to gore hounds, and an unforgivable sin to show zombies without it). No, it’s the lack of inspiration.

The current trend with the apocalypse, be it on TV or film, is predicated on a number of rather tiresome interpretations. From post-9/11 angst (surely an event that has been used to manufacture and manipulate fear in one form or another far beyond its natural lifespan) to the post-crash exhaustion of capitalist western society (and all we know and hold dear), it’s all rather over-familiar. The problem is that, whilst any given event or circumstance will inevitably feed into a culture’s surrounding art (if you wish to label it that), tales of the apocalypse are invariably saying the same thing in a slightly different form to each successive generation. That’s why there’s a clear connecting line between end-of-the-world stories post-WWII (post-the atomic bomb) and beyond (be they in the horror or science fiction genre). Nothing especially new is being said, but every couple of years we like to reconsider our fears as if these portents have a fresh, marked significance right at this time. In reality, much of the appeal of the apocalyptic scenario is that we will be one of the chosen, one of the survivors, and the solace we take in the end-times comedy of 2012 or the stop-the-contagion of WWZ is that we might be the indestructible John Cusack or Brad Pitt.


Nevertheless, it seemed to me going in that there was a sufficiently distinctive premise to base this movie on, and the trailers had whetted by appetite. So it’s disappointing that, in the end, this potential is squandered by a confused narrative, one that leaves the filmmakers missing the wood for the trees.

The writing credits for WWZ testify to its turbulent transition to screen. J. Michael Straczynski wrote the initial adaptation of Max Brooks’ novel. He was then rewritten by Matthew Michael Carnahan. Finally Damon Lindelof and Drew Goddard came in to reframe the third act (Christopher McQuarrie also did some uncredited work). The Vanity Fair piece is illuminating on the troubled production but Forster’s waffly comments on making a blockbuster with substance highlight how ignorant he is of the history of the zombie genre; he assumes that his facile ideas for it were somehow original and compelling in their own right. Straczynski, a smart guy who occasionally gets carried away (see Babylon 5 for both his best and worst moments) was amusingly dismissive of Forster’s pretensions when he commented that all the director wanted was a big, dumb action movie with huge set pieces.

Which is a pretty fair summary of the finished film. It seems that Carnahan’s draft settled on the final structure, following Brad’s Gerry Lane as he searches for the cure (and as a consequence eviscerating the spine of the novel). It also comprised the originally shot final act which, even in summary, sounds like a complete disaster; Lane ends up in Russia, leading a slave labour force to overcome the zombie hordes and establish himself as some kind of arse-kicking messiah.


So the additions devised by Lindelof (for all the flak he gets) and Goddard make a lot of sense. It’s interesting to learn that the key establishing scene of Lane and his family at breakfast was one of their additions. It’s an easy-going and naturalistic introduction to our protagonist, and it’s vital in holding onto his motivation during the spectacle that follows. So much so that one shudders at how thin Pitt’s character must have felt in the first cut. The spectre of I Am Legend is brought to bear in terms of the original idea of Lane as a zombie nemesis; mythologising the hero’s credentials. But Will Smith’s character was informed by loss, shame and regret; there’s none of that in Gerry Lane.

Lindelof and Goddard also made it vital that Pitt should be reunited with his family at the end. It’s a choice that makes sense but, as it appears on screen, is rather perfunctory. That Forster chooses to finish on a freeze frame, one of the ugliest and most clichéd of devices unless you really know what you’re doing, suggests to me his heart wasn’t really in it. The Vanity Fair piece indicates that he wanted to keep the family separate; apparently he went with the really shitty idea of Matthew Fox’s character – who we see for about two minutes in the movie - holding the family hostage as the set-up for a sequel. The preservation of the family unit is such a familiar peg to hang a movie on (of whatever genre) that it can hardly be called inspired on the part Lindelof and Goddard; commonsensical perhaps, in order to save a sinking ship (The Walking Dead centres much of its (melo)drama on the erosion of, and attempts to cling on to, family values.

The alternative to the “straightforward everyman doing it all for his family” restructuring would surely have been to follow through with the real meat of the premise which, as someone who hasn’t read the novel, seemed to make it distinctive; finding “Patient Zero” and discovering source of the outbreak. A less steroidal, more procedural approach, requiring investigation and the pursuit of well-conceived leads (more in the manner of The Andromeda Strain, Outbreak or Contagion) might have enabled the movie to hold its head up as distinctive from the rest of the shuffling/legging-it zombie fraternity.


And it looks like it might achieve that during the early stages, right up until the virologist manages to shoot himself in the head. It’s a darkly amusing moment, but one that unwisely begins to pile on the all-purpose capability of Gerry. Not only can he handle himself in a tight spot, but he now also assumes the mantle of offering insights into the virus that elude the general scientific community. Additionally, this heralds the end of the investigatory aspect of the film. Gerry travels on to Israel from South Korea, but Patient Zero is cast by the wayside. I suspect this is a consequence of Hollywood’s frequently kneecapping desire for instant franchises; save the discovery for a sequel. But it’s final nail in the coffin of any aspirations to “substance”.


Straczynski’s complaints about Forster’s take on the material are perhaps most singularly evidenced by the form the movie’s zombies take. If the approach of the blockbuster is to stage spectacle on an ever-larger canvas, it’s an inevitable that once shambling antagonists, who had already metamorphosed into talented sprinters, are now hyper-kinetic forces of supernature that can build “human” ladders up the steepest of walls. They’re now an unstoppable insectoid army. Visually, this is an arresting sight (as seen during the Israel sequence) but it’s further evidence of a thought process operating from the outside in. As I said, I have no issue with the absence of grue but it certainly reinforces the feeling that WWZ has been so purpose-built and streamlined that it is shorn of any hard edges. The attitude is; a PG-13 (although tellingly a 15 rather than a 12 in the UK) is designed to encourage the widest possible audience, so who cares if the results disgruntle the very vocal horror faithful?

Yet, for all the advanced bad press and the fears that this would be a horror movie without any balls, there appear to have been relatively few voices claiming it is outright terrible.  Even aside from the watered down horror, I was expecting Forster to make a right botch of the action (how could he not, given the incoherence of Quantum of Solace?). So it’s a pleasant surprise that the tightly wound set-up only begins to unravel after a sterling first hour.


The outbreak in Philadelphia is skillfully escalated, even if it is very resonant of the flashbacks in I Am Legend. And Forster manages the ebbs and flows between mass street carnage and claustrophobic panic on stairwells with seamless aplomb. The “lives of you and your family are only valuable if you’re useful to us” message, once they are evacuated to a naval ship, is refreshingly blunt. And the subsequent trip to South Korea continues to ratchet up the tension. James Badge Dale is making something of a thing of showy cameos at the moment. The resigned, stoic remnants of the army base that Gerry encounters, and then flees, serve to build on the oppressive atmosphere. But the seeds of the less inspired course the film veers off down are also rooted here.  Gerry encounters a toothless CIA guy who conveniently directs him to Israel when Patient Zero proves a dead end. The idea of the entire population of North Korea extracting their teeth to prevent an outbreak is an arresting one but, like so much else here, the original concepts are left in embryonic form while the formulaic ones take precedence.


Come Israel, and it’s another example of an impressive idea that someone hopes no one will really scrutinise. The Israelis, in a remarkable feat of forearming, have built a huge wall to hold back the zombie legions.  As a nod to the unlikeliness of this, Gerry quizzes his Mossad contact. He recounts the report of an outbreak in India that referred to the undead. It seems that a system of “Ten Men” operates. This requires the other nine men listen and respond to the most unlikely possible scenario that it is the responsibility of the tenth man to espouse. In this case it’s the theory that the reports were accurate and there are zombies. And this system is, of course (Hollywood cliché), informed by the hardships encountered historically by the Jewish race. Indeed, this felt like such a silly answer that I wondered if was intended as a sop to Gerry’s line of interrogation. Maybe the Israelis had some actual insight they were choosing not to reveal. It seems not, and that it’s just bad writing.

This seems to be further confirmed when the streaming undead hordes very conveniently overcome the Israelis’ previously impervious defences. Extraordinary that it happens as soon as Brad shows up. It’s also a real blow to Arab-Israeli relations that, just when it seemed they were finally getting along, the very thing that brings them together (uniting in a sing-song) should cause their downfall. I’m not sure what the intended reading of this should be, but given the infantile content of Carnahan’s script for The Kingdom it wouldn’t surprise me if it were a message that, no matter what, peace in the Middle East is a non-starter.


If the Israel sequence works on a visceral level but not on a narrative one, the rest of the film draws from the same well. The zombie outbreak on a plane (in the pre-reshoots cut it lands safely in Russia) is both gripping and deliriously silly (setting off a grenade and sucking all the zombies out of the fuselage; really?!) And it leads to a final sequence at a W.H.O. research facility (in Wales of all places).

The pullback in scale works in favour of Pitt’s character and provides a close-up on the zombies themselves (for which Forster previously shown reticence). Yet it all feels rather predictable; well staged, but the film has already fallen victim to one too many breaks in the tension, which cumulatively allow you to start thinking about how none of it quite holds together. It’s wearily inevitable that Brad will test his theory on himself.  And Brad's rather mundane realisation further underscored my disappointment at the ditching of the pursuit of Patient Zero. His startling hypothesis isn't really all that (The X-Files' Leonard Betts, basically) and as I suggested earlier, it’s difficult to conceive that some actual scientist, somewhere, wouldn’t have thought of it first. In and of itself the sequence is effective, but it’s an attempt to fix the film by covering it in bandages rather performing extensive surgery.


Despite an undernourished character, Brad holds the film together by dint of sheer star wattage. Gerry is grim faced and remarkably resilient, as the incident on the plane evidences. The issues are more in the formulation; one man to save the world lends itself to hyperbole, whereas a team striking off at different tangents and towards different locations in a quest for answers might have benefited the story on any number of levels (parallel escalations, the tragedy of losing a beloved supporting character, etc.) Consequently, the other characters all struggle to make an impression. Daniella Kertesz does best as an Israeli soldier who accompanies Gerry during the last leg of his trip. Mireille Enos has the thankless “wifey on the phone” role, while Peter Capaldi holds back on the expletives as W.H.O. doctor.

As might be expected, there’s not much in the way of humour (the employment of bicycles as stealth vehicles and the Pepsi product placement both raise a chuckle). So it mightn’t have been the best idea to have the zombies repeatedly clacking their teeth; rather than proving unsettling it elicits mirth. It might have been intentional (since it’s difficult to conceive that no one on the production pointed out the comedy value, although with Forster anything’s possible), but it definitely dissipates the tension.


Marco Beltrami’s score is hugely important in tonally informing the movie. Beltrami takes as his cue Isolated System from Muse’s 2nd Law album, and it drives events with a haunting yet purposeful melancholy. Not that I’d want to compare the two films quality wise (where would you even begin?) but I was put in mind of the use of Tubular Bells as the informing theme for The Exorcist (appropriately, I’ve just saw Brad Pitt on YouTube making that very analogy).

So I’ve been critical of World War Z, but more because I enjoyed the film and felt it had the potential to be really good. I had a similar response to another much-vilified blockbuster roundly rejected by devotees of the novel on which it was based, I Am Legend. By dint of reshoots, WWZ manages not to degenerate into a knuckle-dragging Rambo version of a zombie movie. But neither is it able to muster the resonance that Straczynski attempted to invest in his drafts of the screenplay.

***1/2

Popular posts from this blog

I’m smarter than a beaver.

Prey (2022) (SPOILERS) If nothing else, I have to respect Dan Trachtenberg’s cynical pragmatism. How do I not only get a project off the ground, but fast-tracked as well? I know, a woke Predator movie! Woke Disney won’t be able to resist! And so, it comes to pass. Luckily for Prey , it gets to bypass cinemas and so the same sorry fate of Lightyear . Less fortunately, it’s a patience-testing snook cocking at historicity (or at least, assumed historicity), in which a young, pint-sized Comanche girl who wishes to hunt and fish – and doubtless shoot to boot – with the big boys gets to take on a Predator and make mincemeat of him. Well, of course , she does. She’s a girl, innit?

Just because you are a character doesn't mean that you have character.

Pulp Fiction (1994) (SPOILERS) From a UK perspective, Pulp Fiction ’s success seemed like a fait accompli; Reservoir Dogs had gone beyond the mere cult item it was Stateside and impacted mainstream culture itself (hard to believe now that it was once banned on home video); it was a case of Tarantino filling a gap in the market no one knew was there until he drew attention to it (and which quickly became over-saturated with pale imitators subsequently). Where his debut was a grower, Pulp Fiction hit the ground running, an instant critical and commercial success (it won the Palme d’Or four months before its release), only made cooler by being robbed of the Best Picture Oscar by Forrest Gump . And unlike some famously-cited should-have-beens, Tarantino’s masterpiece really did deserve it.

I’m the famous comedian, Arnold Braunschweiger.

Last Action Hero (1993) (SPOILERS) Make no mistake, Last Action Hero is a mess. But even as a mess, it might be more interesting than any other movie Arnie made during that decade, perhaps even in his entire career. Hellzapoppin’ (after the 1941 picture, itself based on a Broadway revue) has virtually become an adjective to describe films that comment upon their own artifice, break the fourth wall, and generally disrespect the convention of suspending disbelief in the fictions we see parading across the screen. It was fairly audacious, some would say foolish, of Arnie to attempt something of that nature at this point in his career, which was at its peak, rather than playing it safe. That he stumbled profoundly, emphatically so since he went up against the behemoth that is Jurassic Park (slotted in after the fact to open first), should not blind one to the considerable merits of his ultimate, and final, really, attempt to experiment with the limits of his screen persona.

Death to Bill and Ted!

Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey (1991) (SPOILERS) The game of how few sequels are actually better than the original is so well worn, it was old when Scream 2 made a major meta thing out of it (and it wasn’t). Bill & Ted Go to Hell , as Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey was originally called, is one such, not that Excellent Adventure is anything to be sneezed at, but this one’s more confident, even more playful, more assured and more smartly stupid. And in Peter Hewitt it has a director with a much more overt and fittingly cartoonish style than the amiably pedestrian Stephen Herrick. Evil Bill : First, we totally kill Bill and Ted. Evil Ted : Then we take over their lives. My recollection of the picture’s general consensus was that it surpassed the sleeper hit original, but Rotten Tomatoes’ review aggregator suggests a less universal response. And, while it didn’t rock any oceans at the box office, Bogus Journey and Point Break did quite nicely for Keanu Reev

Everyone creates the thing they dread.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) (SPOILERS) Avengers: Age of Ultron ’s problem isn’t one of lack. It benefits from a solid central plot. It features a host of standout scenes and set pieces. It hands (most of) its characters strong defining moments. It doesn’t even suffer now the “wow” factor of seeing the team together for the first time has subsided. Its problem is that it’s too encumbered. Maybe its asking to much of a director to effectively martial the many different elements required by an ensemble superhero movie such as this, yet Joss Whedon’s predecessor feels positively lean in comparison. Part of this is simply down to the demands of the vaster Marvel franchise machine. Seeds are laid for Captain America: Civil War , Infinity Wars I & II , Black Panther and Thor: Ragnarok . It feels like several spinning plates too many. Such activity occasionally became over-intrusive on previous occasions ( Iron Man II ), but there are points in Age of Ultron whe

This entire edifice you see around you, built on jute.

Jeeves and Wooster 3.3: Cyril and the Broadway Musical  (aka Introduction on Broadway) Well, that’s a relief. After a couple of middling episodes, the third season bounces right back, and that's despite Bertie continuing his transatlantic trip. Clive Exton once again plunders  Carry On, Jeeves  but this time blends it with a tale from  The Inimitable Jeeves  for the brightest spots, as Cyril Basington-Basington (a sublimely drippy Nicholas Hewetson) pursues his stage career against Aunt Agatha's wishes.

Poetry in translation is like taking a shower with a raincoat on.

Paterson (2016) (SPOILERS) Spoiling a movie where nothing much happens is difficult, but I tend to put the tag on in a cautionary sense much of the time. Paterson is Jim Jarmusch at his most inert and ambient but also his most rewardingly meditative. Paterson (Adam Driver), a bus driver and modest poet living in Paterson, New Jersey, is a stoic in a fundamental sense, and if he has a character arc of any description, which he doesn’t really, it’s the realisation that is what he is. Jarmusch’s picture is absent major conflict or drama; the most significant episodes feature Paterson’s bus breaking down, the English bull terrier Marvin – whom Paterson doesn’t care for but girlfriend Laura (Golshifteh Farahani) dotes on – destroying his book of poetry, and an altercation at the local bar involving a gun that turns out to be a water pistol. And Paterson takes it all in his stride, genial to the last, even the ruination of his most earnest, devoted work (the only disappoint

I think it’s pretty clear whose side the Lord’s on, Barrington.

Monte Carlo or Bust aka  Those Daring Young Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies (1969) (SPOILERS) Ken Annakin’s semi-sequel to Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines tends to be rather maligned, usually compared negatively to its more famous predecessor. Which makes me rather wonder if those expressing said opinion have ever taken the time to scrutinise them side by side. Or watch them back to back (which would be more sensible). Because Monte Carlo or Bust is by far the superior movie. Indeed, for all its imperfections and foibles (not least a performance from Tony Curtis requiring a taste for comic ham), I adore it. It’s probably the best wacky race movie there is, simply because each set of competitors, shamelessly exemplifying a different national stereotype (albeit there are two pairs of Brits, and a damsel in distress), are vibrant and cartoonish in the best sense. Albeit, it has to be admitted that, as far as said stereotypes go, Annakin’s home side win

If you ride like lightning, you're going to crash like thunder.

The Place Beyond the Pines (2012) (SPOILERS) There’s something daringly perverse about the attempt to weave a serious-minded, generation-spanning saga from the hare-brained premise of The Place Beyond the Pines . When he learns he is a daddy, a fairground stunt biker turns bank robber in order to provide for his family. It’s the kind of “only-in-Hollywood” fantasy premise you might expect from a system that unleashed Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man and Point Break on the world. But this is an indie-minded movie from the director of the acclaimed Blue Valentine ; it demands respect and earnest appraisal. Unfortunately it never recovers from the abject silliness of the set-up. The picture is littered with piecemeal characters and scenarios. There’s a hope that maybe the big themes will even out the rocky terrain but in the end it’s because of this overreaching ambition that the film ends up so undernourished. The inspiration for the movie

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.