Topic: WORLD WAR Z review by Dorkman

Malcolm Gladwell’s 2008 book Outliers popularized the notion that it takes about 10,000 hours of dedicated practice to master a given skill. If this is indeed the case, I think I may be approaching mastery of whatever skills “Shitting on the World War Z adaptation” entails.

Based on the novel by Max Brooks, the film’s production was infamously fraught with problems, including millions of dollars of unaccounted overages and a last-minute Hail Mary reshoot of the entire third act.

To me, everything I heard about the adaptation sounded wrongheaded, and I said so anytime the topic came up. What I and many others felt should have been something like a documentary-style HBO series looking back at humanity’s near extinction — think Ken Burns or Band of Brothers, but with zombies, as would befit the book’s story and style — was instead going to be simply another story of one man trying to survive the onset of the apocalypse. In other words, the same movie we’ve already seen — practically the only movie we’ve seen lately — albeit on a grander scale.

But knowing that in advance and having the time to come to terms with it could be a blessing in disguise. The WORLD WAR Z movie is not the World War Z book. Okay. Fine. We’ll set that aside and treat it as though it’s called something else. As a movie, is it any good?

I’m as surprised as anyone else to find myself saying: yeah, actually — it is. While it may indeed be the same movie we’ve seen writ large, that turns out to be a pretty badass thing to see. Although Marc Forster’s action sensibilities have improved only marginally since the nigh-unwatchable QUANTUM OF SOLACE, I can write it off (with a shrug and a heavy sigh) by noting that WWZ is not ostensibly an action film the way a Bond film is, and/or that the swarming undead hordes are meant to be disorienting and chaotic. Whatever. It’s not very good but it’s not bad enough to ruin the movie, and keeps the story moving.

If anything, the story may move too fast. Brad Pitt’s globetrotting protagonist Gerry Lane seems to arrive in every new location with just enough time to get necessary plot information before things go tits-up and we’re treated to another camera-spazzing “narrow escape” sequence. The story takes surprising twists and turns, throwing up obstacles for Lane which I did not expect, making the movie pleasantly unpredictable and non-formulaic; and the few moments in which character development occurs are well-done (the movie got me on board early on with a brief but loaded scene of Pitt on the edge of a rooftop). But most of the movie leaves very little time for these moments to occur.

Even with its not-the-book storyline, the events of the film would have been better served as a TV series, so Lane could arrive in a location, make friends, see the different responses of different cultures to the zombie plague. Supporting characters are introduced and dispatched too quickly for us to become attached or feel much of anything other than breathless.

It seems the filmmakers realized this, as the movie finally gets a chance to slow down in the re-shot third act, in an extended sequence at the World Health Organization headquarters (suggested by Damon Lindelof and written by Drew Goddard). The film turns down the volume, takes the foot off the gas, and becomes a hold-your-breath suspense film — something we don’t see nearly enough of in this genre — bringing the movie into clear focus with a simple goal and an intimate showdown with a single zombie. Forster may not be to my taste for action, but I’d love to see more of this kind of filmmaking from him.

The film manages to end on a relatively satisfying note while still leaving itself open for further (already announced) installments. Optimistically, fans of the book can note that, while this film was not a faithful adaptation, it also did nothing to contradict the book. So we may yet get a chance to see some of the novel’s great moments brought to film.

And if not, if the burgeoning franchise continues along these lines — well, the book is still there on the shelf for me whenever I want it. If the rest are at least as entertaining as this one, I’ll be alright with that.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: WORLD WAR Z review by Dorkman

A good review, thank you.   

I quite liked this movie as a brainless (eh!) Saturday night popcorn flick.  I mainly watched it as part of it was filmed in Glasgow, Scotland where I used to live near (it was the first "action" scene at the beginning where they get out of the car).  I will not be rushing to the cinema to see the sequel when it comes out but I will definitely catch it on DVD.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: WORLD WAR Z review by Dorkman

Dorkman wrote:

Although Marc Forster’s action sensibilities have improved only marginally since the nigh-unwatchable QUANTUM OF SOLACE, I can write it off (with a shrug and a heavy sigh) by noting that WWZ is not ostensibly an action film the way a Bond film is, and/or that the swarming undead hordes are meant to be disorienting and chaotic. Whatever. It’s not very good but it’s not bad enough to ruin the movie, and keeps the story moving.

I just want to take this opportunity to once again slam Quantum of Solace as the worst Bond movie ever made. The action was utterly incomprehensible bullshit and it is for that reason I refuse to see World War Z unless someone else is picking up the alcohol tab.

Re: WORLD WAR Z review by Dorkman

The action sequences in  Quantum were awful, not Bondian at all. The best thing about Bond is seeing the amazing stunt work on show. The action in WWZ is still shaky cam, not as bad as Quantum but still pretty wobbly.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: WORLD WAR Z review by Dorkman

hang on Ewing - do you live in a world where Die Another Day never came out?

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: WORLD WAR Z review by Dorkman

Ewing wrote:

I just want to take this opportunity to once again slam Quantum of Solace as the worst Bond movie ever made. The action was utterly incomprehensible bullshit and it is for that reason I refuse to see World War Z unless someone else is picking up the alcohol tab.

So you've seen every other Bond movie?  Because there are FAR worse.

Eddie Doty

Thumbs up +1 Thumbs down

Re: WORLD WAR Z review by Dorkman

Eddie wrote:
Ewing wrote:

I just want to take this opportunity to once again slam Quantum of Solace as the worst Bond movie ever made. The action was utterly incomprehensible bullshit and it is for that reason I refuse to see World War Z unless someone else is picking up the alcohol tab.

So you've seen every other Bond movie?  Because there are FAR worse.

Yeah, I have. As bad as Moonraker and Die Another Day are, I didn't really have expectations for those films. I had high expectations for Quantum of Solace, especially after the glory of Casino Royale and the cliffhanger ending. We all wanted to see Bond go off the reservation and hunt people down for revenge (similar to License To Kill), but we only got a taste of that, and instead it was focused on some moronic plot about water/oil in Bolivia and some of the worst ADHD action scenes this side of the Resident Evil series.

Re: WORLD WAR Z review by Dorkman

...I quite like Moonraker  mad

Extended Edition - 146 - The Rise Of Skywalker
VFX Reel | Twitter | IMDB | Blog

Re: WORLD WAR Z review by Dorkman

Ewing wrote:
Eddie wrote:
Ewing wrote:

I just want to take this opportunity to once again slam Quantum of Solace as the worst Bond movie ever made. The action was utterly incomprehensible bullshit and it is for that reason I refuse to see World War Z unless someone else is picking up the alcohol tab.

So you've seen every other Bond movie?  Because there are FAR worse.

Yeah, I have. As bad as Moonraker and Die Another Day are, I didn't really have expectations for those films. I had high expectations for Quantum of Solace, especially after the glory of Casino Royale and the cliffhanger ending. We all wanted to see Bond go off the reservation and hunt people down for revenge (similar to License To Kill), but we only got a taste of that, and instead it was focused on some moronic plot about water/oil in Bolivia and some of the worst ADHD action scenes this side of the Resident Evil series.

Is the distinction here that while some of the earlier Bonds are dumb, they're at least competently made?

"The Doctor is Submarining through our brains." --Teague

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: WORLD WAR Z review by Dorkman

Much of your criticism is phalanxed by either your own personal expectations or context to other films.  That's not exactly how film criticism works, nor is it a direct answer to the question of worst Bond movie.  Moonraker is completely silly and Die Another Day fairly pointless.  QoS is at least doing something.  You may not like the set pieces, but it's shot beautifully, features pretty consistent editing, and textured performance by Craig.  It's not my favorite Bond, but far, far from the worst.

Eddie Doty

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: WORLD WAR Z review by Dorkman

I'm not going to fight with anyone who puts QoS is in the bottom five. For me, Die Another Day and The World is Not Enough tie for worst. There is craftsmanship in QoS, but there's also craftsmanship in Moonraker and DAD. It equals out when you adjust for the year is was released, imo. Moonraker would have *looked* just like QoS if it was filmed in 2008. QoS is just more forgettable on a script level.

But let's be honest. The bottom 5-7 are really bad.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: WORLD WAR Z review by Dorkman

Doctor Submarine wrote:

Is the distinction here that while some of the earlier Bonds are dumb, they're at least competently made?

Yes, in the case of Moonraker. On top of that, I can at least get some enjoyment out of the horrid stupidity of Jaws falling in love with some short girl with pigtails. It's moronic, but it's funny.

Die Another Day is not competently made, but at least it wasn't the payoff to a cliffhanger I was dying to see resolved.

Eddie wrote:

Much of your criticism is phalanxed by either your own personal expectations or context to other films.  That's not exactly how film criticism works, nor is it a direct answer to the question of worst Bond movie.  Moonraker is completely silly and Die Another Day fairly pointless.  QoS is at least doing something.  You may not like the set pieces, but it's shot beautifully, features pretty consistent editing, and textured performance by Craig.  It's not my favorite Bond, but far, far from the worst.

While that isn't exactly how film criticism works, I find it impossible to be completely objective when talking about movies. There are no objective facts and figures to look at and decipher what is good and what isn't. It's not like comparing two cars or fighters in the UFC; we really only have our subjective point of view to go on. Because of that, I tend to view things based on how much they entertained me personally, while still trying to add in a bit of objectivity. I know that, technically speaking, Quantum of Solace isn't worse than Die Another Day or, if you really wanna go off the rails, Never Say Never Again, but it was certainly the one that entertained me the least. I didn't even get a "so bad it's good" vibe from it, just bitter crippling disappointment. Casino Royale was a revelation and I couldn't wait to see the conclusion to Bond hunting down the despicable motherfuckers who ruined his life. It didn't come remotely close to living up to the standard of Casino Royale. While I agree there is some nice cinematography (in particular the stuff in the desert at the end), and that Craig is his usual fantastic self, I cannot agree on the point about the editing. In the following video, try to keep up with the action from the 2:40 point to the end.

And then there's the clusterfuck during the climax. I can't find the original, unchanged file, but the following video is the same visually, the only difference is a re-scoring.

It's not as bad as Resident Evil, but it doesn't belong in a Bond movie.

Re: WORLD WAR Z review by Dorkman

I have not seen all the Bond movies (working on it), so I can't rank them. But as an action movie in its own right, QoS is pretty awful. It's one of the worst of the shake-and-cut-a-lot generation of action films we're getting from non-action directors put at the helm of action movies. I got the impression that Forster set up a lot of cameras to cover the stunts and felt like he needed to use all of them.

Thumbs up +1 Thumbs down

Re: WORLD WAR Z review by Dorkman

The thing that infuriates me about that opera sequence in Quantum of Solace is it SHOULD be an all time great sequence. Imagine what a master like Peckinpah or John Woo, or even De Palma would do with something like that, a balletic inter-cutting of a shootout with an opera. Instead, the end result is an incoherent mess that does nothing for me. It's completely squandering the possibility of that sequence.

Most of Quantum of Solace is like that. You've got Craig busting his ass doing his own stunts, and it's shot/edited in a way that you could have literally anybody in a suit doing it and no-one would know the difference.

Last edited by bullet3 (2013-12-18 02:55:27)

Thumbs up +2 Thumbs down

Re: WORLD WAR Z review by Dorkman

I'm fairly confident if a skilled editor got their hands on the original QoS footage there is a good film to be found

Extended Edition - 146 - The Rise Of Skywalker
VFX Reel | Twitter | IMDB | Blog

Re: WORLD WAR Z review by Dorkman

Dorkman wrote:

as an action movie in its own right, QoS is pretty awful. It's one of the worst of the shake-and-cut-a-lot generation of action films we're getting from non-action directors put at the helm of action movies.

I had the same opinion walking out of the theater. It wasn't as bad when I revisited it on Blu Ray, but I suspect that it's a combination a) having grown accustomed to bad Jason Borne impressions, b) a smaller screen.

And +1 to everything Bullet said.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: WORLD WAR Z review by Dorkman

...I quite like Moonraker

I have to say I also a soft spot for it. The music is outstanding, and the visual effects at the end are amazing.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: WORLD WAR Z review by Dorkman

Can anyone name a film where shaky cam action actually works well?  The Bourne films maybe? I have not seen them in a while so cannot say for sure.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: WORLD WAR Z review by Dorkman

Bourne Supremacy car-chase works great for me, though the fight sequence does not. Most of Bourne Ultimatum works for me, except for the car chase (weird huh?). Greengrass' Captain Phillips this year does it really well too.

Kathryn Bigelow is a master at the shaky style (probably because she had already mastered shooting action traditionally before she adopted the documentary style), so both Hurt Locker and Zero Dark Thirty do it exceptionally well.

And of course, one of the movies that popularized the style in the first place was Saving Private Ryan, where Spielberg also does an amazing job at conveying the geography of all the battles despite all the chaos on screen.

The thing is that as soon as you adopt that style, you're losing tons of visual information right off the bat, so the rest of your filmmaking and editing needs to be EXTREMELY precise for it to work, with a very small margin of error. This is why 90% of movies adopting this style fail at it.

Last edited by bullet3 (2013-12-18 08:00:47)

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: WORLD WAR Z review by Dorkman

http://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt69/hollow_shinji312/derailed-train-derailed-thread-demo.jpg

ZangrethorDigital.ca

Re: WORLD WAR Z review by Dorkman

I disagree actually.  The review has prompted discussion on the merits, or not, of shaky cam action in movies. If it spirals more it could have its own thread.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: WORLD WAR Z review by Dorkman

Only if the next Bond movie involves zombies does this all come back together.

God loves you!

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: WORLD WAR Z review by Dorkman

Only if the next Bond movie involves zombies does this all come back together.

I would be there opening night to watch that film!   smile

Thumbs up Thumbs down