For originality and finesse it fails, but it's fast, furious, and Brad Pitt makes it gel

Rating: 6/10 (1 July 2013)

World War Z (2013)
In short: another formula disaster film. Well made, some great acting (and some not so great), and some good scary scenes, and maybe that's enough. It is, after all, a summer movie.
But it could have been different. Having the zombies sprint and have superhuman resistance to getting hurt makes for exciting scenes of mass chaos and running and running. It speeds up the normal dread and fear of the classic Romero style zombies. But it also makes the whole thing kind of just a sensation, and it borders on silly, or it would if so many people weren't getting killed and zombified.
The whole movie is about excess, everything speeded up and boiling down to confrontation and decision on the spot. There is almost zero expectation or suspense. In fact, one of the clearly best scenes in the movie comes near the end when Brad Pitt (who is great throughout) has a one-on-one with a zombie through a glass door. It takes time, it has the audience wondering. It isn't just about shock and reaction to shock, but about anticipating shock. And then, yes, you don't always need the shock.
Pitt's wife in this is a bore and it's not really her fault. She is given the role of being a good wife and protecting their children, which she does. The only woman with substance is a little known Israeli woman (actress Daniella Kertesz) and even she becomes someone Pitt has to save. Which he does. With style and a little out there medical treatment (I mean before they get on the plane!). Ha. The movie is really quite fun and fast and zippy. If it's obvious and superficial, maybe I expect too much.
But wait, aren't there other movies that go here and do better at making it work on several levels? Like "Children of Men" which has a similar futuristic chaotic vision and yet lots of novel turns and much more amazing filming. "World War Z" is not filmed badly by any means, but it depends a lot on fast cuts (and multiple cuts) which create that barrage effect rather than a more coherent following the action through the disaster, which works better for the viewer.
And then there is the issue of plausibility. I know, who cares? Well, on some level it changes how you take the movie. If it is just comic book stuff, and the superhero can do anything, then whatever, sure (though even superheroes have rules of play). But for example they realize at some point a way to work around the way the zombies attack anyone living so quickly, and yet don't explain or suggest at all how the zombies would know one kind of victim from another. (I'm trying not to give anything away.) They just "know" and this becomes a chink in their armor.
I don't know. I found it frustrating just as much as fun. I saw it in 3-D and that was dispensable, I think. I mean--it's a novelty, but the movie doesn't really need it. There's plenty of depth, and action, and visual complexity, without it. Save the three bucks unless you're a devotee.
Thanks Brad Pitt for holding this all together. He dominates every scene, and for good reason. And look at the original book, which has a lot of differences (like no main character) and a unique construction (as a U.N. official document). This is an adaptation, and it borrows from the clichés with heavy-handed dependability.