TORONTO — In the new thriller World War Z, Brad Pitt does something he’s never really done on the big screen — play the hero.
Pitt is UN worker Gerry Lane, who’s in a race to stop a zombie pandemic that threatens humanity. The movie is based on the 2006 novel of the same name by Max Brooks (yes, the son of Mel) and directed by Marc Forster (Quantum of Solace).
The movie was plagued by well-publicized script and production issues (including the filming of a new ending) but it has opened strong in foreign markets like Australia and South Korea.
How will it do at the North American box office? Here’s a look at what some critics are saying about World War Z.
Robbie Collin of The Telegraph thought the movie was a bit of a bore.
“The first problem you encounter with World War Z … is how to pronounce the damn thing. Should the last letter be said ‘zee’, to sound like ‘three’, or ‘zed’, to sound like ‘dead’, or ‘zzz’, to sound like the audience?”
Collin complained “there’s no heart to be found amid the guts.”
Calling World War Z “a well-paced, entertaining, conventional action thriller,” USA Today‘s Claudia Puig pointed out the movie’s “glaring implausibilities.”
Puig also said the movie lacks a sense of sadness.
“Terror reigns, but as family members are violently killed, no one grieves,” she wrote. “A boy left orphaned joins Gerry and Karen without a backward glance or visible sadness.”
This is echoed by Lisa Kennedy at the Denver Post, who noted the child “doesn’t get the chance to express a smidge of grief on seeing his parents, zombies, shot dead.”
Kennedy wrote: “There’s an intelligent tone to this horror flick that makes it tempting to ignore the multitude of moments that defy reason. Add to that the swift, chaotic attacks of the infected, and the filmmakers don’t leave the audience much time to nurse reservations.”
Peter Howell of The Toronto Star singled out Pitt as a reason to see World War Z.
“His combination of macho heroics and regular-guy empathy raises pulses and inspires rooting interest in a story that is otherwise filled with howlers, and not just the undead kind,” he wrote. “The whole movie seems in many ways like a fortunate accident. But there’s no doubting the deliberate wisdom of making a star of Pitt’s talent and stature the lead.”
Katherine Monk of Postmedia described the flick as “a perfectly competent summer action movie.” But, she added, “we’ve seen all of this before in better, funnier and far more frightening viral strains.”
Like The Star‘s Howell, Monk praised the leading man.
“Pitt brings unprecedented marquee value to a typically B-list enterprise, and his handsome mug adds an abstract air of class and depth to what’s little more than another run-of-the-mill zombies-chase-humans story,” she wrote.
David Denby of the New Yorker said World War Z is “the most gratifying action spectacle in years.”
He wrote: “I’m not an expert on horror movies, but I know when my heart rate has doubled.”
The Associated Press reviewer Jocelyn Noveck also loved the movie.
“Talk about more bang for your buck: Once you’ve settled back into your seat after a good snarling zombie chase, there’s nothing like the thought of a SARS outbreak to get the blood racing again,” she wrote. “This movie … is pretty much what you’d want in a summer blockbuster: scary but not-too-gross zombies, a journey to exotic locales, a few excellent action scenes, and did we mention Pitt?”
Brian Particelli wrote on toofab.com that hardcore horror fans will likely be disappointed by the lack of blood in World War Z but “it’s still a fun, action-packed, big budget flick that manages to deliver the scares.”
Comments