The only permutation trudging along within Hollywood’s latest walking-dead pageant can be traced to its purported pricetag: who pumps $250 million into a zombie movie? Well, there’s Paramount and Brad Pitt for starters, both eager to fudge together a money-minting tentpole they can hammer into multiplexes over the next three summers. A fairly good ride for its first half, the four screenwriters — with Max (son of Mel and Annie) Brooks’s bestseller to guide them — have no idea how to end it. What with activist Pitt on board, one would expect at least a grain or two of substantive social satire or commentary. Alas, fearing that messages might take a bite out of business, all parties involved play it PG-13 safe. Double that in the case of director Marc Forster, the man responsible for riding herd over the single most deleterious non-Roger Moore 007 picture. His characteristic watery inefficiency once again proves no match for staging big action scenes. 2013.

2.0 stars

— Scott Marks

This movie is not currently in theaters.

Comments

mmmata June 26, 2013 @ 5:34 p.m.

its a good zombie movie, but its not world war z..which was a journal of the infection world wide. ie, how each country fought off the zombies (there was some of that in this one but not as deeply defined as in the book) there was suppose to be a final fight in russia i think, all the countries..etc,

this one is just brad pitt running about shooting..

0

Scott Marks June 27, 2013 @ 8:13 a.m.

Is it a director's duty to remain 100% faithful to their source material? Read Daphne du Maurier's dreadful short story, "The Birds," and then watch the movie version in which Hitchcock kidnaps Daphne's baby and gives it a makeover. In this case, Hitch took a bad book and made it better. From what I gather -- having not read the book -- Marc Forster did the opposite.

0

Sign in to comment