World War Z - Movie Review

So what did i think about World War Z? Well that is a tough question to answer as i left the theater with largely mixed feelings. But then again i entered the theater expecting a largely generic film which would make use of outdated concepts for an outdated brand of the horror genre, so i guess my respect for the film was at the least elevated when i left.


The film follows the story of 'Gerry' an ex military type who is apparently only good for making pancakes, which we come to believe through his rather unrealistic portrayal of a typical American father up until the point where he starts calling upon his military skills to bash the shit out of zombies.
The character transition between everyday family man to all on all pro of zombie apocalypse survival is completely non-existent which makes for a displacing feeling later on in the film when he seems to spend half his time surrounded by soldiers.

This is explained by his back story mostly throughout the mid section of the film, but a back story is only helpful when backed up by some form of real time evidence, like a flashback for example. How can we as the viewer be expected to enthrall ourselves in the contents of 'Gerry's' seemingly gritty CV when that entire aspect of his character takes place off camera? Some movies can do much the same thing and get away with it, but with this many of the key characters as in some way associated to it, and involved with 'Gerry' as a result of his past. This makes for confusing character placement and led to me spending half of my time trying to understand why our protagonist, who was supposedly a family man, was getting calls from government officials for no reason. What? I am supposed to understand the motivation for such contact just because "for old times sake" was seamlessly wived into the dialog?
As for the rest of the core cast, all of the characters are forgettable and seem to in some cases just be there for the sake of camera filling. Throughout the entire movie characters are introduced as parts of core story elements and then almost immediately dismissed. There is absolutely zero chance of relating to any of the characters as the only ones who stick around who aren't soldiers are 'Gerry's' family, who are more annoying due to their bad acting than engaging.
Building on this much of the characterization seems to be placed to specially shape the films direction, as we are introduced to our protagonist who is the typical every day civilian up until the mid section of the film where his back story doesn't seem like its being explained by a Scotsman trying to speak Japanese.
It puts us in the mindset that we are about to watch a story of one mans experience through a zombie outbreak, like Zombieland only without the critical humor. But then the film mostly revolves around stereotypical soldiers with big guns, turning our perception around to the film being more about the global effort against a zombie outbreak rather than the individual who makes no impact. Its a real mind fuck to see the film change its face like that and seems way too broken for it to have been on purpose. Though this is small to a typical audience its something that you need to consider when treading into a zombie story.

As for the plot, it seems to make no sense throughout the majority of the film. Brad Pitt; as our shiny family man 'Gerry', is called in by the remains of the US government because of his military

background, to help a scientist solve the mystery of the zombie outbreak, starting by going to its supposed origin point North Korea, oh what a surprise shouted EVERYONE EVER. But when they arrive they seem to achieve nothing other than the scientist tripping over and shooting himself a few minutes after landing, and showcasing how every zombie in Korea isn't actually Korean, and therefore bad casting.
From then onward the story seems to go nowhere significant, simply following a hazy trail of mysteries that no one would give the time of day to in real life, only to discover that the real answer to stopping the zombies wasn't actually anything to do with the investigation that sent 'Gerry' flying all over the globe. Gerry notices the solution by chance through a number of odd occurrences that he witnesses on his travels, and then tests his theory with one big life threatening risk at the end, like we didn't see that coming. But i must admit that from that from the point where he notices the solution onward the story is fantastic as it differs from the typical 'zombie formula'. Man goes on dangerous quest to find cure. That is how is starts, but then it evolves and becomes something different and even gives a reason if you are intelligent enough to see it as to why the film is called 'World War Z'. And in a way the films seemingly pointless events throughout most of its run time do contain at least two hints that i saw about what the overall plot twist is. These hints are to the film what an Easter egg is to a game, only there for small satisfaction, but are appreciated simply for what they are.

By the end of the film you come to like the premise and therefore you seem to glorify the overall experience despite its poor execution. And if nothing else the film succeeds with its wall to wall action which though typical, seems to keep you on the edge of your seat as you know that if Gerry dies, his family will be kicked off of the American Ark of salvation...an aircraft carrier. That little addition to the formula gives the intense action reasoning and therefore a reason for me to enjoy it without having to walk away feeling filthy for being so easily impressed. But then that is killed when Gerry's family are kicked off and end up basically fine.
Which leads me to my point of how the film can never seem to get two things right at the same time, nor sustain them for a significant duration of run time. But in the end, it does at least get them right so in some way credit is due for the originality that it brings to the table.

Even if you aren't perceptive or even enthusiastic enough to notice all of this you will still find a reason to walk out of the theater engaged in debate about it with your friends, because its a zombie film and that is what happens when you watch a zombie film. Though its something that is REALLY over done it is just that because of its mass popularity, people go mad for this stuff. I sat there and through parts of the film and got frustrated with Gerry's actions just because of how i knew that they were stupid things to do in a zombie apocalypse, and at other points admired his actions because of how smart they were. Its calls out the inner 'know it all' from the audience to at least give us something to talk about when we leave.

By the end of the film i cant say it will make it onto my movie library, but it has faced me with the question of whether the producers and writers of the film are just lucky, or geniuses. And still, anything is better than After Earth.

By Benjamin McGinn

8th Gen - Death for Console Gaming?

Today’s gaming world seems to have taken something of a turn for the worse, in order to properly analyze the climate of the current digital entertainment market it is important to first look back to our routes. 

In my own case, I remember being a small child not much older than six or seven years of age when I first played the Sony PlayStation 2. I am able to recall it being a machine used to play video games and something that gave me hours of unique entertainment and enjoyment through a number of games. Back then I found that it was much simpler, I could put a game in and simply play it, be able to enjoy what the game could offer as a result of the platform capabilities. When I look at today I find that console gaming is much more frustrating and even PC gaming comes with the requirement of technical knowledge. Much of this could be down to the fact that I am now much older and therefore able to perceive the inner workings of a console and its sales, but at the same time much of it could be down to the methods in which they are made and marketed.

The idea of a console is to be an affordable way to enjoy high spec video games, and to make it much simpler to do so. What I mean by this is that a console would come complete with its own high end computer hardware and unique operating system, bios, firmware and drivers which are all designed to handle the complicated stuff for the user. By doing this one could simply turn it on, put in a disk and play the game through a relatively simply GUI. But in our days consoles seem to be just as bad as PC’s in the sense that if you don’t have a vast understanding of computer hardware and software, you could ultimately fall short of buying the best evaluable product. I give an example; it was with the original Sony PlayStation 3, if you were not ‘computer savvy’ you would fail to notice that the form structure and coolant methods were unable to sustain such a high end processor and graphics card, and ultimately resulted in the machine overheating and melting vital soldering on the chipboards. The underlining point being if you weren’t aware of certain form structure concepts like ATX or Micro ATX you would fail to notice this problem and potentially end up with a broken console. This was something of a bad example as it was specific to the physical design, so I venture a second for good measure. The Xbox 360 had a firmware problem which resulted in the now famous ‘red rings of death’ which would cripple the machine and render it useless.  

 Such massive problems like this were never present with the 6^th gen or any generation before that. Obviously these problems have now been accounted for, but it seems that in order to get the most for your money you must have to keep track of the various advantages and disadvantages to each available option. One of the best things about the PS2 was that I only chose it over and Xbox or Game Cube because it looked far cooler in my book. This argument renders the debate of ‘which console is better’ void, as I find that I am worrying less about which console is more capable for the hard processing requirements, and more about which console will last the longest before it craps out on me. This is odd when considering how I have an original PlayStation 2 that has outlasted two PlayStation 3’s and an Xbox 360. 

This raises the question, are we building them wrong? Many could say that the strengths in consoles is mainly down to the more modern line ups due to advanced graphics, gameplay parameters, and multimedia housing and sharing. But I say that all of that is worthless if the console can be outlasted by a much older and much simpler design. I write this with the goal of getting my point across on whether or not console gaming is even a worthwhile commodity anymore, this being a topic that has been brought to my attention with the arrival of the frankly disappointing 8^th gen line up.

When I look at a console today I find that it is less about the cool games that it can house and more a showcase of advancements in modern computer technology. I am already well aware that new form structures, chipsets and concepts are being devised in order to make bigger and better computer components, so I do not need it showcased with a console that I only want for the sake of gaming. That said I know that computer advancement is something of an inevitability with gaming, as it always has been. But I find that people are now more interested in things like one console having slightly more central processing power than another, and for what reason? Surely if someone cared that much about performance, to the point where he/she hinges on the tiniest details, this individual would consider an investment in a performance PC to be worthwhile?  All I can realistically see as an explanation; is that big brand names like Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony have been around now long enough for people to grow attached and form loyalties as consumers and therefore wage verbal wars with each other online in an attempt to protect their beloved corporate saviors.

 If this observation of mine is accurate, I do find it a little worrying that people can so easily fall victim to marketing hype, but then that is more of a representation of a failing education system that a failing gaming market.

With all of the above considered I find that the judgement boils down to two essential qualities specific to consoles. The first being; that a console in our days (PS2 onward) should be a lot cheaper than a PC but with near the same capabilities. When looking at the 8^th gen soon to be realised, with starting estimates of £600 per unit, and considering how they will also be more expensive than the 7^th gen units, the price seems too high for it to be classed as an ‘affordable alternative’. And I imagine that prices would only increase from there with every generation, meaning that the 9^th gen could be even more.  As for the same price one could buy a decent PC, and upgrade it over a year or two from afterwards for the same amount it would cost of Xbox Live membership and digital distribution purchase, or hell even with buying a new one when the console breaks. The second being; that a console should be simpler and easier to operate, with less high tech computer know how required from an average user than with a PC. And in regards to this I find that consoles are so much like PC’S they may as well exist in the same spectrum, as with each new generation a more vast understanding is required for sustained use. With the greats like the NES and the PS2 I didn’t have to know shit about the ins and outs of gaming, but now it seems that if I don’t study up and learn I will end up wasting more money than I can afford to. Luckily I am already well educated and professionally advancing through this field, so it is no hindrance for me, but to others this is something of a problem.

As console line ups can no longer meet these two requirements, what is the point of them? It isn’t like they can get through just on their controllers, especially when PC literally has unlimited input methods. What it comes down to is that there is no point to a console anymore, not now that they fail to meet those requirements, and not now that a PC can do it better anyway.

So is this the end? Well, possibly. The 8^th gen could well be the end of console gaming, which wouldn’t be a massive loss now that consoles have clearly made what I would call a turn for the worst. But luckily I do find that there is some good news to this, as without consoles people will turn to PC gaming, and with all the demand, companies like ‘NVIDIA’ and ‘RAZOR’ will thrive. The more people who buy from PC specific companies like this, the cheaper the unit costs become, as these companies buy in bulk and can therefore afford to lower their prices for such high demand. Making PC gaming; cheaper and easier, so in a way; thank you 8^th gen.

Thank you for reading and i hope you have enjoyed what i have to say on the subject, if you would like to give any feedback or opinions in regards to the subject matter you can contact me at Twitter via the link below.

https://twitter.com/McGinnBen