World War Z (2013)

Zombies are not my usual cup of tea, but I have enough male friends who have put time and effort into refining their own ‘zombie plans’ to have half-formed one myself. What seems to bring these semi-regular discussions to a close, usually without resolution, is disagreement on the capabilities of the zombies we would be battling. One used to be able to out-run the things as they dragged useless limbs behind them at a snail’s pace, but apparently that is no longer the case. Why the nature of this potentially imminent undead foe should have changed, just because a few films have decided to up the anti, is not a question I feel like asking; mostly because I would have to listen to the response.

Not being particularly inclined to discuss them, I have no great desire to watch films about them. An exception I will make is Zombieland, which is humourous enough for me to enjoy, zombies-and-all. It also provides me with ready made rules for surviving any similar apocalypse so that I don’t have to think of them myself. Thus I am spared from succumbing to a terrible zombie death by a simple failure to ‘check the backseat’ or by forgetting to employ the ‘double-tap’.

Despite a general dislike for the genre, I went to see World War Z at the cinema, and found it was really rather good. That’s not to say I enjoyed it all – I don’t go for panic-attack inducing films all that much, which is why any horror I watch tends to lean to the gory or creepy (Saw, Let the Right One In), rather than the jumpy. World War Z definitely makes you jump, and the luxury of 3D makes the jumps that much bigger.

What World War Z did manage, was to make me believe that this is what might actually happen, were such a horrific disease to develop (it seems always to be caused by a disease these days). Everything’s fine one minute and then boom! Zombies everywhere. These were particularly fast acting zombies mind, 12 seconds from bite to zombie and full sprinting ability. That doesn’t take long to spread. It shows military responses and emergency roof-top evacuations; loss of cities or even whole countries to the evil undead enemy. Survival seems to be down to a combination of not just what you know, but who you know. So I’m dead then.

World War Z primarily follows Brad Pitt and his family as they attempt to leave a hugely congested and increasingly zombie-ridden city and get to safety. As an ex-UN employee Pitt naturally ends up the hero, flying around the world to discover the source of the zombie disease, and attempting to find a cure. Thus we see zombie battles in many different environments which removed any of the tedious repetition that is almost a certainty with a theme so simple yet repeated so many times. That said, the standard supermarket scene with looting and fending off rampant zombies is very much present.

Both the highlight, and for me the least enjoyable scene, is the end where Pitt the hero deliberately faces the zombies head on, in the final push for that elusive cure. Quietly sneaking past zombie after zombie with very little in the way of protection or weaponry you want to hold your breath to prevent any noise from revealing his presence to the unsuspecting zombies that surround him. When I say it was the least enjoyable, I just mean for me. It’s amazing; I’m just of a nervous disposition apparently. During this time we see some good zombie close-ups and can study their mannerisms. Once dormant (if deprived of humans for a while), there’s a lot of twitching and shuddering and moping about, rather than the full attacking sprint that we see during the rest of the film. It’s creepy and terrifying, but hugely fascinating and for that reason too you’re willing them to remain dormant and unaware of a healthy human’s presence.

From this, I assume they can’t smell. I don’t know if that’s a tactic commonly used by zombies – the ability to smell healthy people but I suppose that would put pain to any chance of sneaking past. Let’s hope it’s not something I ever have to consider.

The only drawback was a slight comic aspect to the twitching (if you choose to see it), which reminded me of the guy in the Rowntree’s Rip’ems advert – the one dressed up as the blue bird. Unfortunately that advert was played in the cinema just before the film, otherwise maybe I wouldn’t have made the connection.

Melancholia (2011)

This film doesn’t give you quite what you might normally expect from an apocalypse film. Or, if you didn’t know that it is an apocalypse film, quite what you’d expect from a film about a woman suffering from depression. It’s a film with seemingly two agendas, presented in two sections, and it took me three attempts to actually make it all the way through. It’s quite slow paced, not that that’s necessarily a bad thing, but I found myself easily distracted and twice paused the film to briefly do something else and just failed to return to it.

The opening sequence introduces the film dramatically with an arrangement of scenes in ultra slow motion set to some startling orchestral music (Wagner’s Tristan und Isolde). Not being one for lengthy opening titles though, I didn’t enjoy them, in spite of how impressive they undoubtedly are. I just found myself waiting for the film to begin and, after a while, stopped noticing the pictures and just enjoyed the music (a highly emotive piece which is repeated frequently throughout the film). While there is the danger that it might be ignored by many, this prelude may have been better placed at the end of the film with the credits. I don’t mean to belittle it by saying that – after all there seems to be a fashion at the moment for impressive credits (Suckerpunch for example). I re-watched the opening scene after finishing the film and found it much more engaging than I had the previous two viewings. The visual links with scenes throughout the film are much clearer (obviously), something which is lost to you if you haven’t actually seen the film yet. This dramatic beginning is also at odds with the first scene of the film, which is bright and up-beat – possibly the only scene that is – so it doesn’t give us the smooth transition into the film that one would assume the role of most opening sequences is.

Smooth transitions don’t really seem to be how writer/director Lars von Trier works. The arrangement of the film into two sections seemed to completely separate the two themes running through this story. The first section follows Justine (Dunst) struggling to get through her wedding day with feelings of depression and apathy, and upsetting several people in the process. The second follows her sister Claire and her family as they follow the progress of Melancholia – a planet which is about to pass very close to Earth but, they hope, not actually collide with it. Melancholia is not mentioned in the first half, nor is the new husband mentioned in the second. They’re almost two films. Separate, but happening to have the same cast. The opening sequence for me really represents what is the best thing about this film – visual artistry. Storyline aside, the scenes are truly beautiful and I enjoyed that aspect greatly, particularly in the second half when we are shown some almost breathtaking images of the planet as it hurtles towards Earth.

I would recommend that no one watches this film if they’re in a good mood. You can’t relate to the depression felt by Justine if you’re feeling happy and content. It just leads to frustration with her when she fails to perform seemingly basic tasks (such as getting into a bath). Equally though, I would not recommend watching it if you’re feeling low. You still can’t sympathise fully (well I couldn’t) and you get annoyed with the insensitivity of the other characters. No matter what mood you’re in, you may well find it difficult engaging with any of the characters in this film.

Melancholia was brought to my attention largely because of its cast. I haven’t seen any of von Trier’s other work (though I do need to see Dogville) but the names Kirsten Dunst, John Hurt, and Kiefer Sutherland were enough to interest me. After some initial research however, my first instinct was to leave it be. Apocalypse films aren’t usually my thing and nothing in this one screamed out at me as particularly special. For whatever reason though I changed my mind and I almost wish I hadn’t. I didn’t enjoy it. The second half is more enjoyable than the first as it gains a sense of momentum, but really the only reason I persevered in finishing it after abandoning it twice was that I would have felt silly posting it back to Love Film without having watched it all. I also didn’t feel I could have a proper opinion on it based only on the first 45 minutes and I do so love having opinions.