I must admit upfront that I am a huge fan of the book. It is one of the most compelling social commentaries I've read. By combining documentary style with first person narration and zombies, Brooks crafted a master piece that is accessible to just about anyone who can read.
I am also a firm believer that a film based on a book cannot be judged through the lens of the book. Film and literature are different mediums and require different narrative techniques.
So, when I found out that World War Z the movie was nothing like the book, I wasn't too surprised. Many of the things that make the novel great would ruin a movie. Movies do best when they have a small cast and a relatively cohesive narrative arch; Brooks' novel doesn't have either. One could have taken the infantry man's story and pieced together a good story by dropping in bits from the other narratives as news flashes or other bits.
That, however, was not the path taken. The producers instead choose to create a new plot. All in all, it is not a terrible plot for a generic action movie that has some zombies. It hits all the right notes; sensitive, reluctant hero; big set pieces; creepy hallway zombie sequence; ambiguous ending.
The acting, what little that is required, is passable. I believe the Pitt character enough to be moderately concerned when he is in peril. I don't, however, care enough not to find the maudlin stuff about his family sort of annoying.
The effects are fabulous. I saw it in 3D and liked it. I'm not sure the 3D really added anything, but it didn't hurt. In fact the visual spectacle was perhaps the best thing about the movie. The scene where Israel is overrun is almost worth the price of admission. It is way better on the big screen than on the TV screen.
In the end, the World War Z is not a bad way to spend a hot summer night. It is well made, not overtly pandering, and a little scary at times. Just do not expect anything at all like the book. The movie is not a masterwork.
