World War Z

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.

Paranorman

I'm a sucker for a good misfit movie and Paranorman did not disapoint. It ticks all of the right boxes. Misfit kid with specail ability, a well meaning but clueless family, the mistfit freind, the gaurdian spirit, the mission to save the world, and zombies are all there. More importantly, the movie is smart, funny, and doesn't skimp on the scary to spare the kids. Saving the world requires Norman to work through some pretty rough stuff given that the target audience for the film is 12.

The the subversive humor is what makes the movie work and keeps it from drowning in its message. The creeepy uncle is creepy but is done humorously. The zombies are also creepy in a funny way. The only truly scary character is the witch.

I highly recommend Paranorman.

The Crazies 2010

After seeing the original Romero version of The Crazies, I was not certain I wanted to see the remake. Remakes usually just up the gore level to cover up a complete lack understanding of the original and an utter lack of originality.
We had free Starz this weekend and they happened to be showing the remake of The Crazies and there was little on other than basketball and baseball. Given my choices, I went with the remake.
I was pleasantly surprised. The gore factor was ampler up, but just enough to make it feel modern. They managed to keep the tension up and the sense of paranoia high. If anything the government in the remake is more sinister. In Romero's version, the military was a little clownish in the face of their futility. The military in the remake is more shadowy and therefore more menacing.
I really enjoyed the remake and think it is a worthy version of a classic.

Romero's The Crazies

I was intrigued by the Crazies idea. I am a big zombie and government conspiracy fan. However, I decided that instead of watching the new remake, I'd watch the Romero original. The originals are always better than modern remakes. Right? Most remakes of class in horror movies usually take one of two tacks: add gore or soften it up for the PG-13. They also typically dumb the material down.
I think I made a good choice. The Romero version was light on gore, but high on tension. The acting was terrible, but the story was well paced. It was interesting to see where all of the zombie movie conventions originate. They are all here in their rawest form.
I enjoyed the Crazies too much to go back and see the new one for fear it would ruin the old one for me.

Quarentine

Creepy like the "Blair Witch Project", but not as good. The pacing kept things suspenseful. The movies big problem is that it is merely dirvitive. The framing device has been done too many times to be edgy. People turned into zombies by a mysterious illness have been done better.
This is a decent thriller but not a great one.