Seven years later, something called "World War Z" has reached the screen, but it is related to Brooks' book only in two ways: its title and the central concept of a worldwide plague of the undead. Admittedly, Brooks' book was a difficult one to adapt, since it has no central character(s) and is not a traditional narrative. But after several drafts of the script and a troubled production that required the scripting of an entirely new third act and seven weeks of reshoots (plus an eight-month delay in release), "World War Z" has emerged as a kind of hybrid of zombie horror and action thriller, its more disturbing and grisly elements watered down for a PG-13 rating.

Does the movie work on its own? Not really. It takes place during the actual zombie outbreak, with Pitt playing a former U.N. worker drafted to locate the source of the epidemic. The star is appealing and resolute, but is barely characterized beyond his desire to get back to his family once the job is done. Other characters barely get even one dimension, let alone two. The movie is bloodless and the zombies mostly rendered through CG, making their visceral impact minimal. There are a few gripping set pieces -- the best is set aboard an overrun plane -- but director Marc Forster's ("Quantum of Solace") inability to shoot action coherently lessens their impact.

What's left is an odd and empty spectacle, good for a few jump scares and some intense action (when you can see it), but with only glimmers and traces of Brooks' haunting novel. And in an era where "The Walking Dead" splatters blood and guts across TV screens on a weekly basis, the utterly bloodless "World War Z" seems strangely neutered. It's not a "bad" movie, nor an unwatchable one -- just a forgettable corporate exercise that could have been a lot more.

Meanwhile, you can still read Brooks' excellent book, which got us thinking: What other sci-fi or horror novels didn't survive their transition to the big screen in somewhat recognizable form? Sometimes massive changes work better for the screen; sometimes they lose the essence of the book completely. Check out this list below:

"The War of the Worlds": H.G. Wells' 1898 sci-fi classic was set in Victorian England and had the Martians invading in their famous walking tripods. The 1953 film produced by George Pal was relocated to contemporary California, the tripods replaced by flat discs with long necks, and the main characters are all scientists and military personnel -- although individual scenes from Wells' book remain. Steven Spielberg's 2005 remake, while also modern, was far more faithful.

"The Omega Man": Richard Matheson's classic 1954 novel "I Am Legend" has been filmed three times, most faithfully in 1964 as "The Last Man on Earth" and less so in 2007 with Will Smith as the star. But the adaptation that veered the most wildly off the track was 1971's "The Omega Man" with Charlton Heston. In that version, the vampires left behind by a worldwide viral epidemic weren't even vampires anymore: They were insane albino mutants.

"Planet of the Apes": Pierre Boulle's original novel was a much more satirical look at contemporary society: His ape civilization (which was actually on a different planet, not a future Earth as in the movie) was modern, with cars, airplanes, big cities, etc. It was a far cry from the semi-medieval ape culture of the Charlton Heston film.

"Soylent Green": The shocking secret at the heart of this overpopulation epic -- "Soylent Green is people!" -- didn't even exist in Harry Harrison's novel "Make Room! Make Room!" While the film followed star Charlton Heston (again!) as he slowly discovered what miracle food Soylent Green was really made of, the novel is a much more loosely plotted series of vignettes starring several characters in an overpacked and collapsing New York.

"The Thing From Another World": The 1951 film had one vast, crucial difference from John W. Campbell's 1938 novella "Who Goes There?" In the story, the alien being that invades an Antarctic research station can assume the shape of any living thing it absorbs. In the movie, the creature is a vampiric humanoid (played by James Arness in a jumpsuit), thus negating the entire undertone of paranoia that made Campbell's tale so memorable. John Carpenter's 1982 remake restored this aspect of the story with now-legendary results.

"Logan's Run": The differences are many between the 1976 movie and the 1967 novel written by William F. Nolan and George Clayton Johnson. In the book, everyone in the future (there has been no apocalyptic war and no one lives under domes) is legislated to die at 21; in the movie it's 30. In the book you simply report to a "Sleepshop" and get put down; in the movie you are offered a false chance for "Renewal" in a ritual called Carousel. Spoilers here: In the book Logan does find Sanctuary; in the movie it's a myth. We could use that long-awaited remake of this one.

"Starship Troopers": Robert A. Heinlein's 1959 novel was controversial for its seeming endorsement of a semi-fascist society and permanent militarization of a culture, and was also structured around a series of monologues and debates. Paul Verhoeven's 1997 film broadly satirized the political aspects of the novel while incorporating much more alien battle action into the story -- probably the better way to go for a film, but wildly divergent from the book.

The works of Philip K. Dick: "Blade Runner," "Payback," "Next," "Minority Report," "Total Recall" ... those are worth an entire article on their own.
 

 

 

"American Mary" is the brainchild of "The Twisted Twins" writing-directing sisters Sylvia and Jen Soska, who made their debut in 2009 with "Dead Hooker in a Trunk." Despite that and the new movie's lurid subject matter, "American Mary" is character-based, with the charismatic Isabelle holding the screen at all times and making Mary into an edgy and oddly charming anti-hero besieged on all sides by men who want something from her.

Of course, Isabelle did the very same thing 13 years ago in "Ginger Snaps," in which she and Emily Perkins played sisters and high school outsiders whose lives are changed forever when Isabelle's Ginger is bitten by a werewolf. Smart, funny and a subversion of the usual clichéd portrayal of women in horror, "Ginger Snaps" has become a cult favorite since its release, while Isabelle has amassed a solid array of film and TV credits that include a recent stint on Syfy's American version of "Being Human." But she shines like a scalpel in "American Mary," and took some time out to chat with us via phone about that movie and more.

MSN Movies: What drew you to this story and to this character?

Katharine Isabelle: Well, I was sent the script and I was just going to sort of briefly scan through it, and I ended up reading the whole 180 pages on my BlackBerry, which, I guess, is my first clue that this was an intriguing film. It was intriguing to me, anyway. And then I had to send it to a couple of people and just get it checked to make sure I wasn't completely insane, because I really loved it. I really loved the character Mary because, I mean, she's so unique as far as the women in film and it's actually where movies go. I like the fact that she has no real redeeming qualities and yet you still really like her at the end of the day. She's interesting, she's smart, she's funny and she's a bit of a weirdo.

And then when I met the twins, Jen and Sylvia Soska, we became instant best friends and that was it for me. It took another nine months or so to actually get the movie made, but I knew I wanted in right away. I never know really why. I liked it and thought maybe there are other weird people out there who would like it.

Did you say 180 pages?

Yeah, there's a lot of black on the page. They write in this manner that is so descriptive that it really colors your imagination when you're reading it. They talk about the music and the shots and everything, yeah.

How did you find the way to make Mary likable, or at least someone that the audience wants to stay engaged with?

I think we all have our days and moments where we're not particularly likable and outgoing, and I think tapping into that probably isn't all that hard. I don't really know what we did. I really just didn't want to let down the girls or let down the character of Mary that I loved so much, and they were very, very supportive and encouraging and generous with the character ... the character of Mary is based quite a lot on (Sylvia). So I just kind of followed her around and observed what she did, and used my instincts to try to portray a character that was so interesting to me.

Mary, like Ginger, is besieged by men yet ends up becoming a much-empowered character. What has it meant to you to play these kinds of really powerful female characters in a genre that is very clearly not known for them?

I'm pleased as punch to have that. As a woman in film -- and I've been doing this for 26 years -- you want to portray to other women in the world a strong character, and the fact that it's in a genre such as horror ... I think it gives relief to myself and to other women to see characters who don't put up with the bulls---, who don't acquiesce, who don't smile and make nice-nice and are still likable. And are strong.

Is there something different about a film like this being directed by a woman or, in this case, two women?

I think so. I mean, I don't know when you watch a movie whether it should matter -- whether you should know who directed it, you know, gender-wise. I think that can definitely put a spin on what you think of the filmmaker's intention or vision. I think that as women, as the twins are, they have a deeper understanding of what it's like to be objectified and marginalized than maybe if a guy had directed the movie. And the comfort level, you know, for me on set was more so than it probably would have been if there was a guy directing.

What was it like to work with two directors on a purely technical level? Did they divide up their duties?

They're a very cohesive team and they both know exactly what they want at the end of the day. So if you have any questions, as long as you can find one of them, your question's going to be answered correctly and unanimously. Sylvia's the why and Jen is the how. Sylvia's the more emotional, creative one and Jen is the one who's like, "Listen, this is how we're gonna get this s--- done today."

I read that they actually wrote the part with you in mind. Were you aware of that when you read the script, or did they tell you afterwards?

I did not know until I met them afterwards. That's always a scary thing to do, write a script for somebody that you don't know, because I could be totally not what their preconceived notions of me might have been. That's scary. We could have totally not gotten along and whatever. But thankfully we were meant to be together forever and they're never allowed to do anything without me ever again.

How comfortable are you with the makeup and gore effects at this point?

It's great if it doesn't have to be on me. I'm very comfortable with it happening to other people. There are people who love getting prosthetics done. I don't particularly enjoy it, but the blood is always fun, and then you just really need a bath after or a hot shower. It gets sticky and awful. But I was happy that for the most part I was the one with really high heels and not six hours of prosthetics on the face.

What was your interaction with the body modification culture, and what insight did you get into them?

We had Russ Foxx and Elwood Reid from the Church of Body Modification come on and mentor us and help us and really support us. I mean, the reason they were into supporting this film is we treat this culture with respect. We don't point fingers and "freak show" them. That's something that they're quite used to. They would come to me with everything I needed to know, all the procedures I needed to know, all of the before-and-after pictures I needed to see and Russ would explain everything to me, show me a few things that I needed to know. In that way I was exposed to the body modification world in a knowledgeable, respectful fashion instead of just sort of going to the Internet finding weird, creepy stuff.

I've actually seen "Ginger Snaps" on cable now twice in the past week. After 13 years, what are your thoughts on that film and how it has endured?

We didn't know when we were making it what we were doing. Emily and I auditioned for it, we thought it was really cool, but when you're making a teenage werewolf movie about menstruation in the woods in Canada in 1999, before werewolves and vampires and all that were so popular, we were like, "This could be really good, hopefully, or it could be really bad and people will never work again." We didn't know. Fortunately, it turned out really well, but it went to film festivals and some critics liked it and then that was kind of that.

It was about two years later that I realized it had gained this little cult following and was a popular movie. To this day I still get, like, 12-year-olds -- people who weren't even born when we made that movie -- coming up to me and talking about it. It's endured this long, I think, because it was, again, so unique. It was a strong female character who didn't put up with, you know -- we would all like to kick ass like that. But instead we have to smile and act pretty and be nice to people we don't necessarily want to be nice to all the time. It was smart and it was funny, it was interesting, it was original. And I think that's why "American Mary" is getting the same reaction now.

What's next?

I just finished a movie in Toronto called "Torment" and am going back for some stuff on "Being Human," and continuing my life as the homeless, traveling gypsy filmmaker. The great adventure that is the unknown.