World War Z (2013) Poster

(2013)

User Reviews

Review this title
1,024 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
A Very Puzzling Missed Opportunity
fosterino24 June 2013
The story of how World War Z was made is a lot more harrowing and suspenseful than the film itself. After going way over-budget and enduing a complete revision and reshoot of the final act, WWZ wasn't exactly set up for success. Ultimately the movie is completely forgettable and uneven, but not offensively bad or objectively terrible in any sense. What struck me about it was how much of a wasted opportunity it was, given how interesting and entertaining the source material is.

Having read the book World War Z, I could tell from the trailers for this movie that it wouldn't exactly be a faithful adaptation. I thought that the most interesting aspects of the book were its exploration of how the Zombie plague affected social and political structures across the world. Anything like that is completely ignored in the film, but I can at least understand how the filmmakers thought that those aspects wouldn't work in a single feature length movie. What I can't understand is how the filmmakers seemingly ignored the book's most obviously cinematic content. The book features a lot of setpiece action scenes, and to be fair, many of these involve world cities falling to zombie infestation and the movie does do enough to cover this. However, the book's immense battle scenes - the meat of the titular Zombie War, such as the Battle of Yonkers, nuclear war between Pakistan and Iran, Chinese civil war and massive formation combat against zombies - are completely absent. I was very surprised that they did not cover these, especially the Yonkers scene, because they would obviously fit so well into a film and the script, even as it is now, could easily be tweaked to include or at least mention them. The action that did make it into this film is very unsatisfying and obscure thanks to the restrictions of the PG-13 rating, and the narrative around is not engaging enough to really get me invested in it.

I was also surprised at how cheap this movie looked. This film cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make, but it's hard to see where it all went on the screen. Swarms of zombies look very fake and nonthreatening, and in some cases individual zombies are computer animated, which gave me bad flashbacks to I Am Legend's awful CGI overload. Aside from the opening scenes in Philadelphia and the middle act in Jerusalem, there are no big outdoor sets. A South Korean airbase is portrayed as a series of dark rooms; too much of the movie takes place in an airline seat; there is a lot of sitting around inside of the aircraft carrier, etc. The sense of scale is very inconsistent, and this is accentuated in the bizarre final act, which was obviously the focus of the infamous reshoots as it feels like a completely separate movie. I consider myself a patient viewer, but this very long and dull scene started to bring me down after a while, and my less patient viewing audience eventually fell completely out of sync with the film and began to make fun of it at every opportunity - not really a fair criticism of the film, but it's a real issue when it can't hold an audience's attention. The final act does actually have an interesting idea at its heart, albeit one that completely doesn't connect with anything in the book, but I just didn't think it was a well executed concept. The very different style and tone of these scenes makes it feel like a completely different movie.

Again, while there was nothing all that terrible about WWZ, I didn't think it was anything to get excited about. In other words, a perfect 5/10 movie. I wish they were more aware of the source material's potential because without the best and most cinematic aspects of the book, WWZ (the film)and WWZ (the book) only share a title and the central premise of a zombie plague, which is not an original idea in itself.
560 out of 855 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This is not a movie, it is a special demo with no plot
burkay-ozturk23 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
The special effects were impressive, I will give you that. However, the rest wasn't. The 2 hour experience felt like watching titanic sink, in real time. Here is a list of the things that went wrong:

1. PG13 rating: The director and producers wanted to make this movie family friendly, so they took away all the gore, death and decay that makes the zombie genre what it is. This made the zombies totally not scary and even on occasions towards the end, just plain laughable.

2. Senseless plot: The UN sends a small team to investigate the beginning of the outbreak. They have a neurologist on the team, who incidentally cant stop using cheesy metaphors about mother nature. Why can't they send multiple teams, with more than one expert on each? After all it is clearly a high risk mission, casualties must be expected. After the neurologist dies right after his pretentious speech, it is clear that the whole thing was an excuse to put Brad Pitt in a dangerous situation so that we will feel tension. We still didn't because, see 3.

3. Bad character development: None of the characters in the movie had any depth. As a result we didn't care if they lived or died. Pitt's family was just the detestable suburban family, who apparently does nothing but turn money into feces. Their marriage and children felt so plastic and ready-made that I personally would not have felt a thing if Pitt was torn apart by zombies in front of his family. Well, actually that might have improved this movie, alas it couldn't have happened because of 1.

4. The ending sequence: Just as we think that the plot cannot get worse and we make peace with the idea of enjoying the special effects, the movie takes another down turn in the last 40 minutes or so. The special effects disappear and we find Pitt and his sidekick in a W.H.O. research facility playing hide and seek with zombies. There is no suspense because the ending is announced basically in the first 5 minutes of this sequence, Pitt will go into the zombie infested part of the building, get some disease samples and bring them back. They will use one of the samples to infect themselves and see if zombies will lose their appetite. They do, and we win, with another pretentious speech about how it is not the end but just the beginning. Yawn.

5. Plot holes:

a) Zombies can diagnose a terminal illness just by looking at someone and for some reason, they avoid that person. This doesn't make any sense at any level. First, even a doctor with years of medical training can't do that without extensive testing. How can a mindless zombie, who cant figure out how to unbuckle her seat belt, do it just after a glance by the corner of her eye? Second, why the hell would zombies avoid a sick person? There is no reason. After all, the virus, or whatever that is causing the outbreak is not harmed by any other disease. The W.H.O. scientists said so themselves.

b) The W.H.O. facility is in Wales, Britain. Among the weapons they have in their arsenal is a baseball bat. Does the director even know where Wales is? Does anyone, one soul in Wales, own a baseball bat? Was that so difficult to make it a cricket bat? Come on now, I think that the director is a bit of a thickie but I can't believe that no one who looked at this movie pre-release had seen Shaun of the Dead. And to add insult to injury, the soldier girl with one hand picks the baseball bat. This scene alone is enough to prove that the director of the movie is blind from birth, because anyone who had at least one functioning eye at any point in his life and used it to glance at a baseball bat would have immediately realized that it is a two-handed weapon. How could a special forces soldier could not recognize it as such and not pick the crowbar?

c) The cellphone battery: In one scene, the cellphone's battery is declared dead. In a later scene, it is working again. Really?

d) When they decide to recover the disease samples, they give Pitt no briefing about which containers contain what. But apparently, at least one container is full of deadly stuff, which would kill him immediately. Why? Why? OMG, why? The security cameras show the room clearly. All they need to do is to seat Pitt and the soldier girl in front of one of the displays and show them where the goodies are before sending them in.

e) Pitt has no special combat, first aid or survival training. He apparently learned all that stuff on the field, and he is not a scientist either. Finally, he doesn't have experience as a commanding officer. So, why would he, instead of literally thousands of military people who were purpose-trained for such a mission, is chosen to lead the mission? It doesn't make any sense. It would have made a lot of sense if his UN friend said something like "Look, I convinced these people that you are the best man to lead this mission though we both know that you aren't. You are just a guy who spent ten years handing out blankets to African countries. But I had to do it to save your family, alright? They would have never let you on the ship otherwise and you would have died in Philly." That would have not only sealed this plot hole, but also would have given Pitt's character a tragic and desperate quality, which would have helped us care about him. But the mindless zombies who made this movie missed this chance too.
413 out of 645 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Light, family friendly and internationally marketable.
fca18219 June 2013
Oh, Hollywood. You saw the zombie apocalypse coming didn't you? Not a literal apocalypse of course, just 16 dozen different zombie books, graphic novels, games and TV shows taking over the world like the plague, and you just had to have your piece of the pie, didn't you?

World War Z is based on the 2006 novel by Max Brooks. The novel garnered some quite positive reviews, praised for its international and political scope. It also caught the eye of producer and star Brad Pitt, who after a long struggle with studios, directors, producers and other Hollywood zombies, managed to put together a half decent movie with director Marc Forster.

Half decent? Well, WWZ certainly isn't a bad movie. You've got the long-time Oscar-deserving Pitt playing Gerry Lane, a likable, good-looking family man who retired as a UN investigator to spend more time around his wife and daughters. This is all about to change obviously, because after the now seemingly mandatory news-footage-montage introduction, Gerry is called back by the UN in exchange for his family's safety on their big boat.

It sounds good enough, but the problem is that WWZ's political/international context is nowhere to be found so we're left pretty much to 28 Days Later with blockbuster pretentiousness. Sure, Gerry travels around the world and makes a few long distance phone calls, but there's never anything remotely compelling enough to warrant his travels and whenever the plot does manage to come close to something it quickly sets it aside in the interest of keeping this summer blockbuster light, family friendly and internationally marketable.

After Quantum of Solace there was much uncertainty about Forster's ability to direct action and after WWZ, guess what? There still is. Granted, it's never boring, but when the other elements that should've made the film aren't there it should be more than "never boring". Paramount's marketing certainly didn't help; if you've seen the trailers then you've seen the whole plot and LITERALLY every single action set piece, in chronological order too. You know when you see a trailer and think "they put all the good parts in"? Well, this time they put the whole movie in. The more hardcore genre fans might also want to look elsewhere if they're seeking gory zombie kills; there isn't much of that either as its PG-13 rating might suggest.

Brad Pitt is really the film's only strength. Much like Tom Cruise, Brad's got enough talent to singlehandedly pull you through a not-so-great movie without you hating him for it. And at almost age 50 you can't really blame him for wanting to star in his own big blockbuster franchise for the first time in his career when he could've played any superhero he wanted years ago. "Franchise" of course, if permitted by the audience, because this is one movie that desperately wants to have sequels.
449 out of 718 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
5/10. Sorry folks, It's pretty pants. And I REALLY wanted it to be good.
martin-807-4522709 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
SPOILER ALERT. SPOILER ALERT! You have been warned.

The Premiere -

I was at the London World Premiere last week, and Interestingly there was clearly tension between Mark (Director) and Brad Pitt. I would have thought a director of this size movie would be able to make a speech. But no. Reading from cards he fumbled over his words, got his actors names seriously wrong in front of 1000 people and was clearly very very nervous. Which is odd because any director should be excited or proud to be presenting their work to the world!

Brad Pitt in interview said they chose Mark as he was really good at the little emotional moments between characters. Well they mush have cut those bits out.

The movie -

A zombie film with no blood? I've no idea what the zombies were doing as we never see them kill anyone! They just run around a lot, far too fast for a 'human being'. No decapitated zombies, and a incredibly poor script that could have been knocked together in an evening.

Speaking to actors who worked on the film they told me a lot of the dialogue was improvised. And it shows. Good dialogue is written. It is very hard for an actor to come up with great dialogue on set with crew around, lights, explosions, gun fire and a budget and schedule pressing down on you - that is what rehearsals and, dare I say, a screenwriter are for.

I just don't think Mark Forster (Quantum of Bollox) knows how to direct. No emotional connection to any of the characters. No big climax at the end and the least threatening Zombie in the history of movies. Click click click.

A tedious V/O from Brad at the end, about "only just the beginning, of the war, YAWN..." We have heard this a hundred times.

There was some truly awful acting, characters that appear and go in a scene, that do nothing, and flimsy science that is just insulting to anyone who can actually think.

The only good bit was the Zombie as Ants scene, but it would have been hugely improved if a zombie with a giant leaf walked past in the background.

The audience laughed at several moment, that I don't believe the director even realised were gags!

Brad doesn't even really do any acting. He does a bit of running around and a fight or two. No great lines, and I don't really believe that he loves his kids and wife so terribly much.

Best thing in it was - Daniella Kertesz, but her scenes are clearly cut to bits, unlike her hand, which just seems to be fine after a couple of gin and tonics. I'll have what she's having!

And leaning suitcases against a curtain? Seriously. That was really bad.

The film could have been saved in the Edit - with some clever re-positioning of the major scenes, to get the structure right, but having seen Brad and Mark together, they had clearly fallen out of love with the movie.

Nothing here we haven't seen in 28 Days Later, or any other zombie film, or even The War of the World that was written 100 years ago.

At the end the applause was half hearted and everyone got up and left super fast.

The aftermath -

Please GOD can we stop giving bad directors a second, and in this case 10th chance. This film made me angry that a studio can waste so much money on what was a mediocre idea even at the beginning, and gave it to a director who has a proved track record of not being able to fix a bad script, or direct action.

The budget on this would keep an independent film maker in business for the next 400 years - or if we put that in a real time scale - all the way back to Elizabeth the 1st.

Frustrating.

Nothing to see here ladies and gentlemen, move on.
461 out of 803 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Don't give up
moviemanMA22 July 2013
At the end of World War Z, just as the credits began rolling, a gentleman, scratch that, an idiot spoke up from the back of the theatre exclaiming, "What? That sucked! The book was nothing like that! Booo!" I'm sure he scurried away back home, logged online, and began tweeting, posting, and blogging, furthering his rant. Much like my response to him at the theatre, I hope he receives silence in return.

It's true, World War Z is nothing like the book. The book is told from the point of view AFTER the war. It's a "historical," account of what happened during the war. Rather than make a mockumentary with flashbacks, which would have been the wrong decision in my opinion, the filmmakers decided to put us right in the middle of the action.

When adapting a piece of literature it is impossible to bring every page, every paragraph, every nuance onto the screen. Some have come close depending on the material, but for the most part, they all have to take their own creative licenses. After all, it's called an "adaptation," for a reason, otherwise they would call it a copy or mimic.

Where World War Z works (that's a mouthful) and where so many others fail is that just because the world slips into total and utter chaos, doesn't mean that governments, military, and law enforcement agencies go away. Quite the opposite. If anything, these scenarios bring out the best of all of them. We see generals, UN delegates, and scientists trying to solve complex issues that they don't know anything about. Rather than going into hiding, they act. Society doesn't crumble. Bands of cannibals and leather strapped gangs don't patrol the streets with necklaces made of teeth. People do what they can to survive, and the higher ups try their best to find a fast and effective solution.

At first, I thought the movie started too fast. How could something this violent and concentrated go undetected, but after a while I got it. The opening montage of news reports said it all. How many of us listen to everything we hear on the news? Exactly. So much goes undetected while we focus on issues that effect us immediately. It's too late when the virus touches US soil. Not even social media can keep up with it.

As far as zombie movies go this one is pretty great. Though I think 28 Days Later takes the cake in terms of realism, in-camera effects, and sheer terror, this one holds its own. Brad Pitt plays a former UN investigator who is traveling with his family just as the zombie attack on Philadelphia unfolds. The film goes from 0-60 before you take a sip of your Coke. This is a fast paced, edge of your seat thrill ride led by one of the finest actors of this generation (Pitt's acting ability is far too underrated and lost in the kerfuffle of tabloid news).

For those of you who stare at the ticket window debating whether or not to see a film in 3D or standard, you might want to spend the extra few dollars to see this one in 3D (I know it's asking a lot, but maybe you can sneak some candy or a bottle of water to offset the concession stand price - deal with it). I tend to air on the side of "screw it, I want to see it in 3D." Now not every movie NEEDS to be seen in 3D, hell there are really only a couple that absolutely have to be seen in all three dimensions (Avatar and maybe Life of Pi), but this one really surprised me. 3D is not about things jumping out at you, but it's about layers. Luckily this film has both. Big chase scenes in Philly, particles floating about in South Korea, and tracking shots in Jerusalem make this one of the 3D events of the year. No exaggeration.

Like so many other summer blockbusters before it, civilization is on the brink of extinction and only a handful of experts can save us. What World War Z does that so many have failed is give us hope. Hope that humanity won't dissolve into nothingness. In the face of sheer danger these fighters stand tall, take a deep breath, look the enemy in the eye, and say, "No."
96 out of 156 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Where's the war?
John-The-Roman23 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Let me start by giving a summary of the book: A journalist travels the world AFTER the zombie outbreak to interview different people from different countries to see how they handled this massive infestation. It gives points of view from different characters on how they handled themselves and uses real-world scenarios to show realistically how such a thing would be combated.

On to the movie: Where did ANY of this go? First of all, instead of showing how DIFFERENT people handle this situation, it shows how ONE MAN handles it. Brad Pitt. For a movie that seems to want to be taken seriously as true-to-life, it sure does fail when it introduces the premise that somehow a RETIRED UN investigator is the most important man in the world and the only one who can save it. If such were the case, why send him out with ONLY a handful of soldiers instead of a small army of Special Forces? Also, why introduce this young, brilliant doctor as the possible hope for humanity if he is only going to idiotically shoot himself in the first thirty minutes of the movie? To me it seemed like Brad Pitt said: "Woah, wait a minute. You can't let a dorky doctor save the world. I'm the hero! Kill him off!", stamped his foot, and went to pout in a corner. I had heard that Pitt (the producer) and Forster (the director) were at odds through the entire filming, so the script had to be re-written several times to accommodate Pitt's hissy fits, so I'm slow to blame Forster for this awful "adaptation".

The zombies: LOL! These zombies are everything you'd expect if Disney decided to do a Pixar zombie film. Most of them are done using CGI, and the ones who are actual actors are completely non-scary and laughable. Gnashing their teeth like poorly acted Cenobytes from the Hellraiser series. In order to sell more tickets, they opted for a PG-13 rating, so there is no blood and I don't remember seeing a zombie kill a single person. How do you make a zombie movie when the antagonist which is supposed to strike fear into our hearts just seems like a football game gone horribly wrong? Super fast running and lots of flying tackles does not for a zombie apocalypse make.

The plot: I know this movie was trying for something different, and failed horribly. They should have just called it "28 Months Later". The supposed plot twist at the end, which was re-written 4 or 5 times, seemed put together at the last minute, and as if the writers just said: "eh, screw it. Just do this and release the movie so we can get a paycheck." Anyone who thinks that making it a metaphor for the current state of events and painting the UN into the saviors of humanity is something new has obviously not seen the FAR superior District 9. I will not get into all the other plot holes so monstrous you could drive a bus through them.

The acting: Who are these people? Why should we care about them? Their performances are wooden. They have such small roles because Brad Pitt seems to want to hog all the screen time, and even then his own performance is stilted and lackluster. He lacks any sort of emotion and I never once felt that I could connect to his character at all. The filmmakers would have done a much better job if he'd been introduced as an average joe.

Summary: I see a lot of people praising the action in this movie, but I found it extremely boring. Any action presented was the same: "Brad Pitt goes to new country, Brad Pitt gets attacked, Brad Pitt saves a handful of people, Brad Pitt runs to new country". For the overbloated budget, this movie offered nothing new or refreshing. On top of that, it could not even succeed as a good zombie film. Movies like 28 Days Later, The Horde, and hell, even Cockneys vs. Zombies show that a great zombie film does not need a huge budget to make it great. This was simply Pitt's and Hollywood's attempt at taking something people love (zombies) and cashing in on it. The 7.4 rating I see this movie had must have been paid for, because 9/10ths of the user reviews I see for this film are just BAD! Same as the film itself. The good reviews I see praise it as "The Best Zombie Movie I've Seen" … which leads me to believe they haven't seen ANY zombie movies before, and that the movie is "Intelligent and Realistic", which if you see my above points, just isn't the case. Usually I am very forgiving in terms of movies lacking realism, but this one was trying to sell itself on that very premise. Also, I am not harsh on films for not being perfect adaptations of a book, but this is different, because it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the book at all aside from the wall in Israel and the title itself.

4/10 simply because some parts of it did look nice, and I'm even being in a giving mood with that.
163 out of 274 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
28 Months Later For Morons
Theo Robertson26 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
If a film is sold by a trailer it's this one . I've never read the source novel but do know it is structured as reportage where the world has been changed by a zombie infestation leading to a new geo-political shape for the world so in many ways this is more of a prequel than an adaptation . I did like Danny Boyle's genre shattering 28 DAYS LATER and loved the sequel and unfortunately it looks like that franchise has ended so in some ways this could be a surrogate 28 MONTHS LATER . Add to this the trailers where the waves of infected storm barriers against heavily armed soldiers and we've got a Zombie classic in the making don't we ?No we don't because this is a film that gives the impression that it was written and made by zombies

From the outset we get something incomprehensible - the outbreak itself . WWZ keeps the origins of the virus an enigma and right away this damages the premise . At least in 28 DL the audience are afforded an opening scene of the rage virus escaping and you're very quickly able to buy in to this scenario . WWZ doesn't do this but an opening scene alludes to a virus breaking out across the world via news reports . Cut to scientist Brad Pitt driving his family in Philadelphia and finds himself in a traffic jam . Within seconds people run screaming from their cars as rabid zombies run everywhere

This scene is mildly effective but there's a spanner in the works . Two spanners actually . One is that's very clear that the incubation period of this virus is a few seconds almost identical to that established in 28 DL . In reality such a violent virus would spread like wild fire but the thing is it wouldn't be able to cross continents which renders the later parts of the film as incomprehensible from a logic point of view . Secondly you will find it impossible to buy in to this scenario . I know I didn't but please feel free to ask questions

As the film progresses Brad Pitt's scientist - and I won't call him by his character name because he doesn't have a character - jumps on a plane to South Korea then off to Israel where the Israelis have managed to block out the infected by building a massive big wall

" Wow that was quick Theo . The Israelis must be very good bricklayers to build a wall when the infection has only existed for a couple of days "

Oh no because the Mossad chief got word from India a few week earlier that the Indian army were fighting zombies . Before you ask it's never revealed why the news media never got hold of this potential headline , nor is it revealed why when the rest of the world is battling Zombies this unknown virus never got in to Israel

The action scenes in Jerusalem are impressive from a spectacle point of view but again lack internal continuity . Safe behind their wall the Israelis let in refugees - while armies of Zombies swarm around outside . Narrowly escaping the carnage Brad stops to amputate the hand of a female IDF soldier whose just been bitten which defies credibility

" But Theo you know these Israelis are tough nuts and women have to endure pain and blood every month "

Not in the same league as amputation though is it ? Then Brad phones the UN who tell him that he must make his way to WHO research lab in Wales . Don't ask why there's no nearer research centres between Cardiff and Jerusalem . while on the aeroplane a Zombie that just happened to be hiding in the cupboard jumps out and spreads the infection leading to IDF girl to throw a grenade that causes the plane to crash in Wales . So they have a short walk to the WHO research centre

" Wouldn't blood loss caused by getting your hand amputated make you too weak to go for a short walk ? And wouldn't Britain being an island make quarantine against the virus much easier ? I mean if the Israelis managed it ? "

Look sit down and shut up . I know this was a major plot point that the rage virus couldn't escape from Britain in 28DL but if you think you can write a better Hollywood screenplay join the 7 billion people heading towards Hollywood right now . The last half hour involves more idiotic plotting that rely on coincidence , good fortune and after spending nearly every scene pointing out that the Zombies are attracted to noise someone just has to shoot a gun . The film ends with a solution to the problem which doesn't make the slightest bit of sense but means the human race can now concentrate on wiping out the Zombies

" But Theo won't the Zombies die of thirst ? "

I said shut up . If anything about this film made any sense it have been more than a loud dumb Summer blockbuster . You do notice that everything about it seems to have commercial consideration . Brad Pitt jumping all over the world meeting so many different nationalities does seem a cynical attempt at audience identification . Likewise the very obvious lack of blood and gore might supposedly attract people who fear the post apocalypse / Zombie genre ( Hello Bob The Moo ) but they'll notice the lack of intelligent plotting which severely damages the film and gore hounds who enjoy blood and guts will be disappointed by the extremely inoffensive nature of WWZ . Danny Boyle you're needed
249 out of 444 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Fast, scary and much better than expected!
AdventureWolf20 June 2013
I was dubious! The rating, the early reviews, my love of gory George Romero movies had all led me to deciding not to see this. But, my wife wanted to go... Well, two breathless hours later I turned to her, big grin on my face and had to state "That was awesome!" Yes, I can see why people don't like it. It is very different to the traditional zombie movie, and very different to the book. But you know what, who cares - it's not a traditional zombie movie, or the book - it's different. So suck it it up whiners and enjoy this for what it is! (And I'm a huge fan of all Max Brooks zombie books.) The movie begins with a short intro to the main character and his family (it was enough, it told me all I needed to know) before launching into a fantastic, break neck sequence that establishes the pace for most of the rest of the movie. It's violent, visceral and shocking without any reliance in gore. The tension is racked up (especially in the escape from the apartment block sequence) with a series of spectacular set pieces (the walls of Jerusalem scene is brilliant) and things get better and bigger until the film slows the pace for the final reel with a slow burning, smaller scale sequence set in a WHO research lab in the UK. It's an unusual choice to end a movie with the smallest set piece, but it worked well for me as it was in line with Gerry's quest and the (stated in the movie) fact that the answer is often so small it gets overlooked. The gravity of the decisions Gerry has to make here are greater than any previously in the movie (where mostly he just has to run like hell!) and it's that that makes this such a powerful set piece to end the movie. I learnt several things from this movie 1) to let go of my preconceptions about what a zombie film should be, 2) that a low rating doesn't mean its for kids - I have two sons and despite the lack of gore I certainly wouldn't let then see this. Its very intense and that (not the gore) is what would scare them. 3) to go with the flow - I did here and was swept along for a rapid fire 2 hour thrill ride that was a hell of a lot of fun. I for one will be getting this on blu ray and I'll be first in line for any sequel. But I will admit, an undated version would be very welcome!
470 out of 860 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
If you've seen the trailer you've seen the movie
thatdude10125 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I've listed that this review contains spoilers, but I haven't included anything that the trailer hasn't already given away.

And the that's my main problem with "World War Z" The Trailer. If you've seen the trailer you've seen the movie. It literally shows everything that happens in the movie completely destroying any suspense that might have been had. "World War Z" isn't a conventional movie with a flowing plot line that builds to a dramatic conclusion. It's more like a bunch of individual parts laid out in a not so very straight line, and strung together loosely by a single character. I don't have much of a problem with that, or the facts the Zombies aren't of the undead kind, slow moving kind like they were in the source novel. But rather the rabid, sprinting, quick turning kind like in "28 days later" Brad Pit is good and takes the roll seriously. The CGi is top notch, and the movie is well made. The problem I had is that I new exactly what was going to happen, before it happened, because they showed it in the stupid trailer. Literally, every single cool action shot that's in the movie they showed in the trailer. Every single plot point. Even the dialog scenes. I knew the jest of what was going to be said because they showed the important parts in the trailer! I kept waiting for the extended version but it never came. There's no suspense. (I know there's Zombies on the plane and that Brad Pitt blows a hole in the side sucking them all out, crashing the plane, because they show it in the trailer!) That's just one example of a long list of scenes that you totally know what's fixing to happen because, well... You've seen it already. This is one movie I wish I could have gone in completely blank. Not having read the book, not having seen the trailer, and I think I would have enjoyed it a lot more.
96 out of 170 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Zombie blockbuster for a generic audience
cgf37621 June 2013
I haven't read the book so I'm not coming from viewing this as an adaptation but rather a stand-alone film. (From what I've heard it's pretty far from the original source anyway.) First off, a zombie film watered-down and free from blood and gore? That idea alone would lose a big slice (pun-intended) of hardcore fans in the audience. How does it hold your attention then? By stringing you along on the edge with tension and suspense from beginning to end. It does a pretty good job of maintaining this grip even without the standard horror elements of slasher flicks.

Brad Pitt easily slips into the role of a family man desperate to keep his family safe. It's not difficult to root for him and share in his urgency. His charm certainly makes up for and saves the movie from its flaws (and there are many!) not the least of which are its gaping plot holes and loose direction.

The audience in the theater seemed to have fun screaming along and allowing themselves to be entertained and toyed with. There are a handful of funny scenes (whether intentional or not). If you're willing to quit analyzing the movie like a critic, you'll probably start enjoying it.

After all, when did a zombie movie ever have to be "BELIEVABLE"?
143 out of 260 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
terrible
lukycheter-504-18537227 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
The only movie I have ever seen that is worse than this is Alien Vs. Predator. No blood, no gore, no swearing, no zombie movie. Brad Pitt's arrogance and feeling of self-worth will suffocate you as you watch this steaming pile of cr*p. I don't even care that it doesn't resemble the book, it was a terrible movie no matter how you slice it. Apparently Brad's artistic addition to the movie was that when humans become ill the zombies won't attack them...yet one of the guys who help Sir. Brad super-UN inspector Pitt only has an injured knee, not an illness. Brad Pitt is the only actor in this movie that has any real screen time, it might as well be called "Brad Pitt saves the world (in the most uninteresting 2 hours ever). This movie is bad and anyone involved in writing/directing/producing it should feel bad.

I hate you Brad Pitt, with every bone in my body. Since you "made this film for your kids" by giving it a PG-13 rating I hope one day they grow up, read the book, and despise what you created.
92 out of 163 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Brad Pitt, not just a Valium for humans anymore
NOLDaemon7 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
The zombie outbreak starts with Brad Pitt with his family in stopped traffic. There's a huge explosion with no explanation of why. Then, either a huge horde of humans are running from a small amount of zombies, or a huge horde of zombies are chasing a small amount of humans. You can't tell who is who, because all you see is a mob of people running in the same direction. Occasionally you see a zombie or two leap after a human, so you can tell they're not all human. But otherwise they could have been filming the bull runs in Spain (without the bulls).

The zombies are part of what ruins the movie. They run faster than humans can, leap onto flying helicopters and can stack themselves 20 zombies high to climb walls. They can detect any terminal illness in any human, no matter the disease. No explanation is given how someone can go from ordinary human to super zombie in 12 seconds. Or why zombies just bite humans and then run away. If it takes 12 seconds to turn, then why don't they continue to attack for 12 seconds?

Next, all the zombies are gone somehow and we see humans looting a store. The zombies are attracted to sound, but somehow they can't hear people pushing shopping carts on pavement. After some shopping, Brad takes his family to an apartment building which seems to be void of zombies. He convinces a family to let him and his family into their apartment. After a beer, Brad tells the father that him & his family should go with him. However, the father decides to stay. Bad decision. When Brad Pitt tells you to do something, you do it. Within seconds of Brad leaving, all of a sudden there's a hundred zombies outside the door breaking in.

Brad's on his way to the roof for a helicopter rescue while being chased by zombies. All of a sudden the little boy from the family shows up. No explanation of how he got by all the zombies, nor an explanation of why the zombies stopped coming to allow Brad to save the boy. All we know is when Brad Pitt is around, zombies either stop coming, or become very calm. Almost like they just took a Valium.

Next they're off to South Korea. Nothing happens except Brad learns he needs to go to Israel, and the North Koreans are fine because they extracted the teeth of their entire country. (Can't infect without teeth) How that stops the 4 billion people already infected with teeth is never explained. Brad gets to Israel to witness they built a wall around the country and survived the zombie apocalypse. Not for long. They're letting in people from everywhere. All you see is humans entering the country through metal walkways. Who knows where the walkways lead to or why the zombies can't get into them. Or can they? There's a scene later in the movie where a zombie picks up a human in the supposedly safe walkway, and infects him. If that's all it took to infect the walkway, then why weren't they infected a long time ago?

Why didn't Israel get infected? Because they built a huge wall. Why did every continent get infected at nearly the same time? Because as explained in the movie, it was the airplanes. Big cities were affected first and worst because of the international airports. Did Israel have airports? Absolutely. They had a line of planes leaving every minute. Did zombies infect the planes? They certainly infected the plane Brad Pitt left Israel on. So why didn't Israel get infected by one of the planes entering the country? Never explained.

The reason why the zombies took over the country is dumb. After they let in refugees, the refugees start singing and that noise attracts the zombies. Forget the fact that they have helicopters constantly orbiting the wall, or the never ending line of planes taking off from their airports. It's the children singing that triggers the zombies to scale the wall and conquer the country. In South Korea, army soldiers gave advice to aim at the knees to slow them down, and then the heads to kill. So obviously we're not dealing with invincible zombies. So how do they manage to stack themselves 20+ zombies high, and then drop all the way to the ground uninjured? No broken bones. But if you shoot their knees they drop like flies.

Then there's the amputation scene. Israel is being overrun by zombies so badly, the girl running behind Brad gets bit. They kill the biting zombie, and then conveniently, zombies stop coming so Brad can amputate the hand of the girl, and bandage her up. I told you Brad Pitt has a calming effect on zombies!!

About the "terminal illness" theory. How did they not discover that the entire cancer wing of a hospital would be unaffected by the zombie virus. Or were the zombies simply avoiding Brad Pitt? I wish Brad Pitt infected himself with a virus that made him invisible to me.
60 out of 103 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A very Mixed Bag
Jeremy_Urquhart21 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Pros:

  • Epic scope: This is without a doubt the biggest zombie movie ever made. The exact budget of the film is unknown, but due to its prolonged and troubled production some have estimated the movie cost as much as 250 million dollars to make. And the film-makers really make sure you're aware of how expensive the movie would've been to make, with a number of staggering shots featuring thousands and thousands of zombies swarming all over each other. The movie earns its title, given the fact that it is truly a zombie movie on a global scale.


  • Brad Pitt: He's very good in this movie, and is definitely one of the best things about the film. He makes for a compelling and likable hero who has to rely more on his intelligence than physical power. He's no superhero in this film, and his vulnerability and "everyday-man" nature keeps him relatable and likable.


  • Action scenes: As mentioned before, there's a ton of zombies in this movie. And yes, a lot of them are CGI, which I personally don't have a problem with because there were so many it's unlikely they could've done a lot of these scenes with actual extras portraying the zombies. The hordes of zombies allow for some truly spectacular action scenes on a large scale, all of which I'd rather not talk about in too much detail, because the zombie/action scenes are really the best part of the film, so it's definitely best not to ruin the scenes by giving you too much of an idea of what to expect


  • Use of the word "zombie": This didn't necessarily make the film better, but it was just interesting to see the word "zombie" used frequently by the film's characters. The word "zombie" has been treated for so long as a clichéd term in zombie films that it's now kind of refreshing to see it used so honestly and openly in a serious zombie film.


Cons:

  • Lack of gore: Now don't get me wrong, I don't need blood and guts in every single movie I watch. But with zombie films, gory violence is a necessity. You need to see zombies getting ripped apart to emphasise how they are literally the "living dead," and you need to see humans die graphic deaths to reinforce how much of a threat the zombies can be. But this film wants to appeal to pretty much anyone aged 10 and up so Brad Pitt and friends can get more money, so of course we get very little blood, plus no on-screen guts, severed limbs, or exploding heads.


  • Shaky cam: This kind of ties in with the lack of gore; it's like the cameraman is shying away from the more graphic moments (it's The Hunger Games all over again). The shaky cam's only really noticeable in the film's first half hour though, while the zombie outbreak is just beginning, so it's not a huge problem. Still a little bothersome though.


  • Unfulfilling ending: This movie does end in an abrupt fashion, and kind of left me wanting more. It ends very suddenly, and I kind of thought to myself- "really? That's it?" The biggest action scene in the movie occurs about halfway through the film, and the final zombie confrontation was fairly quiet and low-key, which just felt a bit off to me. That being said, the jarringly sudden ending could be seen as a good thing, as it demonstrated that the movie went by fairly quickly. It's just under two hours long, but the final scene honestly felt as though the film was at about the 80-minute mark. But still, the ending was a little unsatisfying, so I ultimately see the ending as a con.


  • Unintentionally funny zombies: Zombies can be funny, and zombie movies can be part-comedy and still be great zombie movies. Shaun of the Dead and ZombieLand are both very funny movies that also manage to be pretty good legitimate zombie films (they don't exclusively poke fun at the zombie genre). George A. Romero worked some great satire into 1978′s Dawn of the Dead, by comparing the zombies in the film's mall to the mindless, braindead consumers who inhabited the mall pre-zombie apocalypse. World War Z didn't feel like it was meant to have much comedy in it with its serious tone and gritty aesthetic, yet at times I found myself laughing at the way the film's zombies expressed exaggerated twitchy movements, and the manner in which more than a few of them chattered their teeth repeatedly in a cartoonish manner.


  • Slight lack of tension: The movie lacks some much needed suspense because it's basically Brad Pitt saving the world himself. Maybe if Pitt's character had a few allies forming like a "rag-tag squad" or something, and they went around battling zombies as a group, it would've made things more intense and involving, as a few of them would inevitably die along the way. I don't know, a few more well-developed side characters would've gone quite a long way in making me more invested in the film's events.


So there's my thoughts on this film. It's a mixed bag, but ultimately I'd recommend it. It's worth seeing at the cinema just for those spectacular action scenes, and simply so you can see the sheer scale of the biggest budgeted zombie film of all time. It's flawed as hell though, so go in with moderate expectations. It could be a whole lot better, but ultimately the film's still pretty decent, and a good one to experience on the big screen. It's certainly a fine summer blockbuster, but it's unlikely that the film will ever achieve a "classic status."
98 out of 175 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
What a waste of money...
vollawetscher22 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
What a waste of money.... and I do not only mean for the tickets. The whole production must have been quite expensive. And I guess the taxpayer pays for all scenes where the US Navy or Airforce shows up? For what? The movie failed on all accounts and didn't even manage to create tension or scare people. The audience even started laughing in certain scenes. Uff I really don't know where to start: Satellite phones that work inside steel vessels, EMP kills electronics including satellite phones but only hours late they seem to be working again, amputations that don't cause the victim to bleed to death, kids that are totally cool after losing their families (high five!).... and i could go on and on. By the way the sponsors of the movie must have been Duct tape and Pepsi. The only creepy feeling i get is that movies like this or "The Purge" play a certain role to prepare society for future apocalyptic events. God bless America!
107 out of 193 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Disappointing...
Nathan Powell23 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I'll start with the good. Brad Pitt +1 star, zombies +1 star, decent special effects +1, and a reluctant +1 star for the story.

My first big issue with this film is the lack of a War. I mean come on, World War Z, I expected a war of epic proportion. Instead I got total zombie domination while "living" people retreated to whatever safety could be found. The "War" scenes were nothing but regurgitated zombie attacks while people flee screaming for their lives.

The next big issue is the narrow scope of people capable of countering the threat. We have a UN something something that has the authority to command helicopters and navy vessels and apparently can convince anyone in the world that Gerry (Brad Pitt) is a good guy that shouldn't be delayed in his efforts by simply stating his name into a satellite phone. This person later lacks the power to keep Gerry's family safe on the boat, and demonstrates utter humility considering his rank when offers bed service to Gerry's family.

As the story develops the audience becomes aware that Gerry is some kind of super duper ex military dude that is apparently the best in the world at all things. We're all hosed if Gerry doesn't deliver. He hooks up with another Rambo type girl in Israel I think. Point being all these elite military characters fail miserably at avoiding the one thing that attracts every zombie withing 100 miles, making NOISE!! They literally bump, kick, fall, shoot, yell at every opportunity given, attracting hoards of zombies in the process. I suppose this was necessary mechanic to zombie conflict, but it certainly didn't compliment their supposed elite skills.

The story is weak, and the solution and family reunion are visible long before they should be, which only strengthens the disappointment in the movie. Where's my refund?
64 out of 112 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Quiet possibly the worst film I have seen this year!!
Rusticcrayon25 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
So I think everyone is aware this film has had a lot of troubles, and for those of you that weren't, you will soon see why if you waste you money, let alone your time on this excuse of a film.

Like a number of people that have posted I also wanted to believe this film would offer something, but it doesn't. It is not original, the SFX are average, the acting is poor.

I like Pitt in most his films, but in this one, I honestly think this is some of the worst acting of his career - look out for the scene where Pitt is in the WHO building in the last act when he finds out that all the dangerous viruses are in the B wing where.... you guessed it all the zombies are, I actually laughed out loud at his acting it was that bad.

The films jumps about and you develop no emotion for any of the characters, even from the opening scenes I just didn't buy into the loving family that Pitt was supposed to be a part of.

The end of the film is also one of the worst closures to a film i have seen. It was if, they hadn't filmed an ending so thought how the hell do we bring this to a close, and a bright spark said I know we'll get Pitt to explain it all via narration that will keep the fools that have sat through it to the end happy.

In short zombies do exist - this film is proof of that, it should have died before it got to release but somehow it made it back from the dead. Now all I need to do is vaccinate myself against this monstrosity by watching an equally bad film.
153 out of 285 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
A zombie film that lacks bite
Tyferra23 June 2013
It seems unfair to criticise the film for not being like its source material given that it obviously didn't try to be but I'm going to start by bringing that up anyway. The book had so many sequences that could have been turned into amazing set-pieces in a film and yet not one of them were used. The book also had some neat ideas about how a global outbreak and response play out. What might work? What would catastrophically fail? What would the cost be? Not one of these ideas were explored or even alluded to and there seems absolutely no reason why this was the case.

It might have been okay to abandon these ideas if the film had some ideas of its own to explore or at least play out but it doesn't. Instead we follow Brad Pitt and Brad Pitt's baggage through a few set-pieces as he first escapes from and then looks into an outbreak of zombies. There's little else to say about it than that.

The first major problem came down to the zombies themselves. For a zombie film to get that right is critical and World War Z stumbled pretty badly here. The physical appearance of the zombies is a clear problem. Given the film's penchant for shying away from blood and gore to keep its rating audience-friendly, the only things that separates these zombies from regular people are milky eyes, grey skin, and a tendency to bare and snap their teeth. They're not the bloodthirsty creatures at various stages of decay and ruin that feature in most zombie films. This is generally fine in close-ups but at a distance it's impossible to tell the zombies apart from regular people. And when most of your action scenes involve panicking people running away from what are allegedly zombies, having them pretty much indistinct from each other means you never get much of an inclination about the level of the threat or even what's going on.

A possible solution would have been for the film to opt for the shambling moaning Romero-esque zombies of the book. Instead of running and tackling, having a slowly ever-advancing tide of danger would have turned the zombies into something to be feared rather than something to try and spot in a crowd.

But even later when the film displays zombies in their 'docile' state its shown how little the film-makers understand how zombies are supposed to work. The jerking around and screeches were meant to be threatening and they are anything but. They are borderline slapstick and certainly comical judging by the outbreaks of laughter in the audience at my screening. They clicked their teeth together as if they enjoyed the sound. They repeatedly hit their heads against the wall in a way that was meant to seem deranged but just came across as silly. They spun and jerked around leading to a hilarious sequence of Pitt and two others essentially playing "Red Light/Green Light" with a snarling zombie. Nothing about these zombies seemed to work as intended.

The second major problem came down to the complete lack of weight or tension. Brad Pitt isn't the type of actor anyone expects to be in danger, at least not when he's in an action film, so already there's the knowledge that he's fairly safe. But added to that, his character is a practically invulnerable bad-ass UN investigator whose field knowledge and ingenuity makes him able to adapt to any situation. His 'baggage', as I referred to them earlier, is played at first by his wife and two daughters as well as an orphan boy - far too cute to ever come into real harm in a film like this. The baggage is then played by a doctor and a team of soldiers who are so bereft of personality and character that there is no reason to care about them. He then teams up with a young Israeli soldier who is the closest person aside from Pitt to qualify to be called a character but unfortunately she doesn't seem to serve any purpose. His final baggage comes in the form of a team of WHO doctors. I won't say anything about them aside from pointing out that all four are named in the credits as "W.H.O. Doctor" despite being a key part of around a quarter of the film.

Though I wouldn't recommend the film, to its credit it managed to attain a level of being entertaining and it never embarrassed itself, (despite a squeamish bit of product placement.) It was clearly let down by a few core problems and while certainly not a good film I'd feel a bit mean if I were to label it 'bad'. I'm disappointed that it painted itself as a zombie film for zombie fans while clearly being a toothless blockbuster to appeal to a broader audience, (however understandable that move may be from a film studio's perspective given the production problems and cost blow-out.) For this reason maybe the film tripped up and fell flat on its face but as it dragged itself to the finish line I'm willing to applaud it for that at least.

I suppose all I can do it sit here and try to imagine what might have been...
373 out of 724 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
The Most Marketable Movie Ever Made...
World War Z is a zombie outbreak movie that supposedly bases itself on the amazing book of the same name by Max Brooks. What this movie truly is, is a shamefully mediocre attempt to create a movie that appeals to the widest audience possible. Pee established fan base from the book? Check. Star power (this is Brad Pitt)? Check. Focuses on intensity rather than horror and gore to not alienate non zombie fans? Check. Safe, young PG 13 rating? Check. All the makings are here because this is what the big Hollywood studio wanted. Despite the fact this movie doesn't resemble the book at all, it appears that those attached to make this movie tried to make a decent movie such as the visually interesting director Marc Foster who wanted to make a movie with a message which would emulate the tone the book was going for. However, the big studio disliked this and demanded rewrites and re-shooting that damaged the relationship between the director and Brad and results in a quick, intense action movie that lacks the character development and messages it needed to be a truly memorable movie because almost every one of those scenes were cut so much to the point that central characters get barley any lines. While the action scenes are intense and enjoyable on their own and Marc foster adds style to the lack of substance but its just not enough to save this movie. While it is better than it had any right to be thanks to Marc, it needs more and it lacks in crucial substance. However from the reviews and box office reports it appears Hollwood has succeeded in creating a successful marketable movie that everyone will eat up and it will be too late when we all get the nasty aftertaste.....
283 out of 545 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Nightmare of a movie
vinit joshi25 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
What in the hell has happened to BRAD PITT. Or is it just that he being a producer is trying to rake in money for what is a pile of sh*t of a movie.. A Zombie movie without man eating zombies and blood and gore....I mean what the f*** piece of garbage is this.The direction and the story is as if some 10 year old kid has written and directed it. And what has happened to brad pitts standards....I guess he is only going downhill as far as his recent movies are concerned like killing them softly and this piece of sh*t.... Its a shame to the zombie movie franchise and does not even qualify to b on any sort of list of that sort not even from the bottom......hell I cant even complete the 10 lines necessary to write a review on IMDb but still I wanted to express my hate for this piece of sh*t that I certainly had to write this down.

Save yourself some money.....donate it but don't go to watch this
75 out of 134 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
World War Z is an entertaining, fun night out but not original in the slightest
FilmMuscle27 June 2013
Finally, after years of facing difficulty with production and resources, World War Z has come our way, and it promises an epic and grandeur scale. The film definitely contains most of the elements fans have always desired in a zombie movie; it actually mixes horror, suspense, and action all in one movie. One act transpires underneath the roofs of a daunting apartment building when another act takes the audience across the world to Israel where the people left are forced to defend themselves against a monstrously colossal horde of zombies as they pile in. There are jump-scares. There are grisly and highly unfortunate deaths.

Anyways, the film focuses on Brad Pitt's character (Gerry Lane) who's required to assist the UN with discovering a possible vaccine/cure to the horrifying virus that's spreading throughout the world and turning human beings into ghastly creatures. If he refuses to comply, they'll willingly kick his entire family off a tanker- one of the few safe locations left in the world. From there on, Gerry Lane is forced to transcend country after country in order to secure his family's safety and possibly save humanity. A hell of a lot is at stake, that's for sure.

Now, I can definitely state that one of the best aspects of the film is its acting, especially Brad Pitt's, which, as usual, doesn't disappoint. One can clearly witness the fear and terror present in almost every character's eyes, as well as one specific character quite convincingly pulling off the feeling of sheer pain under horrendous circumstances.

With that being said, the very beginning of the film starts off a little bizarrely as the pace seems to suffer. With the running time that the movie possesses, such a rich and complex story is compacted to fit its duration, which means right off the bat, we're met with the apocalypse and the zombie outbreak. We only receive a few minutes, if that, of the main family's daily lives until they're cast into the conflict almost instantly. As a result, conversations feel extremely and oddly brief and segments that could've been expanded on feel like they're set on "fast forward" in order to get to the "point." This means that there's much less space for character development and characterization in general, and zombie movies (or we can say Horror movies as a whole) definitely need to spend some time on their characters so that the audience is able to connect with them and feel for them as they progress on their journey. When they feel fear, we have to feel fear for them as well. Unfortunately, as this is largely a Hollywood blockbuster and not something like 28 Weeks Later, the film has to reach the action-packed bits as soon as possible.

And this is when the film will cause a fair amount of decisiveness- the audience who read the book will approach the film differently than the ones who've seen the trailers and are just simply interested in the plot that's promised. I've read up on reviews, and most of the negative reviews originate from the individuals who expected an honest- shall I say- adaptation of the book (this is exactly the issue that faced The Great Gatsby or any other adaptation for that matter). I haven't read the book, which means I don't need to furiously rant about the film's disconnection from its novelistic counterpart. If you haven't read the book, you have no reason to worry about potential disappointment; that's practically reserved for the book's fans. If you're a book fan, on the other hand, you should be expecting the two's differentiation from one another.

So, to put it most understandably, if you're entering this movie the way it was marketed, you'll experience a wild, roller-coaster ride that's fairly effective in its capability of featuring some dramatic moments of diplomatic negotiations and political discussions over the world's collapse and then placing you into intensely impossible situations only to be followed by an incredibly suspenseful, nerve-wracking sequence. It's highly entertaining…however, it's the furthest from originality a film can get. I mean, it's yet another zombie movie, dealing with the entire world under a deadly zombie virus. You've basically seen everything in this movie already as 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later highlighted the serious effects of such an event already. In that case- during its first act- World War Z feels unbelievably similar to the two films mentioned above. Especially considering the decision to exclude the more political aspect of the novel and turning the adaptation into an action flick instead, there's not much here that'll bask in uniqueness, really.

This all begs the question: how much longer will these numerous entertainment industries create zombie stories after zombie stories? It's time to move on to another fascinating idea. Leave the genre alone, but then again, as long as these studios continue to rake in millions, they'll continually produce the same product. In the end, World War Z is a fun, entertaining night out, but if you can't make it to the showing, don't feel too bad because you've most likely seen everything displayed in this film already.
72 out of 129 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Fun, Exciting and Surprisingly Bloodless
Prince AJB1 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
"World War Z", despite involving zombies, plays more to the likes of a disaster film instead of a zombie film. It's more of like "2012" than "Resident Evil". We see shots of cities tumbling down to the rule of zombies and the world slowly turns into a zombie wasteland. The zombie attacks are large-scale, grand, and extremely exciting, save for the climax which ends up as a small-scale sequence, but is equally satisfying.

The hero is Gerry Lane, a retired United Nations investigator who is recruited by what is left of the U.S. government to assist a young virologist Dr. Fassbach in investigating the virus. He reluctantly accepts this task in exchange for his family to be able to shelter in a U.S. Navy vessel. After Fassbach dies (in a hilarious way) he is determined to stop this outbreak.

During their visit to Camp Humphreys in South Korea (where the word "zombie" was first used in reference to the outbreak) they learn that the zombies are attracted to sound. They also learn that Israel has established itself as a safe zone after it quarantined itself within a wall. Unaffected civilians, regardless of nationality, are allowed to enter. But due to the civilians singing loudly through a microphone, the zombies pile themselves up and manage to overcome the wall, and chaos ensues.

This the largest action sequence in the entire movie. The scale is so massive and this scene is extremely exciting. Millions of uninfected humans being chased around by millions of zombies. The chaos is just indescribable. Add in the fact that the zombies are mindless and uncivilized and the chaos just multiplies itself. But this scene isn't the only one. There's another one earlier back in Philadelphia where Gerry witnesses the zombies firsthand for the very first time. All the action sequences are highly entertaining, massive, but surprisingly bloodless (which is peculiar for a film with zombies). They're massive, except the climax, where it's noticeably smaller set in a WHO facility, but the tension is equally high, and allows more shocks.

Brad Pitt portrays the lead character, Gerry Lane. His character is devoid of personality here as most of the time, he's just involved in action. But Mr. Pitt delivers a performance that is quite pleasing. The rest of the cast gave good performances too and the acting shouldn't burden the whole movie experience.

The script isn't that bad too. It diverges significantly from the original book and it is a bit uneven, but the lines make sense. It also works because it contains a real plot for the script to follow through. It has a sensible plot and the script acknowledges this. It's also worth noting that it has several humorous scenes too.

It's far from perfect, it's heavy on action sequences, and it's uneven, but "World War Z" is an extremely fun ride for everyone to enjoy. I would also say that it's rather family-friendly as there are child characters that appear quite prominently. Another reason it's rather family-friendly is that it's bloodless. It has a real sensible plot (unlike most mindless movies containing zombies) and if you ignore the tiny faults and plot holes, "World War Z" will take you away on one of the most fun rides.

Rating: 7/10

Final Verdict: "World War Z" is uneven and far from perfect, but it's a fun and exhilarating ride that is more of a disaster film instead of the typical zombie film, and rather family- friendly.
72 out of 130 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Unfaithful to the source but also underwhelming as a whole.
tueher8623 June 2013
I liked the book. I watched this with an open mind that it may be "altered" to be more entertaining as a movie.

Still thought it was way too far off from the book to even have the name "World War Z". If they were going to change this much, there was no need to use WWZ. To people who don't know the book, they won't care. To those who do, they will be insulted by the movie. Isn't the whole point of adapting a book to a movie, based on the fact that the book was a success? Thus implying that a good portion of your target audience are the book readers. So why intentionally slap the readers in the face? It makes no sense when you watch this movie, since it probably resembles 20% or less of the book's story, concept and characters.

Even with the book differences, I could have lived with this movie being a solid zombie movie if the movie was actually about zombies. The "infected" may be fast and united, but the movie is pg-13 and that is just baffling. How can you possibly expect to make a movie like this and limit yourself with a pg-13 in an attempt to sell more tickets to kids? That's pretty much trading quality for quantity...or "selling out".

It was hard enough to watch this and hardly see any resemblance of the source material that was amazing, but then you are also limited to pg-13 action and violence for a movie of this nature. There was almost no blood, diluted violence, bad CGI and annoying "cut-away" action scenes. Very disappointing.
190 out of 366 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Another Big Budget with No Script
Michael_Elliott21 June 2013
World War Z (2013)

** (out of 4)

Brad Pitt plays a U.N. worker who must leave his family behind and go search for a cause or cure for a zombie outbreak that is pretty much destroying every form of life. On his mission he must travel across the globe trying to see what might work in the human's defense of the zombies. I'll admit upfront that I haven't read the book that this film is based on so I can't comment on if it butchered the book or if the film got it right. That aspect of the conversation just doesn't bother me but what does bother me is that we've got an insanely high budget and yet they couldn't work out some sort of interesting story. For the most part we just see Brad Pitt going from one beautiful location to the next and we see that the once beautiful place is now full of zombies. Every once in a while Mr. Pitt has to walk through dark hallways and what really hurts the film is that these sequences just aren't scary. In fact, I'm going to say it right out loud that there wasn't a single scary moment to be found in this picture and the entire "disaster" aspect of what was going on just didn't work for me. Never did I feel that the world was really coming to an end and this is a big-budget that can't pull this off yet look at what someone like Romero did in no money. Another problem is that the zombies are all rather bland whether they're real effects or the majority of them CGI. They're not scary, no creative and the lack of gore shouldn't be bashed because you don't need gore to be scary but at the same time when you have the violence off-screen it just makes the film seem rather childish. Pitt offers a nice performance but this is certainly far from his best. It was nice seeing David Morse and the rest of the supporting players are good as well. I don't know what was wrong with the final third of the movie where they had to go back and film a new one but what we got here just doesn't work as its too slow and boring. WORLD WAR Z, sadly, is delivered as a very disappointing movie no matter if you're familiar with the original source or not.
102 out of 198 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Don't waste your money. Go see Romero or Snyder instead.
L. M.25 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Spoilers ahead.

This is a very bad film, not just a bad zombie film. Being a big fan of zombie flicks, I expected some good entertainment. What was delivered, instead, was an uninteresting storyline, hollow characters and lukewarm suspense.

I have read the book by Max Brooks, which was full of suspense, intelligent individual stories, and above all a great depiction of many nations and their virtues and faults. The book was supposed to be an excellent start for an even better movie. Even the characters that appear in single chapters are fleshed out and very credible. Unfortunately, this can't be said even for the main role played by Brad Pitt. Is this the guy who starred in Fight Club? Yes, but give him a bad script and a bad director and this is what you'll get.

The depiction of the zombie virus outbreak leaves much to be desired. If you want to see a really good one, check out Snyder's remake of Romero's 'Dawn of the Dead'. Excellent suspense, action, drama and fright during the first 10-15 minutes.

What makes WWZ even worse is bad cinematography. Some scenes are there as if just to explain to the uninitiated viewer what's going on, in a kindergarten guide sort of way.

What's the point of Daniella Kertesz's character? She is just following Gerry around without one hand. Mireille Enos is also there just as an excuse for a shabby plot - ah, the drama, her husband has to leave, is not heard from, and then they are reunited.

In the end, the vaccine solution is completely different from what Brooks made of it in his book: a scam from big pharma that just makes things worse.

Zombies jump around as if they were supposed to be frightening. If you want good fast zombies, go see '28 Days Later' or Snyder's 'Dawn of the Dead'. There isn't even any gore here, which you expect in a zombie flick. I suppose the filmmakers avoided it just to be able to have the PG-13 rating and thus make more money.

I gave it 3/10 stars just because of special effects which are top notch. All in all, this is a big waste of time and unfortunately just another Hollywood blockbuster that is completely devoid of any meaning and not entertaining at all.
62 out of 117 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Waste of Potential
Eric Bays22 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
After seeing this movie last night I decided I had to write a review to help any fans of the book from being disappointed.

First of all, I might have enjoyed this movie if they had changed the name from World War Z to The Disease or Biters or Brad Pitt Vs. Dead People. WWZ implies that it was based on the book by Max Brooks. I'm quite convinced that the writer didn't even bother to read the book.

SPOILERS: The book was set on the basis that the WWZ had already happened and humanity was beginning to rebuild and overcome the virus worldwide. The "author" was responsible for going around the world interviewing a lot of people about how the war began and progressed, in order to create an "oral history" of the tragedy.

The film went backwards, with characters having one lead and continuing back to find the origin. The book started in chronological order with a third-world doctor discussing the first outbreak in his village, then progressed based on the individual stories told from the perspectives of people who survived.

Everything that made the book great was completely ignored and the production company decided on spending a high budget on major CGI scenes and generic zombie effects, as well as hiring Brad Pitt to attract an audience. And on top of all that, the lack of zombie gore, there was little to none, giving me the impression of a very low-budget zombie movie.

In conclusion, if you have never read the book, enjoy looking at Brad Pitt, and are impressed with CGI action then this movie may be for you. However, if you are a fan of zombies at all then avoid this movie like you would a real zed. I almost want to compare it to WARM BODIES, but I couldn't bring myself to see that one.
60 out of 113 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed