World War Z (2013) User Reviews

good action thriller

[SnoopyStyle · 8/10 · 7 August 2013]

The world descends into the zombie apocalypse. There is some sort of virus and bitten people are turned into violent creatures. Former UN investigator Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt) is caught up with his wife Karin (Mireille Enos) and family. They manage to escape and Gerry is put to work on finding the origins of the outbreak. This Brad Pitt showcase has many good points. My only main complaint is the PG13 rating which imposes the cartoon zombie action rather than a gore bloody fare.

The action starts right away within 10min. There's no need to misunderstand what this movie is. It's simply a popcorn movie. Although unlike other post-apocalyptic movie, there isn't the standard eerie empty city scenes. The zombie mystery is investigated in a Bond movie fashion. Brad Pitt travels all around the world following leads. It's actually easy to follow and really compelling. It has a good tension filled horror aspect. It's not all big action. You also get good scary parts with dark hallways and stalking dangers.

Zombie favourite

[MAYESY-44 · 9/10 · 5 June 2020]

Out of all of the zombie based films this is one of my favourites, a really good story from a different angle of a specialist rather than a hero with a gun. Brilliant ending as-well which is always a bonus.

MOTHER NATURE IS A SERIAL KILLER

[nogodnomasters · 8/10 · 26 June 2019]

The world ignores the signs of global disaster and the next thing you know there is a world wide zombie (closer to rabies) pandemic. The incubation period is 12 seconds, yet somehow the infection was able to be transmitted by airplane to the entire world. I am still scratching my head on that one.

Brad Pitt,who is now a family man, must save the world to save his family. There is some background noise that would indicate the zombie outbreak might be caused by how man destroys the environment and ignores the signs (global warming, wink, wink, nudge, nudge.) The world is thrust into anarchy, while the military exists.

Brad must look for the original virus somewhere in the world to find a cure. We discover N.Korea is unaffected because they pulled everyone's teeth. Israel is unaffected because they have a great wall around their country, but apparently cold isolated places like Greenland are infected. The only reason I point out these inconsistencies is because the film writers went to great length to make the film realistic. Oh yes, if you have a lot of people on a ship, they share beds and sleep in shifts.

I enjoyed the film more as a pandemic film than a foot dragging, flesh eating, living dead, rotting zombie film, because that is what it was. I would say if you don't like Brad Pitt, don't see this film. There is very little screen time that doesn't show his face. Should make for a good video game and a decent sequel.

Parental Guide: No f-bombs, sex, or nudity.

Don't give up

[moviemanMA · 8/10 · 22 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."

Good large set-pieces but not so good at producing consistent tension and fear

[bob the moo · 24 May 2014]

I'm generally not a fan of zombie movies, not because I don't like them but rather because they seem to easily have an effect on me, chilling me to the bone and staying with me for days (no walking into dark rooms for me). As a result I put off watching World War Z but I was still interested in seeing such a big budget zombie film. The plot sees some form of outbreak and, well, you know what happens. No sooner has Gerry Lane rescued his family from one city, than he is rescued by his old UN employers who want him to help lead a mission to try and find a solution by escorting a doctor to South Korea. No pressure, but the space for his family in safe haven does rely on him saying "yes".

After some very brief character establishment (references to "old job", happy family image etc), we get the first of many set-pieces as an outbreak sweeps across the city and, like many of the set-pieces, it is pretty good stuff. There is plenty of money on the table, lots going on and the scale of it all is suitable for a plot about a global outbreak. The problem is that it never really feels like more than this and the bits in between are not great. The biggest criticism that I can offer is that it did nothing to be other than make me watch the noisy scenes in the way I would with any big blockbuster – and I remind you that I am normally chilled by zombie movies. Here I felt that apart from once or twice, it didn't really do the tension or the horror well, it almost felt too slick, too expensive.

To give a contrast, an outbreak in a closed car park in 28 Weeks Later was really horrific to me (in a good way) but here the one on a plane didn't bring that same feeling. It is hard for me to put my finger on it, but for sure something was missing here. The plot doesn't help – jumping around the world without much linkage and asking the viewer to just go with it; perhaps I would if I had cared more, but everyone apart from Brad Pitt seemed so disposable – just fodder for the attack shots, so I did get numb and also feel remote from it all. Technically it is great and it really is well shot and put together, but it is just the lack of atmosphere that hurts it the most.

It is a big expensive movie though and as a blockbuster it works well enough to give it a go, but it really never works in the ways that would have made it a much superior film.

Loved this movie definitely worth watching

[MrHeraclius · 20 February 2020]

A good movie with many intense moments, a great plot, and stellar acting. The only downside to this movie is that it is not an original movie-it is one of hundreds of apocalyptic zombie films.

Something new in an overloaded genre

[Leofwine_draca · 9/10 · 30 August 2014]

Yeah, since they hit the mainstream zombie movies have died an (un)death many times over, and I can't help but hark back to the old days where only horror fans knew of the genius of George Romero and Lucio Fulci. Nowadays zombie movies are ten-a-penny and zombies are in the public consciousness alongside vampires and werewolves.

But WORLD WAR Z offers something new: the first, straight, big-budget zombie blockbuster. Sure, PLANET TERROR skirted with the premise but with a sci-fi twist, while this is straightforward zombie stuff. It's based on the terrible Max Brooks book of the same title, but don't let that put you off; unlike the book, it actually has a structured narrative, and characters.

And I loved it. I'm not normally a fan of CGI unless it's done right, but it's done right here. Scenes of the zombies attacking en masse are brilliantly conceived, and the set-piece that takes place in Israel in the middle of the movie is simply phenomenal. It's a film that also manages to be vicious and frightening without being gory, which is a fine achievement. If you thought the infected in 28 DAYS LATER moved fast then you haven't seen anything yet!

Sure, the characters are thinly-sketched, but that matters little as WORLD WAR Z follows an action-thriller template. Brad Pitt's lead is both the luckiest and unluckiest guy on the planet at the same time, and the film never deviates from getting up close and personal with its undead menace. The worst thing about it is Marc Forster's fuddled direction, something that also spoiled QUANTUM OF SOLACE, but it's not a big enough to detraction to stop this from being anything other than a solid film.

A good-looking movie that entertains, but mostly just yet another Zombie movie.

[TxMike · 19 October 2013]

Movies about Zombies is not my favorite genre. In fact I would normally not see them because to me they are just overly silly. The whole concept of "the undead", people getting bitten and literally in 10 seconds or so changing into a Zombie. Stuff for cartoons but not for a serious dramatic movie.

The one exception is "Warm Bodies" which I saw during this past summer, a story about Zombies wanting to become normal people again, I really like that one.

Anyway, to this one, "World War Z". It seems some type of mysterious virus has broken out somewhere, they believe Korea, and via our connected world has spread quickly through air travel. And these Zombies that result are not the clumsy, plodding Zombie usually portrayed. No, these seem to move a bit faster than usual, act as if they were a rabid animal, and snap their jaws as if they were trying to eat someone as quickly as they could. It is not a good situation, and the whole world is threatened.

Brad Pitt is Gerry Lane, retired UN specialist who only wants to be with him family, his wife and two daughters. But when their own city, Philadelphia, becomes overrun they have to escape towards New York and end up taking refuge on a military ship. But against his wishes Gerry is virtually forced to help them track down and try to eradicate the Zombie disease, otherwise they could not give his family refuge.

So that's really what the story is about, Gerry traveling first to Korea, then to Israel, then to a W.H.O. installation in Wales, barely surviving a plane crash. He has to save the world, otherwise no one will.

I like Brad Pitt, and he is good here in what to me, is a pretty silly movie. I found myself laughing occasionally, not because killing people is funny, but just the absurdity of the Zombies and their zeal to overrun everything. Just light entertainment and nothing more. It tries to strike a meaningful note at the end, but it just didn't work for me.

SPOILERS: Gerry does save the world, at least it is moving in that direction as the movie ends. At one point he had noticed that mysteriously the pursuing Zombies simply avoided certain humans, just bypassed them. He theorized that those were sick humans, and Zombies somehow could detect that, and only wanted healthy human bodies to spread their Zombieism. So he further theorized, if he were to inject himself with a disease-causing virus, the Zombies would avoid him. It worked, and the solution for the world would be mass inoculations with disease, that could then be treated to save the person, but also allow them to gradually eradicate the Zombies. Interesting concept!

Breathtaking and thrilling Zombie movie with frenetic action , spectacular scenes and great performances

[ma-cortes · 8/10 · 24 December 2021]

A shocking and fantastic drama with daring scenes of the violent Zombies attacking here and there by domineering the entire world. Entertaining flick packing noisy action , drama , humor , violence with lots of blood and gore , and enjoyable relationship among our starring and a group of motley characters with whom he makes relations . Retired U. N. investigator Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt) , his wife (Mireille Enos) and children are sitting in what seem to be a typical Philadelphia traffic jam when helicopters started to circle ominously overhead and a blow-up throws the city into panic. In the blink of an eye , the streets are consumed by destruction , chaos and mayhem . When Gerry to be aware that the catalyst for the turmoil is a highly contagious virus that transforms those who contract it into rampaging maniacs and that legions of the infected are growing on all continents , he agrees to join his former partners in discovering the source of the rampant plague . As zombie virus has gutted the United States of America as well as other countries and a team of expert heroes -led by Gerry- is formed so that they find the origin of the horrible plague . Eventually , he meets some doctors (Peter Capaldi , Pierfrancesco Favino , Ruth Negga , Moritz Bleibtreu) from a World Health Organization installation . I can't leave my family ! .Where there is life, there is hope !.

Better than average Zombie movie includes hectic action , thrills , chills , gutsy scenes , violent fights and loads of gore . In World War Z (2013) happens a lot of disturbing occurrences with thousands of Zombies toppling armies and governments and threatening to destroy humanity itself , including suspense , intrigue , turns , a lot of twisted incidents , at the same time charged with tension , unflinching depictions of graphic violence and high level staging which the viewer could really enjoy . Several overwhelming scenes , including large-scale battles with the zombies , though some of them were dropped from the final cut in order to water down the film's political undertones . Interesting and nail-biting storyline from Matthew Michael Carnahan and J. Michael Straczynski , though Damon Lindelof and Drew Goddard rewrote the screenplay . Paramount Pictures acquired screen rights to the Max Brooks novel "World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War , as they spent $1 million on the film rights . Lavishly produced by Paramount along with other independient producers as Ian Bryce , David Ellison , Marc Forster , Dede Gardner , Dana Goldberg and Brad Pitt himself . It's a solid film , a terror story plenty of suspense , restless horror, and including a lot of CGI with state-of-art special effects . Brad Pitt -producer as well- gives a splendid acting as former United Nations employee who traverses the world in a race against time to stop a zombie pandemic . He's well accompanied by a good support cast providing brief but decent performances , such as :James Badge Dale , Daniella Kertesz , James Badge Dale , Matthew Fox , Fana Mokoena, David Morse , Elyes Gabel , David Andrews , Peter Capaldi , Pierfrancesco Favino , Ruth Negga , Moritz Bleibtreu , among others .

It displays a stunning and amazing cinematography from Newton Thomas Sigel , Robert Richardson and Ben Seresin . Likewise , a rousing and terrific musical score by Marco Beltrani . The motion picture was competently directed by Marc Foster (Finding Neverland, Monster's Ball , Quantum of Solace , The Kite Runner , All I see Is You , Soldier of God) , delivering action , tension and impressively thrilling scenes .This was the highest-grossing film of Mark Foster and Brad Pitt's careers . Rating : 7.5/10 . Above average . The flick will appeal to Brad Pitt fans . Essential and indispensable watching .

Pretty Good

[mwp-036 · 7/10 · 18 December 2013]

Let me start off by saying I haven't read the book yet, so I have no idea how they compare. However, this was a pretty good movie overall. Many zombie movies are merely mindless gore and violence disguised within some fragile thing that doesn't even deserve to be called a plot. However, World War Z has a much better plot than most other zombie movies. One thing I noticed right away is that this movie actually made me jump in surprise several times. It's very suspenseful, and truly worthy of being called a "zombie horror movie," as opposed to the plethora of predictable, unsuspenseful zombie movies that have come out of Hollywood. Brad Pitt does a great job in his role, although I felt his character lacked definition in many ways. It would be nice if they had "fleshed out" the characters a bit more.

Overall, this movie is definitely worth the watch if you have a couple hours to spare. Not the best movie ever made, but a pretty good one.

More Action Than Horror

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 15 February 2015]

United Nations employee Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt) traverses the world in a race against time to stop the Zombie pandemic that is toppling armies and governments, and threatening to destroy humanity itself.

Classifying this as a "zombie" movie is much the same as calling "21 Days Later" a zombie movie. The categorization is not wrong, but kit changes what we typically think of when we mean zombies. These are not lumbering oafs. These are lightning-fast creatures that seem to have some sort of collective intelligence, like a colony of bees. Their abilities (most notably climbing walls) are foreign to what zombies are.

Also, this should be seen as an action film first, horror film second, which seems to be the case any time Hollywood has millions of dollars to burn on a zombie film. See, for example, "I Am Legend". If you are looking to see Brad Pitt survive car accidents and plane crashes while traveling around the world (South Korea, Israel, Wales) this is a fine film. But if you want some scares or a film that embodies "survival horror", you will not get what you want.

Probably the most clever thing about this was the referral of zombies as "rakshasa", a Hindu demon that feeds on human flesh. Maybe this has already been covered in Bollywood, but it seems that the concept is rather new here. The zombies (or infected) in this film are not actually rakshasa, but it does raise the question: where are Hindu demons in the horror film? If we can have Onibaba and other Asian creatures, why not something from a country with over one billion people? But this is a bit of a sidetrack...

Anyway, good film if you want big budget action and Brad Pitt fighting computer-generated undead while sporting the greasiest hair since Kid Rock. Bad film if you want slow, lumbering Romero zombies. But to each his own, I guess.

Well done!

[amkn75 · 8/10 · 19 October 2022]

A seriously good zombie movie.

The soundtrack and sound effects are badass, and the effects in general are really well made too.

As an example: watching the zombies transform are crazy scary.

The soundtrack is very John Carpenter-esque. Love it!

It's a pity the main story is something you've seen a thousand times before from Hollywood, but this one has great actors, and said effects. The plot(s) also has some unexpected twists and turns.

As for my rating. This is not the first time I've seen this movie, and I got to say it just gets better and better. This time it was really hard not to watch it, as I only had it on in the background really. The previous time I saw it I might've given it a 7, but decided an 8 is a well-earned rating.

28 Months Later For Morons

[Theo Robertson · 4/10 · 26 June 2013]

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

A Very Puzzling Missed Opportunity

[fosterino · 5/10 · 24 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.

A very Mixed Bag

[Jeremy_Urquhart · 6/10 · 21 June 2013]

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."

A solid movie that holds up

[NS-movie-reviews · 8/10 · 29 October 2022]

One of Brad Pitt's great performances in an extremely tense apocalyptic film. I saw this in theaters when it first came out nearly 10 years ago. I didn't remember too much of the film so decided to rewatch. A great movie night choice!

The filming and atmosphere of "WWZ" are spectacular. Palms sweating, edge of your seat, eyes covered, the whole shebang. This movie brilliantly draws you in with the tension it's able to create.

The story itself, especially in a world that has now experienced COVID/the year of 2020 feels very authentic. The panic, the questions with no answers, the international implications, etc., Etc.

While not a perfect movie, it certainly held up. I enjoyed watching "WWZ" nearly a decade later. Holds up nicely!

Fun, Exciting and Surprisingly Bloodless

[aaronjbong · 7/10 · 1 July 2013]

"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.

Another Big Budget with No Script

[Michael_Elliott · 21 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.

Sweepingly epic but a little too late.

[amesmonde · 27 June 2013]

A mysterious virus like infection spreads rapidly throughout the world and a man in order to guarantee his family safety is tasked to locate the origin of the outbreak and assist in finding a cure.

Without drawing comparison to Max Brooks' novel, World War Z's impact has been slightly numbed but the influx and saturation of zombie/virus films churned out over recent years. Nevertheless, under Marc Forster's direction WWZ is epic in scale with its sweeping scope and impressive special effects. Forster wisely focuses on Brad Pitt who is superb as ex UN official and family man Gerry Lane. Although the film may have benefited from an unknown actor for impact to Pitts credit he adds gravitas to the role as he journeys from one continent to another encountering perils and avoiding hordes of the twitching contaminated. The supporting cast give a solid backbone although no one stands out as being particularly memorable.

The reanimated are wonderfully well done, menacing and for the most part scary - especially in numbers. The limited makeup design on show is excellently crafted, although there's explosions, fire fights the gore is limited and the film is not necessarily blatantly horrific as one would expect - this works both for and against depending on your expectations. That said, there's enough action and tension to keep the causal viewer happy. For the harden zombie fans there's atmosphere, finely executed visuals, memorably the immense birds eye views of the swarming population like ants and a calibre of realism not found in the majority of films this genre.

With a genuine on location feel and despite being reminiscent of 28 Days/Weeks later with fast infected Forster delivers a globe trotting disaster flick with less deliberate rough edges. The communication between the infected is interesting, including their dormant state. What also works at times is an old school horror approach, there's lots of moments where the sound design leaves it to the viewers imagination. Notably though the editing and screenplay does pander to the masses, offering paint by numbers solutions and outcomes. For example the Israel segment (filmed in Malta) takes a little too long for Gerry to hone in on the noise leaving the viewer too much time to digest and anticipate what's going to happen next which robs the scene of much of its intended impact and tension.

Nevertheless, the Moscow heroic like ending was infamously re-shot for a more quieter, personal closing and Gerry wife's fidelity left intact, which in my mind works better, more true to Gerry's every man personality and the set up that came before.

All in all the apocalyptic vision is a solid, realistic and heartfelt entry if somewhat too late (in a saturated genre) to achieve greatness. Let's hope for a sequel that surpasses this with Pitt on board again.

Engaging from the 1st Moment

[tkdlifemagazine · 7/10 · 12 March 2023]

I skipped this when it came out because I was sick of the Zombie theme. This one intrigued me because it was written by Mel Brooks' son, Max; however, not enough to watch it. I was wrong. It is good because it is an action film first, and a Zombie film second. Brad Pitt is very good as an agent living a normal life until the crisis calls him out of his retirement. The cinematography is way too shaky for me and that is my major criticism of the visuals in the movie. The script, dialogue, plot, acting , and directing are all very good. I like this one and it stands out in the swarm of Zombie films.

World War Z is an entertaining, fun night out but not original in the slightest

[FilmMuscle · 7/10 · 27 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.

Light, family friendly and internationally marketable.

[fca182 · 5/10 · 19 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.

It's NOT a zombie movie... It's ten times better than that!

[good-decision · 8/10 · 21 June 2013]

If you like zombie movies, don't bother with this movie! It has nothing in common with zombie movies except that it happens that when the virus kills humans they start spreading the virus by biting.

So, for an avid zombie lover, the movie is an absolute disappointment. I hate zombie movies. In fact, I didn't want to go just because I was told it was a zombie movie. But I was seriously bored and I thought "Come on, cut Brad some slack. The guy is very careful with his choices". So I went mainly or the pop corn, but I was blown away by the movie.

Incredible camera work! Solid script. As usual with Hollywood for the past decade or more, scripts are not as good as used to be so I gave this one 8 out ten, missing two points as the some tiny bits in the script could have been better. But, I am definitely buying the DVD.

I absolutely recommend it (unless you wanna go for some zombie action). I loved every minute of it.

5/10. Sorry folks, It's pretty pants. And I REALLY wanted it to be good.

[martin-807-452270 · 1/10 · 9 June 2013]

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.

Highly Entertaining, Globe-trotting Epic

[slayerjmk95 · 9/10 · 10 June 2013]

World War Z, while based off the Max Brooks novel of the same name, is in no way a direct adaptation, and happily, this works for the film's benefit. When Gerry Lane, a former UN worker is tasked to help a scientist travel across the planet to discover a cure for the rapidly growing zombie infection, he also is troubled by leaving his family behind while the world around him collapses into chaos.

Directed by Marc Forster, WWZ is easily one of the most entertaining and epic zombie films ever made. Now this being said, many zombie fanatics will disagree, I know this, as some think you need bloody/gory violence and flesh-tearing. This movie proves otherwise, and the zombies here are among the most frightening zombies I've ever seen, being very reminiscent of the "rage-infused" zombies of 28 Days Later. Brad Pitt is at his A-Game here, being both believable as a father and an unsung hero. Mireille Enos was great as Karin Lane, being the very sensitive, but careful mother who knows how to deal with the situation instead of screaming her head off when zombies are at her back. The cinematography is absolutely stunning and breath-taking, especially after the incredible plane crash sequence. The music by Marco Beltrami is award-worthy, capturing both the horrific atmosphere of a collapsing world and human drama of what we're capable of in such disastrous times. The script, though, while well-written, went from being Oscar-material, to a normal blockbuster script that (happily) doesn't insult your intelligence, or become stupid. But there is plenty of room to make a sequel or two because the story here is much to grand for one film.

Overall, World War Z is one of the best blockbusters of the year, with good acting, directing, and polished visuals that have you on the edge of your seat from start to finish. I would have to say, this is one of Brad Pitt's best films