World War Z - Movie Review

[Guest nra37922]

IF you have actually seen the movie, and not relying on what someone told you or you read, what did you think?

[Alleycat72]

Watched it today. I liked it. Lots of action and the action starts at about the 5 minute mark. It is a setup for the war. This move is about surviving the initial onslaught of Zs.   

[Clod Stomper]

So you're saying there will be sequels? Or this is the first of a series?

[TMF]

So you're saying there will be sequels? Or this is the first of a series?

Do whaaa? That would change everything if they spread this out. Would actually be pretty awesome.

[zapfbroad]

Just saw it. *on a side note, the carmike in bellevue does not appear to be posted anymore. still some obligatory 'no firearms allowed' in size 16font on the bottom of the sign at concession checkout but no entrance decals.*

*spoiler alert*

 

- So I was absolutely baffled as to what kind of moron would take a pretty wife & two daughters from Philadelphia to the inner depths of Newark, let alone anywhere in, NJ when SHTF. 

- Overall, there were several points throughout the movie that I was shaking my head & cringing at the tactical errors made but that's hollywood I suppose.

- "In January 2012, director Forster and Paramount said they "each view World War Z as a trilogy that would have the grounded, gun-metal realism of Matt Damon's Jason Bourne series tethered to the unsettling end-times vibe of AMC'sThe Walking Dead."" - wikipedia

- I've been a big fan of J. Michael Straczynski since his days writing with Babylon 5, so I was eager to see this even though he ended up being 1 of 3 writers which I think cause some flow issues especially in the downtime scenes playing out too long. Paramount freaked out several times on production and made adjustments in staffing along the way with delays.

- It had a lot of fast action scenes that were good, the zombie action was good except the occasional visual interference of too-apparent cgi zombification, if you will. Overall, the movie was over before I expected it to be which does lead me to agree with the idea that there will be at Least a sequel if not trilogy. If was nowhere near as visceral as Walking Dead or true zombie movies can be, in part I think due to Paramount trying to keep it PG-13 to get the 12-17 year olds.

saw the 2D version not 3D

[KKing]

Question for those that have seen it. It's my understanding that the book is a collection of short stories, or different accounts I should say. Is the movie set up this way?

[Alleycat72]

The movie is set in several countries around the world, but the focus is on Brads character.  It's about finding out how it started and how to fight the Zs. It is also set up in such a way that the sequels would not need a signal person that was in this movie. All the characters are just trying to catch their breath the whole time.

Edited June 23, 2013 by alleycat72

[BigK]

As a person who'll watch any zombie movie, regardless of how bad the reviews are, I'm looking forward to it.

 

I figure if I can stay away through "Warm Bodies", I should LOVE this one.

[Guest Grout]

As a person who'll watch any zombie movie, regardless of how bad the reviews are, I'm looking forward to it.

 

I figure if I can stay away through "Warm Bodies", I should LOVE this one.

my 7 yr old grandaughter loved Warm Bodies

[whitewolf001]

It was a good movie and had me sitting on the edge of my seat. BUT as a fan of the book, they should've called it something else. STILL, give credit where credit is due, good movie..... BUT THEY DIDN'T DO THE BATTLE OF YONKERS!!!!!!! :cry:

[atlas3025]

I thought it was great.  The fast zombies were much more scary than the slow monotonous nonsense on TWD.  I think alot of people want shamblers so they can fantasize about suppressed 22LR's and bushido.  That shit won't work with these fast movers.

 

I read the book last year, but don't think it would translate to screen well as it was written.  Here is a link an article that covers that topic: http://www.uproxx.com/gammasquad/2012/11/five-reasons-you-dont-actually-want-a-faithful-world-war-z-movie/

 

But to sum one very important point of the article up, if it were written like the book, there would be no main character...meaning there would be no big name actor, meaning there would not be a big budget, and there is no way to do a movie of this scale without a big budget. 

 

I may see it in the theater again. 

[Guest nra37922]

I was disappointed.  I'll see it again on HBO/SHOWTIME if the weather is crummy.  

[AU_88]

I saw this today, great movie, action the whole time.  I don't think they will be making another, it pretty much settles everything at the end and only leaves a little to the imagination.

[Defender]

Saw it yesterday and I liked it.  Was able to overlook the liberal UN overtones, lol including some references to not being green enough may have caused it...Like BigK, I like most all zombie movies.  Fast moving zombies are way scarier than the slow ones.

Edited June 26, 2013 by barewoolf

[whitewolf001]

Saw it yesterday and I liked it.  Was able to overlook the liberal UN overtones, lol including some references to not being green enough may have caused it...Like BigK, I like most all zombie movies.  Fst moving zombies are way scarier than the slow ones.

That

[Hershmeister]

Haven't seen the film yet, but this seems to sum it up:

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/wwz

[Guest nra37922]

Haven't seen the film yet, but this seems to sum it up:

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/wwz

BINGO.......................................

[Luke E.]

My wife and I watched it at the drive in Friday night and i will say we both enjoyed it. This may be blasphemy in this section but i typically can't stand Zombie movies or just scary movies in general but there's a first time for everything huh. It was not gory and nasty but was quite action packed and kept us borderline on edge throughout most of the movie.The fact that it wasn't gory and nasty may take the fun out of it for the true zombie fans but for me it made for a good time.

[Fear]

Did you guys watch the same movie as me? I never read the book, but thought the movie was awesome. Nothing really insulted me, the action stayed constant, plenty of cool characters revolving in and out, even bad-ass chicks (the Israeli soldiers) and an ending that wasn't insulting.

 

I liked the reference toward why you keep your index finger pointed instead of on the trigger and how the next time you see the pointed finger, it's on a clearly visible Armalite receiver.

 

I also liked the lack of clichés like the underdog always coming through. In every Stephen King-type book/movie it starts with, lets say 30 special forces commandos, the quadriplegic autistic kid and their mental-baggage-consumed caregiver. Five minutes later all the commandos are dead and the plot sits on the courage of the two people bound to the wheelchair. Common-sense tells you that's bull. In this movie, all the survivors were bad-asses serious about making it through the turmoil and surviving.

 

Everybody who's read the book will scoff at the movie to prove they read the book. If you're yelling at the screen during Harry Potter because they left out something from the book, you're not impressing me, you're making me pity you for being so pathetic as to be an adult that reads Harry Potter. Then, of course, I think of how pathetic I am for watching Harry Potter in the same theater as you.

 

The EvilDead remake was an alright movie by itself, but sucked compared to original. I know people will say that about all remakes (Hills Have Eyes, Texas Chainsaw, Halloween, etc.) but this critique is actually true.

 

The only video game-based movie that wasn't a total disappointment was Hitman. But then again, I've never played Hitman.

[Guest nra37922]

Read the book....

[whitewolf001]

Did you guys watch the same movie as me? I never read the book, but thought the movie was awesome. Nothing really insulted me, the action stayed constant, plenty of cool characters revolving in and out, even bad-ass chicks (the Israeli soldiers) and an ending that wasn't insulting.

 

I liked the reference toward why you keep your index finger pointed instead of on the trigger and how the next time you see the pointed finger, it's on a clearly visible Armalite receiver.

 

I also liked the lack of clichés like the underdog always coming through. In every Stephen King-type book/movie it starts with, lets say 30 special forces commandos, the quadriplegic autistic kid and their mental-baggage-consumed caregiver. Five minutes later all the commandos are dead and the plot sits on the courage of the two people bound to the wheelchair. Common-sense tells you that's bull. In this movie, all the survivors were bad-asses serious about making it through the turmoil and surviving.

 

Everybody who's read the book will scoff at the movie to prove they read the book. If you're yelling at the screen during Harry Potter because they left out something from the book, you're not impressing me, you're making me pity you for being so pathetic as to be an adult that reads Harry Potter. Then, of course, I think of how pathetic I am for watching Harry Potter in the same theater as you.

 

The EvilDead remake was an alright movie by itself, but sucked compared to original. I know people will say that about all remakes (Hills Have Eyes, Texas Chainsaw, Halloween, etc.) but this critique is actually true.

 

The only video game-based movie that wasn't a total disappointment was Hitman. But then again, I've never played Hitman.

 

It's very clear you haven't read the book, they didn't just leave "one or two things out", they changed ALMOST ALL of the material completely man.

Edited June 27, 2013 by whitewolf001

[Motasyco]

I also liked the lack of clichés like the underdog always coming through. In every Stephen King-type book/movie it starts with, lets say 30 special forces commandos, the quadriplegic autistic kid and their mental-baggage-consumed caregiver. Five minutes later all the commandos are dead and the plot sits on the courage of the two people bound to the wheelchair.

 

 

The EvilDead remake was an alright movie by itself, but sucked compared to original. I know people will say that about all remakes (Hills Have Eyes, Texas Chainsaw, Halloween, etc.) but this critique is actually true.

 

 

I thought I had read all of Stephen King's books.  I must have missed this one.

 

The original Evil Dead is great partly because it was filmed right here in east Tennessee!  I live just a couple of miles from the location of the cabin and my recreational (range) property is just up the road about a mile from the "hitch-hiking fisherman" scene location.  

 

After hearing some of the reviews, I am looking forward to seeing World War Z...when it comes out on cable. 

[Fear]

Maybe I compounded the cliches a bit. Lets say Jurasic Park 3 where the high-maintenance whiney bimbo, her wimpy husband and their completely un-equipped kid make it through the whole movie. The hired trained mercenaries armed to the rim make it all of 5-minutes. Most of Kings books have the wimpy underdog prevailing while the prepared people barely out-last the opening credits. Not just King, seems like most horror movies. 

 

Evil Dead remake had the Ash-character whiney and hesitant. Him and his geeking detoxing sister outlast the less douche-like characters. While the original Bruce Cambell Ash was doing whatever it took to get through and wasn't wasting energy on his personal drama. 

 

I just believe in real situations that if someone is so self-centered that they can focus on their inner drama over the threat at hand are the first to fail. But not the case in movie cliches.

 

I liked the movie. Walking Dead creeping zombies like Night of the Living Dead seem scary if they creep up on you, but not such a threat unless you're careless or can't find a secure place to sleep. Running zombies like in the remake of Dawn of the Dead put real fear into the concept. WWZ zombies that not only run but form huge zombie tidal waves and can instantly stack to overcome tall obstacles are intense.

[monkeylizard]

Haven't read the book, but plan to now that I know it's a whole lot more than the movie.

 

Fast Z's are scarier, but I agree that it wasn't as edgy as I had hoped. I was never in fear for the main characters, especially since there's  only one. It was action packed, and I can overlook the tactical errors as they weren't terrible, and Gerry's not a Billy-Bad-Ass operator, just an experienced field investigator. But he did leave his rifle behind when fleeing the apartment....oops.

 

I liked the movie for what it was, an action summer movie.

 

**SPOILER ALERT***

 

What I couldn't follow was how Israel built the wall in such a hurry. They talk about how Israel was the first to take action after intercepting communications in India, so I get thet they'd be more prepared than anyone else, but they built an 80+ foot concrete wall around the country, complete with wire-mesh enclosed people tunnels and immigration/refugee stations in a few weeks?

 

They never explained why some corner of Nova Scotia (or New Brunswick?) was a safe place to put refugees. I would have thought an island would have been better. Maybe it was an island off the coast of NB or NS. I would think a warmer island off the coast of the US would have been a better choice. Or even better, let's all go to Fiji.

 

If they're doing a sequel, it could be cool to see the "on the ground" battles, but the war is over. The humans are now immunized to where the Zs won't attack them. The Zs are being herded into centralized areas and burned/bombed. It's just a matter of mopping up.

 

Since when did the US fly an Antonov AN-12? It's a super special one because they launched it from an aircraft carrier, then it flew all the way to Korea without refueling, then it gets refuled on the ground in about 30 seconds with enough fuel to fly all the way to Israel. Screw the Boeing Dreamliner....this thing is the solution for airline fuel efficiency and range. Who knew the Russians solved the problem in 1957? They could afford Brad Pitt, but couldn't lease a Herc?

Edited June 28, 2013 by monkeylizard

[vontar]

I enjoyed it.

 

I am going to try not to spoil anything but consider this a warming just in case.

 

If you read the book and watched the movie you noticed 2 separate things.  The Movie is in order as it happens, while the book is looking back afterwards.

 

I actually liked the book better, but did enjoy the movie.  The book and movie do not spoil the other. 

 

The 10th man was talked about in the book and well done.  The part about it starting in China was removed from the movie due to China backing the movie. 

 

The preview made me concerned they would use the wrong type of zombie, however I believe for the most part they where mostly correct.(not 100 percent though.)