World War Z

  • NMGUY505

    Posts: 145

    Jun 21, 2013 11:08 PM GMT
    Just got from watching the film. Was so dissapointed in it. I read the book back in 2006 when it came out, was even more excited when they announced a movie back in 2009. Maybe I had expectations to hig. But come on you'd think they could do the book more justice than the 2 and a half hour snooze fest we. Its bad that even Bradd Pitt can't save this film. My advice avoid it till its on dvd or blu ray. Lets hear what you genst have to say about this film vs the book.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2013 2:18 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]NMGUY505 said[/cite]Just got from watching the film. Was so dissapointed in it. I read the book back in 2006 when it came out, was even more excited when they announced a movie back in 2009. Maybe I had expectations to hig. But come on you'd think they could do the book more justice than the 2 and a half hour snooze fest we. Its bad that even Bradd Pitt can't save this film. My advice avoid it till its on dvd or blu ray. Lets hear what you genst have to say about this film vs the

    The trailers were all I need to stay away. Go see Mud.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2013 3:38 AM GMT
    ^^ I agree about the trailers! They pretty much showed how the screenplay differs from the book. It was better than the Purge, that's for sure!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2013 3:41 AM GMT
    The book and movie are 2 different things. I don't even get why they called it World War Z...if they called it something else they would have saved so much money on the rights.

    There are only 2-3 things that are similar to the book. Hell they changed the main characters name as well.

    I do, however, think it was a good standalone Zombie movie!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2013 6:36 PM GMT
    Just went to see it.

    On the plus side I loved how it wasn't your typical zombie movie filled with gore- it actually tried to do something different and reminded me more of movies like Outbreak and Contagion.

    It isn't a good movie though, you can tell they had problems with production as the movie doesn't quite feel 'finished' and some of the dialogue is really clunky. Also the pacing is off, towards the end of the movie I actually started yawning.

    So in summation it was ok but 28 days later tells the same story basically but in a much more effective way.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2013 6:37 PM GMT
    i saw it yesterday and i liked it
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jun 24, 2013 4:56 PM GMT
    I thought it was derivative... So many holes in the plot.... But Brad Pitt still looks adorable. He was the one redeeming aspect for me, even though the actual character was generic.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2013 1:14 AM GMT
    I love the zombie genre but have no desire to see a big budget production. Its been done way better on shoestring budgets. Why would Brad Pitt add anything to this, plus other big budget movies like War of the Worlds and I am Legend dabbled in some of the same scenerios.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jun 26, 2013 1:21 AM GMT
    jerseywoof saidI love the zombie genre but have no desire to see a big budget production. Its been done way better on shoestring budgets. Why would Brad Pitt add anything to this, plus other big budget movies like War of the Worlds and I am Legend dabbled in some of the same scenerios.

    Brad Pitt is the only redeeming aspect of this insufferable movie.
  • MadeinMich

    Posts: 1624

    Jun 26, 2013 1:23 AM GMT
    How does it compare to my all time favorite zombie movie 28 Days Later?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2013 2:12 AM GMT
    MadeinMich saidHow does it compare to my all time favorite zombie movie 28 Days Later?


    The gore! WWZ zombies don't throw up blood the once infection hits. Also in 28 Days Later, the conflict is between humans while in WWZ, the story falls with finding a solution. Personally, I prefer the screenplay of 28 Days Later.
  • MrPapo317

    Posts: 515

    Jun 26, 2013 2:31 AM GMT
    Erik101 said
    MadeinMich saidHow does it compare to my all time favorite zombie movie 28 Days Later?


    The gore! WWZ zombies don't throw up blood the once infection hits. Also in 28 Days Later, the conflict is between humans while in WWZ, the story falls with finding a solution. Personally, I prefer the screenplay of 28 Days Later.


    I thought the same thing when i saw it last night in 3D. it was a decent watch. kept me awake.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2013 5:36 AM GMT
    It wasn't a terrible movie, but it wasn't an awesome movie.
  • Apparition

    Posts: 3534

    Jun 26, 2013 9:11 AM GMT
    I havent read the book, but knowing hollywood and its distaste for a storyline, I will assume they just used the title like in I Robot.

    The pacing was terrible. It was an okay genre movie but highly immemorable and not worth ten bucks. All of the visual effects worth mentioning were in the trailer. I SOOO didnt see 200million dollars worth of special effects. I assume most of that was due to reshooting the last 40 minutes after the test audiences hated it.

    The battle strategy in the last hour "tunnel crawl" was pathetic.


    Scientist one: "hey, let's walk through a big tunnel full of killers and get to the very end of the building, since this steel bar is all that stands between us and imminent death"

    scientist two: "ya, we are totally trapped in the completely glass filled building surrounded by a town of people completely unaffected by any kind of zombies...you know...so much so that brad pit and a hot boy-girl just walked right up to the front door without any problems whatsovever. trapped I tell you."
    ------

    icon_rolleyes.gif

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2013 10:22 AM GMT
    I thought it was pretty entertaining. If you intended it to answer the question "Why are we here?" then you were probably aiming a bit high. It's a zombie movie!
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jun 26, 2013 5:00 PM GMT
    Apparition saidI havent read the book, but knowing hollywood and its distaste for a storyline, I will assume they just used the title like in I Robot.

    The pacing was terrible. It was an okay genre movie but highly immemorable and not worth ten bucks. All of the visual effects worth mentioning were in the trailer. I SOOO didnt see 200million dollars worth of special effects. I assume most of that was due to reshooting the last 40 minutes after the test audiences hated it.

    The battle strategy in the last hour "tunnel crawl" was pathetic.


    Scientist one: "hey, let's walk through a big tunnel full of killers and get to the very end of the building, since this steel bar is all that stands between us and imminent death"

    scientist two: "ya, we are totally trapped in the completely glass filled building surrounded by a town of people completely unaffected by any kind of zombies...you know...so much so that brad pit and a hot boy-girl just walked right up to the front door without any problems whatsovever. trapped I tell you."
    ------

    icon_rolleyes.gif


    Inorite. They should've cut to the chase and spent the second half of the movie actually fighting zombies.... Not to mention have the lead character avenge his betrayed family. There were so many missed opportunities.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2013 5:13 PM GMT
    Thank you all for saving me 14 dollars icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2013 9:51 PM GMT
    World War Zzzzzzzzzz...

    Right after I saw the movie I was told that the book, which I've yet to read, was a black comedy. If true, this film really didn't do the book justice, there was absolutely no gallows humor except the improbability of one of the world's top investigators (Pitt) forgetting to set his cell phone on vibrate when he knows the zombies are activated by sound.

    There was almost no gore because it was never established that the zombies were flesh eaters; they merely followed a biological imperative to spread a pathogen through biting.

    The scenes of them piling up atop one another en masse were never-before-seen impressive, but as for the rest of the film it seemed a waste even without even knowing the book. And if I'm going to spend 12 bucks I want Brad Pitt showing some skin and looking his best, and except for his greasy and inexplicably oft-combed metro 'do I thought he looked terrible.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2013 10:11 PM GMT
    So the film has done enough business that the studio want to greenlight a sequel......I'm sure there are much better scripts out there stuffed in some execs draw and yet we have to deal with a sequel to this mediocre shit.

    I hate Hollywood sometimes icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2013 10:14 PM GMT
    A PG-13 zombie movie? Count me out bro. I'll just re-watch 28 Weeks Later.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2013 10:17 PM GMT
    I was looking forward to seeing it ever since they 'converted' Glasgow into Philadelphia for filming. Yes, it did have a lot of plot holes, but overall I enjoyed it. I've seen much worse - especially in the zombie genre. I'm not sure how the proposed sequel will play out - especially seen as the story seemed to wrap up so conveniently at the end of the first film.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2013 10:23 PM GMT
    I saw it yesterday and thought it was pretty good. Probably one of the best zombie movie since 28 Days Later.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Jun 30, 2013 5:47 PM GMT
    I don't know why I went to see this in the first place because I have never been particularly a fan of ZOMBIE movies. They give me the creeps. I still get chills from the first Zombie movie I ever saw -- "The Night Of The Living Dead" http://www.youtube.com/movie?v=QXuE-CyYsdQ -- which scared the hell out of me.

    "World War Z" is like a Zombie movie on steroids. It's so over-the-top at times that we were actually laughing. The audience is expected to swallow so many epic "Brad Pitt is the only guy on earth who can save the world from a Zombie Apocalypse" contrivances that it becomes annoying halfway through the movie. Yes, some of the special effects were great, and the movie was relentless at trying to keep us on the edge of our seats --- and it often-times does --- however, by the end it all became so predictably tied up in a nice little bow like typical Hollywood blockbuster-style summer movies like to do.

    I give "World War Z" a generous 2.5 out of 5 jock straps

    2andahalfjockstraps_zps8a212bd0.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2013 12:38 AM GMT
    I didn't mind the movie to be honest.
    Some good scares got in there and suspenseful moments.

    I haven't read the book but as a movie on it's own I didn't mind it.
    I was the ending was resolved a little more solid rather than just a assumed narrated ending but I guess they did that to keep it open ended for a possible sequel.

    Definitely some unintentional funny moments when the zombies in the labs pretty much looked like they were krumping haha.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 21, 2013 4:13 AM GMT
    I sat on the edge of my seat a lot, and jumped two or three times. Now I want to read the book.