Movie Defense Force: World War Z - Despite The Title, A Great Zombie Flick

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
World War Z - Despite The Title, A Great Zombie Flick

Although having little connection to the popular book asides sharing a name, World War Z is a pretty damn good film.

Watch Video
 

Pyrian

Hat Man
Legacy
Apr 21, 2020
1,399
8
13
San Diego, CA
Country
US
Gender
Male
My suspicion is that if they'd named it anything else, people would be mad at how much it ripped off the book. XD
 

Avaholic03

New member
May 11, 2009
1,520
0
0
I watched this movie (the unrated version on Netflix) last weekend, and I pretty much agree with you on all your points. The only real problem I have with this movie (and I had the same problem with 28 days later, I Am Legend, and other similar movies) is that I have a tough time suspending disbelief that a virus would actually give people super-human strength and speed. It's not that I'm some slow-zombie purist or anything, it just doesn't seem scientifically sound.

But, putting aside that complaint, it was a great movie with excellent tension and pacing throughout.

EDIT:
Pyrian said:
My suspicion is that if they'd named it anything else, people would be mad at how much it ripped off the book. XD
I doubt it. It was so unrelated to the book (only a few character names remained the same) that if it were named something else, nobody would have even compared the two. It would, however, have been written off as a 28 Days Later clone, which is the movie I think it's most comparable to (although on a much greater scale of course).
 

ImBigBob

New member
Dec 24, 2008
336
0
0
Good video, Jim. Up until now I've refused to see it specifically because of its tie to the book. However, if you really think it's a good movie on its own merits, then perhaps I'll check it out.

I mean, I did love The Running Man movie, even though it had nothing at all to do with the book.
 

Lvl 64 Klutz

Crowsplosion!
Apr 8, 2008
2,338
0
0
Avaholic03 said:
I watched this movie (the unrated version on Netflix) last weekend, and I pretty much agree with you on all your points. The only real problem I have with this movie (and I had the same problem with 28 days later, I Am Legend, and other similar movies) is that I have a tough time suspending disbelief that a virus would actually give people super-human strength and speed. It's not that I'm some slow-zombie purist or anything, it just doesn't seem scientifically sound.
It doesn't seem scientifically sound that a virus would give it's host abilities that would allow said host to spread the virus more efficiently?
 

Kmadden2004

New member
Feb 13, 2010
475
0
0
I usually find the best way to describe World War Z to friends is that it isn't a straight up, gory horror movie but more like a traditional disaster film that happens to use zombies as its inciting event instead of a volcano or earthquake.

Plus, Daniella Kertesz was great as Segen. It would be nice to see her get more work.

Also, it has the "aw, that's cute" factor of Peter Capaldi as a W.H.O. Doctor...
 

LobsterFeng

New member
Apr 10, 2011
1,766
0
0
It's okay. That's all I can really say about it. Having Muse do the score was pretty damn cool though.
 

Dunesen

New member
Jul 31, 2013
19
0
0
Nope.

Ignoring the lack of fidelity to the source material, WWZ does not work as a zombie movie because it undermines the very principle of all zombie movies from Night of the Living Dead on: that it is a complete and total apocalypse, a breakdown of society and social convention, and that a return to normalcy is at best an idealistic fantasy. The entire business of finding 'a cure' implies that this is nothing more than an inconvenience writ large, to be addressed and solved so long as our intrepid hero can hold out long enough to get through enough castles to ultimately find his princess (to use a video game analogy, given this site). At which point everything can go back to normal (the half-assed epilogue narration be damned).

Zombie stories are never really about the zombies themselves, and WWZ's pushing of the 'running zombie' envelope was just an attempt to bring the focus to the undead hordes in order to then 'defeat' them with the 'disease as bio-camo' cure.

You know what would have worked, narratively and thematically? If the entire third act was changed and Brad Pitt's travels and research were for all for naught. If he had to come to the realization that all his efforts to stop the zombies and bring the world back to what it once was were pointless. I can accept the book's 'victory' over the zombie plague because a) it's not a permanent fix, as the characters make clear and b) it requires massive changes to society, military tactics and the cooperation of various nations. A new world for a new threat, emphasizing just how significant this issue is.

But no. The movie wanted to adhere to the action movie formula, right down to the 'one man saves the day' ending. And that necessitated reducing the zombies to less than their traditional status as monsters.

Also the complete lack of blood and gore was just a slap in the face to the zombie genre. I assume the unrated cut restores the balance on that front, but frack it I paid money to see this in theaters. I paid to see blood!
 

Grabehn

New member
Sep 22, 2012
630
0
0
I know nothing about the book, saw this about 3-4 days ago and the most I can remember is that one Pepsi scene that had me both giggling and cringing and how blatant it was.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Sorry Jim I cannot agree, I will have to disagree. I found the film to be boring, bland and very funny in a bad way. I had to find something else to do because it was that boring.

For the record, I have never read the book and 28 days later doesn't have any zombies of any kind.

Avaholic03 said:
I watched this movie (the unrated version on Netflix) last weekend, and I pretty much agree with you on all your points. The only real problem I have with this movie (and I had the same problem with 28 days later....) is that I have a tough time suspending disbelief that a virus would actually give people super-human strength and speed. It's not that I'm some slow-zombie purist or anything, it just doesn't seem scientifically sound.

But, putting aside that complaint, it was a great movie with excellent tension and pacing throughout.
If it wasn't for the fact teh zombiez die off from starvation 28 days later....In 28 days later then I would agree with your point
 

ZZoMBiE13

Ate My Neighbors
Oct 10, 2007
1,908
0
0
When this one came on Netflix I tried to give it an honest try. I chose the unrated cut of course since both were available.

Sadly I was unable to divorce myself from the expectations the name brought with it. I plan to give it another go at some point, but Max Brooks' book just looms so large it's hard to not think of it. It's hard to not wonder what might have been if we gave the source material a chance instead of using an in-name-only title to show us a 28 Later knock-off.

Honestly, I like Brad Pitt ever since Se7en. I don't mind a change in service of a new medium where it makes sense. But this is one I haven't been able to look at through a clear lens.
 

Vausch

New member
Dec 7, 2009
1,476
0
0
Lvl 64 Klutz said:
Avaholic03 said:
I watched this movie (the unrated version on Netflix) last weekend, and I pretty much agree with you on all your points. The only real problem I have with this movie (and I had the same problem with 28 days later, I Am Legend, and other similar movies) is that I have a tough time suspending disbelief that a virus would actually give people super-human strength and speed. It's not that I'm some slow-zombie purist or anything, it just doesn't seem scientifically sound.
It doesn't seem scientifically sound that a virus would give it's host abilities that would allow said host to spread the virus more efficiently?
Viruses tend to mutate and become less damaging and visually frightening if it helps spread the virus easier. To that standard, it could reach the point where strain B and C virus zombies are actually either normal people that don't bite others after chasing them via a horde.

A zombie movie with nice zombies. That sounds like an interesting romp.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Avaholic03 said:
I watched this movie (the unrated version on Netflix) last weekend, and I pretty much agree with you on all your points. The only real problem I have with this movie (and I had the same problem with 28 days later, I Am Legend, and other similar movies) is that I have a tough time suspending disbelief that a virus would actually give people super-human strength and speed. It's not that I'm some slow-zombie purist or anything, it just doesn't seem scientifically sound.
Do the zombies (I Am Legend has vampires, btw) actually have superhuman speed and strength? I mean, people always seem pretty capable of outrunning them and overpowering them. The only real danger is that they always sprint towards their targets, don't care about pain or getting hurt, and generally come in groups. They might have good endurance to be sprinting all the time, but we never really see them run marathons, just chase after a human for short periods of time.
 

Coreless

New member
Aug 19, 2011
298
0
0
I never had any intention of ever watching this movie, I actually can't stand the zombie movie genre at all. The Walking Dead was about all I could stand watching (Only saw the first season) because I think zombies are just stupid as a concept (in my opinion) but since I had nothing else to watch and actually am a fan of Brad Pitt as an actor I decided to watch WWZ on Netflix.

All and all I actually liked the movie, for me it was more the focus on the virus itself that actually kept me watching. All the parts where Brad Pitt was trying to understand the effects of the virus, looking for patterns and seeing its weaknesses I thought was quite a good idea that I don't recall seeing in other zombie movies. I never read the book (or knew there was a book) so I wasn't expecting anything going into it but I enjoyed what I saw and have to agree with Jim that its an entertaining film.
 

MarsProbe

Circuitboard Seahorse
Dec 13, 2008
2,372
0
0
I read the book a good while back (blahblahblah I was there before it was cool bow before my superiority) so by the time the film came out I had forgotten a lot of the smaller details that I heard had been carried over into the film. I personally thought the film was just "okay". Besides the scenes in the W.H.O facility at the end, I found the whole thing to be just missing that certain...something. I could tell when it was meant to be tense or exciting, but it just never really to there for me.

The main attraction for this movie (other than the book it shares a name with) was the novelty of seeing a rather recognisable (to us locals anyway) part of my home city dressed up as an American city. Other than that, this film was juust kind of....there for me really.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Yea um, no. This movie is just horrible soulless cashgrab designed by committee. Nothing good can be said about it. It would be bad 15 years ago when the zombie craze was just getting started, but today that's just beyond despicable.

BTW I had no idea what this movie is actually based on (and I still don't) so it's not about the adaptation or whatevs.
 

geier

New member
Oct 15, 2010
250
0
0
I have not read the book, so perhaps my opinion comes right out of my ignorant ass, but i was pleasantly surprised by the movie. I only heard the backlash on the internet and thought it would be terrible.
I really like that the protagonist is not the super ex military, seal, special forces, bla, bla mega soldier.
And that is, i believe, the biggest problem for most viewers. He was a guy that talked more then used his gun. He worked for the EU/UN and not the CIA/Seal, bla, bla, super soldier producing maschine.

Also the ending was not clear cut. The vaccine was just a temporary solution. It's like the ending from Mass Effect: If it not a super happy ending, todays viewers complain.
Of course the movie was not perfect, it was far from it. But to be honest, i think it was one of the better zombie movies of the recent years. It stands (in my opinion) far ahead of 28 Days later.
 

Avaholic03

New member
May 11, 2009
1,520
0
0
LifeCharacter said:
Avaholic03 said:
I watched this movie (the unrated version on Netflix) last weekend, and I pretty much agree with you on all your points. The only real problem I have with this movie (and I had the same problem with 28 days later, I Am Legend, and other similar movies) is that I have a tough time suspending disbelief that a virus would actually give people super-human strength and speed. It's not that I'm some slow-zombie purist or anything, it just doesn't seem scientifically sound.
Do the zombies (I Am Legend has vampires, btw) actually have superhuman speed and strength? I mean, people always seem pretty capable of outrunning them and overpowering them. The only real danger is that they always sprint towards their targets, don't care about pain or getting hurt, and generally come in groups. They might have good endurance to be sprinting all the time, but we never really see them run marathons, just chase after a human for short periods of time.
So forming a human pyramid to get over a 50' tall wall doesn't demonstrate super-human strength? Or leaping through windows of moving vehicles? Or any number of things we see them do in the film? It doesn't make any sense for an infected/dead person to be able to run down a healthy live person, except as a action movie plot device.

Lvl 64 Klutz said:
It doesn't seem scientifically sound that a virus would give it's host abilities that would allow said host to spread the virus more efficiently?
How exactly would a virus accomplish that? Especially in zombies where the nervous and circulatory systems are compromised and the host is medically dead, how does a virus even fight off the onset of rigor mortus, let alone making the host more agile than it was when it was alive?
 

Westaway

New member
Nov 9, 2009
1,084
0
0
Jim forgot to mention that it is some of the most blatant Israeli propaganda in a Hollywood film released in recent years.
 

Canadamus Prime

Robot in Disguise
Jun 17, 2009
14,334
0
0
I saw this movie and went into it not expecting much, but really it wasn't bad. Not the worst movie I've ever seen.
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,846
1
3
Country
United States
Avaholic03 said:
Lvl 64 Klutz said:
It doesn't seem scientifically sound that a virus would give it's host abilities that would allow said host to spread the virus more efficiently?
How exactly would a virus accomplish that? Especially in zombies where the nervous and circulatory systems are compromised and the host is medically dead, how does a virus even fight off the onset of rigor mortus, let alone making the host more agile than it was when it was alive?
Well, from what I've seen of previews for this movie, these zombies don't seem like walking corpses a la walking dead. They seem more like infected, a la 28 days later. And I think what the virus does is that it just overwhelms them with a powerful urge to eat non-infected, drowning out all other feelings. These include the feelings that keep us from running like they do, feeling tired, the feeling of a sprained ankle, and other things. The infected constantly running like this with no regard for personal safety would most likely end up killing them, but by then they'd already have their teeth in you. Basically the virus causes the infected to ignore all of the safety systems the body has.
 

SonOfVoorhees

New member
Aug 3, 2011
3,509
0
0
The movie was entertaining enough by its own merits. But the name and being based on the book that had more originality in it than the movie really spoiled it. I just wondered why they never took many of the scenes from the book that were awesome? I really wanted to see the Battle of Yonkers in a movie - you could totally feel the terror of the soldiers as modern weapons didnt do that much to the zombie hoard. Also those dog handlers with the dogs they use to bait zombies etc The part with the ships trying to rescue people but zombies end up on them, plus those underwater grabbing people feet dragging them down. But then with the zombies surging every where at speed none of the stories in the book will work anymore. Maybe they should just make it into a tv series.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Avaholic03 said:
So forming a human pyramid to get over a 50' tall wall doesn't demonstrate super-human strength? Or leaping through windows of moving vehicles? Or any number of things we see them do in the film? It doesn't make any sense for an infected/dead person to be able to run down a healthy live person, except as a action movie plot device.
I don't really think climbing over people takes all that much superhuman strength, and that's really all they seem to be doing. They're not performing some superhuman feat of strength, they're just playing king of the hill on the world's largest dogpile.

As for leaping through windows of moving vehicles, that's difficult due to the type of glass usually used in vehicles. It's still possible depending on how they actually jumped through the window though. Did they outrun the car and jump through the back? Charge it head on and jump through the windshield? Or get lucky and jump through the side as it was going by? Only the first one seems physically difficult to do.

It's perfectly plausible though, for an infected person with no sense of exhaustion or soreness to sprint fast enough to catch the average person who has such things. Someone who gets tired, afraid, confused, and has to wonder about which way to go next. Infected don't suddenly lose their ability to run just because they've lost their rational mind and humans don't become athletes just because they now have something to run away from.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
well "world war z" might be a decent movie Jim...but sadly there's no way i'm forgiving the using up of the books IP until they at least start talking about the TV mini series that book should actually be...

ps was that Israel with the wall bit ?...[small]please don't tell me they fucked about with the Israel "thang"...that was one of the best geopolitical premises in the whole book...almost the only thing better was the insinuation the British royal family "went down with the ship" fighting zombies in suits of armour ffs...[/small]
 

Zontar

Mad Max 2019
Feb 18, 2013
4,931
0
0
Sleekit said:
well "world war z" might be a decent movie...but sadly there's no way i'm forgiving the using of the name until they at least start talking about about the TV mini series that book should actually be...
Mini-series? Given the premise and the source material, HBO could make a series which would be longer then even the Walking Dead (and would also show them how a zombie tv series is done right). Hell, all you need is Brooks being in every episode at the beginning, end and maybe some point in the middle interviewing the survivor and the rest of the episode could be a standalone. With the very premise they could not only adapt all material from the book, but add much more.

But alas, this shitty movie trilogy (god why did they have to make more?) is all we get. Another generic summer action movie that does nothing to differentiate itself from the crowd and doesn't even try to make itself worth our time, let alone money. I know the critics don't have the balls to say it, but the fact this movie made a profit shows the greater movie going public are morons.
 

Charles Phipps

New member
Oct 12, 2013
68
0
0
I think zombies aren't a tired genre but you need some sort of hook for enjoying them. Shana Festa's Time of Death: Induction is a zombie novel where the humans AREN'T bastards and work together with the military (which is NOT evil) while maintaining a hopeful disposition. Jessica Meig's The Becoming succeeds for the simple fact everyone in the story is a badass zombie-killer. The Dead Rising games are just FUNNY. Peter Clines' Ex-Heroes is superheroes versus zombies. Pavlov's Dogs is about zombies vs. werewolves.

You don't need to innovate the formula much, just innovate it a little!
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Zontar said:
Sleekit said:
well "world war z" might be a decent movie...but sadly there's no way i'm forgiving the using of the name until they at least start talking about about the TV mini series that book should actually be...
Mini-series? Given the premise and the source material, HBO could make a series which would be longer then even the Walking Dead (and would also show them how a zombie tv series is done right). Hell, all you need is Brooks being in every episode at the beginning, end and maybe some point in the middle interviewing the survivor and the rest of the episode could be a standalone. With the very premise they could not only adapt all material from the book, but add much more.

But alas, this shitty movie trilogy (god why did they have to make more?) is all we get. Another generic summer action movie that does nothing to differentiate itself from the crowd and doesn't even try to make itself worth our time, let alone money. I know the critics don't have the balls to say it, but the fact this movie made a profit shows the greater movie going public are morons.
well tbh i said "mini series" because to my mind a "mini series" usually has a set end before it starts...it has a fixed stopping point at which it ends...as opposed to a normal series that might "run and run"...

but ye...dramatised interviews basically...like you said...like one of those high class war documentaries...like Band of Brothers...crossed with fiction & zombies ofc...

could be a truly great show in the round if there was any decent talent involved.
 

Tradjus

New member
Apr 25, 2011
273
0
0
What killed this movie for me was the portrayal of the Zombies. Not that they aren't shamblers, innovation is fine, but I just couldn't take them seriously. They are just.. so obnoxiously ridiculous. They flop around like fish, sprint at breakneck speeds and ignore the laws of gravity, and are just so.. FUNNY. I mean, nothing about them terrifies me, if you added some sort of comedy soundtrack too this movie it would work perfectly as a Zombie Parody.
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
I think what Jim says about visual invention and style is true- the "flowing water" zombies is kind of neat.

But good God, the humans are so dumb...
 

Deimir

New member
Jul 3, 2008
69
0
0
I've heard that the Unrated cut improved the movie a lot from its PG-13 trappings, but when I went to watch the Unrated version on Netflix, it played the theatrical cut. Plus I'm 99% certain there's still that ridiculousness involving the plane crash no matter how much more gore they add.
 

DoctorImpossible

New member
Jan 18, 2013
100
0
0
Agreed with all of this, very fun film, just wish they hadn't wasted the WWZ name on it.

I really like the idea of an actual WWZ mini-series as opposed to a film.
 

daxterx2005

New member
Dec 19, 2009
1,615
0
0
Yeah this movie suffers from "in name only syndrome"
Its a good movie but piggybacks off the name and nothing else.
Godzilla, Halloween III etc.
 

attackshark

New member
Nov 16, 2010
248
0
0
effects were cool, but a lack of interesting characters, a myriad of common sense plot holes, with just a hint of sexism and national superiority drags this movie into the do-not-watch territory. there were little details that i liked, but they were, at best, sprinkles on the shit cake. the fact that the movie misses the point of the book, while i agree it can be secondary, also does not help; this is a WORLD war, not white guy saves the day.
 

vagabondwillsmile

New member
Aug 20, 2013
221
0
0
I never read the book, though having seen the movie I would like to. The one and only thing I didn't like about the movie is there are far too many instances of *Hey, I'm a clutz and dropped something when my life depends on being quiet*. This, to the point of being eye-roll and groan worthy. Other than that I thought it was great. The production could have so easily done this in a way where the characters weren't at fault, considering the settings, but instead went for the low hanging fruit there. There are so many scenes that build suspense really well. One in particular (you know the one) is very uncomfortable and the air is just thick with tension. And I really liked the soldier character, Segen. She was cool.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
its a great book vagabondwillsmile and well worth a read if only for the wider ground it covers outside of the seemingly obvious.
 

Diddy_Mao

New member
Jan 14, 2009
1,189
0
0
It's rare that an adaptation can manage to pull off a good movie while still being a piss poor adaptation.

A lot of this is pretty much exactly how I feel about the Hellboy movies.

Terrible, awful, no good, very bad adaptations of the source material.
Still pretty damn fun Supernatural/Action flicks in their own right.
 

luvd1

New member
Jan 25, 2010
736
0
0
For crying out loud. THERE ARE NO ZOMBIES IN 28 DAYS LATER!!! It's about a virus that was genetically made to examine overwhelming aggression. No one is undead, just very, very angry. No zombies... Right!!!
 

The_State

New member
Jun 25, 2008
106
0
0
LifeCharacter said:
Do the zombies (I Am Legend has vampires, btw) actually have superhuman speed and strength? I mean, people always seem pretty capable of outrunning them and overpowering them. The only real danger is that they always sprint towards their targets, don't care about pain or getting hurt, and generally come in groups. They might have good endurance to be sprinting all the time, but we never really see them run marathons, just chase after a human for short periods of time.
Actually, there are a couple instances of superhuman zombie strength in WWZ. In the Israel section you see a zombie push its arm through a metal-mesh grate and lift up a soldier in full kit with one arm. That's well more than two-hundred pounds; with a single bicep curl. And in the America section, zombies headbutt their way through car windshields.

And that's not all. The zombies will bend or even break the behavioural rules that the movie set down for them. Zombies are relentless and tactless hunters, but one will hide silently in an airplane refreshment cupboard, in an airplane FULL of living, breathing, edible people, until the time is just right for them the pop out Jack-in-the-box style to nom on a flight attendant. Zombies are attracted to noise, but not the noise that other zombies make; only edible humans are capable of knocking things over. I know there was another one that galled the hell out of me, but I cannot recall what it was.
 

maxben

New member
Jun 9, 2010
529
0
0
Westaway said:
Jim forgot to mention that it is some of the most blatant Israeli propaganda in a Hollywood film released in recent years.
I take offense at this comment. 1. The book was already super pro Israel, which even as an Israeli I saw as odd and unlikely. 2. Jerusalem makes a great set piece. It looks great, the narrow streets make this a lot of fun, and the city itself as a thematic importance that can't be beat. 3. How many Hollywood films actually feature Israeli propaganda. Your comment acts like that's a normal occurrence. It would be like saying that Transformers 4 is the most blatant pro Chinese government propaganda from Hollywood in the recent years. Fact is, there is almost NO (and none off the top of my head) pro-Chinese government propaganda coming out of Hollywood. In fact, the only other movie that I can think of that mentions Israeli actions was Munich, and that movie was hated by many Zionist organization and ended with the main character, the Mossad agent, having a mental breakdown because of all the horrible things he did. Not to mention that that was also based on a historical account (loosely of course).
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
kinda weird to call the book "super pro Israel" given

the post war result is a unified Palestinian/Jewish state called "Unified Palestine" and there's an internal Israeli civil war takes place as a result of the nations defence including the Palestinians.

the point the book makes about the Israelis is that as a country they are basically "in a state of constant readiness" and are open to the idea of existential threat in a way other nations are not because of who they are historically as a people and their geopolitical situation.

basically, and although it may sound crass, the Israelis are basically structurally and mentally shitting themselves from the world around them at the beginning of the war and so they have a huge mental and structural head start on everyone else when they rest of the planet is still wallowing in willful ignorance and/or denial....as such they are the only country to pretty quickly "seriously believe" what's happening and institute the kind of rigid national quarantine actually required to matter at the very start of the war.

and i don't think that's "super pro Israel" as much as a fairly astute analysis and projection.
 

leviadragon99

New member
Jun 17, 2010
1,055
0
0
Well honestly I avoided the movie because I'm rather sick of zombie media in general... so yeah...
 

Zorg Machine

New member
Jul 28, 2008
1,304
0
0
World War Z infuriates me because while both it and How to train your dragon "took an excellent book and dragged it through the mud", people look at me as if I'm crazy when I criticize HTTYD while shouting abuse at WWZ.

You can't forget that WWZ is a good movie in it's own right just as you can't forget that HTTYD completely bastardized an excellent novel.
 

Product Placement

New member
Jul 16, 2009
475
0
0
Jimothy Sterling said:
Although having little connection to the popular book asides sharing a name, World War Z is a pretty damn good film.
Not to undermine your point but I feel like this has, more or less, been said before. The biggest complaint that people had about this movie was how little to nothing it had to do with the book.

There's allot of interesting things to be said about the movie, like you rightfully point out. It felt like a natural evolution from the zombie sub genre (the so called "rage virus" version) that was coined by 28 days later but that's where it should have stood its ground. Probably its biggest strength (and arguably one of its weaknesses) was its main plot point[footnote]
[h4]The whole idea that the rage-zombies can sense and are attracted to healthy, uninfected individuals, while ignoring those sickly/infected helped address a huge point that bothered me, when I watched 28 days/weeks later. Since the virus was essentially a form of super-rabies, that made everyone hyper aggressive, why weren't the infected continuously tearing each other apart, in fits of madness, instead of only getting worked up when uninfected were around? Being an intolerant nit-picker, stuff like that would bother me. Therefore this particular reveal was not only a halfway decent plot twist, but also a nice way to address concerns made by deuces, like myself.

Of course, that only ended in me asking why Brad Pit was the only person to notice this and and why not a single terminal patient, across the whole wide world, failed to report that the zombies were leaving them along, several days into the epidemic.[/h4]
[/footnote]. The director compared the fluid movements of mindless worker ants to zombie mob movements, which was rather innovative. All of these things can be considered to be strong points for this film.

It's therefore rather ironic that none of those aforementioned points can be found in the book, while all the strengths of the novel can't be found in the film. Thus the whole idea of tying these two works together ends up doing nothing but disservice to the movie release. Imagine being a rapper who's advertised as Beethoven's successor. It doesn't matter how good you are, in your respective field. It doesn't matter if you're the best damn rapper out there. You're not Beethoven because your work is nothing like his. Fans of classical work will universally pan you for being nothing like what they know and love, while the rapping community won't feel particularly excited about some artist who's being compared to a songwriter, who's been dead for 200 years.

But enough of stupid analogies. Point being, the film should have stood on its own merits. If they wanted to make a movie that captured the book, they should have dressed it up like an alternative history mockumentary [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mockumentary]/docufiction [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docufiction] or however you like to coin the term.
 

hermes

New member
Mar 2, 2009
3,865
0
0
Ehh... no. The movie might be a semi-decent action flick, but it has less of a zombie movie than any Resident Evil.
 

Amaror

New member
Apr 15, 2011
1,509
0
0
The_State said:
LifeCharacter said:
Do the zombies (I Am Legend has vampires, btw) actually have superhuman speed and strength? I mean, people always seem pretty capable of outrunning them and overpowering them. The only real danger is that they always sprint towards their targets, don't care about pain or getting hurt, and generally come in groups. They might have good endurance to be sprinting all the time, but we never really see them run marathons, just chase after a human for short periods of time.
Actually, there are a couple instances of superhuman zombie strength in WWZ. In the Israel section you see a zombie push its arm through a metal-mesh grate and lift up a soldier in full kit with one arm. That's well more than two-hundred pounds; with a single bicep curl. And in the America section, zombies headbutt their way through car windshields.

And that's not all. The zombies will bend or even break the behavioural rules that the movie set down for them. Zombies are relentless and tactless hunters, but one will hide silently in an airplane refreshment cupboard, in an airplane FULL of living, breathing, edible people, until the time is just right for them the pop out Jack-in-the-box style to nom on a flight attendant. Zombies are attracted to noise, but not the noise that other zombies make; only edible humans are capable of knocking things over. I know there was another one that galled the hell out of me, but I cannot recall what it was.
Not really a behavioural rule of the zombies, but one plot hole that bugged me was that the military guys on the ship said that the zombies spread really fast through airplanes.
Which is bullshit, since there is not way that a plane stays in the air for multiple hours, lands savely and then lets everyone go their seperate ways when ALL THE PASSENGERS ARE RAGING MANIACS. We even see what happens in the movie when a single zombie get aboard a plane. The plane crashes and everybody that isn't a protagonist dies. Nothing spreads that way.
 

ShadowGandalf01

New member
Oct 3, 2011
78
0
0
I totally agree. I really enjoyed it. I've never read the book, but this is still coming from someone who doesn't really like the whole zombie sub-culture.
 
Aug 1, 2010
2,768
0
0
No no no no no no no no no no fuck NOOOOOOOOOOO.

World War Z is a fucking atrocious movie even ignoring the book.

It fails on virtually every level. It tries to be a serious story, but it literally has a scene where an important character trips and shoots himself in the head. It tries to be scary, but then has a zombie slamming itself comically against a wall and then another zombie that does hilarious chattery chipmunk teeth. It tries to have action, but then decides to be PG-13 and shit up all of the potentially good scenes.

The CGI for the hordes was absolute garbage. It looked almost exactly like The Matrix Reloaded when all the Smiths are running in and piling around Neo.
As for that inventive scene of them climbing over the wall? I liked it better when it was giant bugs.

The movie can't even be called good on Brad Pitt's merits. I usually like him, but he was completely asleep for the duration of the film.
Add on to that a complete lack of character for every single person in the movie with the possible exception of the female soldier and it only looks worse. Even worse, the characters are morons. Between the previously mentioned suicide scene and the bit where they're sneaking around and one of the absolutely punts a soda can as loudly as possible, I had zero faith in their abilities.

Oh, and the product placement offered further hilarity towards the end when he flees from the zombie horde, then takes a break next to an entire Pepsi machine to get a drink.

Finally, the central idea of the plot was dubious and best and nonsense at worst. Somehow the zombies can sense when someone has a fatal illness, but only a fatal illness will do it. Furthermore, for some reason they actually care that the person has the illness and will not attack them in any way, even if the person is gunning down zombies left and right.

Now I'll admit, there were a few effective scenes. The bit in the apartment building was decent and parts of the scene in the rain on the runway were spooky, but other than a few paltry offerings, World War Z fails on every possible level. The action doesn't work, the characters don't work, the actors don't work, the drama doesn't work, the adventure doesn't work, the suspense doesn't work and the horror doesn't work.

Good try though. It's true that it doesn't deserve to be hated because of the book. No, it deserves to be shit on purely on its own merits.
 

Elijah Newton

New member
Sep 17, 2008
456
0
0
Sir Thomas Sean Connery said:
No no no no no no no no no no fuck NOOOOOOOOOOO.

World War Z is a fucking atrocious movie even ignoring the book.
Seconded.

I'm usually in Jim's corner and quite like Movie Defense Force but in this instance I respectfully disagree with every point Jim made. I didn't watch the movie when it came out because I knew I'd compare it to the book*. Figured giving it a year before watching was more than fair and tried to view it on its own merits. This wound up being the most mentally demeaning exercise I've undertaken since ever.

Terrified I had lost my taste for zombie movies in a hither-to manifested bout of maturity I queued up Rammbock, La Horde and the first couple episodes of The Walking Dead. I am relieved to report that there are _great_ zombie movies out there to be enjoyed AND don't make you feel like you've dropped IQ points when you're done.

WWZ, though, isn't one of these. No way, no how.


*incidentally, why the hell does every would-be defender of WWZ bring this up like making such a comparison is a veneal sin? It's not a generic title they stumbled upon by chance, they _were_ trying to make that book into this movie. AND THEY FAILED. Cite them for it, this is a legit gripe.
 

DTWolfwood

Better than Vash!
Oct 20, 2009
3,716
0
0
This is one of those movies i'm glad i've never read the source material. I had no expectations other than what i saw in the trailers, which was really fast and scary Zombies. It brought back those wonderful memories of 28 days later. Which coincidentally the disease in this movie is almost an exact copy of lol.
 

Renegade-pizza

New member
Jul 26, 2010
642
0
0
If I may:
And:

It's filled with all the cliches of zombie movies and doesn't do ANYTHING to innovate. It sucks more than you do when you try to suck out all the cream from anything filled with cream
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
btw guys...there is an audio book of World War Z...and its supposed to be really, really good...

check out the cast list...

seriously.

Cast

Max Brooks as The Interviewer
Steve Park as Kwang Jingshu
Frank Kamai as Nury Televadi
Nathan Fillion as Stanley MacDonald
Paul Sorvino as Fernando Oliveira
Ade M'Cormack as Jacob Nyathi
Carl Reiner as Jurgen Warmbrunn
Waleed Zuiater as Saladin Kader
Jay O. Sanders as Bob Archer
Dennis Boutsikaris as General Travis D'Ambrosia
Martin Scorsese as Breckinridge ?Breck? Scott
Simon Pegg as Grover Carlson
Denise Crosby as Mary Jo Miller
Bruce Boxleitner as Gavin Blaire
Ajay Naidu as Ajay Shah
Nicki Clyne as Sharon
Jeri Ryan as Maria Zhuganova
Henry Rollins as T. Sean Collins
Maz Jobrani as Ahmed Farahnakian
Mark Hamill as Todd Wainio
Eamonn Walker as Xolelwa Azania / Paul Redeker / David Allen Forbes
Jürgen Prochnow as Philip Adler
David Ogden Stiers as Bohdan Taras Kondratiuk
Michelle Kholos as Jesika Hendricks
Kal Penn as Sardar Khan
Alan Alda as Arthur Sinclair Junior
Rob Reiner as "The Whacko"
Dean Edwards as Joe Muhammad
Frank Darabont as Roy Elliot
Becky Ann Baker as Christina Eliopolis
Parminder Nagra as Barati Palshigar
Brian Tee as Hyungchoi / Michael Choi
Masi Oka as Kondo Tatsumi
Frank Kamai as Tomonaga Ijiro
John Turturro as Seryosha Garcia Alvarez
Ric Young as Admiral Xu Zhicai
Alfred Molina as Terry Knox
John McElroy as Ernesto Olguin
Common as Darnell Hackworth
F. Murray Abraham as Father Sergei Ryzhkov
Rene Auberjonois as Andre Renard
 

Westaway

New member
Nov 9, 2009
1,084
0
0
maxben said:
I take offense at this comment.
Meaningless
maxben said:
1. The book was already super pro Israel, which even as an Israeli I saw as odd and unlikely.
Correct, but hardly unlikely as Brooks is a Zionist.
maxben said:
2. Jerusalem makes a great set piece. It looks great, the narrow streets make this a lot of fun, and the city itself as a thematic importance that can't be beat.
It's not propaganda because it's set in Jerusalem.
maxben said:
3. How many Hollywood films actually feature Israeli propaganda. Your comment acts like that's a normal occurrence. It would be like saying that Transformers 4 is the most blatant pro Chinese government propaganda from Hollywood in the recent years. Fact is, there is almost NO (and none off the top of my head) pro-Chinese government propaganda coming out of Hollywood. In fact, the only other movie that I can think of that mentions Israeli actions was Munich, and that movie was hated by many Zionist organization and ended with the main character, the Mossad agent, having a mental breakdown because of all the horrible things he did. Not to mention that that was also based on a historical account (loosely of course).
There's certainly more Israeli propaganda than Chinese.
 

maxben

New member
Jun 9, 2010
529
0
0
Westaway said:
maxben said:
I take offense at this comment.
Meaningless
maxben said:
1. The book was already super pro Israel, which even as an Israeli I saw as odd and unlikely.
Correct, but hardly unlikely as Brooks is a Zionist.
maxben said:
2. Jerusalem makes a great set piece. It looks great, the narrow streets make this a lot of fun, and the city itself as a thematic importance that can't be beat.
It's not propaganda because it's set in Jerusalem.
maxben said:
3. How many Hollywood films actually feature Israeli propaganda. Your comment acts like that's a normal occurrence. It would be like saying that Transformers 4 is the most blatant pro Chinese government propaganda from Hollywood in the recent years. Fact is, there is almost NO (and none off the top of my head) pro-Chinese government propaganda coming out of Hollywood. In fact, the only other movie that I can think of that mentions Israeli actions was Munich, and that movie was hated by many Zionist organization and ended with the main character, the Mossad agent, having a mental breakdown because of all the horrible things he did. Not to mention that that was also based on a historical account (loosely of course).
There's certainly more Israeli propaganda than Chinese.
Wow, that's a rude response. First of all, when I say that I take offense it is stating what I feel. Its not an argument, it is merely giving reasons for why I felt the need to respond.

As for Brooks being a Zionist, is he? The only people saying that he is are anti-zionist groups, I haven't seen a quote from him. Anyhow, even if he was, I am a Zionist as well and even so I found his ideas in the book to be weird. Although it is interesting that he thinks that we would give the Palestinians the right of return, which is not a traditionally Zionist idea now is it?

Next, you don't bother explaining why you think its propoganda, but obviously if its set in Jerusalem its going to show the Israeli state doing good to fight zombies (and in this industry "doing good" is how some people talk about propaganda).

Lastly, I was making the point that no, pro-Israeli propaganda is extremely rare. That is why I was mentioning Munich as the only other movie to refer to Israel or Israeli issues off the top of my head, which you could debate certainly. And again, you choose to throw out a meaningless one sentence response as a way of devaluing me as if I am not worth your time or effort. That's not to say that I am, but if you don't want to have a discussion why respond in the first place?
 

Westaway

New member
Nov 9, 2009
1,084
0
0
maxben said:
Wow, that's a rude response. First of all, when I say that I take offense it is stating what I feel. Its not an argument, it is merely giving reasons for why I felt the need to respond.
I don't particularly care, Chief.
maxben said:
As for Brooks being a Zionist, is he? The only people saying that he is are anti-zionist groups, I haven't seen a quote from him. Anyhow, even if he was, I am a Zionist as well and even so I found his ideas in the book to be weird. Although it is interesting that he thinks that we would give the Palestinians the right of return, which is not a traditionally Zionist idea now is it?
I don't think it would be outrageous to assume a Jewish man writing a novel that portrays Israel in a flattering light would be a Zionist, but no, I have no "proof" he is.
maxben said:
Next, you don't bother explaining why you think its propoganda, but obviously if its set in Jerusalem its going to show the Israeli state doing good to fight zombies (and in this industry "doing good" is how some people talk about propaganda).
Israel is ultimately destroyed because they are too charitable to the Palestinians by letting them in.

maxben said:
Lastly, I was making the point that no, pro-Israeli propaganda is extremely rare. That is why I was mentioning Munich as the only other movie to refer to Israel or Israeli issues off the top of my head, which you could debate certainly.
Don't Mess with the Zohan immediately comes to mind
maxben said:
And again, you choose to throw out a meaningless one sentence response as a way of devaluing me as if I am not worth your time or effort. That's not to say that I am, but if you don't want to have a discussion why respond in the first place?
It's called being succinct. What I'm saying does not require large amounts of text. I don't feel the need to express my feelings either.
 

Nazmazh

New member
Aug 19, 2013
8
0
0
My takeaway from this movies was that zombies _might_ kill you during a zombie apocalypse. But, spending any length of time around Brad Pitt? That will definitely get you killed.
 

Ghadente

White Rabbit
Mar 21, 2009
537
0
0
I didn't think this was a bad movie at all. I never read the book, I assume it's better than the film (as is usually the case). WWZ isn't a favorite or anything, but i thought it was pretty good. Entertaining.
 

DerangedHobo

New member
Jan 11, 2012
231
0
0
Avaholic03 said:
I watched this movie (the unrated version on Netflix) last weekend, and I pretty much agree with you on all your points. The only real problem I have with this movie (and I had the same problem with 28 days later, I Am Legend, and other similar movies) is that I have a tough time suspending disbelief that a virus would actually give people super-human strength and speed. It's not that I'm some slow-zombie purist or anything, it just doesn't seem scientifically sound.
Zombies in the first place are pretty bat shit retarded but I have to say that 28 days later (not so much 28 weeks for a few points) was pretty believeable if nothing else. The bleeding aspect was from ebola being used with the virus and the rabid seeming "super strength" was easy to believe because SCIENCE and well, you ever heard about people on PCP? I don't think it's the virus giving them this super strength and super speed so much as the virus taking away their humanity and control.
 

Deacon Cole

New member
Sep 3, 2020
1,365
0
0
Country
USA
Zombie films are like gay porn for me, to be honest.

I'm not gay so I don't get anything out of watching gay porn. Hooray for those who do, I suppose. I am just not one of them.

I don't find the zombie apocalypse, or any apocalypse come to think of it, appealing in any way. No, I didn't like Mad Max, either. I don't have any fun thinking about the collapse of society. So I'll leave this to people who do.
 

Fayathon

Professional Lurker
Nov 18, 2009
905
0
0
Avaholic03 said:
Don't think of it as a virus giving super human abilities then, are you are aware that humans in general are a hell of a lot stronger than we show, but it's due to innate mental blocks that we never really get to use the full extent of our strength. It's for our own good though, as our full strength can do massive damage to our bodies if we were just to use it all the time. I like to think that viruses like that remove the block and allow us to access it because they don't care if we fuck ourselves up, they just want to spread like wildfire.

OT: Been really wary of watching this film, but now my curiosity is piqued Jim, I think I might have to watch it now.
 

Rad Party God

Party like it's 2010!
Feb 23, 2010
3,560
0
0
I just watched the Unrated version on Netflix a few minutes ago.

I FUCKING LOVE THIS FILM!

Seriously, I don't know why the heck did I avoided it until now, maybe the initial trailers scared me off of it, due to it's overuse of CGI and oh boy, do they use CGI, but it's done to such degree where it's actually kinda belivable and scary, I don't know, these zombies just creeped me out from the very beginning and watching a freaking river of those things flowing towards you, trying to get you... *shivers*

I absolutely hated 28 Weeks Later (I still love Days though) and this is absolutely a better film than that piece of crap.
 

Razorback0z

New member
Feb 10, 2009
363
0
0
Same as Jim I avoided watching it because I had heard it was crap. I too was pleasantly surprised and not for the first time recently found myself thinking, "what do people expect". I think people are starting to expect a little much and considering we keep telling each other not to fall for the hype, you have basically no one to blame but yourselves for disappointment in most cases.
 

Hunter Creed

New member
Jun 27, 2012
10
0
0
Fayathon said:
Avaholic03 said:
Don't think of it as a virus giving super human abilities then, are you are aware that humans in general are a hell of a lot stronger than we show, but it's due to innate mental blocks that we never really get to use the full extent of our strength. It's for our own good though, as our full strength can do massive damage to our bodies if we were just to use it all the time.
Okay, can you source that? Because that sounds like horse shit.

When I was in high school, a mate of mine told me; 'You know, there is some old woman who is, like, a mental or something. And they have to lock her up right. Because she is super strong. Not cause she works out or nothing, but because she doesn't have the mental block that stops us from using our super strength. They wrapped her in iron chains and she ripped them apart'.

I make him sound stupid, but he was a smart guy. Now if I'm wrong, then I guess I've been looking at him like a tool for damn near a decade.

Hunter C. Creed
 

Scorpid

New member
Jul 24, 2011
814
0
0
I actually disagree with Jim here. The movie does infact resemble the source material but not the aspects of the source material people really remember. The 1st act of World War Z the book was more action oriented. With panic spreading around the globe, the Military and governments trying but failing to contain the outbreak or at least keep order, zombies literally breaking through windows of family homes that thought "it won't come here" and individual people saving one another in a moment of crisis when they didn't have to.
Plus it had the journalistic moments where Brad Pitt sits down with people to get their stories. I think people are mad at the film because it wasn't as world building as the book but it was as much as it could be while still being able to be in film format. People would only be happy if it was a TV series with each one to three episodes being some persons story but than whats the point of a adaptation if you just transpose the events and characters exactly and faithfully as you can from the source material to the new media. Just read the damn book if you want that.
Personally I thought they did great work with what they had and they could of easily phoned it end and made tons of money with much less inspiration.
 

OneCatch

New member
Jun 19, 2010
1,111
0
0
Avaholic03 said:
I watched this movie (the unrated version on Netflix) last weekend, and I pretty much agree with you on all your points. The only real problem I have with this movie (and I had the same problem with 28 days later, I Am Legend, and other similar movies) is that I have a tough time suspending disbelief that a virus would actually give people super-human strength and speed. It's not that I'm some slow-zombie purist or anything, it just doesn't seem scientifically sound.
See, I always thought that fast infected were rather more plausible - I always figured any virus which degraded the body to the extent that it would stop slow zombies from running or climbing would also stop them from being able to co-ordinate basic movements, or even staying upright. Fast zombies make somewhat more sense because the idea is that their nervous system is entirely intact and functional - the virus has just reprogrammed them to attack people, in the same way that other illnesses can cause (admittedly less severe) behavioural modification, eg rabies.

In 28 Days they're basically like humans which are entirely unconcerned with pain or danger, but they aren't actually stronger than they would have been alive (the humans do manage to kill a few hand-to-hand).
I do agree that they're slightly OP in World War Z - I think they could have made the individual zombies slightly less agile (less of the midair tackling and general bullet resistance) while still maintaining the whole 'Ant Hive/Tsunami of the Undead' thing they had going on.
Still thoroughly enjoyed WWZ though - and it ends near where I live! (spoiler; We don't actually have a topsecret WHO research centre in the Valleys unfortunately).
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
My brother, knowing how much I loved the book, didn't even tell me the name of the movie until after I watched it. He just called it "some zombie flick". And it actually was a decent zombie movie. I have no idea why they didn't just call the movie something else and film an actual movie based on the actual book, where the story of the infection is told through flashbacks during interviews that the reporter is doing around the world. Then, this movie would be called, I dunno, "Infection" or something like that (Hey, I'm not a writer) and the actual movie would be called "World War Z".
 

Fayathon

Professional Lurker
Nov 18, 2009
905
0
0
Hunter Creed said:
Fayathon said:
Avaholic03 said:
Don't think of it as a virus giving super human abilities then, are you are aware that humans in general are a hell of a lot stronger than we show, but it's due to innate mental blocks that we never really get to use the full extent of our strength. It's for our own good though, as our full strength can do massive damage to our bodies if we were just to use it all the time.
Okay, can you source that? Because that sounds like horse shit.

When I was in high school, a mate of mine told me; 'You know, there is some old woman who is, like, a mental or something. And they have to lock her up right. Because she is super strong. Not cause she works out or nothing, but because she doesn't have the mental block that stops us from using our super strength. They wrapped her in iron chains and she ripped them apart'.

I make him sound stupid, but he was a smart guy. Now if I'm wrong, then I guess I've been looking at him like a tool for damn near a decade.

Hunter C. Creed
Don't have one off hand, but I'll dig until I do, give me a little bit. It's just one of those tidbits I find fascinating about us humans but I never seem to keep where I got the info from on hand, you know?

EDIT: http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/arts/circus-arts/adrenaline-strength1.htm

Link cites multiple studies at the end, and it's an interesting read.
 

Hunter Creed

New member
Jun 27, 2012
10
0
0
Fayathon said:
Hunter Creed said:
Fayathon said:
Avaholic03 said:
Don't think of it as a virus giving super human abilities then, are you are aware that humans in general are a hell of a lot stronger than we show, but it's due to innate mental blocks that we never really get to use the full extent of our strength. It's for our own good though, as our full strength can do massive damage to our bodies if we were just to use it all the time.
Okay, can you source that? Because that sounds like horse shit.

When I was in high school, a mate of mine told me; 'You know, there is some old woman who is, like, a mental or something. And they have to lock her up right. Because she is super strong. Not cause she works out or nothing, but because she doesn't have the mental block that stops us from using our super strength. They wrapped her in iron chains and she ripped them apart'.

I make him sound stupid, but he was a smart guy. Now if I'm wrong, then I guess I've been looking at him like a tool for damn near a decade.

Hunter C. Creed
Don't have one off hand, but I'll dig until I do, give me a little bit. It's just one of those tidbits I find fascinating about us humans but I never seem to keep where I got the info from on hand, you know?

EDIT: http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/arts/circus-arts/adrenaline-strength1.htm

Link cites multiple studies at the end, and it's an interesting read.
Thanks. Looks like I've been a giant cock, thinking that guy was a nutter for 10 years. Never told him directly, so I guess there isn't anything to apologize for.

And you're right, an interesting read indeed. Thanks for the link. Have a good one.

Hunter C. Creed
 

xGrimReaperzZ

New member
Dec 8, 2013
28
0
0
Yes, maybe it IS a GOOD zombie movie COMPARED to the ones we've been getting, but it's still a movie that had a rushed plot and an extremely unsatisfying and rushed ending.

And i'm not saying that because i'm a fan of the book, i actually never read or heard of the book prior to watching this movie.

I don't think that it's fair to say that this crap is good, because i've only been able to have worse in the past 6-10yrs.

And if you're judging the movie based on its entertainment value then, yes, it's not a terrible flick, but it's not good, it's just decent.
 

Vareoth

New member
Mar 14, 2012
254
0
0
Nope, I'm sorry.

I was willing to accept the movie up to the point where the zombies defied physics and climbed anthill-style over a gigantic concrete wall. Suspension of disbelief can only go so far and mine most certainly ran out at that point. As such I turned it off with many feelings of disgust lingering.

Damn this movie.

Sleekit said:
btw guys...there is an audio book of World War Z...and its supposed to be really, really good...

check out the cast list...

seriously.
I fucking love the audio book. The new version released in 2013 is supposedly unabridged in contrary to the 2007 version and it's 12 hours long. And, since I didn't know they made a longer version until just now, I feel a bit daft...
 

PedroSteckecilo

Mexican Fugitive
Feb 7, 2008
6,732
0
0
I dunno... the logic in the film broke down too often for me.

The Zombie Climbing Scene in Isreal was cool... but are we to assume that in a chaotic refugee camp NOBODY has made enough noise to attract the zombies before? Did the massive horde waiting just outside the walls wait until Brad Pitt got there to flood over?

Same thing on the plane to Cardiff, it takes 12 seconds for the zombie infection to take hold (established in the movie) and nobody on a crowded ass plane during a 6 hour flight walked past that zombie holding closet? Nobody? It waited until they were specifically over the exact country they needed to be in to spring out on an unsuspecting passer by and force the plane to crash?

Other than that if you ignore the connection to the book it was a pretty fun watch.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
This movie was so dreadfully boring after the initial scene, and even then it was a sign of things to come from the movie.

If there's one thing I hate about people's complaints about these kind of movies, it's that "Oh these characters are so stupid, why didn't they blah blah blah and yada yada yada", and my response is that it's because that's what that CHARACTER would do. Yeah, in a lot of these zombie/apocalypse movies, people fuck up and make the wrong decisions because they're PEOPLE. Flawed, normal human people that are trying to figure out what to do in incredibly fucked up situations. Everything they knew about life is completely gone, so maybe their rational thinking JUSSST bit be off a tad bit, you know what I mean? If all we did was follow around the ultra-competent, cool-under-pressure, I-make-every-right-decision-almost-as-if-I-read-ahead-in-the-script guy, that would make for a bad, boring character....

Hmmm...

This movie just Brad Pitt playing generic Brad Pitt doing a buncha Brad Pitt things where every good thing that could possibly happen to him conveniently falls right into his lap, and the conflict of the movie is tied up in a nice easy bow. There's NOTHING to his character. What little we had with his relationship with family gets undercut when they're unceremoniously kicked out of the movie, stuck on that damn boat doing a whole lotta nothing. Even some minimalist character development showing how life is for them on the boat or something would at least give them SOME purpose and humanity. But other than some cliche Wuvvy Duvvy phone conversations between Pitt & the wife, there ain't shit going on with these characters. I don't care how much action you have (which honestly isn't even all that impressive on its own either), if you don't have good or at least decent characters, I'm going to mentally check out of your story. That's the #1 killer of any movie, especially in zombie movies.

Speaking of which, this and other "action zombie movies" miss the entire point OF the zombie genre to begin with, another thing that irks me when people complain about zombie movies. The speed of the zombies DOES NOT MATTER; what matters is that they're SOOOOO goddamn many of them that they're nigh impossible to escape from. Most zombie stories are ultimately tales of inevitability; that no matter how hard you try, they're GOING to overwhelm you and get you sooner or later. The zombies are a force of nature that you just can't beat. As the famous Walking Dead quote goes, "Don't you get it? We ARE the walking dead! WE are the walking dead.? But at least 28 Days Later and the 2005 Dawn of the Dead got that much right with their unhappy/ambiguous endings; in WWZ everyone lives happily ever after as there's just...nothing to chew on about any of what we just saw.

Generic boring action movie is generic and boring.
 

Mr.Evil

New member
Jul 17, 2014
19
0
0
Despite being a big fan of the World War Z book, I did try to judge the movie on its own merits. And... I felt nothing. Seriously, it just wasn't that good. Too many clichés, too many CGI swarms that looked too fake, too many questionable character moments. I know that disaster films aren't considered to be all that smart, but zombie flicks? Stuff like Night of the Living Dead, 28 Days Later, and Shawn of the Dead demonstrate that you can make good smart zombie flicks and don't have to settle for lesser creatures such as this movie. As for disaster flicks... well...

But what irritates me more than the movie's piss-poor attention to the book is the fact that THIS is going to be the de facto movie version of World War Z for the foreseeable future. I suppose it's always possible that someone will make a TV series or a new adaptation down the road (in fact, I'd bet money on it, considering how Hollywood hates taking risks these days), but it just sucks to all get out that a lot of people's idea of World War Z will be this generic disaster movie with zombies in it. The book was a lot more than just zombies - it's too bad that all Hollywood sees is dollar signs... as usual.
 

Deadcyde

New member
Jan 11, 2011
187
0
0
it's a passable movie if you think of it as "brad pitt and zombies"

but it's certainly no world war z
 

gamegod25

New member
Jul 10, 2008
863
0
0
Sorry but no, you couldn't be more wrong in my opinion. Taking the name out it is still a boring action movie that happens to have zombies in it. There is no horror or terror because you have no reason to care about anyone or anything. Pitt survives his own stupidity though plot immunity BS and his family is taken out of the equasion early so there is no danger to them. There are so many stupid things in it I could go on for days. It shats on the book in favor of wanking off Brad Pitt's ego with this stupid and dull load of garbage. How you could derive any entertainment from it is beyond me.
 

Deadcyde

New member
Jan 11, 2011
187
0
0
c'mon, you have to give some fantastic leeway. The zombies themselves were physically impossibru
 

lukesparow

New member
Jan 20, 2014
63
0
0
I still cannot get over the scene where the Zombies all climbed the wall because of all the noise people within the wall were making.
It was just so stupid!

If you've got yourself a walled-off city in a post-apocalyptic setting you better damn well make sure you've got things regulated within!
But no, let's just start making some noise! It's not like the zombies, who're exclusively attracted to specifically that will try and get us!