World War Z
World War Z
#1World War Z
Posted: 6/21/13 at 1:07pm
I saw the film this morning and it's got to be the most sanitized zombie film ever made. They were obviously so desperate to get a PG-13 rating in order to maximize on summer movie profits that this zombie movie has pretty much no blood, no real on screen violence and no cursing. Sure, the zombies get killed onscreen (and in a first, they're actually referred to in this as "zombies"), but it's either so broadly done that you can't see anything really happen to them or its en masse, as to not be able to make out much of anything.
All that said, I still thought it was ok. Nothing I'm going to rush back to or buy when it's released, but I'm glad I saw it. I didn't do 3D and I'm very glad because I can't imagine that adding anything at all besides $6 to the ticket price.
.jpg?format=auto&width=200)
#2World War Z
Posted: 6/21/13 at 1:22pmSanitized and not happening onscreen mean that Brad Pitt's production company didn't really use the book when adapting the film. Shame. There is nothing safe about that novel and it could be an incredible globe-trotting epic about the 10 year zombie war.
#2World War Z
Posted: 6/21/13 at 1:24pmTEN YEARS??? This film takes place over the course of a month, maybe.
#4World War Z
Posted: 6/21/13 at 1:34pmYou should read the novel, Jordan. It's a politically charged war drama in the style of an oral history. Really fascinating, great satire, wonderful world building.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
Wildcard
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/21/06
#5World War Z
Posted: 6/21/13 at 6:01pmI wasn't really a fan of the book. I get the intention behind the book but there really wasn't a "story." It was merely a record of the plague. As far as the movie, I believe they are hoping that they would be able to do sequels so it spans more than just the amount of time it does in the first movie.
#6World War Z
Posted: 6/21/13 at 6:10pmNot really sure how sequels would work since they essentially saved the world at the end if this movie. But speaking of sequels, they showed a trailer for INSIDIOUS: CHAPTER 2, that almost made me crap my pants. I had no idea they filmed a sequel to this (with the entire cast from the first film, including Barbara Hershey) and I. CAN. NOT. F*CKING. WAIT.
Wildcard
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/21/06
#7World War Z
Posted: 6/21/13 at 6:53pmWithout having seen the movie yet, I suppose the infection can easily spread again from a single carrier. All it takes is one mother refusing to have her kid vaccinated from the zombie virus because she's afraid her child would get autism.
#8World War Z
Posted: 6/21/13 at 6:58pm
Jordan, the biggest issue I had was there was no way to care about anyone cause there was no set up, it just happened.
As for the blood and guts, the moment in the WHO building with the tyre iron stuck, I wondered for a moment if the film had been censored.
Well I didn't want to get into it, but he's a Satanist.
Every full moon he sacrifices 4 puppies to the Dark Lord and smears their blood on his paino.
This should help you understand the score for Wicked a little bit more.
Tazber's: Reply to
Is Stephen Schwartz a Practicing Christian
#9World War Z
Posted: 6/21/13 at 7:04pmWhen? When he woke up in the WHO building, it had been removed.
#10World War Z
Posted: 6/21/13 at 11:34pmSounds like a stupid 28 Days Later.
"Through The Sacrifice You Made, We Can't Believe The Price You Paid..For Love!"
#11World War Z
Posted: 6/21/13 at 11:39pmIt's not stupid, but it's more like the Nick Jr. version of 28 Days Later.
#12World War Z
Posted: 6/22/13 at 11:57amWhere he struck the zombie in the head with te tyre iron, band the other one was coming towards him. It seemed to be stuck in the zombies head
Well I didn't want to get into it, but he's a Satanist.
Every full moon he sacrifices 4 puppies to the Dark Lord and smears their blood on his paino.
This should help you understand the score for Wicked a little bit more.
Tazber's: Reply to
Is Stephen Schwartz a Practicing Christian
Wildcard
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/21/06
#13World War Z
Posted: 6/22/13 at 11:58am
Saw the movie last night and liked it more than the book. However, it was still just a good popcorn movie. Nothing thought provoking or new about it.
SPOILERS
.
.
.
.
.
.
I felt that Brad's worldwide travels were pointless since he didn't really discover anything about the plague at all. The "cure" he discovered could have been found by any other scientist at some point just by observing.
#14World War Z
Posted: 6/22/13 at 12:06pmIt could have been discovered by sitting at home watching the Zombies attacking people on TV.
#15World War Z
Posted: 6/22/13 at 1:58pm
The book is presented as the rejected record of the 10 year zombie war as written by a historian. The US govt decided the report was too emotionally charged and the historian refused to dumb it down. He took his report and published it so the public knew what really happened. It's really a short story collection presented as a novel in chronological order. The historian visits all the big locations to find out what really happened from the survivors. It's a fascinating read.
Max Brooks is a trained historian who lucked out with a novelty book on zombies. Now he gets to write fiction for a living. What does he do with his first serious effort? A book only a historian could write.
As for Insidious 2, I'm excited. It looks really good. The first one blew me away, as all James Wan/Leigh Whannel horror film collaborations have. Can you believe it's the first time they get to direct/write a sequel to their own story? All the Saws were written by other people. Dead Silence didn't get a sequel.
The Conjuring is also coming out, but Whannel didn't write that one. I'm intrigued by the premise but not holding my breath. Paranormal investigation films go sour far too often to get excited this far in advance.
#16World War Z
Posted: 6/22/13 at 2:10pmBut it's Lili Taylor. That alone will get me in to see it. (But let's not forget her last "horror" attempt, THE HAUNTING). Hopefully she'll redeem herself with this.
#17World War Z
Posted: 6/22/13 at 4:02pmThe book is really much better than I expected it to be. The gradual reveal of the religious and political changes brought about by the war are well thought-out and very impressive for a zombie novel. Sounds like the movie will be disappointing.
#18World War Z
Posted: 6/22/13 at 6:00pm
I saw the movie this morning and liked the first act quite a bit, but thought it ran out of steam; the third act in the WHO was weak and I hated the ending.
Pitt did a nice job, but the rest of the characters were hard to connect with/root for. Everyone made such a fleeting appearance.
World War Z reminded me a lot more of Contagion than any zombie flick I'm seen.
I will say that I thought the 3D was very nicely done. It wasn't gratuitous (well, I did jump a few times when a zombie flew out of the screen at me!), but mostly it added a wonderful depth to the shots. For example, at the beginning when Pitt was making eggs for breakfast the images aligned perfectly in a Life of Pi/Hugo type way. I was pleasantly surprised by this.
I wouldn't call it a bad movie, but there have been several better this summer already.
Marie: Don't be in such a hurry about that pretty little chippy in Frisco.
Tony: Eh, she's a no chip!
#19World War Z
Posted: 6/22/13 at 7:36pm
I saw it this morning and liked it quite a lot. I agree with Whizzer that the third act was weak. Why was Cardiff basically deserted except for the people at the WHO building and that one woman who peeked from a window? Isn't the world overrun? The final resolution seemed to be such a weird way to go about it.
I did like the bit about the 10th man in Israel. An interesting way of thinking.
As a side note, if anyone wants to venture uptown, the AMC on 84th is in the midst of a renovation and it appears that they've completed the lobby and the lower level theaters, which is where I saw the film this morning. All of the theaters have been retrofitted with large arm chairs that have a push button reclining option. It's a bit much honestly, but a welcome upgrade from the previous seating.
Updated On: 6/22/13 at 07:36 PM
#21World War Z
Posted: 6/22/13 at 8:08pm
Let me put this succinctly, because there seems to be a million different think pieces on what this movie represents for Hollywood:
What is wrong with the Hollywood blockbuster can be found in World War Z for the simple fact somebody gave Marc Forster another shot at an action movie after butchering Quantum of Solace. Those same people also gave Forster a lot of freedom to have input early on to change a lot of the original text of Max Brooks' book (that is worth checking out and yes, it is written like a history book because the structure is the point with Brooks' major influence being Studs Terkel) that made it not even resemble it and then came a lot of rewrites from many people not even credited (although Damon Lindelof did get credit for his 11th hour contribution to the airplane scene). Now you hear Forster may have not directed the whole movie at all or it was taken away from him at least. Somebody saw the zombie craze and instead seeing a book where its structure actually was the reason it stood out decided to take one little part and make it a whole damn movie but instead looked at Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later and thought, 'What a zombie movie needs is more speed and more sprawl'- nothing like the Brooks book. Soderbergh's Contagion felt like something more based on World War Z and it had 1/3 of the reported budget this turkey has.
#22World War Z
Posted: 6/22/13 at 11:22pmJordan, the trailer for Insidious 2!? HOLY COW I am excited for that movie. Did your shows the preview for "The Conjuring" as well? Now THAT SH*T looks scary.
WiCkEDrOcKS
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/13/04
#23World War Z
Posted: 7/8/13 at 1:14am
Saw this tonight and enjoyed it, but I do agree it runs out of steam and the ending is unsatisfying. It seemed as though they didn't know how to end it...because the ending isn't really an "ending." Or maybe they want to keep it open for a potential sequel? I have no idea.
Anyway, I did think it was an interesting movie, I appreciated the fact that some of the most involving scenes were the quieter moments, I really cared about Pitt getting back to his wife and family, and I thought the more tension-filled moments were actually pretty frightening (lack of violence and all). It is a pretty uneven film, though. The pacing is jarring at times, how it shifts from chases to quiet, intimate moments at the drop of a hat.
The best moment in the film, to me, is the first zombie sequence, when we see the first zombie turn, as Pitt's daughter's teddy bear is "counting down." What a smart, uniquely shot, directed, and written sequence of events. I also have to say, even if the writing fell short, I liked that it didn't build up to one massive zombie blow-out, with buildings exploding and Pitt jumping from rooftops. I appreciated the fact that the writers wanted the movie to build up to a more emotionally satisfying climax, as opposed to a more visually satisfying one. Too bad the execution was a bit lazy in tying the story up.
Regardless, I'm glad I saw it. It's cleverer than a of a lot of other summer "blockbusters," and it's almost undeniably entertaining.
#24World War Z
Posted: 7/8/13 at 3:44am
I don't feel any need to see this movie, as I feel like I lived through a real life version of it when Brad decided to stop in at Time Square back in June to promote the movie.
And there sure was blood, violence, and cursing there while people were trying to move along the sidewalk!
Xanadu! Can't cry on cue!
Videos