World War Z

[KRCummings]

Just forget about the book and it's not a bad movie at all. Even a couple genuinely scary scenes. Silly end but I guess the plan was a trilogy so whatever.
And I don't care what ya say, Brad Pitt is a fine looking man. Just pretty. Makes me all gushy and shit. Yeah.

 

[Killswitch]

Brad Pitt is a fine looking man. Just pretty. Yeah.

He thinks so too. Just ask him.

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

Robert Redford used to be hot then look what happened.

 

[KRCummings]

Robert Redford used to be hot then look what happened.

Different kind of good looking but still good looking. Like Connery. Hell, Newman had that, too.

 

[girlsmiley]

A trilogy? I didn't know that.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

A pleasant surprise even though I like my zombie flicks all-balls-out hardcore. They dialed back the typical gore to keep it out of R-rated territory and put in a lot of tension/brainy suspense throughout the action. CGI is on point, especially in the Jerusalem and airplane scenes.

There's not a real palpable sense of world-ending all-hope-is-lost feeling. It's more like a survival & hide-and-seek spy action thriller with zombies replacing the spies. With Brad Pitt. Everything that works makes up for the weak points. It wasn't cornball. I liked it. I give it a B.

 

[Aquagal]

I liked it, although I thought it was lacking on up close gratuitous blood and gore.

 

[imalickin]

Yeah, but fast zombies...come on.

 

[ChinaBandit]

I posted about this flick more than a month ago.

The first twenty minutes were good but then it goes downhill, fast.

The hunt for patient X (or the first one) in Korea was stupid as was the transition to the bastion of Israel. OK, I liked the zombie pyramid over the walls. I will admit that. The stupidity though reaches epic proportion at the WHO lab in Wales. Literally, some of the most ridiculous scenes ever filmed! By the way, if a huge fucking wall in Jerusalem did not stop the zombies how could a bunch of chairs stacked against the doors? Do lab technicians and researchers make for stupid zombies?

The theory that terminal disease or illness serves as camo against the zombies is retarded too! The movie SHOULD have been done as an 'R' with far more gore and little skin. That may have saved it but I'm honestly not sure.

Anyone that was the least entertained by this crap probably gets off on watching paint dry.

It sucked! Don't waste your money.

 

[LiFeNdEaTh]

i was debating to go see it the other day... i ended up seeing hangover 3

 

[SortOfBeautiful]

Maybe The Walking Dead has spoiled me, but there was absolutely no gore. They were killing zombies, and they couldn't even show some blood? Not even a bullet to the face? I understand they could only do so much with a PG-13 movie, but it left me very disappointed.

And I don't like the "terminal disease" camo, either. It's a fucking cop-out. Very deus ex machina.

 

[KRCummings]

A pleasant surprise even though I like my zombie flicks all-balls-out hardcore. They dialed back the typical gore to keep it out of R-rated territory and put in a lot of tension/brainy suspense throughout the action. CGI is on point, especially in the Jerusalem and airplane scenes.

There's not a real palpable sense of world-ending all-hope-is-lost feeling. It's more like a survival & hide-and-seek spy action thriller with zombies replacing the spies. With Brad Pitt. Everything that works makes up for the weak points. It wasn't cornball. I liked it. I give it a B.

Jerusalem and the plane were the genuinely scary scenes. The opening wasn't bad but you knew the only characters you had met so far were gonna live so no real tension.
The zombies going over the wall was incredible. Terrifying.
The plane had a nice sense of dread and racked up the tension. Well done.

The lack of gore isn't a legitimate criticism I don't think. We're used to it in zombie movies but it isn't necessary at all. Gore isn't scary anyway. It serves no purpose other than to gross out or add a sense of realism. Neither is needed in this. Better suited for Walking Dead or early Romero.

You are correct that there is no sense of all hope is lost but that's not in the book either. You know in the first paragraph that everything turns out ok and the rest is just set pieces. The movie did the same thing but changed the story. The only thing from the book I really recognized was in Jerusalem when the guy was telling him how they knew to build the wall. That speech is taken almost word for word from the book. I think that's the only thing they kept.

 

[SortOfBeautiful]

How is lack of gore not legitimate criticism? I'm criticizing the movie on that point, not the story.

Without the gore, it seems so unrealistic. Fake. Cheesy. Brad Pitt beat a zombie to death, and all we saw was his upper body, and him smashing some sort of crow bar up and down. No blood splattering everywhere. Not even one shot of the body on the ground. Yawn.

 

[KRCummings]

How is lack of gore not legitimate criticism? I'm criticizing the movie on that point, not the story.

Without the gore, it seems so unrealistic. Fake. Cheesy. Brad Pitt beat a zombie to death, and all we saw was his upper body, and him smashing some sort of crow bar up and down. No blood splattering everywhere. Not even one shot of the body on the ground. Yawn.

I don't think you know what fake and cheesy mean. Not showing something isn't either. Doing it poorly would be fake and cheesy.
Not showing the body isn't anything either. Why do you need to see it? Were you not sure it's a dead zombie?
Most of the scariest movies ever made have no gore. None. Hardly a drop of blood.
Most of the great action/adventure movies have even less.
There's simply no need for it in a movie like this. Realism isn't what anyone is going for and even if they were it still wouldn't be necessary, just slightly more fun.
It's great watching Daryl smash a zombie head flat with a hatch back. One of the great scenes. But if they didn't actually show the close up would it have been any worse? It's not like you don't know what happened. If your imagination is so little that you require a filmmaker to show you every little detail of everything then you got bigger problems.

 

[girlsmiley]

You guys! I haven't seen it yet!

 

[lovetoread]

How is lack of gore not legitimate criticism? I'm criticizing the movie on that point, not the story.

Without the gore, it seems so unrealistic. Fake. Cheesy. Brad Pitt beat a zombie to death, and all we saw was his upper body, and him smashing some sort of crow bar up and down. No blood splattering everywhere. Not even one shot of the body on the ground. Yawn.

Cheesy would've been using ketchup for blood and showing a really bad actor flopping around.

Not showing these things is something totally different.

 

[SortOfBeautiful]

I still stand by my opinion.

If I wanted to "imagine" the blood and gore, or zombies dying, I'd read the fucking book. You go see the movie, to see it all in action.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

You guys! I haven't seen it yet!

No worries, most of us (at least those of us who are giving it an OK rating) aren't giving away anything you can't see or suss out in the trailer.

But when it comes to a movie you really wanna watch, it's best to stay out of reviews and forum discussions until you see it, just to be safe. People love blabbin'. And being "that guy."

The worse are the smartphone users, of course. The week it came out, someone on my Vine feed did a Vine video of a pivotal plot scene towards the end and although you'll be able to figure what's going to happen, it was still an incredibly shitty thing to do, not only for the reveal but just for using your phone during a movie. I deleted his link with the quickness. Was a dumbfuck follow that I was told by a friend to click on because he was supposed to be interesting. Stupid hipster bullshit, won't deal with that again.

So just be aware, sometimes you gotta hermit yourself social media-wise if you want your pleasures to remain a personal discovery. Even if popcorn movies are simple to figure out and it's not a crime of humanity to blab about everything, I still want to pay for my own ride, yey?

 

[jomar]

I enjoyed it. But my first eye-roll was "So how did they get out of the city in that RV with all the shit going on?"...oh yeah, suspension of internal plot logic #1.

Didn't read the book (heard the survival guide was better) and that it was set up as more of a journalists investigation...could be wrong, but it rings a bell.

It did bog down at the WHO after the balls to the wall start, but yeah, a B.

 

[jomar]

...The stupidity though reaches epic proportion at the WHO lab in Wales. Literally, some of the most ridiculous scenes ever filmed! By the way, if a huge fucking wall in Jerusalem did not stop the zombies how could a bunch of chairs stacked against the doors? Do lab technicians and researchers make for stupid zombies?

...

Dude! They also had a 2x4 or a broom handle locking the door.

And zombies are stupid by definition!

 

[lovecraft68]

Not seeing it.

This is most likely the fourth "wave" of Zombie obsession I have endured since back in the days of the Original Dawn of the Dead.

I stopped reading Walking Dead after the storyline where they escaped Crazy Town and the girl with the swords cut the guys cock off after he had raped her in the ass.

I decided at that point I'd had enough horrific violence in what used to be a medium for kids and good fun for kids and adults of all ages. If I want that level of horror I'll choose to read a book.

As for zombie movies the last one I watched was Romero's last one which had an idiotic ending and left us with no closure whatsoever.

But as to the point a poster made about it being Cheesy and KRC going off on them?

KRC's point is valid. It does not have to be graphic to be good (saves the rating as well)

But we're from the age of the original slasher film Halloween which showed little gore and had a lot of suspense.

But on the other side I am wondering on the age of the person who complained of lack of gore? Because the younger crowd has been raised on movies like Saw and need to see it all spelled out and shown in full color nastiness.

But I'll take a more "subtle" movie any day over a gore fest. I remember as a teen the eighties were full of blood buckets like "Gates of Hell"

 

[lovetoread]

I enjoyed it. But my first eye-roll was "So how did they get out of the city in that RV with all the shit going on?"...oh yeah, suspension of internal plot logic #1.

Didn't read the book (heard the survival guide was better) and that it was set up as more of a journalists investigation...could be wrong, but it rings a bell.

It did bog down at the WHO after the balls to the wall start, but yeah, a B.

The book was not a "story" so I was perplexed as to why it was made into a movie. The survival guide freaking rocks, I read it yearly.

 

[jomar]

The book was not a "story" so I was perplexed as to why it was made into a movie. The survival guide freaking rocks, I read it yearly.

What was it? A series if investigative stories/research? I could google it I suppose, but you know how that goes...

I think it was from you I heard the survival guide was good.

 

[lovetoread]

What was it? A series if investigative stories/research? I could google it I suppose, but you know how that goes...

I think it was from you I heard the survival guide was good.

It's hard to explain, but it was like a bunch of news reports mish mashed together. The stories were not intertwined other than by zombies.

 

[LiFeNdEaTh]

i just finished downloading it. i'll see it later on tonight