Staff Rating

3.50/5

User Rating

0/5

World War Z

WREN   (34 reviews)

Posted: 06/25/2013 | Comments: 26 | Rate:

Actors: Brad Pitt, Mireille Enos, James Badge Dale, Matthew Fox

Synopsis: Brad Pitt stars in "race against time" zombie thrillride that is loosely based on the highly regarded novel by Max Brooks.

Those who are familiar with the story of World War Z, written by Max Brooks, know that it serves as a recollection of the entire war against the zombie apocalypse starting with “patient zero” all the way until its near conclusion some 17 years after the initial outbreak, told through a series of interviews. It’s been herald as one of the greatest zombie stories and praised (and criticized) for the bravery in it’s social commentary (most notably showing a glaring weakness in the US). So when it was announced that a film was going to be made about it, the general horror audience cheered. The excitement grew when it was confirmed that it was going to be big budget and have megastar Brad Pitt taking the lead role.

Well let’s start by getting all that out of your head, aside from the budget and Pitt. With the exception of the title, Pitt’s character being a UN employee, and the existence of zombies there is very little else that has connections to the source material. So much so that it’s not really fair to call it World War Z, unless all the wanted to do was secure the title. However, with that being said that doesn’t mean the film is bad by any means. Instead of the recollection, this film takes the “race against time” route and follows Pitt as he travels the world looking for clues and possibly the cure for the zombie infection. There are other dilemmas in place as well but in the interest of not spoiling the whole story, I’ll let you find them out on your own.

Before the film was released there were some setbacks and the requirement of reshoots for certain scenes. It not only pushed the film back but those keeping score at home, were starting to get worried about the final product. Anytime there is a delay or reshoots, that doesn’t bode well for what we’re going to be delivered come “game day”. Then when the trailer came out and the noticeable use of CGI zombies, the collective groan could be heard across the entire internet. Our magic 8-balls were all saying “Outlook: Not So Good”. I’m here to report that after seeing the final product, those concerns shouldn’t exist in you anymore. I can’t tell where the reshoots would have happened but they must have been an improvement because I couldn’t see any lingering issues with any particular scene or and the CGI zombies aren’t nearly as bad as they come off in the trailer. The trailers scenes are out of context and are normally the result of the camera panning away from ground zero to show the total carnage in play. While it’s obvious that they are computer generated, they aerial shots are done with in good taste and make sense in context of the film. It’s not the ideal situation but with what they were going for, the CG works here.

For a PG-13 horror film this wasn’t bad at all. I wouldn’t necessarily call it a great film and it pales in comparison to the source material but it was definitely entertaining. It was also nice to see the departure from the standard formula of putting different personalities in tight quarters and letting their social differences be the point of the film. However, when comparing to other “infection” films, World War Z does make itself predictable at times but its predictability is part of why this film is a fun 2 hour experience. Hardcore, elitist horror fans will hate it for a magnitude of reasons but in reality this is an easy, conventional action thriller with zombies as the catalyst.

Comments
dogfood meatballs
6,446 Posts
39/M/NY
meh. it was alright, not half the film it could have been, and storywise, not something that couldn't have been done on a fraction of the budget. much better zombie films have been made for phenomenally less money, even recently.

also, i already have a problem with the running zombies as the physics of anatomy - especially decaying anatomy - doesn't really support that, but i'm willing to give films like 28 days later a pass because they are otherwise so incredibly well written and executed. but these "crouching tiger, hidden dragon" zombies that can run faster than cars and jump twenty feet in the air, yeah, that ain't happening. i never thought this was going to be that great, but i wasn't expecting peter fucking pan. the first few times i laughed out loud, but after that it was just retarded.

that being said, it was entertaining for a mediocre film and worth it if you're bored. but this is definitely not something i would ever need to watch again or own a copy of..
dickacraper
25,618 Posts
30/M/IL
In response to Voorhees... the "running zombie" thing was fine in 28 Days Later because they weren't zombies, they were infected humans. Their blood still pumped through their body and they still had to breathe to stay alive.

I agree with you about true zombies with the ability to run.
Pulp Free
52,163 Posts
35/M/PA
Obviously zombie talk is all hypothetical but i would think that in the early stages of zombiedom, they would be able to run. It would be an overtime thing that would slow them down. But until hell is full, we'll never know.

I think the idea of running zombies is much more petrifying than the traditional slow zombie. I think we've just grown accustom to them. Romero was king of the genre and essentially we took his rules as law for all zombie films to follow. When the Dawn remake introduced ones that could give chase, I think that upt'd the ante alot. Think about it. They wouldn't feel pain or get winded. You could probably out run them for a few minutes but when you start to get tired, they are still at the same level. There were so many slow moving zombie films that something needed to change. I, for one and as much as I love the original NOTLD, embrace the running zombies.

These ones were a little more on the unbelievable side with their seemingly enhanced abilities but for some reason with this film, I gave it a pass. I'm not exactly sure why though.
dickacraper
25,618 Posts
30/M/IL
I'm all for suspension of disbelief but to have it both ways seems selfish. Their bodies are rotting with no oxygen/blood flow BUT their muscles don't atrophy and they can run forever like some sort of undead Prefontaine. No, no, no. Zombies are meant to be slow and part of the terror is that they surround you en masse and there's no way out. Giving them the ability to run is like giving vampires x-ray vision or werewolves the ability to breathe underwater. It's betraying their relevance within the realm of the horror monster.
dogfood meatballs
6,446 Posts
39/M/NY
Originally posted by: Dickscraper

In response to Voorhees... the "running zombie" thing was fine in 28 Days Later because they weren't zombies, they were infected humans. Their blood still pumped through their body and they still had to breathe to stay alive.

I agree with you about true zombies with the ability to run.



well, that's kind of splitting hairs though, as they're always "infected", and something that doesn't die on its own is always kind of a zombie. even victims of rabies die pretty quickly if untreated; the body simply does not support dehydration, starvation, and the kind of massive viral/bacteriological infection they suggest for very long.

but yeah, the running and jumping thing, that would be ok with voodoo zombies or vampires, but the second you go with infection rather than voodoo, you enter the world of science and are subject to scientific scrutiny and that shit is just silly.
dogfood meatballs
6,446 Posts
39/M/NY
Originally posted by: Dickscraper

giving vampires x-ray vision or werewolves the ability to breathe underwater. .





lol, that would be kind of awesome.
dickacraper
25,618 Posts
30/M/IL
Originally posted by: Jason Voorheees

Originally posted by: Dickscraper

In response to Voorhees... the "running zombie" thing was fine in 28 Days Later because they weren't zombies, they were infected humans. Their blood still pumped through their body and they still had to breathe to stay alive.

I agree with you about true zombies with the ability to run.



well, that's kind of splitting hairs though, as they're always "infected", and something that doesn't die on its own is always kind of a zombie. even victims of rabies die pretty quickly if untreated; the body simply does not support dehydration, starvation, and the kind of massive viral/bacteriological infection they suggest for very long.

but yeah, the running and jumping thing, that would be ok with voodoo zombies or vampires, but the second you go with infection rather than voodoo, you enter the world of science and are subject to scientific scrutiny and that shit is just silly.



I don't think I'm splitting hairs. The monsters in 28 Days Later are more their own breed of monster than zombie. Their condition is caused by science, not voodoo or hell, as are the cause(s) of typical zombie outbreaks. They don't rise from the dead. They don't attempt to eat people and their guts/brains/etc. They attempt to spread their disease, sure, but that's only kind of the same thing. As I mentioned before, their blood still flows and they still have to breathe oxygen.

The only thing they have in common with classic zombies is that they're running on empty upstairs. Other than that, I'd say they're their own thing altogether.
Pulp Free
52,163 Posts
35/M/PA
Zombies aren't my favorite sub-genre of horror so I can let things slide a little more with them. I won't deny that when it comes to zombies, Romero is king so following the playbook he laid down is a smart thing. But at the same time, we're talking about a hypothecial thing here. Even with all the science in the world there isn't anything that supports that Romero's idea of zombies would be exactly the way they would be if they truly existed. Who knows, the undead could be exactly like their living selves except they decay and don't breath. They reason for their eating of people is that they are driven back to a purely primal state. Technically they should be raping everyone too because sex (procreation) is considered a primal function.

Now there is a movie. Raping zombies instead of flesh eating ones. I call dibs on royalties for the idea if you beat me to writing one.
Pulp Free
52,163 Posts
35/M/PA
And I agree on the 28 Days Later thing. They are basically humans on super rabies, not the undead.
dogfood meatballs
6,446 Posts
39/M/NY
i don't mind running zombies that much, but you would need to sell it by seeing their legs crack off every now and then and having a lot of broken down, 'crippled' zombies on the side of the road everywhere as the tendons and ligaments would be one of the first things to go, not to mention cartilage, which would be more or less nonexistant after the first month of dehydration.
still oh so ill
8,438 Posts
36/M/MD
You can be in the movie and be the first victim.
still oh so ill
8,438 Posts
36/M/MD
Wren will be on the big screen being raped all to smithereens by a zombie and I'll be all like...

dickacraper
25,618 Posts
30/M/IL
Originally posted by: WREN

Zombies aren't my favorite sub-genre of horror so I can let things slide a little more with them. I won't deny that when it comes to zombies, Romero is king so following the playbook he laid down is a smart thing. But at the same time, we're talking about a hypothecial thing here. Even with all the science in the world there isn't anything that supports that Romero's idea of zombies would be exactly the way they would be if they truly existed. Who knows, the undead could be exactly like their living selves except they decay and don't breath. They reason for their eating of people is that they are driven back to a purely primal state. Technically they should be raping everyone too because sex (procreation) is considered a primal function.

Now there is a movie. Raping zombies instead of flesh eating ones. I call dibs on royalties for the idea if you beat me to writing one.



I swear to god I've had this idea for years, not even trying to steal it.

I had an idea like 7 years ago I was hashing out. It was a four season long television series. Each season of the show would be a season of the year. The first season would be winter. The main characters are holed up in a cabin in the mountains, and all (or most of...) the zombies in the area are frozen solid so the threat is minimal. Most of the action in season 1 takes place in flash backs which show each character where they were when the apocalypse came about and give you some backstory to the character. The season would end with spring thawing the zombies and them surrounding the cabin and the characters having to flee. Next season would be spring where they're traveling south to Mexico so we see a bunch of cowboy type and Mexican zombies. At this point the heat is getting intense so the fluids in the zombies' limbs is collecting in the hands/feet and exploding. So now we have exploding zombies that leak their internal fluids all over you when they grab you. Sweet.

Anyways there was a scene I had written in which one of the characters who's had a crush on one of the girl characters gets bit. He returns to the cabin and the girl is there alone and notices he's acting weird. He starts getting twitchy and his eyes glaze over. In one last human/zombie hybrid moment, he grabs the girl and begins to rape her, what with being in a primal state, before another dude character blows off his head from behind, saving the girl from being raped by a zombie.

ALL THIS MATERIAL IS COPYRIGHTED BY DICKSCRAPER.
wiener breath
38,581 Posts
31/F/PA
When discussing this at work, my terrible coworker asked if it was "a non-fiction zombie book". We made fun of him, understandibly, but he adamantly defends his stance and constantly talks about how many "non-fiction zombie books" there are on Amazon.
Pulp Free
52,163 Posts
35/M/PA
Non-Fiction Zombies

Log in or sign up to post a comment.