Search Amazon.com:
Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
  • Post
  • Reply
Baron Bifford
May 24, 2006

Let's put a smile on that face.


If you enjoyed the movie 28 Weeks Later, then you ought to enjoy World War Z, which is very much a spiritual sequel that rehashes most of the major plot devices of the former film. It does things on a bigger scale with better CGI, with the zombies forming human mountains and moving in torrents through the streets of Jerusalem.

From start to finish, the movie is wall-to-wall tension. Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt) is either running from zombies, hiding from zombies, or piecing together the mystery behind the plague. There's honestly not enough relief. Just a little comedy here and there could have done wonders for this. The scenes where Brad Pitt chats with his wife do not do the job. Because of this poor sense of pacing, when the film reached the finale, there was no sense of buildup to a climax: Lane acquires the McGuffin he's been looking for and the film concludes hastily just like that. The final portion of the film felt rather tiresome.

A second problem that the film suffers from is a lack of human drama. The best zombie films obtain their drama by sticking into danger people who are not emotionally or physically equipped to deal with zombie apocalypses. In this film, the weak and vulnerable are either whisked away to safety or coldly abandoned to the zombie hordes. The zombies are fought by soldiers and other sorts of pros.

3/5 (meh)

Baron Bifford fucked around with this message at Jul 6, 2013 around 19:35

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Gropiemon
Jan 16, 2009



I thought this was more of a straight up action movie rather than a traditional zombie movie. No social commentary whatsoever, no "survivors" in the historical sense and no real adherence to zombie movie formulas. I actually kind of liked that we were following around competent characters. Characters that new what they were dealing with and weren't going to keep hugging their infected kid even though they know better but grief has overcome them and GET AWAY FROM YOUR SISTER SHE'S GOING TO CHANGE NOOOO

The ending was a little anti-climatic for me because I didn't really care about Brad Pitt's relationship with his family. Overall a solid action flick for me and now I want to see a zombie movie from the perspective of the Navy SEALS.

3.5/5

Fozaldo
Apr 18, 2004

Serenity Now. Serenity Now.


Let's get something out the way right now. I have not read the book. And that is possibly the reason I enjoyed this movie more than a lot of other people.

Firstly, this is a pretty fast paced ride for most of the movie's duration and that is plus for me, I actually remember thinking to myself that I had not experienced tension like this in a movie for a long time. As soon as the disease takes hold things get crazy very fast and this is genuinely scary as panic and social breakdown ensues and this fast pace is maintained. The effects were very good and very realistic, seeing thousands of zombies attacking and falling over each other each with their own unique movements is quite an achievement.

Character wise it's pretty shallow, we don't really get an development of the main cast Brad Pitt gets chucked in feet first and single handedly escapes, kills and finds a cure like a machine while wifey and kids wait for him.

The final third slows down and feels a little tacked on to finish things off and the ending suffers from an anti climax purely because it is difficult to bring an end to a story like this within 2 or so hours.

All in all it's an enjoyable flick but don't look for substance.

3.5/5

Bigass Moth
Mar 6, 2004



If you love having your intelligence insulted for 2 hours, this is the movie for you. It made zero sense from beginning to end, the shakycam was on a whole new level, and the acting was atrocious. Avoid.

1/5

Chupe Raho Aurat
Jun 22, 2011


Im not convinced that "No gore and Brad Pitt in (absolutely no)danger in his own movie" equals tension.

Phosphia
Jan 29, 2013

Oh you.. :>

It was a bit too much of a family movie, more than I would have preferred, but still a movie worth watching.

3/5

Crotch Fruit
Jul 1, 2007



Visuals were nice, action was so-so, but this is a much more realistic take on zombies than movies of the past. I have not read the book this was based off of, but I do think the movie had a slightly better ending than what the wikipedia page for the book mentions. I was not impressed with Brad Pitt's acting, and the movie needed more characters.

3/5

The Gunslinger
Jul 24, 2004

Do not forget the face of your father.

This movie was a frustrating mess. I was a big fan of the book but realized that it could never translate well to a 2 hour format so I made peace with the changes. Somehow they still managed to do an exceedingly poor job of simply making a decent zombie movie despite a big budget and decent cast.

The main character isn't fleshed out very well and Brad Pitt makes for a poor audience insert or surrogate. There were essentially no other characters in the film, everyone else exists to be fodder or a simple plot point not worth even cursory exposition. The story itself is a hodgepodge, meandering travelogue with a nonsensical timeline and dubious locations. Brad Pitt turns in an ineffectual, uneven performance as Lane.

There is a reckless overuse of CGI and shaky cam that bloats the movies budget despite never really delivering on quality visuals. The zombies are rarely seen in frame and there are few sequences where extras actually perform with make up (which are unsurprisingly the standouts). The action feels like the camera was being tugged back and forth along a zipline.

The virus itself completely breaks suspension of disbelief and efforts to turn off your brain will likely be fruitless. Your credulity is stretched to the limit and then completely surpassed - 10 second incubation period, humans turned into zombies who literally fly around on screen with ravenous hunger yet show perfect problem solving skills and the hive behavior of ants. Yet when the plot calls for it they are dumb as bricks and move slower than molasses.

The biggest crime is that this completely mediocre effort somehow made money and is getting a sequel. Save yourself the 2 hour runtime and go do something else with your life.

2/5

jonathan
Jul 3, 2005



As someone who has never read the book(s?), or even knew they existed until the launch of the film, I am reviewing the film solely on the film itself.

I'm finding it hard to find things that I disliked about the film. I found it was well paced. The story gets going quickly without wasting time introducing many different characters. The effects were believable. Line delivery was good. Nothing really cheesy.

The movie has some tense and intense scenes. For a major portion of the movie, I had a constant feeling of either nervousness, or anxiety. Lots of portions of the movie left my guests wide eyed with mouths open. The movie isn't scary or especially gory, but a lot of things happen in it where you're just like "Oh gently caress."

The sound was good. Clear Dialogue, good dynamics and lots of low bass content. There is a specific scene where a grenade explodes in slow motion that caused my sound system to hit harder in the low bass region than I have ever seen a movie do. One of those "bass drop" descending tone type sounds. Sound volume was nowhere near maxed out, yet that specific scene sucked the air from my lungs, caused the ceiling to move. If you like to play loud, beware of that scene. I could easily see it causing equipment damage.

4/5 is my rating.

Oxford Comma
Jun 26, 2011
Oxford Comma: Hey guys I want a cool big dog to show off! I want it to be ~special~ like Thor but more couch potato-like because I got babbies in the house!
Everybody: GET A LAB.
Oxford Comma: OK! (gets a a pit/catahoula mix)


Only someone with the limited intelligence of a zombie would enjoy this film.

2/5

Octopus Magic
Dec 19, 2003

I HATE EVERYTHING THAT YOU LIKE* AND I NEED TO BE SURE YOU ALL KNOW THAT EVERY TIME I POST

*unless it's a DSM in which case we cool ^_^


The most competently filmed, poorly written movie of the year. Fly around the world to meet some uninteresting characters who are completely useless. Thanks.

Dear Hollywood: Stop hiring Lindelof. It's pretty clear at this point he is not a screenwriter given his track record of Prometheus, Cowboys and Aliens, and this dreck.

1.5/5 with the .5 added on for the soda.

Job Creator
Apr 3, 2009



Watched this last night, the film intrigued me for the first 30 minutes or so.

Looking past the poor writing; the lack of gore and flying/ sprinting zombies killed any tension the film managed to build.

Given the source material and budget it's a shame this is the best they could come up with.

2.0/5 only for the first quarter of the film.

Dick Fagballzson
Sep 29, 2005
My wife doesn't really "do it" for me anymore. I confess I'm a bit curious and would like guys to PM me to help me intimately explore this feeling.

Most zombie movies don't have the budget to show the initial outbreak and the military and scientific response in any detail the way this did. Overall, I liked it. I especially liked that people didn't behave like idiots and actually fought back and were looking for a cure. There's way too much stupidity in most zombie stuff. The Walking Dead is the worst in that respect. The people on that show behave like retards to the point where it takes me out of the experience because I just can't relate to people so dumb. Also, I have no idea why zombie movies always focus on unimportant nobodies. It was refreshing that this focused on an important UN official investigating the source of the outbreak. Basically this was a zombie movie made for intelligent people that broke away from a lot of the stupid conventions that have dragged down the zombie genre. It had some good action scenes and "oh poo poo!" type moments. My only complaint was that they got a bit carried away with the CGI on the zombies in a few scenes. I never read the book so I really can't comment on whether it's a faithful translation to film.

4/5

Dick Fagballzson fucked around with this message at Sep 28, 2013 around 17:30

TheTallMan
May 1, 2011

Boooooyyyyyyy!!!

I love horror films. I love adventure movies. I love action films. I thought this would be right up my alley. Such a boring turd. I couldn't tell if Brad Pitt was searching for a cure or his big-rear end Hollywood paycheck.

1/5

Captain Mediocre
Oct 14, 2005

Saving lives and money!

I agree with most of the cons, particularly the poor writing and seriously anti-climatic ending. The pros outshone it for me, however. I was horrendously tense for a significant portion of this film, which is something I rarely get even from much better horror/action movies. The best thing about it, however, are those few attempts to show the varying international responses to a zombie outbreak. Innovative plans like the North Korean operation dentist, Israeli wall building and the US flotilla provide ideas about the macro scale that are sorely missing from most zombie films, and they were what made this film interesting for me. That said, this angle could have been fleshed out a heck of a lot more if they had cut out some of the tedious family scenes and reduced some of the lengthier action sequences. I am really bummed they decided to cut the film short before tackling the more organised international response to Zombiepocalypse, but in the hope of having that part fulfilled (and in the vain hope that maybe Karen and the kids will die off unemotionally) I will watch the sequel when it arrives.

3.5/5

Coughing Hobo
Jun 29, 2005

Why does he have two swords? Does he lose them often?


The only good thing about this movie was that the way the zombies acted and moved as a horde was really disturbing and unnerving, so props to the CG department. Otherwise, it wasn't even hilariously terrible, just regular terrible.

1/5

lynch_69
Jan 21, 2001

What say you, have we your blessing?

Lovely apocalyptic scenes of societal breakdown as Brad Pitt and family try to survive a sudden and vicious zombie outbreak while the world crumbles around them.

STUFF HAPPENS and Pitt’s character is eventually tasked with investigating the origin of the outbreak. The movie then turns into a globe trotting detective adventure as Pitt, along with his coterie of armed marines, visit various exotic locales and barely escape one zombie attack after another while hunting for clues.

The zombies of World War Z are the modern fast-moving “28 Days Later” variety. They have the intelligence and demeanour of a frenzied ant-colony. These zombies will hurl themselves off buildings and climb each other’s fallen bodies to get at their prey.

The frequent zombie encounters feel brutal and visceral. The chaotic scenes of countless hordes of zombies breaking through barriers and devouring everything in sight are a visual treat - a high watermark of modern visual effects. Surprisingly brutal for a PG-13 rating, the filmmakers don’t hold back from showing the full extent of the savagery unleashed by the zombie apocalypse.

Yes, there are several logical inconsistencies. For one, Brad Pitt’s character miraculously survives every single zombie encounter while everybody around him drops like flies. Luckily, that didn't detract from my overall enjoyment of the film. (Reminder: this a movie where dead people come back to life.)

Unlike Romero’s zombie films, World War Z is not utterly cynical and down-beat in its assessment of humanity. This is probably the most optimistic of zombie apocalypse films, ending on a note of hope. Enjoyable big budget action/horror - worth watching.

4/5

No. 6
Jun 30, 2002

The butcher with the sharpest knife has the warmest heart.


I wasn't expecting the book and went in with the idea that it's just a new zombie movie. What I saw was cliched, bad writing, with enormous logic holes, and poor plot devices. The acting was pretty flat and boring. All in all a dull film, but still better than pure trash.

2/5

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

mookface
Jun 7, 2009

Diane! I'm holding in my hand a box of small chocolate bunnies.


The movie was entertaining for the most part but the pacing was awful and when it ended I couldn't help but wonder 'is that it?'

2/5

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply