World War Z Trailer - UGH
- Thread starter ThatNickGuy
- Start date
True, true.
And yet, all of those movies kept the fundamental themes and characteristics of the books intact. World War Z, from what I've heard, largely does not.
My mom wanted to see this from the trailer, until she found out from a co-worker that it's a zombie movie.
Before that, she couldn't tell.
I can't blame her.
Before that, she couldn't tell.
I can't blame her.
So. That was... interesting. I'm still refining my opinion of the film (I may like it more/less as time passes), but here are my early thoughts.
Potential spoilers ahoy!
First of all, this is NOT World War Z. Not in the book sense, anyway. I loved the novel, and this has very little to do with it. If you go in expecting it to stay true to the source material, you will be disappointed.
The zombie wave we complained about was not as bad as it seemed in the trailer. It was only in a handful of scenes. Either they tightened it up, or the big screen makes it better. Having said that, there are two distinctly ridiculous moments with the zombies and how they break past defenses. To go along with that, there are moments where conflicts in the story are resolved in way-too-convenient ways. This is even more true for the end, which involves some questionable science and a silly amount of luck that pushed way past my ability to suspend belief.
In summary, this is a big-budget remake of 28 Days Later or 28 Weeks Later. Aside from the title, it has very little to do with the book. However, it's a good flick with a few minor flaws. I would give it a B-, maybe a B.[DOUBLEPOST=1371806216][/DOUBLEPOST]Oh, and don't bother with 3D. It was the only option for me, but I don't feel it added anything to the experience (surprise, surprise). If you want to see this and have the choice, just go with standard format instead of 3D.
Potential spoilers ahoy!
First of all, this is NOT World War Z. Not in the book sense, anyway. I loved the novel, and this has very little to do with it. If you go in expecting it to stay true to the source material, you will be disappointed.
- The zombies are fast.
- There is some attempt to travel and interview people to find the source of the story's events. However, it has a "race against the clock" slapdash element to it, whereas the book focused on a more intellectual and methodical approach to explaining how things went down.
- Many of the fascinating side stories, the ones that really gave the book its character, are largely absent. This is the Brad Pitt Show, and only The Brad Pitt Show.
- This is a fast-paced, action-packed adventure. The drama and struggle of what human society means is gone.
The zombie wave we complained about was not as bad as it seemed in the trailer. It was only in a handful of scenes. Either they tightened it up, or the big screen makes it better. Having said that, there are two distinctly ridiculous moments with the zombies and how they break past defenses. To go along with that, there are moments where conflicts in the story are resolved in way-too-convenient ways. This is even more true for the end, which involves some questionable science and a silly amount of luck that pushed way past my ability to suspend belief.
In summary, this is a big-budget remake of 28 Days Later or 28 Weeks Later. Aside from the title, it has very little to do with the book. However, it's a good flick with a few minor flaws. I would give it a B-, maybe a B.[DOUBLEPOST=1371806216][/DOUBLEPOST]Oh, and don't bother with 3D. It was the only option for me, but I don't feel it added anything to the experience (surprise, surprise). If you want to see this and have the choice, just go with standard format instead of 3D.
So what your saying is that if this wasn't called World War Z it would be a decent movie. But because it is, it's a fucking travesty? I can accept that.
That's a huge exaggeration. I'm just saying that it does not have much to do with the book, so if you are specifically looking for a faithful adaptation you will be disappointed. If you can ignore all that, it's a good movie.
Pretty much, yes.
Considering this movie is probably going to kill any chance we ever had of getting a faithful adaption of the book, I'd probably say it's still a travesty. They took out all the stuff I cared about and replaced with it with mindless shlock.
I haven't seen it and I surely won't see it, but here's The Oatmeal's Venn diagram for it: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/wwz
Assuming you have a decent television and entertainment setup, I would say it can wait until it's on blu-ray or whatever you use to watch movies at home. It's entertaining, but it's not something you must see in theaters.
GasBandit
Staff member
Big fuckin' spider.
Wow, that sums it up perfectly.
Movies are $4.50 here if you have a student ID, so I didn't mind watching it in theaters. It's not worth $12-15 by any means.
Apparently they had to change the outbreak's origin. In the book, the first zombies are from China. The studio executives decided to meddle and relocate the outbreak's origin so Chinese censors wouldn't ban the film. Chinese audiences are now a force to be considered. They didn't register a blip on the radar screen back when they were melting down their own cookware for the Great Leap Forward.
Apparently they had to change the outbreak's origin. In the book, the first zombies are from China. The studio executives decided to meddle and relocate the outbreak's origin so Chinese censors wouldn't ban the film. Chinese audiences are now a force to be considered. They didn't register a blip on the radar screen back when they were melting down their own cookware for the Great Leap Forward.
So I watched it today for free thanks to some friends in the Drafthouse, which I usually do when there's a movie I want to watch but not give any money to the studio.
As a standard movie: 3.5/5 or 7.5/10
As a horror movie: 2.5/5 or 5.5/10
As a zombie movie: 2/5 or 5/10
As a World War Z adaptation: 0.5/5 or 2/10
It was a nail biting thriller, hence the higher rating as a standard movie.
There was little to no horror in it, hence the lower.
The zombies were barely shown and the ones that were left much to be desired, hence even lower.
The reason I didn't flat out give it a 0 as a WWZ adaptation were due to very very small nods to the book such as calling them Zekes and using bicycles to help with sound at one point. The end.
As a standard movie: 3.5/5 or 7.5/10
As a horror movie: 2.5/5 or 5.5/10
As a zombie movie: 2/5 or 5/10
As a World War Z adaptation: 0.5/5 or 2/10
It was a nail biting thriller, hence the higher rating as a standard movie.
There was little to no horror in it, hence the lower.
The zombies were barely shown and the ones that were left much to be desired, hence even lower.
The reason I didn't flat out give it a 0 as a WWZ adaptation were due to very very small nods to the book such as calling them Zekes and using bicycles to help with sound at one point. The end.
Well I was going for the 5 star vs 10 star review style.
You watched I, Robot, right?
From Rotten Tomatoes:
(emphasis mine)[DOUBLEPOST=1372485651][/DOUBLEPOST]Wow, the ending they describe in that link is fucking terrible. If that really was what they planned on using I understand why they did the re-shoot.This Week's Top Story
SEQUELS POSSIBLE FOR APOCALYPTIC HITS WORLD WAR Z AND THIS IS THE END
Destruction is a big thing this summer. Man of Steel is the most obvious, and where most of the press goes, but it's not the only movie to score well at the box office in June with calamitous events, and it's not the only such movie with sequel buzz either. After months of pre-release bad buzz about reshoots (and a six month release delay), World War Z opened this past weekend to $66 million in North America, and $111.8 million worldwide. Paramount Pictures is claiming it as "the best opening for an original live-action tentpole since Avatar," which is a bit weird because it was based on a bestselling novel. Anyway, there's been talk for a while of a possible World War Z trilogy, and those numbers were enough for Paramount and Brad Pitt's Plan B to officially start development on a sequel. All of this is arguably at least partly due to the surprisingly positive reviews for World War Z, and they were possibly due to the drastic changes to the film's plot. This link tells you about added scenes in the first hour of the film, and this detailed article describes the completely different third act. It also explains why that one guy looked like Matthew Fox. The quasi-reality-based apocalyptic comedy This is the End has also been quietly doing well (opening to over $20 million against Man of Steel), and Seth Rogen's codirector Evan Goldberg is already talking up his idea for what a sequel could be like, which sounds like it veers crazily off into movie-within-a-movie territory. Which is not to say that a sequel has actually been greenlit, of course (but it's at least being talked about).
Ok, just got back from it. The wife wanted to see it, and I tend to do what my wife says.
Short review: Average movie, not great, but not horrible. However, it could have made an awesome Left 4 Dead: The Movie. Seriously, just a few tweaks and it would've made a lot of L4D fans jizz in their pants.
Short review: Average movie, not great, but not horrible. However, it could have made an awesome Left 4 Dead: The Movie. Seriously, just a few tweaks and it would've made a lot of L4D fans jizz in their pants.
It was just more me making fun of Polygon's constantly changing review scores.[DOUBLEPOST=1372487088][/DOUBLEPOST]
How the fuck do you make a sequel to This is the End?
Spoiler alert, it's about the apocalypse.
Seth Rogen wakes up, sees James Franco in the shower, and realizes it was all a dream?
Yeah it could be like final destination! He was suppose to die but because of the rain is in now death is out to get him during the apocalypse or something stupid like that
Necronic
Staff member
86% by viewers on rotten tomatos (67 by critics, many who complain abou the book.) Ok so they bastardized the book. But is this another case of fanboy hate that can't appreciate the movie as an independant work? I mean, ok why is it independent but has the same name. I always felt the book was more or less unfilmable.
But yeah. 86% by viewers. That's probably not a bad movie.
But yeah. 86% by viewers. That's probably not a bad movie.
It's still only a D+. You show that grade to any parent and they'd ground their kid.
That was your quote. That's what I quoted in my post. That was the comparison of my link. Had nothing to do with critic response.