World War Z (film)

[MoonSylver]

I'll elaborate for you Trencher, most of the regular members here hate any zombie that isnt romero and will go out of their way to hysterically trash talk it in any manner they can, strangely enough, if it is a romero movie it has the opposite effect on them, they will go out of their way to embrace it no matter how bad it is. Example, Dawn'04.. Great movie, torn to ribbons by most here. Land.. horrible horrible horrible shitfest, painful to watch. Loved by most of the same people. Its some kind of mass hysteria that grips alot of our members, i havnt worked out why yet. Fighting hyperbole with hyperbole. Gotta love it.

[wayzim]

I'll elaborate for you Trencher, most of the regular members here hate any zombie that isnt romero and will go out of their way to hysterically trash talk it in any manner they can, strangely enough, if it is a romero movie it has the opposite effect on them, they will go out of their way to embrace it no matter how bad it is. Example, Dawn'04.. Great movie, torn to ribbons by most here. Land.. horrible horrible horrible shitfest, painful to watch. Loved by most of the same people. Its some kind of mass hysteria that grips alot of our members, i havnt worked out why yet. Hey! I'm as regular member as they come here, my bowels move just fine ( thanks for asking. ) and I actually thought Dawn04 was a fairly decent popcorn movie (got the unrated DVD, and rewatch it often.) The opening sequence definitely rocked. And I recently watched Juan of The Dead on cable, and that was pretty fun too. Land is actually hated by a good many folks on these boards. That seemed to be mostly for Big Daddy, but some was for the odd embrace of a useless capitalist class system which had already been mocked earlier in Dawn 78 ( Paper money based off of what? But you never know, as Peter said. ) Now, as to WWZ, as long as they were running around, I'd no quarrel with it. Great for the short attention span tweet crazy audience, but the meat which made up the novel was sadly missing. I will grant only that everyone on screen was in crisis mode, but there was never any real evidence of anyone working the problem in a credible manner. The patient zero angle was nonsense in a plague that seemed to spontaneously erupt on a global scale all at once. And the threat to Pitt's family in the film was no threat at all, something to use up screen time. Plotwise, it was a mess. Trees killing people, as in The Happening, had a more coherent story logic to it. Now I've said this earlier, but the film confirmed that the ragers were indeed the walking (OK, running. )dead when our sheriff got his posse to Atlanta and the CDC - wait, that wasn't WWZ, was it? So when Pitt finally reached someone(s) with half a brain to explain what they were fighting, we got the grocery list which basically says ... Yep, these are dead people. They're dead, they're all messed up. It's in the film, they said it, these are zombies. Did I have a good time with WWZ? Sure. Was it innovative and incredible? For the masses who are just now getting into zombies? You bet. Got to start em somewhere. For the rabid fan? No, not really( though your mileage may vary.) I saw it once, and that's enough for the cinema - until it shows up on Netflix. We do love our niche films, but while we don't have to get shirty about it, there are some things which need to happen in a zombie film - and Z fell short of that. Now I actually think I judged it pretty fairly, and I'm glad it's making some decent coin. It's just not that Z epic we were hoping for. Save that for Walking Dead, I suppose. Wayne Z "This ain't no midnight horror flick, or creature double feature, babe. " Dead Fall: Foreshadow.

[JonOfTheShred]

Dawn of the Dead 2004? I enjoyed it. Land of the Dead? Loved it. Survival of the Dead? Not so much. The Ford Brothers "The Dead" from a few years ago? Amazing. As for the whole "Everyone on HPOTD hates runners" debacle, that doesn't apply to me either. I think runners can be done well, in the right context. Granted, it's ridiculous to assume people in death would then gain super sprint abilities and dinosaur screeches, but I've seen a number of entertaining 'runner' flicks. Stop acting like everyone who sees this movie for the cash-in hunk of shit it is "Biased." This was a mindless self-indulgence in mediocrity and it worked. The movie made its billions, it will have many more sequels to tarnish the legacy of the book, and all the people who aren't trying to act cautiously optimistic about this movie are STILL going to complain about how shitty it was. I'm usually pretty forgiving when it comes to zombie movies. I enjoyed Land and Diary, and in the right mood I'll watch Survival. (Survivals biggest downfall was its soundtrack, it was way too hokey sounding. With a more intense soundtrack the movie would have been far better, 100% serious. They should have hired Ennio Morricone.) But World War Z was literally one of the worst movies I've ever seen, of any genre of film. It could have been called "Generic CGI Zombie Fest" and it still would have been a major disappointment. It was poorly edited, horribly paced, featured abysmal 'fight' / action choreography, possibly the worst case of CGI zombies I've ever seen, generic Hollywood plot devices. Zoomed in, shaky camera in dimly lit locations. You can barely see whats going on. The zombies were barely even featured in the movie at all. And speaking on the undead, that was some of the poorest CGI I've seen; I've seen more believable CGI on the SyFy channel. Not hating on everyone who enjoyed the movie, but everyone bitching about the people bitching about this movie should stop accusing the WWZ dissenters of intentionally disliking the movie because of its name, or because of runners, or...blah blah blah. This was a BAD movie and we are all complaining about it accordingly. I'd actually go as far as saying this movie was even worse than that Day of the Dead remake with Ving Rhames and Nick Cannon.

[Andy]

Dawn of the Dead 2004? I enjoyed it. Land of the Dead? Loved it. Survival of the Dead? Not so much. The Ford Brothers "The Dead" from a few years ago? Amazing. As for the whole "Everyone on HPOTD hates runners" debacle, that doesn't apply to me either. I think runners can be done well, in the right context. Granted, it's ridiculous to assume people in death would then gain super sprint abilities and dinosaur screeches, but I've seen a number of entertaining 'runner' flicks. Well my theory on that is that as a human, why cant you run amazingly fast or for long periods of time? because it hurts. it damages your muscles, you get tired. Zombies wouldnt have that handicap. Your right an extent, people shouldnt gain super human speed but their speed be a little higher than in life and their endurance would be off the scale, they could literally keep running until their legs disintegrate because their is no pain, no tiredness, no wall. At the same time i dont see why its more reasonable to believe that a perfectly healthy and able bodied person in life would suddenly be crippled and not capable of anything more than a shamble as a zombie? Maybe im looking too deeply into this, the point is that i like runners and shamblers equally. They are 2 different types of zombies that produce different movies which i can understand not everybody enjoying. That still dosnt excuse the excrement that was land of the dead.. Stop acting like everyone who sees this movie for the cash-in hunk of shit it is "Biased." This was a mindless self-indulgence in mediocrity and it worked. The movie made its billions, it will have many more sequels to tarnish the legacy of the book, and all the people who aren't trying to act cautiously optimistic about this movie are STILL going to complain about how shitty it was. I'm usually pretty forgiving when it comes to zombie movies. I enjoyed Land and Diary, and in the right mood I'll watch Survival. (Survivals biggest downfall was its soundtrack, it was way too hokey sounding. With a more intense soundtrack the movie would have been far better, 100% serious. They should have hired Ennio Morricone.) But World War Z was literally one of the worst movies I've ever seen, of any genre of film. It could have been called "Generic CGI Zombie Fest" and it still would have been a major disappointment. It was poorly edited, horribly paced, featured abysmal 'fight' / action choreography, possibly the worst case of CGI zombies I've ever seen, generic Hollywood plot devices. Zoomed in, shaky camera in dimly lit locations. You can barely see whats going on. The zombies were barely even featured in the movie at all. And speaking on the undead, that was some of the poorest CGI I've seen; I've seen more believable CGI on the SyFy channel. Not hating on everyone who enjoyed the movie, but everyone bitching about the people bitching about this movie should stop accusing the WWZ dissenters of intentionally disliking the movie because of its name, or because of runners, or...blah blah blah. This was a BAD movie and we are all complaining about it accordingly. I'd actually go as far as saying this movie was even worse than that Day of the Dead remake with Ving Rhames and Nick Cannon. Look, i didnt like world war Z. i thought it was mediocre at best. My problem is that the majority of people here started trashing and bitching long before this was released and some of the main "haters" still havnt seen it now. How can you hate a movie and rip it to bits before you have even seen it? everyone is entitled to their opinion whether positive or negative but ripping a movie to shreds without even seeing it is plain dumb. Its no better than dumbass teenagers these days who wont watch romeros classics or anything by fulci, raimi or craven because their old. Thats the Fanboyism and general idiocy that im "bitching" about.

[EvilNed]

I don't like runners because 90% of the time, they turn a zombie movie into an action movie. World War Z is a perfect example of this. In my mind, only the 28 Days/Weeks Later flicks have managed to pull it off without a hitch in the modern times. The opening scene in 28 Weeks Later is amazing.

[Christopher Jon]

I don't like runners because 90% of the time, they turn a zombie movie into an action movie. But why can't a zombie movie also be an action movie? As some of the previous posters alluded too, there is a die hard group here who want every movie to be a Romero clone. I can't speak for everyone but I'm bored with the same old formula and I'd love to see something new and fresh. Let creatives create, if you don't like the product, don't support it. Very simple.

[EvilNed]

It can, I'm just not interested in it. I'm in it for the horror. That's what drew me to the zombie genre.

[MagicMoonMonkey]

Does anyone know what the content of the cut Russian sequence was that merited the rewrite? I wonder if it will feature in the DVD or be kept back for use in the sequel. Anyhoo, now that it has been quite some time since I saw it at the cinema I have come to realise that not a lot of thought went in to it and a lot of it didn't make much sense.   Although a major part of the movie, did Israel need to fall so conveniently? Wouldn't Israel and her giant walls have made for a better ending? I just can't buy the idea that a country that had the motivation to build a wall to protect them from the impending apocalypse would not know that the dead weren't impressed by Palestinian Karaoke, and that they would even allow that pish next to the wall? Something else could have been written in its place. Something that didn't involve the creation of a human pyramid to get to a wailing microphone, but would still provide a defence being overrun. Perhaps something using South Korea and its border with the North a little bit better than they did in the movie. Anyway, we have what we have thanks to Pitt and Plan B, and I will no doubt watch it several more times once it becomes 'available'. There is a lot worse out there masquerading as movies.

[MoonSylver]

I don't like runners because 90% of the time, they turn a zombie movie into an action movie. World War Z is a perfect example of this. In my mind, only the 28 Days/Weeks Later flicks have managed to pull it off without a hitch in the modern times. The opening scene in 28 Weeks Later is amazing. "Dead Set" did a fine job of it too. But it & the 28's are the only ones that come to mind.

[zombieparanoia]

But why can't a zombie movie also be an action movie? As some of the previous posters alluded too, there is a die hard group here who want every movie to be a Romero clone. I can't speak for everyone but I'm bored with the same old formula and I'd love to see something new and fresh. Let creatives create, if you don't like the product, don't support it. Very simple. I think it can but it should be action on the part of the living characters, when the zombies exceed the living in athletic ability it becomes just an action movie with bad cgi. Fast zombies are about as scary as the tidal wave hitting DC in 2012. Nobody in the audience was at all scared. At All.

[shootemindehead]

How can anything be scary in a film catered for a 13 year old audience.

[Neil]

How can anything be scary in a film catered for a 13 year old audience. One word.... JAWS!

[MinionZombie]

One word.... JAWS! Which also gets to another issue - the talent of the filmmakers - "scary" means "LOUD NOISES!" to so many filmmakers today, and it's just a cheap shot. Plus, you can see a LOUD NOISE jump coming from a mile off. Any idiot can sneak up on someone in the street and scream "BOO!" in their ear and get a scare out of them - there's no talent involved whatsoever. The thing with Jaws is that it's a masterful piece of filmmaking, getting maximum creep & terror factor from very little on-screen in the way of gore, or even the shark itself. The power of suggestion is far more effective - seeing the whole monster isn't a good idea (although, in Jaws, you do have to show the shark at some point, quite rightly) ... but look at Tobe Hooper's "The Funhouse" - the beasty in that was originally going to only be seen in shadows and tiny slivers of light, until someone else in the food chain insisted they show the monster in full-light ... and as a result you could see the mask was, well, just a mask. It's still a good movie, but the creep factor of the beasty is totally shot by just showing it. Anyway, back to the LOUD NOISE! factor - runners are the zombie equivalent of LOUD NOISES - whereas shamblers, when used correctly (i.e. Night/Dawn/Day, or TWD, as the biggest examples), are the equivalent of Jaws or suggestive horror. They get an idea into your head and it becomes far creepier. Sure, there are places for LOUD NOISE jumps - e.g. Drag Me To Hell, which was specifically designed to be a haunted house ride of a flick (and was PG-13 to boot), but the scares never linger ... John Carpenter's "The Thing" shows a lot on-screen, but it also gets right into your mind (the claustrophobia, the lack of trust, the isolation etc), and just thinking about the movie - not even watching it - gets my skin crawling. Even films that aren't horror can provide scares and creeps far exceeding supposed 'scary movies' - look at "Se7en" - it's a great movie, but I'm somewhat overly-creeped out by it because of Gluttony (that rank apartment, the idea that the guy 'ate till he burst'), Sloth (the entire sequence scares the bejesus out of me - when the 'body' burst awake, I got such a fright ... plus, again, the sheer horror of the idea of what the person was subjected to), and Lust (the guy who was so freaked out, and that shot of him covered in a sheet while still wearing the murder weapon and with him screaming for the cops to get him out of that hideous device) ... just thinking about those scenes gives me the creeps. Yawn04 had no scares, no creep-out, nothing chilling ... it was just an action movie in which some human characters literally didn't have a name. I think, with some filmmakers these days - note that I said some - they use runners because they've got no idea how to make a scary movie. They can't do tension, they can't do ideas ... but look at TWD where they routinely creep you out and are masterful at the use of tension. They also understand how to use shamblers - even if they do make the odd mistake here or there - but WWZ just looks like a bunch of screaming CGI being tossed at the screen. I mean, just think about it - if a dead person just walked up to your window right now and started trying to claw its way in, it's dead and soul-less eyes fixed right on you, and it never gave up ... that would be flippin' terrifying.

[shootemindehead]

One word.... JAWS! Yeh, shadaaaaap you! Actually I was thinking that when I was posting. I've often wondered who Speilberg blew to get a PG cert on that film. - - - Updated - - - The thing with Jaws is that it's a masterful piece of filmmaking, getting maximum creep & terror factor from very little on-screen in the way of gore, or even the shark itself. That wasn't by design though MZ. That was pure accident. The original storyboards for 'Jaws' had the shark leaping out of the water in the first attack and every subsequent one after that. The only reason Bruce wasn't in full view in the first 5 minutes was because the damn thing wouldn't work. Contrary to popular thinking, it wasn't speilberg that kept the shark off of the screen, it was Bruce. Speilberg was actually all about bombast, it was his idea to blow the thing up at the end, much to the consternation of most of the people involved, including Benchley, who thought that the idea was absurd. 'Jaws', though is actually quite a bloody film. There's a good few limbs floating around and Quint's death is one of the most shocking I've ever seen. A lot of the credit for that goes to some truly superb acting from Robert Shaw though. If you look carefully, when the shark comes at the boat for Brody, he has bits of Quint between his teeth...*shudder*

[MinionZombie]

Oh aye, I know of the stories of the shark not working well, but my point is that Spielberg had to work around those constraints, and used his skill as a filmmaker to make a scary-arse film without showing much shark at all - Bruce knew better, in the end, by going on strike. Regardless of what was originally intended, Spielberg crafted a masterful film ... and I'd certainly agree with him that it had to go out with a bang - you just want that bastard fish dead and you want the audience cheering. Many filmmakers today couldn't rustle up tension or horror to save their lives ... and so we circle back to runners not being scary.