Haven't seen it yet so I can't give a review. Based on the trailer it appears to be "fast" zombies in this one. Same scenario, global pandemic of zombies...UN scientist (Brad Pitt) races for a cure... I enjoy the zombie genre so I'll probably see it this weekend...hopefully it isn't too played out at this point what with zombies in so many movies and even television now with The Walking Dead. The movie is based on the book, however reviews indicate the movie goes completely astray from the book....something to consider for those who are fans of the book. Early reviews are so-so. I'll still see it, if for no other reason than Brad Pitt is hitching a ride in the back of a C-130 in one of the scenes from the trailer, and I saw some A-10s in there too.... Feel free to post reviews if you plan to see it.
Heard it is garbage, but if you are a fanatic for the undead it may be fun anyway. They had all kinds of production and script problems and spent over $200,000,000.00 which is more often than not throwing good money after bad. I am a huge fan of the genre but will probably not see this.
Yes, thanks for the reply. I've heard the film had lots of production issues and the release date was delayed. Usually a red flag for these sort of things in terms of the final product.
Yep. In general the fast zombie is not my deal anyway. Best Zombie film I have seen in decades is THE DEAD. Very creepy.
28 Days Later was great...not zombies...but very fast...very angry people...and a plausible plot. I agree though...slow zombies increase the creepy factor. It works for The Walking Dead, and in many films.
It's really genuinely creepy. It harkens back to the classic Zombie stuff of the late 70's, but still feels like a modern film. Ranks up there with 28 DAYS for quality and freak factor.
I've got it, Zombie Vampire Sadists who sparkle when they're not rotting. It can't fail I tellz ya. Gimme 300 mill and I'll make us all a fortune.
I saw it yesterday (in 3-D). I give it a 7 out of 10 (with 10 being excellent). My first take is that 3-D sucks and hasn't changed since 1988. My second take is that the plot is far more simplistic that "The Walking Dead". In the last episode of the first season of The Walking Dead, there was a very plausible explanation of "zombie-ism". World War Z misses the context entirely. Yes, I get the concept of perpetuity of existence through infection. However, why would one "virus" or "bacteria" view an alternate "virus" or "bacteria" as acceptable and not try to eliminate it? It is an absurd notion of cooperation among deadly diseases. Do tigers and lions hang out at bars and discuss killing tactics? I didn't think so.
I started the thread, so I should include a review since I've seen the movie now. I give it 7 out of 10 with 10 designated as the highest value. Brad Pitt, whose laid back acting style, works well as the lead character...the action is seamless, with a few frame rate issues here and there...not much blood as it's PG-13, but plenty of destruction. These are fast zombies in more ways than one. Once bitten, after about 12 seconds the "bitee" turns...and the CGI effect of the turning is quite good...once a "zombie" the quest for healthy flesh becomes unabated. I thought the ending was a bit weak, and left me shrugging..."that's it?" All in all, for Summer escapism...and being in a nice cool, dark place with a soda and box of popcorn... for two hours there are worse things one can invest the time and money in watching. Not ground breaking in terms of plot or social commentary for the zombie genre...but a solid action movie interspersed with moments of true intensity. For those expecting the level of gore "The Walking Dead" delivers on...this movie was aimed at a wide demographic including minor children..so it's toned down a bit...almost has a censored feel to it at times. Still, I don't feel ripped off...or particularly enlightened..at the end of the movie. Realizing the review is rather vague, I don't like giving away too much of the plot to those who have not seen the film, but intend to at some point. If you like the zombie genre, it won't disappoint. I'll say again. 7 outta 10
actually ligers are way more real than zombies since even outside the zoo a zombie doesn't exist. I do get your point tho.
I haven't seen it yet but I intend to do so asap. Thanks to Herkdriver for the thread and the review. I have heard that it wasn't much good and that it was going to sink. Some evidence of that was seen when Brad Pitt attended the Sydney opening. It's not unusual for a film which is not doing too well overseas to have its stars come to Australia for the first screening to give it a boost. Well Brad did himself proud in Sydney, nicely avoiding all the usual patronising stuff about being here and gave quite a few spontaneous interviews in which he demonstrated that he is not up himself. A huge plus. As well the reviewers here gave it some favourable comments. I note that it has opened well in North America and I think it will do very well around the globe. Sure it's going to have minor faults but I think it will be a good film, I'll try to post a review after I've seen it. I wonder though, that some commentators don't understand that a film doesn't have to have a deep and meaningful, that it can be just good, solid entertainment. I remember the fuss when Prometheus was released (saw it, enjoyed it immensely) and the apparent letdown felt by many. What did they expect? It wasn't a documentary revealing the secrets of the creation of the universe for crying out loud. Anyway even as I type I am reading reports that it's going so well there could be a sequel. Okay, just as long as it doesn't turn into a franchise. - - - Updated - - - Star Trek - Into Darkness - was bloody brilliant and I'm not a big ST fan.
I thought the book was terrible. It was just a bunch of "short stories" that were different people's recollections of the recent Zombie Wars. A lot of the "stories" started out of nowhere and went nowhere. The best one was the story/recollection that told about the dogs who were able to sniff out the zombies and then help kill them. I'm not a big fan of short stories so a zombie book/movie about different people who never meet and who's only tie in to each other was the fact that they went through the zombie infestation and survived made for some very long and boring reading. In fact, a book that would normally take me 4 hours to read took me over a week to finish and I only finished it because I'm stubborn and will NOT put down a book once I've begun to read it. I guess if someone paid my way to to go see it, I'd watch it but I wouldn't go into the movie theater with the idea I was going to see a GREAT or even an entertaining zombie film.
I actually thought two b grade zombie films were quite good. "Abraham Lincoln and the Zombies" and "Zombie Apolcylpse(sp). The latter really surprised me in that nobody died stupidly. Every death was believable instead of somebody doing something you just shake your head at and groan. I have decided that I really like the actress Taryn Manning also. And the idea to have the dogs infected was absolutely brilliant. This was a b class zombie movie that didn't insult my intelligence. And it was the same with Abraham Lincoln and the Zombies.I had just finished seeing Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter so I wasn't expecting anything but a film to play as background noise with "AL and the Zombies" but it was a lot better than I thought it would be. I don't remember who played Abe Lincoln in this film but he did an excellent job. Even though there were a few cheesy parts, the actor never broke character and he acted the way I would expect Abe to act throughout the film. If you get the chance to see either of these films...give them a try and then let me know if you liked them as well as I did.
I saw the film, I enjoyed it immensely and I'd see it again no problem. It was far better than its detractors suggested. But then I'm no film expert, I just enjoy the entertainment and I have to admit that I like really big explosions in films.
I haven't read the book, but from what you describe, the movie did not fit that format at all. I've heard that it deviated quite a bit from the book.
