The Trek BBS

The Trek BBS (http://www.trekbbs.com/index.php)
-   Science Fiction & Fantasy (http://www.trekbbs.com/forumdisplay.php?f=15)
-   -   World War Z ratings/spoilers (http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=217219)

DarthTom June 19 2013 05:02 PM

World War Z ratings/spoilers
 
I haven't seen it yet but am looking forward this Friday - interesting that Dirty Rotten Tomatoes has it at a 74% which is much higher than Man of Steel at 55%

World War Z ratings

Also, if mod would add a poll/grading sysem please - I don't know how to work that funciton. Thanks.

Several critics really liked the film despite some of the early speculation that it would be terrible:

Movie critic from BET
Quote:

Zombies in Philly, zombies in Jerusalem - even zombies in the projects of Newark! Innovative and terrifying - 'World War Z' is arguably the best zombie film since 1968's 'Night of the Living Dead.'
Quote:

Not "the ultimate zombie movie." But quite good, and the opening 25 minutes will leave you breathless.
And Rex Reed who typically hates everything says:

Quote:

Robustly mounted, magnificently photographed and bone-crunchingly terrifying, World War Z towers above every other alleged summer blockbuster. It's the real deal.
BTW for compasion purposes here's what Reed said about Man of Steel

[

trekkiebaggio June 21 2013 05:35 PM

Re: World War Z ratings/spoilers
 
I found it very disappointing. My review is here but my main gripe is that it really didn't live up to its potential. I mean it had the opportunity to explore the world and show zombies in different locations, but the climax happens in a small, almost deserted lab in Wales? C'mon, how disappointing. Especially because you can see that sort of thing in any zombie movie, and with more gore.

I did like the first part of the movie, and the swarm on Jerusalem was cool. I also liked the way they 'camouflaged' themselves. I can't remember seeing that method before (and I haven't read the book for years so I can't remember if it's in that or not).

Sagart June 21 2013 11:07 PM

Re: World War Z ratings/spoilers
 
On the whole, I enjoyed it. Yes, it should have been more epic, more truly global and well, war-like. I think the structure of the book would have worked, at least as a framing device but I enjoyed what we got. Not great but not the train wreck I expected from its difficult production. I'd give it 5/10.

Admiral Buzzkill June 22 2013 05:05 AM

Re: World War Z ratings/spoilers
 
Rex Reed is an ugly sore on the entertainment industry. It's a shame that Ebert's gone and we still have to endure Reed. Ptui.

With a 55 million dollar opening weekend it's a given fact that World War Z will not earn a profit for Paramount on its first-run domestic release, but it's not a John Carter style catastrophe either.

Tosk June 22 2013 05:13 AM

Re: World War Z ratings/spoilers
 
Man, I was really hoping that this one would bomb hard. Moderate-to-good box office won't help teach them a lesson. :(

Admiral Buzzkill June 22 2013 05:14 AM

Re: World War Z ratings/spoilers
 
I suspect the lesson you want to teach them is not one they need to learn, anyway.

Tosk June 22 2013 05:24 AM

Re: World War Z ratings/spoilers
 
I don't want to teach them, I want the masses to teach them. I was hoping the whole "buy a property and change it almost completely" thing would backfire on them. They could have made this film with a different title and left WWZ for someone else to adapt more faithfully.

FreezeC77 June 22 2013 12:39 PM

Re: World War Z ratings/spoilers
 
I haven't watched it yet, but I really enjoyed reading the review in my local paper (Philly Daily News) which basically was along the lines of how the entire movie everyone is going out of their way to save/rescue/imperil their lives all to protect the life of Brad Pitt.

Admiral Buzzkill June 22 2013 03:32 PM

Re: World War Z ratings/spoilers
 
Quote:

Tosk wrote: (Post 8282830)
I don't want to teach them, I want the masses to teach them. I was hoping the whole "buy a property and change it almost completely" thing would backfire on them. They could have made this film with a different title and left WWZ for someone else to adapt more faithfully.

As I suspected - that's not a worthy lesson. It's one they'd have learned eighty years ago if it was worth a damn.

bigdaddy June 22 2013 03:59 PM

Re: World War Z ratings/spoilers
 
I'm still hoping we get a TV show of WWZ and J. Michael Straczynski has something to do with it being that his script was reviewed and pretty much called a masterpiece that could have been nominated for movie of the year.

Cutter John June 22 2013 08:26 PM

Re: World War Z ratings/spoilers
 
Quote:

Tosk wrote: (Post 8282830)
I don't want to teach them, I want the masses to teach them. I was hoping the whole "buy a property and change it almost completely" thing would backfire on them. They could have made this film with a different title and left WWZ for someone else to adapt more faithfully.

You're talking about the same masses who've made Michael Bay a household name, right?

Admiral2 June 23 2013 12:55 AM

Re: World War Z ratings/spoilers
 
I'm not going to get into the change the property debate cause I ain't never read the book. I comment solely on the movie as a zombie movie, and in that case I found it cool and imaginative. If it bombs, fine. I've seen it, I liked it, and that just means I can buy the DVD sooner.

Trekker4747 June 23 2013 02:53 AM

Re: World War Z ratings/spoilers
 
Just got back from it. I don't feel like doing a full write up on it, but I'd grade it a B+. I liked it more than I thought I would, it had a lot of good moments in it and actually made me interested in spite of me quickly losing interest in the zombie genre of films. I've not read the source material but from what I understand there's a LOT more this movie could have explored, possibly in a series of movies. But as a one-off it worked.

Here's a question? Did the camouflage infection have to be deadly? As-in "this will fuck you over" deadly? Hell, the FLU can be deadly, why not give yourself that? Because while it's deadly it's also entirely treatable for a healthy person. Did it have to be something less treatable like meningitis or something like that? Also, I would hope the WHO stores and labels their vials of deadly viruses, diseases and bacterias better than "Yeah, don't take one from cabinet C."

foxhot June 23 2013 02:56 AM

Re: World War Z ratings/spoilers
 
Quote:

Admiral Buzzkill wrote: (Post 8282788)

With a 55 million dollar opening weekend it's a given fact that World War Z will not earn a profit for Paramount on its first-run domestic release, but it's not a John Carter style catastrophe either.

Just about any major US film with a modicum of ambition's going to earn less here than a more commercial competitor. (L.A CONFIDENTIAL vs. TITANIC, just to name one example.) It also could be why STID's ''shades of grey'' made slightly less than its 2009 predecessor. Sometimes, such as in THE DEPARTED, you get depth AND good grosses.

But I'd rather see a great American film stay great than sell out for higher grosses. WORLD WAR Z holds up well for not churning out the standard monthly zombie tactics. Its ending is also commendably different, even though it's meant to set up a sequel. If the film's outstanding, there's no shame in undergrossing in America. Let's hope GROWN-UPS 2 will...but I doubt it.

Control Voice June 23 2013 03:04 AM

Re: World War Z ratings/spoilers
 
It was acceptable entertainment.
Nothing special.
Brad Pitt was better than expected, but the newcomer playing the female soldier accompanying Pitt in the last half makes quite an impression.
The ending seems to be saying 'to be continued...'


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:23 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.