User reviews

I skipped this when it came out because I was sick of the Zombie theme. This one intrigued me because it was written by Mel Brooks' son, Max; however, not enough to watch it. I was wrong. It is good because it is an action film first, and a Zombie film second. Brad Pitt is very good as an agent living a normal life until the crisis calls him out of his retirement. The cinematography is way too shaky for me and that is my major criticism of the visuals in the movie. The script, dialogue, plot, acting , and directing are all very good. I like this one and it stands out in the swarm of Zombie films.

Let me start off by saying I haven't read the book yet, so I have no idea how they compare. However, this was a pretty good movie overall. Many zombie movies are merely mindless gore and violence disguised within some fragile thing that doesn't even deserve to be called a plot. However, World War Z has a much better plot than most other zombie movies. One thing I noticed right away is that this movie actually made me jump in surprise several times. It's very suspenseful, and truly worthy of being called a "zombie horror movie," as opposed to the plethora of predictable, unsuspenseful zombie movies that have come out of Hollywood. Brad Pitt does a great job in his role, although I felt his character lacked definition in many ways. It would be nice if they had "fleshed out" the characters a bit more.

Overall, this movie is definitely worth the watch if you have a couple hours to spare. Not the best movie ever made, but a pretty good one.

A shocking and fantastic drama with daring scenes of the violent Zombies attacking here and there by domineering the entire world. Entertaining flick packing noisy action , drama , humor , violence with lots of blood and gore , and enjoyable relationship among our starring and a group of motley characters with whom he makes relations . Retired U. N. investigator Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt) , his wife (Mireille Enos) and children are sitting in what seem to be a typical Philadelphia traffic jam when helicopters started to circle ominously overhead and a blow-up throws the city into panic. In the blink of an eye , the streets are consumed by destruction , chaos and mayhem . When Gerry to be aware that the catalyst for the turmoil is a highly contagious virus that transforms those who contract it into rampaging maniacs and that legions of the infected are growing on all continents , he agrees to join his former partners in discovering the source of the rampant plague . As zombie virus has gutted the United States of America as well as other countries and a team of expert heroes -led by Gerry- is formed so that they find the origin of the horrible plague . Eventually , he meets some doctors (Peter Capaldi , Pierfrancesco Favino , Ruth Negga , Moritz Bleibtreu) from a World Health Organization installation . I can't leave my family ! .Where there is life, there is hope !.

Better than average Zombie movie includes hectic action , thrills , chills , gutsy scenes , violent fights and loads of gore . In World War Z (2013) happens a lot of disturbing occurrences with thousands of Zombies toppling armies and governments and threatening to destroy humanity itself , including suspense , intrigue , turns , a lot of twisted incidents , at the same time charged with tension , unflinching depictions of graphic violence and high level staging which the viewer could really enjoy . Several overwhelming scenes , including large-scale battles with the zombies , though some of them were dropped from the final cut in order to water down the film's political undertones . Interesting and nail-biting storyline from Matthew Michael Carnahan and J. Michael Straczynski , though Damon Lindelof and Drew Goddard rewrote the screenplay . Paramount Pictures acquired screen rights to the Max Brooks novel "World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War , as they spent $1 million on the film rights . Lavishly produced by Paramount along with other independient producers as Ian Bryce , David Ellison , Marc Forster , Dede Gardner , Dana Goldberg and Brad Pitt himself . It's a solid film , a terror story plenty of suspense , restless horror, and including a lot of CGI with state-of-art special effects . Brad Pitt -producer as well- gives a splendid acting as former United Nations employee who traverses the world in a race against time to stop a zombie pandemic . He's well accompanied by a good support cast providing brief but decent performances , such as :James Badge Dale , Daniella Kertesz , James Badge Dale , Matthew Fox , Fana Mokoena, David Morse , Elyes Gabel , David Andrews , Peter Capaldi , Pierfrancesco Favino , Ruth Negga , Moritz Bleibtreu , among others .

It displays a stunning and amazing cinematography from Newton Thomas Sigel , Robert Richardson and Ben Seresin . Likewise , a rousing and terrific musical score by Marco Beltrani . The motion picture was competently directed by Marc Foster (Finding Neverland, Monster's Ball , Quantum of Solace , The Kite Runner , All I see Is You , Soldier of God) , delivering action , tension and impressively thrilling scenes .This was the highest-grossing film of Mark Foster and Brad Pitt's careers . Rating : 7.5/10 . Above average . The flick will appeal to Brad Pitt fans . Essential and indispensable watching .

Considering what is happening in the world today, this film takes on a different meaning for me, all the more so because both in the book and in the original version of the script the epidemic has its origin in China not to mention the North Korean thread, which is becoming particularly ominous.

I haven't read the book so I'm not coming from viewing this as an adaptation but rather a stand-alone film. (From what I've heard it's pretty far from the original source anyway.) First off, a zombie film watered-down and free from blood and gore? That idea alone would lose a big slice (pun-intended) of hardcore fans in the audience. How does it hold your attention then? By stringing you along on the edge with tension and suspense from beginning to end. It does a pretty good job of maintaining this grip even without the standard horror elements of slasher flicks.

Brad Pitt easily slips into the role of a family man desperate to keep his family safe. It's not difficult to root for him and share in his urgency. His charm certainly makes up for and saves the movie from its flaws (and there are many!) not the least of which are its gaping plot holes and loose direction.

The audience in the theater seemed to have fun screaming along and allowing themselves to be entertained and toyed with. There are a handful of funny scenes (whether intentional or not). If you're willing to quit analyzing the movie like a critic, you'll probably start enjoying it.

After all, when did a zombie movie ever have to be "BELIEVABLE"?

Out of all of the zombie based films this is one of my favourites, a really good story from a different angle of a specialist rather than a hero with a gun. Brilliant ending as-well which is always a bonus.

World War Z is a zombie outbreak movie that supposedly bases itself on the amazing book of the same name by Max Brooks. What this movie truly is, is a shamefully mediocre attempt to create a movie that appeals to the widest audience possible. Pee established fan base from the book? Check. Star power (this is Brad Pitt)? Check. Focuses on intensity rather than horror and gore to not alienate non zombie fans? Check. Safe, young PG 13 rating? Check. All the makings are here because this is what the big Hollywood studio wanted. Despite the fact this movie doesn't resemble the book at all, it appears that those attached to make this movie tried to make a decent movie such as the visually interesting director Marc Foster who wanted to make a movie with a message which would emulate the tone the book was going for. However, the big studio disliked this and demanded rewrites and re-shooting that damaged the relationship between the director and Brad and results in a quick, intense action movie that lacks the character development and messages it needed to be a truly memorable movie because almost every one of those scenes were cut so much to the point that central characters get barley any lines. While the action scenes are intense and enjoyable on their own and Marc foster adds style to the lack of substance but its just not enough to save this movie. While it is better than it had any right to be thanks to Marc, it needs more and it lacks in crucial substance. However from the reviews and box office reports it appears Hollwood has succeeded in creating a successful marketable movie that everyone will eat up and it will be too late when we all get the nasty aftertaste.....

The world descends into the zombie apocalypse. There is some sort of virus and bitten people are turned into violent creatures. Former UN investigator Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt) is caught up with his wife Karin (Mireille Enos) and family. They manage to escape and Gerry is put to work on finding the origins of the outbreak. This Brad Pitt showcase has many good points. My only main complaint is the PG13 rating which imposes the cartoon zombie action rather than a gore bloody fare.

The action starts right away within 10min. There's no need to misunderstand what this movie is. It's simply a popcorn movie. Although unlike other post-apocalyptic movie, there isn't the standard eerie empty city scenes. The zombie mystery is investigated in a Bond movie fashion. Brad Pitt travels all around the world following leads. It's actually easy to follow and really compelling. It has a good tension filled horror aspect. It's not all big action. You also get good scary parts with dark hallways and stalking dangers.

At the end of World War Z, just as the credits began rolling, a gentleman, scratch that, an idiot spoke up from the back of the theatre exclaiming, "What? That sucked! The book was nothing like that! Booo!" I'm sure he scurried away back home, logged online, and began tweeting, posting, and blogging, furthering his rant. Much like my response to him at the theatre, I hope he receives silence in return.

It's true, World War Z is nothing like the book. The book is told from the point of view AFTER the war. It's a "historical," account of what happened during the war. Rather than make a mockumentary with flashbacks, which would have been the wrong decision in my opinion, the filmmakers decided to put us right in the middle of the action.

When adapting a piece of literature it is impossible to bring every page, every paragraph, every nuance onto the screen. Some have come close depending on the material, but for the most part, they all have to take their own creative licenses. After all, it's called an "adaptation," for a reason, otherwise they would call it a copy or mimic.

Where World War Z works (that's a mouthful) and where so many others fail is that just because the world slips into total and utter chaos, doesn't mean that governments, military, and law enforcement agencies go away. Quite the opposite. If anything, these scenarios bring out the best of all of them. We see generals, UN delegates, and scientists trying to solve complex issues that they don't know anything about. Rather than going into hiding, they act. Society doesn't crumble. Bands of cannibals and leather strapped gangs don't patrol the streets with necklaces made of teeth. People do what they can to survive, and the higher ups try their best to find a fast and effective solution.

At first, I thought the movie started too fast. How could something this violent and concentrated go undetected, but after a while I got it. The opening montage of news reports said it all. How many of us listen to everything we hear on the news? Exactly. So much goes undetected while we focus on issues that effect us immediately. It's too late when the virus touches US soil. Not even social media can keep up with it.

As far as zombie movies go this one is pretty great. Though I think 28 Days Later takes the cake in terms of realism, in-camera effects, and sheer terror, this one holds its own. Brad Pitt plays a former UN investigator who is traveling with his family just as the zombie attack on Philadelphia unfolds. The film goes from 0-60 before you take a sip of your Coke. This is a fast paced, edge of your seat thrill ride led by one of the finest actors of this generation (Pitt's acting ability is far too underrated and lost in the kerfuffle of tabloid news).

For those of you who stare at the ticket window debating whether or not to see a film in 3D or standard, you might want to spend the extra few dollars to see this one in 3D (I know it's asking a lot, but maybe you can sneak some candy or a bottle of water to offset the concession stand price - deal with it). I tend to air on the side of "screw it, I want to see it in 3D." Now not every movie NEEDS to be seen in 3D, hell there are really only a couple that absolutely have to be seen in all three dimensions (Avatar and maybe Life of Pi), but this one really surprised me. 3D is not about things jumping out at you, but it's about layers. Luckily this film has both. Big chase scenes in Philly, particles floating about in South Korea, and tracking shots in Jerusalem make this one of the 3D events of the year. No exaggeration.

Like so many other summer blockbusters before it, civilization is on the brink of extinction and only a handful of experts can save us. What World War Z does that so many have failed is give us hope. Hope that humanity won't dissolve into nothingness. In the face of sheer danger these fighters stand tall, take a deep breath, look the enemy in the eye, and say, "No."

United Nations employee Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt) traverses the world in a race against time to stop the Zombie pandemic that is toppling armies and governments, and threatening to destroy humanity itself.

Classifying this as a "zombie" movie is much the same as calling "21 Days Later" a zombie movie. The categorization is not wrong, but kit changes what we typically think of when we mean zombies. These are not lumbering oafs. These are lightning-fast creatures that seem to have some sort of collective intelligence, like a colony of bees. Their abilities (most notably climbing walls) are foreign to what zombies are.

Also, this should be seen as an action film first, horror film second, which seems to be the case any time Hollywood has millions of dollars to burn on a zombie film. See, for example, "I Am Legend". If you are looking to see Brad Pitt survive car accidents and plane crashes while traveling around the world (South Korea, Israel, Wales) this is a fine film. But if you want some scares or a film that embodies "survival horror", you will not get what you want.

Probably the most clever thing about this was the referral of zombies as "rakshasa", a Hindu demon that feeds on human flesh. Maybe this has already been covered in Bollywood, but it seems that the concept is rather new here. The zombies (or infected) in this film are not actually rakshasa, but it does raise the question: where are Hindu demons in the horror film? If we can have Onibaba and other Asian creatures, why not something from a country with over one billion people? But this is a bit of a sidetrack...

Anyway, good film if you want big budget action and Brad Pitt fighting computer-generated undead while sporting the greasiest hair since Kid Rock. Bad film if you want slow, lumbering Romero zombies. But to each his own, I guess.

The story of how World War Z was made is a lot more harrowing and suspenseful than the film itself. After going way over-budget and enduing a complete revision and reshoot of the final act, WWZ wasn't exactly set up for success. Ultimately the movie is completely forgettable and uneven, but not offensively bad or objectively terrible in any sense. What struck me about it was how much of a wasted opportunity it was, given how interesting and entertaining the source material is.

Having read the book World War Z, I could tell from the trailers for this movie that it wouldn't exactly be a faithful adaptation. I thought that the most interesting aspects of the book were its exploration of how the Zombie plague affected social and political structures across the world. Anything like that is completely ignored in the film, but I can at least understand how the filmmakers thought that those aspects wouldn't work in a single feature length movie. What I can't understand is how the filmmakers seemingly ignored the book's most obviously cinematic content. The book features a lot of setpiece action scenes, and to be fair, many of these involve world cities falling to zombie infestation and the movie does do enough to cover this. However, the book's immense battle scenes - the meat of the titular Zombie War, such as the Battle of Yonkers, nuclear war between Pakistan and Iran, Chinese civil war and massive formation combat against zombies - are completely absent. I was very surprised that they did not cover these, especially the Yonkers scene, because they would obviously fit so well into a film and the script, even as it is now, could easily be tweaked to include or at least mention them. The action that did make it into this film is very unsatisfying and obscure thanks to the restrictions of the PG-13 rating, and the narrative around is not engaging enough to really get me invested in it.

I was also surprised at how cheap this movie looked. This film cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make, but it's hard to see where it all went on the screen. Swarms of zombies look very fake and nonthreatening, and in some cases individual zombies are computer animated, which gave me bad flashbacks to I Am Legend's awful CGI overload. Aside from the opening scenes in Philadelphia and the middle act in Jerusalem, there are no big outdoor sets. A South Korean airbase is portrayed as a series of dark rooms; too much of the movie takes place in an airline seat; there is a lot of sitting around inside of the aircraft carrier, etc. The sense of scale is very inconsistent, and this is accentuated in the bizarre final act, which was obviously the focus of the infamous reshoots as it feels like a completely separate movie. I consider myself a patient viewer, but this very long and dull scene started to bring me down after a while, and my less patient viewing audience eventually fell completely out of sync with the film and began to make fun of it at every opportunity - not really a fair criticism of the film, but it's a real issue when it can't hold an audience's attention. The final act does actually have an interesting idea at its heart, albeit one that completely doesn't connect with anything in the book, but I just didn't think it was a well executed concept. The very different style and tone of these scenes makes it feel like a completely different movie.

Again, while there was nothing all that terrible about WWZ, I didn't think it was anything to get excited about. In other words, a perfect 5/10 movie. I wish they were more aware of the source material's potential because without the best and most cinematic aspects of the book, WWZ (the film)and WWZ (the book) only share a title and the central premise of a zombie plague, which is not an original idea in itself.

Brad Pitt gets billing as the main star of "World War Z", but the real stars are the zombies. It's a very intense movie, focusing on the world's response after a virus starts turning millions into the living dead. North Korea figures out an inventive, if gruesome, method of how to prevent the virus from spreading within its borders. But the zombies are definitely the stars. They turn out to be really clever creatures, as seen by what they do in Israel. Watching just about any zombie movie, I always get the feeling that the people playing the zombies must have the most fun.

I will say that this is no George Romero movie. It's designed more for widespread popularity, while Romero's movies are specifically for horror fans (and thus are gorier). But it's not a bad movie. OK, not great.

Finally, after years of facing difficulty with production and resources, World War Z has come our way, and it promises an epic and grandeur scale. The film definitely contains most of the elements fans have always desired in a zombie movie; it actually mixes horror, suspense, and action all in one movie. One act transpires underneath the roofs of a daunting apartment building when another act takes the audience across the world to Israel where the people left are forced to defend themselves against a monstrously colossal horde of zombies as they pile in. There are jump-scares. There are grisly and highly unfortunate deaths.

Anyways, the film focuses on Brad Pitt's character (Gerry Lane) who's required to assist the UN with discovering a possible vaccine/cure to the horrifying virus that's spreading throughout the world and turning human beings into ghastly creatures. If he refuses to comply, they'll willingly kick his entire family off a tanker- one of the few safe locations left in the world. From there on, Gerry Lane is forced to transcend country after country in order to secure his family's safety and possibly save humanity. A hell of a lot is at stake, that's for sure.

Now, I can definitely state that one of the best aspects of the film is its acting, especially Brad Pitt's, which, as usual, doesn't disappoint. One can clearly witness the fear and terror present in almost every character's eyes, as well as one specific character quite convincingly pulling off the feeling of sheer pain under horrendous circumstances.

With that being said, the very beginning of the film starts off a little bizarrely as the pace seems to suffer. With the running time that the movie possesses, such a rich and complex story is compacted to fit its duration, which means right off the bat, we're met with the apocalypse and the zombie outbreak. We only receive a few minutes, if that, of the main family's daily lives until they're cast into the conflict almost instantly. As a result, conversations feel extremely and oddly brief and segments that could've been expanded on feel like they're set on "fast forward" in order to get to the "point." This means that there's much less space for character development and characterization in general, and zombie movies (or we can say Horror movies as a whole) definitely need to spend some time on their characters so that the audience is able to connect with them and feel for them as they progress on their journey. When they feel fear, we have to feel fear for them as well. Unfortunately, as this is largely a Hollywood blockbuster and not something like 28 Weeks Later, the film has to reach the action-packed bits as soon as possible.

And this is when the film will cause a fair amount of decisiveness- the audience who read the book will approach the film differently than the ones who've seen the trailers and are just simply interested in the plot that's promised. I've read up on reviews, and most of the negative reviews originate from the individuals who expected an honest- shall I say- adaptation of the book (this is exactly the issue that faced The Great Gatsby or any other adaptation for that matter). I haven't read the book, which means I don't need to furiously rant about the film's disconnection from its novelistic counterpart. If you haven't read the book, you have no reason to worry about potential disappointment; that's practically reserved for the book's fans. If you're a book fan, on the other hand, you should be expecting the two's differentiation from one another.

So, to put it most understandably, if you're entering this movie the way it was marketed, you'll experience a wild, roller-coaster ride that's fairly effective in its capability of featuring some dramatic moments of diplomatic negotiations and political discussions over the world's collapse and then placing you into intensely impossible situations only to be followed by an incredibly suspenseful, nerve-wracking sequence. It's highly entertaining…however, it's the furthest from originality a film can get. I mean, it's yet another zombie movie, dealing with the entire world under a deadly zombie virus. You've basically seen everything in this movie already as 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later highlighted the serious effects of such an event already. In that case- during its first act- World War Z feels unbelievably similar to the two films mentioned above. Especially considering the decision to exclude the more political aspect of the novel and turning the adaptation into an action flick instead, there's not much here that'll bask in uniqueness, really.

This all begs the question: how much longer will these numerous entertainment industries create zombie stories after zombie stories? It's time to move on to another fascinating idea. Leave the genre alone, but then again, as long as these studios continue to rake in millions, they'll continually produce the same product. In the end, World War Z is a fun, entertaining night out, but if you can't make it to the showing, don't feel too bad because you've most likely seen everything displayed in this film already.

Brad Pitt's return to guy flicks is well intended but it does not live up to the high expectations associated with a Pitt film, nor does it do justice to the film's source material.

World War Z, based on the bestselling novel of the same name by Max Brooks, follows former U.N. employee Gerry Lane as he scours the globe in search of the cure for a zombie plague.

The story perhaps had good intentions and big ambitions during initial drafts but I suppose due to rewrites and editing, this was lost. There was nothing overly special with it but it was not by any means a bad movie. The effects and acting were good, and the plot was fine. For a movie where the main plot point is to search the globe for patient zero and discover the cure to save humanity, one would think there would be some sense of urgency; however, this was not conveyed. The urgency in each situation was there, but for the overall film it seemed he was merely doing his normal, day-to-day job.

One issue that has resonated with me is Matthew Fox. As a fan of Lost, I was excited to see him in the movie, but his role is very small, useless, and that of a nameless actor. Perhaps originally he had more of a role and ended up being cut. Fox could have been cut to seem like a cameo appearance or cut altogether but he ended up as nameless "Parajumper." Hopefully DVD extras or a sequel will flesh out this awkwardly placed actor.

For a zombie movie the director, Marc Forster, played it far too safe. There was very little in terms of gore, blood and violence, which made for a disappointing horror and zombie movie. The previews also gave the impression that World War Z was an action movie but all action is shown in the preview, which could be disappointing for action movie fans.

Like many similar movies, we are expected to suspend reality that the hero can face so many obstacles and come out the other side while many sidekicks are lost; this is no different. I am okay with this though, I enjoy the ridiculousness of it anyways. The children in this movie though should have gotten him killed right off the bat, further cementing the idea to drop the kids in the event of zombie apocalypse. They were overly annoying and needy, even for children.

Now, in comparison to the book, of which I am a huge fan, it is even more of a let down. The book is an amazing novel that examines both the brutality and compassion of humanity in times of war. It examines different people from all over the world before, during and after the "Zombie War." It is more than just another zombie book. Perhaps due to time constraints, budgets, editing or any other number of reasons, the core of the story is lost. The idea of a U.N. investigator travelling the world and the recounts of Israel are the only aspects of the film that resemble the source material. Hopefully Forster is given the opportunity to make the trilogy he imagined and attempt to redeem himself, but due to the problems with the first movie, this seems unlikely.

Although this review may seem like I disliked the movie, I actually found it to be quite enjoyable. I am simply very disappointed that the filmmakers made another race against the clock movie, even though it had so much potential to be thought-provoking and original. If only Danny Boyle was behind it; we could have had one of the greatest zombie movie ever created.

World War Z was my biggest let down of the year so far. After a great weekend that included Man of Steel and This Is The End, I would suggest passing on it in favor of these more enjoyable movies. I would suggest seeing it at some point as it is a good movie, but it does not need to be on the big screen or in 3D.

From the blog: tilfilmdouspart.blogspot.com

I recently re-watched this movie. I had forgotten how good it is. Unlike most zombie movies that tend to focus on a small, isolated group under threat. Typically, one or more of this group are mentally unhinged which adds to the suspense, but that set up has been a cliche for decades now.

WWZ takes the opposite approach. It takes the mile high view through the eyes of one scientist, who travels the globe trying to solve the dilemma.

The action pieces are imaginative and large scale. Interestingly, the final sequence is scaled right back down to the handful of isolated people for contrast.

It's interesting to read of all the behind-the-scenes troubles that plagued the making of this movie. In spite of it all, it all came together to create a very gritty and entertaining movie.

I would like to see a sequel to this movie. Pitt's character could put in an appearance, but it could be about a completely new group of people. This movie certainly left that possibility open, but it doesn't look like it's ever going to happen.

Simple and typical may be what I may describe this movie. World War Z is good enough not to fall on the classification of lousy or awful. At least it does not drag; the movie is engaging and never ever slows down to cause the slightest bit of boredom. At best, it feels like what I imagine would be a perfectly well-made zombie video game adaptation. I'm sure that the movie has some intellectual or subliminal message hidden in and around the movie, or whatever message the writers want to convey. Whatever it may be, we could not really notice that since the pace of the film is fast and hyperactive. But at least it's never chaotic and messy.

On the horror aspect, it effectively does generate some screams and shouts. The scares are moderately efficient, and the zombies do indeed manage to be horrifying, even though they did not need to be extra disgusting and/or gory.

Although this may be considered as a zombie movie, it never crosses beyond its PG-13 rating. Meaning, it does not have the usual gore and violence other zombies have. Whatever violence the movie has is never focused or highlighted. It's a horror movie that may be considered "pretty safe" for a younger audience.

The problem with World War Z is that it's blown its wad by showing some of the best money shots of the movie on its trailer. The flooding stampede of zombies is the film's most impressive and unique eye candy. We've already seen fast zombies, we've also already seen extra-strong zombies (in "I Am Legend" they're not exactly zombies, but they have similarities with the zombies in this movie), but we've never seen them like this, the way World War Z presents them. On one point of view, it's refreshingly unique, on another point of view; it's a childish, over-bloated exaggeration of the concept.

But the flooding, stampeding zombies; that's the movie's one ace card. Aside from that, the movie is pretty simple horror suspense. What happens in the end is not your typical summer blockbuster climax scene; there's nothing extraordinary, like a big boss fight of some kind. With the way it was executed in the end, it felt like an indie horror movie.

But just because it has a quiet ending, it does not mean that it was a bad movie. The ending is consistent and fluid. It's not something impossible, incredible, explosive, or cartoonish. It's simple, and it makes sense that way in a manner consistent with the movie's tone. Overall, World War Z is a moderately good zombie movie; entertaining enough to be worth your money and time. But you will not be missing out on anything if you happen to skip it.

I'm honestly surprised by the bad reviews on this site for this film. I've seen my fair share of zombie movies and this is my favourite. I've watched it a good 10 times and it doesn't take the fear away. The thought behind it that there is a was to defeat this disease is brilliant, as is the acting. I also love 28 days later and class is as the same type of zombie horror movie. I loved it.

Oh, Hollywood. You saw the zombie apocalypse coming didn't you? Not a literal apocalypse of course, just 16 dozen different zombie books, graphic novels, games and TV shows taking over the world like the plague, and you just had to have your piece of the pie, didn't you?

World War Z is based on the 2006 novel by Max Brooks. The novel garnered some quite positive reviews, praised for its international and political scope. It also caught the eye of producer and star Brad Pitt, who after a long struggle with studios, directors, producers and other Hollywood zombies, managed to put together a half decent movie with director Marc Forster.

Half decent? Well, WWZ certainly isn't a bad movie. You've got the long-time Oscar-deserving Pitt playing Gerry Lane, a likable, good-looking family man who retired as a UN investigator to spend more time around his wife and daughters. This is all about to change obviously, because after the now seemingly mandatory news-footage-montage introduction, Gerry is called back by the UN in exchange for his family's safety on their big boat.

It sounds good enough, but the problem is that WWZ's political/international context is nowhere to be found so we're left pretty much to 28 Days Later with blockbuster pretentiousness. Sure, Gerry travels around the world and makes a few long distance phone calls, but there's never anything remotely compelling enough to warrant his travels and whenever the plot does manage to come close to something it quickly sets it aside in the interest of keeping this summer blockbuster light, family friendly and internationally marketable.

After Quantum of Solace there was much uncertainty about Forster's ability to direct action and after WWZ, guess what? There still is. Granted, it's never boring, but when the other elements that should've made the film aren't there it should be more than "never boring". Paramount's marketing certainly didn't help; if you've seen the trailers then you've seen the whole plot and LITERALLY every single action set piece, in chronological order too. You know when you see a trailer and think "they put all the good parts in"? Well, this time they put the whole movie in. The more hardcore genre fans might also want to look elsewhere if they're seeking gory zombie kills; there isn't much of that either as its PG-13 rating might suggest.

Brad Pitt is really the film's only strength. Much like Tom Cruise, Brad's got enough talent to singlehandedly pull you through a not-so-great movie without you hating him for it. And at almost age 50 you can't really blame him for wanting to star in his own big blockbuster franchise for the first time in his career when he could've played any superhero he wanted years ago. "Franchise" of course, if permitted by the audience, because this is one movie that desperately wants to have sequels.

A good movie with many intense moments, a great plot, and stellar acting. The only downside to this movie is that it is not an original movie-it is one of hundreds of apocalyptic zombie films.