World War Z

123457

Comments

  • Dave1979Dave1979 Posts: 1,804
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    MrSuper wrote: »
    Nah, we're just an awesome city! :D :cool:

    Especially if you want a post apoloyptic look. Wasnt Perfect Sense filmed there too?

    Also they had to use Glasgow to look like Edinburgh in the 80s in Trainspotting.

    Not that I am from Edinburgh or anything :p
  • Trsvis_BickleTrsvis_Bickle Posts: 9,202
    Forum Member
    Funny bit in Private Eye this week about the problems they've had in marketing this film. The usual practice of plastering quotes from critics on the marketing material has proved particularly challenging, given the terrible reviews it's had - zero stars from the FT. However the word 'spectacular' was mined from Total Film's review. To give it context, the actual quote was 'Sorely lacking in heart (and with it, any genuine sense of danger)...hectic, deafening, empty but oh-so-spectacular'.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,488
    Forum Member
    Funny bit in Private Eye this week about the problems they've had in marketing this film. The usual practice of plastering quotes from critics on the marketing material has proved particularly challenging, given the terrible reviews it's had - zero stars from the FT. However the word 'spectacular' was mined from Total Film's review. To give it context, the actual quote was 'Sorely lacking in heart (and with it, any genuine sense of danger)...hectic, deafening, empty but oh-so-spectacular'.

    Except that's bullshit, it's had primarily positive reviews. According to Rotten Tomatoes 67% of reviews have been positive, with an average rating of 6.2. It has a Metacritic score of 62. Good for any film, especially good for a film with the kind of production issues this film had. There's a reason why Private Eye and The Financial Times aren't exactly renowned for their film coverage....

    Also, film companies normally clear quotes with the original author, rather than mining reviews (according to Mark Kermode, who claims he was contacted by eOne after being one a few critics that were positive about Kevin Smith's Red State). So I'd imagine Total Film are more than happy with that exact quote being attributed to them...
  • Trsvis_BickleTrsvis_Bickle Posts: 9,202
    Forum Member
    Except that's bullshit, it's had primarily positive reviews. According to Rotten Tomatoes 67% of reviews have been positive, with an average rating of 6.2. It has a Metacritic score of 62. Good for any film, especially good for a film with the kind of production issues this film had. There's a reason why Private Eye and The Financial Times aren't exactly renowned for their film coverage....


    Also, film companies normally clear quotes with the original author, rather than mining reviews (according to Mark Kermode, who claims he was contacted by eOne after being one a few critics that were positive about Kevin Smith's Red State). So I'd imagine Total Film are more than happy with that exact quote being attributed to them...

    On the contrary: the FT has excellent arts coverage and its critic, Nigel Andrews, has been named critic of the year twice. The metacritic score of 62 is right at the bottom of the 'generally favourable' range - hardly what you'd call good. As for Rotten Tomatoes, its 'critics' include not just professional critics but a whole range of amateur bloggers, many of whom appear to know little about cinema. Certainly, all the prominent UK critics (Philip French, Peter Bradshaw, Mark Kermode, Robbie Collin etc) have been far from complimentary. It's a shame as the film clearly had great potential and Brad Pitt's performance seems to have been very well received.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,488
    Forum Member
    On the contrary: the FT has excellent arts coverage and its critic, Nigel Andrews, has been named critic of the year twice. The metacritic score of 62 is right at the bottom of the 'generally favourable' range - hardly what you'd call good. As for Rotten Tomatoes, its 'critics' include not just professional critics but a whole range of amateur bloggers, many of whom appear to know little about cinema. Certainly, all the prominent UK critics (Philip French, Peter Bradshaw, Mark Kermode, Robbie Collin etc) have been far from complimentary. It's a shame as the film clearly had great potential and Brad Pitt's performance seems to have been very well received.
    The use of the phrase arts implies a level of pretentiousness that means World War Z wouldn't appeal to Mr. Andrews. And judging from the first line of the review ("Another week, another car-crash Hollywood blockbuster"), he was somewhat predisposed to hating it anyway. Sounds like he only enjoys pretentious subtitled movies, perhaps he'd have enjoyed it more if it was in French and people pondered the meaning of life for 20 minutes at a time, multiple times.

    Good is anything favourable (which 67%/6.2/62 certainly is). Whilst not exceptional, it's still a good range to be getting. Especially for a film with massive production difficulties.

    "Far from complimentary" implies they hated it, from what I've seen, most were moderately (if not a bit more) positive, which whist not exceptional is still good. And should have provided more than enough quote fodder if they wanted any.
  • Muttley76Muttley76 Posts: 97,888
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    As for Rotten Tomatoes, its 'critics' include not just professional critics but a whole range of amateur bloggers, many of whom appear to know little about cinema. Certainly, all the prominent UK critics (Philip French, Peter Bradshaw, Mark Kermode, Robbie Collin etc) have been far from complimentary.

    Actually the "top critics" rate it higher overall (72% of top critics rate it fresh). Your post is a classic case of confirmation bias as it the PI article ;)

    It's been moderately well received - that is a fair and balanced summary of the critical response to this film, while yours comes from honing in on a handful of reviewers that share your own view and ignoring all the rest.
  • ironjadeironjade Posts: 10,001
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    As is often the case, Matthew Inman nails it:
    theoatmeal.com/comics/wwz

    :)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,488
    Forum Member
    ironjade wrote: »
    As is often the case, Matthew Inman nails it:
    theoatmeal.com/comics/wwz

    :)

    Some of the reviews I've read (I've not managed to see it yet) said that the social commentary was there, it was just implied, rather than being explicit.

    Though I think that infographic (is that what it's called?) was going for humour rather than accuracy...
  • ironjadeironjade Posts: 10,001
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Some of the reviews I've read (I've not managed to see it yet) said that the social commentary was there, it was just implied, rather than being explicit.

    Though I think that infographic (is that what it's called?) was going for humour rather than accuracy...

    By Jove, I think you're right!:rolleyes:
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,538
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I enjoyed the film, but see it in 2D, it's utterly pointless as a 3D vehicle
  • welwynrosewelwynrose Posts: 33,666
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Saw it tonight, cinema was packed and I really enjoyed it
  • Sez_babeSez_babe Posts: 133,998
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    I'm glad it's doing well :)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,538
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Anyone else think there was more of a screen dynamic between Gerry and Segan, than there was between his utterly pointless wife?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,942
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I really enjoyed it, yes it was nothing like the book but it was just a fun popcorn movie, I thought the zombie attack sequences were really intense and well filmed.
  • Syntax ErrorSyntax Error Posts: 27,735
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    downtonfan wrote: »
    I enjoyed the film, but see it in 2D, it's utterly pointless as a 3D vehicle

    Good advice.

    I refuse to watch a film in 3D if it is available in 2D.
  • Pistol WhipPistol Whip Posts: 9,677
    Forum Member
    Watched this yesterday and really, really enjoyed it. There were only six people in the auditorium including me and my OH. Enjoyed it from start to finish.

    Couldn't help but laugh at the chattering teeth zombie! :D
  • notinnotin Posts: 1,496
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Watched this yesterday in 2D,at least I stayed awake, more than I can say about Men in Black 3! The whole sugar sweet family nucleus got a bit tedious, and the Brad Pitt soulful mouth slightley open look got a little tedious as well, think dear Brad got a little carried away with his own self imprtance on this one. However, I enjoyed the overall effects, story line was a little predictable, didn't appreciate the ignorant youths snigering at the zombies towards the end which ruined the ambiance!, however, as a film experience it was goodish. Not a film that I would watch again at the cinema, but but might bye the DVD or watch when on demand get hold of it.
  • notinnotin Posts: 1,496
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Watched this yesterday and really, really enjoyed it. There were only six people in the auditorium including me and my OH. Enjoyed it from start to finish.

    Couldn't help but laugh at the chattering teeth zombie! :D

    Unfortunately so did the youths in the cinema too... I thought he( he is a really well known actor, cant think who it is) did a great job considering.
  • Virgil TracyVirgil Tracy Posts: 26,805
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    yeah it's okay , there are some good nail-biting scenes , some vg effects , got really annoyed with him calling the wife every 10 minutes .

    I'm trying to figure out how the story was changed , I know there was a whole sequence in Russia cut .
  • AngiBearAngiBear Posts: 2,894
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I wanted to like this a whole lot more than I did. I wanted to be coming out the cinema buzzing and wondering why I could see it again but this feeling just didn't happen.

    I did enjoy WWZ, I do love anything zombie but there was something lacking for me. I know they rewrote the ending and I could see that they may have been wanting to leave this film with an opening for a sequel but it just didn't justify how much I counted the months to see it after seeing George Square transformed to emulate Philadelphia.

    The wife kinda annoyed me, I mean Brad is trying to find a cure for the zombie outbreak but she wants to keep phoning him all the time, I mean the guy is at work being chased by the undead, let him phone you when he has a minute!

    After the plane crash this for me was when the film nosedived a bit and this for me was when they decided to take the film in a different direction. It was like they had all these cool zombie based scenarios and just decided to mash them all up into one film.

    I feel it may have worked better as a two parter. They could have introduced all the characters better, set the scene for us and told us more about Brad's job and why he now wanted to stay at home, they could have had more about how it started and then left the film open for the second part when Brad looked for a cure or ways in which to kill the undead.

    All my own thoughts of course. I didn't not like it, I just wanted to like it much more.
  • brangdonbrangdon Posts: 14,090
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I thought it was OK. I'd give it 6.5/10. I've not read the book so didn't care about that. One of its strengths was showing how inadequate guns would be against masses of fast zombies. It's weaknesses include the general plot, and the stupidity of the characters.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,538
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'd love to watch it again.

    Brad Pitt was better when he was in the facility. The stuff with his wife and kids was forced and tedious. It would have helped if the kids were played by better actors without the predictable dialogue from them.
  • stvn758stvn758 Posts: 19,656
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The CGI was great, shame the story wasn't as impressive. It did as one reviewer noted end up looking like a TV show at the end, I expected someone to yell 'rotters'.

    Loved them scaling the wall, that was seriously impressive.
  • Nattie01Nattie01 Posts: 1,652
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    downtonfan wrote: »
    Anyone else think there was more of a screen dynamic between Gerry and Segan, than there was between his utterly pointless wife?

    Yes! :)
  • Trsvis_BickleTrsvis_Bickle Posts: 9,202
    Forum Member
    Just seen it and I'm really curious about what the original vision was. I can't believe that Brad's agent told him that it would consist of a travelogue where he flies from place to place, escaping from zombies in a series of increasingly improbable ways, pausing only to attempt to phone his wife.

    There were quite a few unintentionally comic moments, amongst them:
    Brad's missus trying to phone him and summoning the undead horde with the ringtone

    Brad chopping the Israeli soldier's hand off to prevent the venom spreading

    In the research lab towards the end, when they turn on the CCTV and mention what happened in B wing, did anyone else think the next line should have been 'Or, as we now call it, zom-B wing'?:D

    Not to mention some rather daft plot holes:
    How did the Latino kid escape from the flat? He's clearly still in there when the zombies break in but not only evades them but somehow climbs over the huge cupboard that Brad has thrown down the staircase.

    Why does the zombie, who has somehow stowed away in a cupboard on the jetliner, wait until the air hostess opens the door before making his presence known?
    I never felt any real sense of tension or impending danger; you always know Brad's going to make it. The intrinsic problem with any zombie flick is that zombies aren't very scary. From that Michael Jackson music video to Romero's films to video games, they've always been inherently rather comical and the stories about them tongue-in-cheek.

    I think that the film failed by not showing enough of the human tragedy which would be behind such an apocalyptic scenario. One tracking shot in Terminator, showing humans reduced to living in rags in hovels, huddled around a fire in an empty TV set told us more about how far humanity had fallen than anything in World War Z. I suspect that, in many ways, the filmmakers were hamstrung by chasing a 15 rating.

    It has piqued my interest in reading the novel but as a film it was very poor. This is a shame as Brad Pitt has delivered some of his best work in the past few years and is at the top of his game.
Sign In or Register to comment.