atm it's 66%, you need to wait until you have a good number of reviews in before using RT as a barometer and a point of comparison to other films. Most films will start higher than they end up. Iron Man 3, after all, was in the high 80's after early reviews came in before settling in the high 70's,
As I said, I enjoyed the film, but it's not going to be touching Iron Man 3 critically or commercially (though it's not really a great point of comparison in any case). Given all the sh*t that was hurled at this film, WB will be delighted to break even or make a small profit once marketing costs are factored in.
Personally, I doubt that. It's being released by Paramount...
Saw it last night, decent enough felt like a generic zombie movie directed by Roland Emmerich. The best bits are all in the trailer and it does have some (unintentionally) funny moments. Not on a par with either of the 28 movies or the Dawn of the Dead remake but a fun turn your brain off and don't nitpick movie.
Ive noticed Odeon only seem to be showing this movie in 3d this week if you check the showtimes on the website. Much like Dredd last year, if so it will stop me seeing it.
Odeon at Broadway Plaza in Birmingham is showing it in 2D and 3D Isense.
I personally thought it was a bad movie. As a reader of the book it just didn't deserve to be related.
The full title of the book is 'World war Z an oral history of the zombie war', and IMO if they had done the movie more in a documentary OR semi documentary style and kept at least fairly accurate to the books plot it coulda been so much more of a winner. Oh, and of course given it a mature/18 rating. It would have been a brave step for the film makers I know, but IMO would have worked.
To people who have not read the book, I'd say do so and then see what you think.
Is there a particular reason, outside of lazily and cheaply using the American voice over, why this is being trailed as World War Zee and not Zed outside the US? Are the events of the film refereed to as WWZee onscreen?
As I said, I enjoyed the film, but it's not going to be touching Iron Man 3 critically or commercially (though it's not really a great point of comparison in any case). Given all the sh*t that was hurled at this film, WB will be delighted to break even or make a small profit once marketing costs are factored in.
It obviously wont be doing Iron Man 3 numbers, but it's actually really overperforming expecations in the US (and other markets) this weekend. Paramount were lowballing their estimates for a high $30 million/low $40 million weekend, and it's on track to pull in $63 million, which is the highest opening of Brad Pitt's career:eek: Sounds like all the talk of behind the scenes chaos hasn't put off Joe Public.
It obviously wont be doing Iron Man 3 numbers, but it's actually really overperforming expecations in the US (and other markets) this weekend. Paramount were lowballing their estimates for a high $30 million/low $40 million weekend, and it's on track to pull in $63 million, which is the highest opening of Brad Pitt's career:eek: Sounds like all the talk of behind the scenes chaos hasn't put off Joe Public.
Another thing to take note is that horror films historically do not make that much money - especially on opening day/weekend. So the $50 million to $60 milliion opening is nearly unheard of for a genre film - especially one about zombies. Very impressive.
It obviously wont be doing Iron Man 3 numbers, but it's actually really overperforming expecations in the US (and other markets) this weekend. Paramount were lowballing their estimates for a high $30 million/low $40 million weekend, and it's on track to pull in $63 million, which is the highest opening of Brad Pitt's career:eek: Sounds like all the talk of behind the scenes chaos hasn't put off Joe Public.
yeah, but on top of the $200m to make the film, the promotion costs are reported to be anything up to another $200m, meaning it will still have to make around $400m world wide to make a profit. Things definitely look a lot more rosy now than a few months back when it looked like being this years John Carter, but I'd still say 550-600 is the upper end to what it can do world wide, which would be a (relatively) small profit, but a good result all things considered for sure.
I'm pleased for the film to do better than expected, as in spite of the obvious rewrites in the second half of the movie, it's still a very solid film. All concerned did well to pull it back from the brink of disaster.
I saw this earlier today and loved it! I don't really like zombie films but this is done really well and the acting is brilliant. I couldn't take my eyes off the screen in some scenes it was so intense.
I just saw it and wasn't very impressed, it's by no means a bad film, but it's pretty average and could have been so much better had it not been toned down for a PG-13 rating, if ever a film needed to be an R rating then this was it, the camera shyness when it comes to the violence borders on the laughable (especially in a scene where Brad Pitt chops off someone's hand and there's no impact at all, and again when he buries a crowbar in a zombies head with barely any impact shown of felt). The direction of the film by Marc Forster is pretty terrible in places (just like his direction for Quantum of Solace), particularly when it came to disguising anything even remotely violent, he just seems to shake the camera around like he's having a fit, and it's not even in a Bourne-esque way, it's literally like he's just shaking the camera like a child having a hissy fit...
The story itself leaves a lot to be desired too, it's basically 2 hours of Brad Pitt going from one country to another, talking with someone about the virus, and then getting attacked by zombies before escaping. That scenario is repeated at least 3 times, it begins to feel almost like a video game where Brad is going from level to level. And if that's the rewrite ending, then the original ending must have been atrocious, because the end just leaves you with an "is that it?" feeling...
Despite my complaints, I didn't dislike the film (even though you'd be forgiven for thinking I hated it after reading this post), Brad Pitt was dependably great, it had a few effectively tense moments, and it was great to see a big budget take on a zombie apocalypse with city wide panning shots taking in the devestation caused by the horde, but I just felt that it could be so much better had they got someone better to script it and direct it.
Nobody makes R rated movies any more that aren't from big name directors or franchises*, because they tend not to make that much money. I can think of only three big non-comedy R-rated films, Argo, Prometheus and Looper, which was almost a sleeper hit. Django Unchained was released on Christmas day in the US, I'll give you that one as well...
I personally thought it was a bad movie. As a reader of the book it just didn't deserve to be related.
The full title of the book is 'World war Z an oral history of the zombie war', and IMO if they had done the movie more in a documentary OR semi documentary style and kept at least fairly accurate to the books plot it coulda been so much more of a winner. Oh, and of course given it a mature/18 rating. It would have been a brave step for the film makers I know, but IMO would have worked.
To people who have not read the book, I'd say do so and then see what you think.
Yeah it's a shame they diverted completely away from the book, with a mere doff of the cap here and there.
It was a good zombie film, don't get me wrong. But it's a shame that the World War Z licence has now been lost to this and we'll never see a proper film version of the book.
Don't know if anyone else noticed but they changed the country in the bit where Brad Pitt asks the guy in Jerusalem 'how can I get into India', to which the other guy reply's 'India is a black hole'.
In the trailer that exact same bit it's Russia not India!
I saw World War Z this morning and I quite enjoyed it.It does have flaws but its not a total mess that some people have said it is.The ending is a bit of a let down and you get the feeling its set up for sequels!
In the trailer that exact same bit it's Russia not India!
this may explain that....
The filmmakers initially intended to film a climactic battle scene set in Russia, and the crew moved to Budapest to film it there for 17 days.[45] Filming in Budapest commenced on the evening of October 10, 2011.[46] That morning, the Hungarian Counter Terrorism Centre raided the warehouse where guns had been delivered for use as filming props.[46] The 85 assault rifles, sniper rifles, and handguns had been flown into Budapest overnight on a private aircraft, but the film's producers had failed to clear the delivery with Hungarian authorities, and while the import documentation indicated that the weapons had been disabled, all were found to be fully functional.[46][47] On February 10, 2012, the charges were dropped after investigators were unable to identify exactly which "organization or person" had "ownership rights"; therefore they could not "establish which party was criminally liable".[48]
Go at quieter times ....between 4 and 7
Daytime Weekdays if possible when schools are in
Upgrade to VIP seating as a treat
if not VIP check who is sitting around
Avoid when films first come out leave it a couple of weeks
Agreed, I can understand that bad experiences can put people off cinema. but by avoiding peak times (Fri & Sat evenings) you can avoid the undesirable element, Try quiet periods, Sunday early evenings, early weekday nights (Mon/Tues) There should be no reason why the cinema should be an unpleasant experience.
Re: the toilet, go before U go in... films are RIDICULOUSLY long these days!!
Comments
Personally, I doubt that. It's being released by Paramount...
ha, in fairness it was early when i posted that
I was kidding, we knew what you meant...
It was filmed in wales as it shows my home town in one,blink and youll miss it,section of the film
I couldn't care what happened to any of them, even the IDF Soldier...with the Hand.
Odeon at Broadway Plaza in Birmingham is showing it in 2D and 3D Isense.
The full title of the book is 'World war Z an oral history of the zombie war', and IMO if they had done the movie more in a documentary OR semi documentary style and kept at least fairly accurate to the books plot it coulda been so much more of a winner. Oh, and of course given it a mature/18 rating. It would have been a brave step for the film makers I know, but IMO would have worked.
To people who have not read the book, I'd say do so and then see what you think.
Edit: just realised it's a play on WW3. Duh.
It obviously wont be doing Iron Man 3 numbers, but it's actually really overperforming expecations in the US (and other markets) this weekend. Paramount were lowballing their estimates for a high $30 million/low $40 million weekend, and it's on track to pull in $63 million, which is the highest opening of Brad Pitt's career:eek: Sounds like all the talk of behind the scenes chaos hasn't put off Joe Public.
Another thing to take note is that horror films historically do not make that much money - especially on opening day/weekend. So the $50 million to $60 milliion opening is nearly unheard of for a genre film - especially one about zombies. Very impressive.
yeah, but on top of the $200m to make the film, the promotion costs are reported to be anything up to another $200m, meaning it will still have to make around $400m world wide to make a profit. Things definitely look a lot more rosy now than a few months back when it looked like being this years John Carter, but I'd still say 550-600 is the upper end to what it can do world wide, which would be a (relatively) small profit, but a good result all things considered for sure.
I'm pleased for the film to do better than expected, as in spite of the obvious rewrites in the second half of the movie, it's still a very solid film. All concerned did well to pull it back from the brink of disaster.
The story itself leaves a lot to be desired too, it's basically 2 hours of Brad Pitt going from one country to another, talking with someone about the virus, and then getting attacked by zombies before escaping. That scenario is repeated at least 3 times, it begins to feel almost like a video game where Brad is going from level to level. And if that's the rewrite ending, then the original ending must have been atrocious, because the end just leaves you with an "is that it?" feeling...
Despite my complaints, I didn't dislike the film (even though you'd be forgiven for thinking I hated it after reading this post), Brad Pitt was dependably great, it had a few effectively tense moments, and it was great to see a big budget take on a zombie apocalypse with city wide panning shots taking in the devestation caused by the horde, but I just felt that it could be so much better had they got someone better to script it and direct it.
6/10 (being generous).
*comedies are the exception here.
Yeah it's a shame they diverted completely away from the book, with a mere doff of the cap here and there.
It was a good zombie film, don't get me wrong. But it's a shame that the World War Z licence has now been lost to this and we'll never see a proper film version of the book.
In the trailer that exact same bit it's Russia not India!
I would give it a 7/10 and its worth a watch!
this may explain that....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_Z_(film)
Was WWZ mainly filmed in the UK then??
I figured the Nova Scotia bit was actually somewhere in the UK, but the American pieces certainly looked like America!
Agreed, I can understand that bad experiences can put people off cinema. but by avoiding peak times (Fri & Sat evenings) you can avoid the undesirable element, Try quiet periods, Sunday early evenings, early weekday nights (Mon/Tues) There should be no reason why the cinema should be an unpleasant experience.
Re: the toilet, go before U go in... films are RIDICULOUSLY long these days!!
glasgow stood in for philadelphia, and probably the nova scotia stuff was done down in cornwall
I noticed they used Glasgow as an American city in the film Cloud Atlas too. We must be cheap!