Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

World War Z


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 27-06-2013, 21:18
Sez_babe
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 109,025
They did where I saw it.....I wonder if it was intentional - I'm guessing not.
I'm not sure...I suppose it's always good to put in a little humour in such intense situations so you never know.
Sez_babe is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 27-06-2013, 23:25
Dave1979
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,415
Nah, we're just an awesome city!
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
Dave1979 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-06-2013, 20:53
Trsvis_Bickle
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 8,943
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'.
Trsvis_Bickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-06-2013, 22:59
theonlyweeman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,227
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...
theonlyweeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-06-2013, 23:54
Trsvis_Bickle
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 8,943
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.
Trsvis_Bickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-06-2013, 00:49
theonlyweeman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,227
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.
theonlyweeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-06-2013, 13:00
Muttley76
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: I wear a Stetson now...
Posts: 89,704
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.
Muttley76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-06-2013, 15:18
ironjade
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Posts: 8,325

As is often the case, Matthew Inman nails it:
theoatmeal.com/comics/wwz

ironjade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-06-2013, 15:37
theonlyweeman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,227
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...
theonlyweeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-06-2013, 19:48
ironjade
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Posts: 8,325
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!
ironjade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-06-2013, 21:08
downtonfan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,410
I enjoyed the film, but see it in 2D, it's utterly pointless as a 3D vehicle
downtonfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-06-2013, 00:17
welwynrose
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Posts: 27,212
Saw it tonight, cinema was packed and I really enjoyed it
welwynrose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-06-2013, 01:13
Sez_babe
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 109,025
I'm glad it's doing well
Sez_babe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-06-2013, 09:49
downtonfan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,410
Anyone else think there was more of a screen dynamic between Gerry and Segan, than there was between his utterly pointless wife?
downtonfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 14:16
spendleb
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,851
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.
spendleb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 16:39
Syntax Error
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 17,354
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.
Syntax Error is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 20:45
Pistol Whip
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: North West
Posts: 9,292
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!
Pistol Whip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 23:14
notin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,205
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.
notin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 23:17
notin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,205
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!
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.
notin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2013, 12:41
Virgil Tracy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 20,047
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 .
Virgil Tracy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2013, 14:26
AngiBear
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,220
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.
AngiBear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2013, 18:20
brangdon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 10,668
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.
brangdon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2013, 19:23
downtonfan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,410
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.
downtonfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2013, 05:51
stvn758
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 15,635
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.
stvn758 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2013, 15:45
Nattie01
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 993
Anyone else think there was more of a screen dynamic between Gerry and Segan, than there was between his utterly pointless wife?
Yes!
Nattie01 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:03.