World War Z

[Velorath]

It's a PG-13 rated zombie movie.

[Numtini]

Really, it's a good generic zombie movie.

[Velorath]

I've seen it. PG-13 rated zombie movie is about as succinct a review as I can give.

[Shannow]

You know my only real problem with this movie?  The title. 

As a generic zombie film with a world view twist I rather enjoyed it. I'm still holding out hope for a tv spin off 'tales from world war z'

[Shannow]

Oh and I say there needs to be an Oscar category for chattering teeth guy. 

[Malakili]

A decent zombie movie.  A bad World War Z movie.

[Kageru]

I appreciate this movie for making me read the book, very much enjoyed it, and realised immediately it would become an action movie in the hands of hollywood which I can do without.

[lamaros]

The book is slow, pretentious and overly political. It is a good read, but if the movie is "pretty good" then I'd put them about on par - even if it is in entirely different ways.

[Paelos]

Just like any movie, there was no way book people would like it.

Friend got back from it, she liked the VFX, thought the ending was terrible.

[Kageru]

The book was good because the it was looking backward, from multiple viewpoints, on a global scale pandemic. The focus is on the collapse of the complex human structures we depend on rather than the zombies.

... another zombie action movie? If it's about grabbing your guns and defending yourself I'd rather play it as a game, and that's already been done.

[Rendakor]

Just like any movie, there was no way book people would like it.

I agree, and as a book person, I'm starting to wonder why Hollywood even bothers licensing IPs only to deviate so strongly from them. It's either arrogance in thinking that the new Vision is superior to the original, or a shameless bait and switch. If you don't expect book readers to actually enjoy the movie, why bother paying for the rights?

[Evildrider]

Just like any movie, there was no way book people would like it.

I agree, and as a book person, I'm starting to wonder why Hollywood even bothers licensing IPs only to deviate so strongly from them. It's either arrogance in thinking that the new Vision is superior to the original, or a shameless bait and switch. If you don't expect book readers to actually enjoy the movie, why bother paying for the rights?

Most likely they do it just for the name. 

[Numtini]

Just like any movie, there was no way book people would like it.

Even by Hollywood standards this sticks out as really throwing the whole book out. It's not taking liberties, it's just nothing whatsoever from the book. I mean, the main character in the movie isn't even in the book. This isn't "omg no Tom Bombadil." This is "omg no hobbits, Gandalf, or a ring." I think only the James Bond movies have such a disconnect from the book and they don't even pretend they're adapting anything.

Still, it's one of the better zombie movies in a while and I enjoyed it. In some ways it may have been more enjoyable because you didn't have to think about what they did to the book because they just tossed it out.

[Kageru]

Just like any movie, there was no way book people would like it.

I agree, and as a book person, I'm starting to wonder why Hollywood even bothers licensing IPs only to deviate so strongly from them.

I remember an argument that it's because the people who give the go-ahead are very risk averse. Which is also a function of how much money is going to be spent of course. So if you can say, "It was a hit book with a lot of public interest" it's a safe bet as compared to "we're going to make another zombie movie the public knows nothing about" not so much. Same reason most of the big budget games are iterations on a franchise.

The idea that they dumped the script that got them approval immediately after getting the go ahead just means they were more transparent than usual.

[Johny Cee]

The book is slow, pretentious and overly political. It is a good read, but if the movie is "pretty good" then I'd put them about on par - even if it is in entirely different ways.

Yes.  While parts of the book are decent, it's basically wrapped around a fairly partisan (and completely fuck-stupid) political message.  The writing is also exceptionally juvenile, though most zombie works from Romero on to Mira Grant suffer from the same issue.

The book was good because the it was looking backward, from multiple viewpoints, on a global scale pandemic. The focus is on the collapse of the complex human structures we depend on rather than the zombies.

... another zombie action movie? If it's about grabbing your guns and defending yourself I'd rather play it as a game, and that's already been done.

The book didn't have multiple viewpoints, or focus on the collapse of human structures.  The book had the classic zombie apocalypse Act II problem (credit to GRR Martin) while also sounding like one guy badly writing multiple viewpoints.

[Paelos]

TBH, I thought the Stand did a much better job of taking shots at the government and overall breakdown of society in a apocalypse, and that didn't have zombies in it.

Then again, it's not hard to point out that human society and governments are short-sighted, badly run, assholes. Plato pointed it out over 2,000 years ago several times.

[lamaros]

The book is slow, pretentious and overly political. It is a good read, but if the movie is "pretty good" then I'd put them about on par - even if it is in entirely different ways.

Yes.  While parts of the book are decent, it's basically wrapped around a fairly partisan (and completely fuck-stupid) political message.  The writing is also exceptionally juvenile, though most zombie works from Romero on to Mira Grant suffer from the same issue.

The book was good because the it was looking backward, from multiple viewpoints, on a global scale pandemic. The focus is on the collapse of the complex human structures we depend on rather than the zombies.

... another zombie action movie? If it's about grabbing your guns and defending yourself I'd rather play it as a game, and that's already been done.

The book didn't have multiple viewpoints, or focus on the collapse of human structures.  The book had the classic zombie apocalypse Act II problem (credit to GRR Martin) while also sounding like one guy badly writing multiple viewpoints.

Oh good, glad you jumped in. Stoped me having to type as much.

Especially agree on the "one guy badly writing multiple viewpints". It aspired to be "one guy reporting multiple viewpoints" but never ever got close to achieving such a thing; it was extremely limited in scope and expression given its aims.

[Ironwood]

 

[Wasted]

Just watched it, thought it was pretty good for a zombie movie.  The way the zombie's swarmed and climbed over each other reminded me of footage I have seen of mice plagues.

[Surlyboi]

What he said.

[Ubvman]

Steven Spielberg's Jaws (the movie) deviated pretty significantly from Peter Benchley's Jaws (the book).

Some might say (me for example) that the movie is a significant improvement over the book.   

Reserving judgement over the zombie movie until I get around to seeing it. I have the book on iPad, read the first chapter - it's a fascinating read.

[Ironwood]

Steven Spielberg's Jaws (the movie) deviated pretty significantly from Peter Benchley's Jaws (the book).

I would disagree with that though.

[Numtini]

Think Jaws and the main character in the film is Chrissie Watkins (the girl who gets munched at the start) brother, who's a famous big game hunter and goes out with the navy seal team to kill the shark. That's how off WWZ is from the book.

Since I work for a small resort towns government, I have a huge appreciation of how much they "got it" about how things work and the vast resources we have at our disposal. Our old harbor master looked and acted like Quint and One of the retired Selectmen is a spot on double physically and temperamentally for the mayor. Great movie and a really good blurry conversion fwiw.

[MediumHigh]

I have to say I'd appreciate the movie more if it wasn't called World War Z, but you know whatever Hollywood.

I think what saved this movie was not being rated R. At least I'm wasn't treated to the site of idiots in a zombie movie being torn apart for 30 minuites. It blew past fast and forgettable and ultimately left a good taste in my mouth.

For those who are wondering what the movie got right or wrong compared to the source material

[Numtini]

Good points all, but I still liked it. I just want WWZ. But hey, I've wanted Logan's Run since I was still "blue," so oh well.

[Shannow]

It may be heresy but I found the circumstances of the zombie virus, how it spread , fast zombies ( sometimes) etc actually a lot more plausible than even the book (and I loved the book).  I could never quite reconcile how a plague could spread that widely from slow zombies with a disease that took several days to incubate. (Never mind don't zombies eat their victims?  Which ones do they eat and not eat?)

I shall now wait for the zombie gods to strike me down.

[MediumHigh]

In the books a critical mass of zombies eat their victims. Mostly because their victims are overwhelmed. Normal victims get away, think their fine, and start interacting with the population, spreading the disease unintentionally, I.E sharing the same tooth brush, having sex, even organ transplants, and then finally start showing symptoms in most cases they end up attacking love ones who think their son/daughter wife/husband contracted a really bad flu. Worst case scenario they turn in a hospital, turning the entire place into ground zero for an outbreak. The point being the infection was initially really slow and got faster over time (think really long time and after jumping several continents). General ignorance, government propaganda or straight up lies (China refused to admit that zombies existed period), and third world governments who lacked the resources to spread information fast enough or to deal with the situation quick enough. There was also initial or perceived success against the zombie plague during the start of the war, every first world nation sent their rainbow six teams to quickly deal with the zombies, making the general populace really ignorant and complacent (there was an asshole selling a new rabies vaccine as a cure for zombie bites and possible infection) , which allowed the plague to spread along the east coast silently and with little fuss.   

[Ironwood]

Pretty much what MH said.  A lot of Americans With Guns think the whole thing is utter bullshit, mostly because they're Americans With Guns, but I find it entirely plausible.

Watch this film and then imagine that the disease also spreads by mobile victims that are also extremely hard to kill.  The point about the Zombie Virus in most Zombie stories is that there is an incubation period, as well as Extreme Psychological Impact for the Victims and Soon to Be Victims.

This is why I find 'fast' zombies just to be bollocks.  If you look at a film like 28 days later, it's clear that they had to give it a precisely ZERO incubation period because if it had any, the world was over.  I mean, totally and utterly doomed.  Fast Zombies or Psychos would just destroy everything.  It'd be like indestructible locust clouds.

Anyway, we've done this before so I'll shut up.

[MediumHigh]

Not really. Fast zombies would never be allowed to reach critical mass. It would literally be too hard to contain and to hide, even the local cops would notice and the general public will overreact. For one a fast zombie wouldn't let his victims get away. I.E contact with the virus from infected would result in being torn apart. Less chances of the victim caring the virus without showing symptoms because the victim would be ripped apart. Lack of stealth. Slow zombies sound easier to deal with, but they also don't make a lot of noise. You can infect an entire apartment building with very few people knowing the wiser, until its too late. In which case a fast zombie will be all over the internet, #guy on pcp won't die, #omg woman eating bf face literally. Sure if fast zombies reach critical mass, we're fucked but they also make too much noise for us not to notice.

[Ironwood]

No.

[Numtini]

I think fast zombie spread in 28 days where it starts with a patient zero and spreads extremly quickly and easily, but only up to physical borders is pretty reasonable. Also because it wasn't just the active infected, but also just their remains that could cause an infection.

WW-Z the book makes sense because it spreads extremely slowly. It starts in rural China, in regions without strong government control and with poor public health, but it takes months for even them to begin to notice it. Then it spreads outside the country largely through smuggling and at first only takes hold in similar third world countries. As per wikipedia it's 7 years between infection and the Aircraft Carrier Saratoga conference and even then there are lots of areas holding out, including entire countries. That seems reasonable and I think the methods Brooks lays out seem like a logical way things could spread.

Fast zombies breaking out worldwide all within the same as per the movie seems very unrealistic. It was still a fun movie though.

[angry.bob]

Fast zombies aren't zombies. They don't represent any of the things that the zombie concept have. Fast zombie movies have always elicited more of a "getting chased by a pack of wolves" feeling than anything else.

That aside, fast infection zombies just don't work as far as spreading very well. Any sort of vehicle that would let it spread faster than walking speed would be over run and crash in a fireball in about half an hour.

[murdoc]

This surprised me how much I enjoyed it. If it was called ANYTHING but World War Z, it would have taken my single biggest complaint away.

[MrHat]

This surprised me how much I enjoyed it. If it was called ANYTHING but World War Z, it would have taken my single biggest complaint away.

I started calling it Apocalypse: Zed and it worked out for me.

The book is one of my all time favorites and I managed to enjoy the film.

[Ubvman]

I saw the movie the other night. It was pretty enjoyable.

I agree; book lovers should just imagine the name of the movie as "Apocalypse: ZED, starring Brad Pitt", not "World War Z by Max Brooks."

This is not so much spoilery as the background on the making of the movie.
I have read about the original ending for the movie, big chunks of it already being filmed before the execs (and probably Brad Pitt) knew that it would not have worked.