Will be a HUGE, HUGE blockbuster. I know this. Watch the trailers and you will,too
Maybe, but zombies have been done to death in the movies (you should pardon the expression) and zombie fatigue, like vampire fatigue, is bound to set in sometime. Maybe this will be the zombie meme's last hurrah. Better it should happen for Max Brooks instead of that worthless hack Seth Grahame-Smith after what he did to poor "Dark Shadows."
Nothing against Brad Pitt, but what does it say about him when extras playing dead people are a more compelling presence then he is?
Hi, Brad. Welcome to Datalounge.
Damn, Pitt looks OLD in the trailer.
He's in his 50s, dude.
All the "World War Z" book fans are slagging on the film because it's not a literal interpretation of the book. Well, the book is nearly unfilmable, in that it would take WAY too much money to do a strict version, and that version would not be very appealing to "the masses".
it's one of those cases where the movie wouldn't get made at all if it were a literal interpretation, so this is what you get.
I think that if people put the book aside and just judge the movie on its own merits, it won't suck.
He looks old? Well, times are apparently a bit harder AFTER beating back the zombie hordes, bitch.
My son is refusing to watch this because it's become a vessel for Brad Pitt rather than a series of individual's stories.
Here's a link to the book.
Geez, R5, are you one of the producers? The movie has already cost a bundle. Studio estimates put the budget at about $150 million but other sources say it's ballooned to $200million because of all the reshoots.
Most of the zombie accounts in the book were not that extravagant. My favorite one was about a Japanese samurai who took on zombies and survived by going into nature.
I'll watch this of course because I like zombie and apocalyptic movies, but I'm expecting it to be shit. The CGI alone looks terrible.
How hard could've been for the reporter character to interview all the different survivors, thus hearing each story? He could've been doing it to write a book called World War Z.
It's going to be a crapfest, but I'll probably watch it on Netflix.
I'll go see it for James Badge Dale. Ditto "The Lone Ranger" and "Iron Man 3". Dale is hot to death and looks like a nasty/angry fuck. Also a pretty good actor.
The book is good. But the movie will be shit. I hate how much the producers changed it. And Pitt is overrated trash who can't act. The casting couch was his way in to the business, sure wasn't his "talent".
R12, nice ability to see the future and judge something you haven't seen yet.
I'll see the movie, but the book was a big piece of shit. Like 60 short stories with no passion. And boring.
I liked the book, because it was basically a nerd argument fleshed out. Nerds will actually discuss the best military strategies for dealing with zombie invasions, and the author went to town with imagining how various countries and geographical areas would cope. It was basically a bunch of clever geeky ideas, organized into an episodic book.
Totally unfimlable, of course. Whatever the movie may be, it's going to bear so little resemblance to the book that if I see the movie, I'd better forget everything I read.
What is the book like? I see it has been a best-seller for like 6 years. I'd rather read a book (if it's good) than see a movie. Thanks.
It's got "flop" written all over it. The production was very troubled and the studio hated it. It will be lucky to break even given the $300 million spent.
I thought Brad and the director were not talking by the end of this? He does look old and the Clea Duvall dyke hair is not good on him. It smells bomb.
It will bomb just like the Hobbit did.
A movie won't "suck" just because it doesn't follow the book.
There are many books and movies where there are vast differences between the two, and both are good (in some cases, the movie is better).
"I, Robot", the movie, had little in common with the short-story/book it's named after. But it as good in its own right. And a literal filming of the book wouldn't have made any money.
There are lots of examples.
I wouldn't just this movie by anything other than its own merits, which I don't have enough information to do yet. It may well suck. But if it does, it won't be because it doesn't follow the book.
You do realize, R19, that The Hobbit made a $1 billion? Some flop.
I'm sure the book is a real work of literature.
The book was drivel.
Chaotic productions with lots of reshoots usually = bad movie.
I saw it a couple of days ago. It's not my cup of tea, but I think it will likely be a hit.
I can't believe it took some studio so long to come up with this idea.
I couldn't get through the book.
Saw the trailer - garbage.
R19 "Bomb like the hobbit did"
The Hobbit made over 1 billion dollars, a flop!
The CGI looks terrible and fans of the book already hate it. This movie has to be his most successful for it to break even. I don't see that happening. I do think the critics will be softer on it now that Angelina's story has broken.
Bomb like The Hobbit did? The Hobbit did $303 million domestic and over $700 million international. Hardly a bomb.
Agree that the CGI is awful. Pitt is the one responsible for all the story changes. He's the one to blame when it flops.
the book SUCKED so why wouldn;t the movie?
The trailer rocks, dude!
The book is written as a series of reports on the zombie outbreak R14, passion doesn't come into it.
They only bought the book rights for the cool title, IMO.
The trailer is amazing - I can't wait to see it. I liked 2012, Independence Day, Day After Tomorrow, Prometheus, so his is the sort of movie I pay to go the theater for.
I agree r35! I truly believe the film could be better if done in the spirit of the book.
[bold]Paramount Out To Prove Its Zombie ‘World War Z’ Doesn’t Stink[/bold]
Thanks for the link - now I REALLY want to see it!
Not my cup of tea, and what's more, 3D is a gadget that annoys me to no end.
But, you are right, it will reach its intended target and make money.
I don't mind an apocalypse storyline, and this thread encouraged me to seek out the book.
The book is so bad it's unreadable. I made it about a quarter of the way through before giving up. It's a shame because the underlying story is quite good, but the way it's written is terrible.
Can't wait to see it. Loved the book. Of course the movie had to deviate from the book. But it looks great.
I wish they would stop making movies for junior high school aged boys.
There was a screening in Hoboken last night. Brad Pitt showed up to introduce it.
According to the article in Vanity Fair, they started filming before they had an ending and then they changed the story a couple times and in the end they threw out several elaborately filmed sequences... sounds like a complete f*ck up. Movie-making is such a messy business.
I always rely on datalounge pre-release soothsayers as an accurate prediction of a movie's success... actually I fancy WWZ will do quite well at the box office and am palpably looking forward to seeing it on the big screen. Much as it is true that "just because you say something doesn't make it true" applies to Fox News, it increasingly also applies to datalounge.
The terrible "viral" (a misnomer if there ever was one, as no one is passing the links around) videos on youtube from some government person talking about a zombie outbreak are the worst.
The more I hear about this movie, the less interested I am.
Did you go, Della, and if so, how did Pitt look? How do you think the movie will do?
No, I didn't go, r48. I live in Wisconsin.
I think this movie will be a monster hit, seriously. I read an item from someone who was there. He was hoding back on his full review, but did say he enjoyed it.
I think it'll be a hit, but from the trailers it looks like the entire film is just people running.
They should bring back celebrity-laden disaster movies and have one about people running. With Debbie Reynolds pushing Zsa Zsa's wheelchair.
Only six days dudes!
I agree the trailer could be better, but it's been getting really good reviews so far. If it's as good as the book, it will be great! Can't wait to see it next weekend.
Please let it bomb! Please let it bomb! Please!!!!
Pitt's still showing up to the screenings because he's afraid this thing is going to bomb. Paramount gave him $200m to film it, marketing is at least $100m, plus coming out after Superman might not be a great idea.
Pitt shouldn't even be in this film, really, he's too old and homeless looking these days.
Ok, I've skipped Iron Man 3, Fast and Furious 6, Man of Steel, the Great Gatsby and Star Trek into Darkness but I think World War Z is my summer movie.
[quote]"It's a total rush," writes Stella Papamichael at Digital Spy, noting that "everything about the film moves at a breakneck pace, including the zombies." Papamichael too praises Forster's work, saying he "marshals the chaos with flair and grit, whether the camera is down on the ground being carried by the crowd, or up in the air to behold the scale of the destruction."
So far, 79% on Rotten Tomatoes with a majority of the reviews still coming in (only 29 so far). Can't be that bad.
R60 is not a review. It's more commentary on the public perception that World War Z is disaster based on the post-production re-shoots.
The book should have been made into a limited series for HBO or AMC or some other cable channel. From the previews, it's just a vehicle for Brad Pitt Saving the World. Boring.
I'm going to see it.
I don't know, I think fans of the book would be kind of pissed to go support this movie. I'm just kind of confused with what this movie will be. Is it a horror zombie movie or a action movie (kind of like those Resident Evil Movies). Also has Brad Pitt ever carried a action hero like movie? I don't think he is really a draw for people who like those movies.
Pitt always looks like a homeless troll who lives under a bridge, and stinky, like you don't want him sitting next to you on the bus.
I'm actually considering going to Superman at the moment rather than anything with Stanky Pitt.
[quote] I think fans of the book would be kind of pissed to go support this movie.
Old time fan of book here and I can't wait to see it. I can see elements of the book in the clips I've seen so far. Not bothered that it's not an exact replica. It's the world wide span of the story that is exciting rather than a basement or DeKalb County.
Zombies; dead to me!
My thoughts exactly r63!
Stop denigrating poor old Brad Pitt!
r70 did you start the "why does everyone hate brad pitt" thread, loserboy?
Rex Reed (!) loved it, saying it towers above every other alleged summer blockbuster.
(Some dumb c*nt called him a "fruity fag" in the comments section. I'm not on facebook so I couldn't reply to her...I hope someone here can do the honors!)
R72, I hope you recognize the irony in calling someone a dumb c*nt because she called Rex Reed a fruity fag.
Wait a minute r72, did Reed ever bother to come out? I don't remember ever seeing a quote. When he was on a movie show in the 80s with some woman, he used Kathleen Turner as a beard by pretending to lust after and have a crush on her. Ok that was understandable enough at the time, I guess, but then I don't remember him ever bothering to come out. And if he ain't out, why should I care that he gets homophobic comments?
I'm going to see this movie tonight. I can't wait!
World War Z, which may be the most entertaining and accomplished zombie thriller since George A. Romero's Dawn of the Dead (1979), has touches of that suspenseful high-tension claustrophobia.
World War Z turns the prospect of the end of our world into something tumultuous and horrifying and, at the same time, exciting. It's scary good fun. [bold]A-[/bold]
Piece of shit.
I'm referring to the clumsy shill as OP. Not the movie. Which I won't see. Because I am sick of the stupid zombie plot. Because it offers NOTHING OF INTEREST.
[quote] You DO realize, sheeple at [R75], EW is owned by Warner Brothers, who financed the film?
You do realize, shit for brains at R77, that you know nothing about this film.
But I am sure that Paramount was thrilled when their competitor, Warner Brothers, stepped in and financed their film for them. ROTFLMAO!
STFU and STFD.
I'm sure as hell going to see it. I worry though that I'll miss half of it hiding behind my bag of popcorn.
It the OP is a shill, then he is a little more subtle than what barely passes for shilling around here.
R7, your son is an annoying little asshole.
I just saw an 8pm show of World War Z.
I LOVED it!
It was just my type of movie. It's very Hitchcockian (with a little Philip K Dick thrown in for good measure). It's essentially a big budget action-suspense-thiller. And thank god the CGI didn't look horrible like in the trailers. I actually loved the helicopter shots of the zombie river as they looked on the big screen.
The last act is where I think the script problems occurred. It's a little slow but still satisfying. (and I think they're setting the movie up for a possible sequel?)
But all in all I had fun. And I would see it again and be happy to do so.
If you have been waiting for "Contagion" (with a little "2012" thrown in for good measure) with zombies and lots of action and Brad Pitt in the Kate Winslet role (same hairdo!)
-- Go see it!
Thanks, R83. How scary is it? I gets real scared at these things. Do I need a giant tub of popcorn to hide behind? I'd probably prefer to see it in the day.
r84 r83 won't be back because he's a paid shill.
Not r83, but it's not scary. There's high tension and it's action packed but not scary in the least.
looks like world war zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
OP, you are a shell of a shill you shit.
It got ZERO stars from the NYPost, and a scathing review.
Saw it today in OZ. Entertaining popcorn flick. Last act a little slow but overall it's enjoyable if you go in with the right attitude.
The cinema was packed which will displease the Pitt haters.
Helen Lawson has a cameo.
It has not been getting "really good reviews." Reviews are tepid at best. A lot of the comments have to do with it being bland, unoriginal and not very scary or gory. I see a lot of shilling going on here and at IMDB, which is probably seen as necessary as they've got to wring as much money out of this $200 million boondoggle as possible on opening weekend, because it's not going to make much on word of mouth.
The only mention of its Rotten Tomatoes rating in this thread, is way off to where it is now, 68%. And it'll probably drop a bit more before they all come in, but will still remain above 60% (fresh) I'm sure, but just barely. The reviews aren't disastrous, but they ain't great either,
FWIW a friend just wrote on her Facebook page that this movie was so good and had her scared so shitless that she couldnt sleep last night. She loves a good horror movie. I am still on the fence and I am going to wait for more word of mouth from my friends.
It will make its hundreds of millions overseas.
They are not zombies, they are "brown people", and that's what makes it really scary.
I am not a PR shill (I wish $$$$). I just love Brad Pitt and movies of this type. Another great thing about this movie is it doesn't over explain things. For a big budget action-er is can be very subtle (and cynical) and has blink and you'll miss it moments.
To answer R84: I am hyper-vigilant and therefore VERY jumpy and easily startled. I was like a popcorn kernel in an air-popper during this movie. I was jumping all over the place. But I wasn't "scared" in the horror movie sense just "anxious" in the suspense movie sense. (liked R86 said- it's all about the tension)
Rotten Tomatoes with Top Critics filter is 76% for World War Z.
[bold]NY Times Review (FRESH):[/bold]
[quote]The movie, loosely adapted from Max Brooks’s 2006 novel of the same title, is under two hours long. Its action set pieces are cleverly conceived and coherently executed in ways that make them feel surprising, even exciting.
[quote]Brad Pitt, playing a former United Nations troubleshooter pressed back into service to battle the undead, wears a scruffy, Redfordesque air of pained puzzlement. And, best of all, “World War Z,” directed by Marc Forster from a script with five credited authors, reverses the relentless can-we-top-this structure that makes even smart blockbusters feel bloated and dumb.
[quote]The large-scale, city-destroying sequences come early, leading toward a climax that is intimate, intricate and genuinely suspenseful.
It could be a good movie, but the lukewarm reviews suggest mediocrity. I think I'll wait to see in a few years when it's getting a 2 star rating in the tv listings. I'll give a look anyway, maybe.
Reviewers are just people with their own individual preferences, likes, dislikes, etc.
The days of "real" reviewers are long gone.
IF anyone bothered to notice, the percentage of "likes" from the general public on Rotten Tomatoes is, as always, WAY higher than the reviewers, which is often the case.
Reviews for "The Purge" were not all that great, but I enjoyed the hell out of it. (Will admit I was a bit prejudiced, since I LOVE Lena Headey.)
Oh we've noticed the public rates movies way higher, they're a bunch of morons with low standards. If you're happy to be included in that crowd, good for you.
"A full-on zombie movie...that rises above the genre" read Kurt Loder's review of World War Z
[quote]Early last year, before the difficulties of finishing this film had completely kicked in, it was suggested that World War Z would be the opening installment of a trilogy (Paramount has also secured the rights to two of Brooks’ earlier zombie books). This sort of grand announcement is rarely welcome. But the movie that Forster and Pitt (who’s also a producer) have delivered is such a well-crafted thrill machine that you may find yourself thinking: Bring it on.
I wonder if the recent popularity of zombie movies are a metaphor for straight caucasians' fear of "strange people"- those with different skin color, religions or sexual orientation? The encroaching threat to their long-cherished way of life?
Kenneth Turan from the LA Time loved it. And he hates everything.
It was much better than I thought it would be. The zombies make a kind of sense if you can roll with some of the obvious headscratchers, so I appreciated that. Pitt is pretty to look at, but he seems to think that clenching his jaw is acting. Some great visuals, and one super stinky moment in the third act. Good all around.
"I wonder if the recent popularity of zombie movies are a metaphor for straight caucasians' fear of "strange people"- those with different skin color, religions or sexual orientation? "
I think it's representative of our fear of being cast into poverty, which is happening more and more.
One day you're an ordinary middle-class person, lose your job and you become a filthy, needy, destructive, shambling wreck.
I'm gonna go see it in 3D on Sunday.
Review on the 3D version?
It's surprising people.
The word of mouth is really positive and the reviews have been good generally.
Denby even liked it.
[quote]Review on the 3D version?
Unnecessary. I saw it in 3D but I think it would've been fine in 2D. It's not as if there's things flying at you to make the 3D fun or useful.
Saw it today and enjoyed it. Would go see it again. Not too talkie-talkie, it was fun.
Agreed R16 about the 3D.
If I have one complaint about the film it's that it wasn't bloody enough. The zombies while vicious weren't as scary as those in 28 Days Later.
[quote] If I have one complaint about the film it's that it wasn't bloody enough
Phew! I'm too wussy at my age to want my stomach turned. That's why I don't ride the tilt-a-whirl 20 times in a row anymore. Suspense and tension is enough for me. Thank you very much.
I hate the ending. They reshoot and came up with this crap? I rather have the Moscow scene.
Are you bitches ready for World War Z: Taking Back the Night? Yep, Paramount wants a sequel.
[quote]With the successful $111.8 million worldwide debut of zombie extravaganza World War Z -- a passion project for the actor -- Paramount actively will turn to developing a sequel, studio vice chairman Rob Moore tells The Hollywood Reporter. The tentpole earned $66 million in North America, the best opening for an original live-action tentpole since Avatar, and $45.8 million from its first 25 foreign markets.
It was intense and scary, but the ending seemed forced and weak. Pitt was great.
The movie is decent - not great, not terrible.
But it looks like they should have been able to make it for a lot less than $200 million.
Now that I've seen it, I'm curious to see the ending that they canned. Hopefully it will be available on a director's cut.
The new ending really shouldn't have cost much more than an episode of Walking Dead. It's not like it's a CGI festival.
I thought it was just ok - the book was SO much better.
The sequence with the plane was so stupid and 'action movie.' Just bullshit that's been done one way or another in other movies so many times.
The movie was okay but it has nothing to do with the book except for the title. The actions scenes were alright.
R125 I agree that plane scene was so stupid.
I like Brad Pitt but his character in this movie had no personality and the way they made the character to be such a priority that will somehow save the world is laughable. The most i can say is that he is somewhat good at making observation in crazy situations. But dude forgot to turn off his cell phone in a zombie apocalypse.
They should have focused more on the movie on the side characters. Like the soldiers in South Korea, the Scientists, or Jerusalem.
I just read the VF piece. I know that WWZ is not the first film to have been in this position but it absolutely beggars belief that studios will go ahead and start shooting a movie with a budget that is already way over 100 million and is going to require at least that amount again for marketing etc. when they do not have an ending for the film!!! Every film undergoes changes to the script during shooting but to say, "Here's 150 million, go off and spend it and we'll worry about how it ends later" is just insane. They deserve to lose a fortune.
R121 What there is going to be a sequel? I thought the ending of this movie tied it up already. Unless they are sticking more closely to the book for the sequels and have brad pitt's character or some other character go around asking about survivor stories.
They should just leave it as one movie and just make what money they can make from it. This movie already lack a clear direction, they tried to do too much, make it PG13 blockbuster - but zombies have too much gore, make it a horror movie but make it not as scary to keep it PG 13, and tried to make it somewhat relevant to the book by going all over the world, but making it focus on brad pitt character made it boring.
I think they should have done this movie kind of like the movie Contagion, make it an ensemble cast that takes place around the world, so we get to see how different countries deal with the zombies.
The DL reviews are coming in, and not surprising to me considering its mid-60s Rotten Tomatoes rating, I smell a 2 star rating for this turkey in the tv listings, when it starts showing on tv. I'm certainly not going to pay to see a 2 star movie.
A 67 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes is very good for a zombie movie or any horror movie.
WWZ has a stellar 87 percent fresh rating among non-critic viewers. Audiences loved it.
WWZ is a hit, and sequel has been greenlit already!
SPOILER ALERT: THe ending was not conclusive. Pitt's character even says that despite the vaccinations, the struggle continues and there are scenes of turmoil and disaster still being shown at the end.
That's right r130, just lower the bar enough and then you can pretend it's critically acclaimed! It isn't a horror movie, it's a Brad Pitt movie, the critics would line up for it if it was any good.
I liked it - it was great - the film had me captivated from the beginning through to the end. I had read so many bad things about the film in advance of its opening that I was pleasantly surprised. I plan to see it again.
R135, you won't be alone. This will set a lot of repeat viewings.
I saw the film today and really liked it. I thought that it moved quickly and had an interesting story. I also enjoyed the different locales around the world. Very well done movie. I enjoyed it more than I thought I would.
Watched it. It was good enough, entertaining. Certainly not great, but fine.
I'm with R137. I really liked it. Great summer film. The first two thirds were really great (the ending was okay, but not quite as taut). I actually thought this is the first time Brad was perfectly cast in a blockbuster. He's great in odd films, but usually seems uncomfortable in leading man roles. Not here. I thought Iron Man was more fun, but this was a tighter script. No forced set pieces or five endings. It was a thousand times better than Man of Steel and much more entertaining than Star Trek.
And I never thought I'd like a zombie film.
"The whole movie seems in many ways like a fortunate accident. But there's no doubting the deliberate wisdom of making a star of Pitt's talent and stature the lead."--TORONTO STAR
"A relentless horror thriller that serves up a chilling vision of a planet in the throes of apocalypse ...." --PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER
"It] may be the most entertaining and accomplished zombie thriller since George A. Romero's Dawn of the Dead ..."--ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY
"Pitt has hidden his inner John Wayne-Bruce Willis for too long. In the highly engaging World War Z, he proves to be a capable, winning and -- in the great American film tradition -- exceptionally hard-to-kill action hero."--SACRAMENTO BEE
Okay okay. I'm going to see it later this week. I promise. I just prefer cheapie matinees.
It has made $94 million
Saw it last night and it was alright. If you go see it, don't see it in 3D. There's very little that you would need it for.
I want to see it in 3D, is that not a good idea?
Brad Pitt has to have a deal with Satan.
He's had a million flops but Hollywood somehow believes he's a hitmaker, which is as silly as their belief that he can act well enough to lead a film. And now, just when it looked like the jig was up for him, Johnny Depp and Will Smith have huge, scandalous flops, and make this mess look like a hit.
I saw it in 3D.
I loved it.
Better than Star Trek, and Man of Steel (BOTH good movies).
The locales were amazing and very believable, and I loved the interaction (quiet as it was) with Pitt's character and the Israeli soldier...
And having read the book when it came out, I must state it is FAR superior to the LOUSY book.
I saw it last Saturday-fell asleep about 10-15 minutes into it and woke up when he was in Israel. Look, I understand that it's a zombie movie, but the plot holes are just too great to pass over.
[quote] I saw it last Saturday-fell asleep about 10-15 minutes into
Bullshit. Unless you have narcolepsy.
See, if you say that "Man of Steel" was a "good movie" then your perspective can't be trusted.
I wished I'd fallen asleep. It was shitful.
An undead movie for the braindead.
Gee, R151, I guess you were there. I felt like I was hit with a tranquilizer dart. But, since you know better.
Let's put it like this, Brad Pitt is not now nor will ever be an Action Star, and this is an action movie.
There are too many shitty details in this movie. If BP was a right winger who worked for the gov't in that capacity (because to work in that capacity you have to be a righty) then what is with the hippie long hair WEAVE & the cloth bracelets? Well?
He acted like a stoner in this most of the time and that is the reason that poster slept through this, it's like Bill & Ted TRY to make an action adventure, it's just too deep for Pitt.
And he couldn't even shoot the gun, the GIRL with one hand did.
It's a perfectly enjoyable, brainless way to kill a couple of hours.
The posters who are complaining about plot holes sound insane; it's a summertime 3-D movie about ZOMBIES, not a production of Hedda Gabler.
Even pulp fiction needs a reasonably logical plot, which this is missing.
And after seeing the graphic zombie antics in the Walking Dead, it seems preposterous that most of the killings and violence occurs off screen or just out of camera range. Who the hell needs a PG-13 zombie apocalypse?
All you need to know is Lindelof (Prometheus, Lost) wrote the ending which is why it's so dull, preposterous, slow, tension-less, tacked on, and makes zero sense in the context of the rest of the movie.
Definitely not enough gore. In fact there was zero gore.
It's a movie about the undead eating other humans, there should be gore and lots of it.
I am glad there will be a sequel.
Saw it. Enjoyed it a lot.
I'm glad they didn't make BP the perfect action hero. He's an investigator and use to dangerous situations but not a soldier. That's why the soldier's there. (A really good addition to the story btw.)
Does anyone know what the original ending was?
What, exactly, do these zombies eat? They just seem to bite someone and then go on with their lives creating other zombies. There are no piles of corpses littering the streets (in fact-there's nary a drop of blood to be found). Do they need to eat at all??
The Israeli soldier chick was really cute.
No blood? That's surprising.
I read Pitt lost a lot of money.
Where did you read that Pitt personally lost money, R164?
Yeah, little blood. They wanted a PG-13 rating.
I just saw it On Demand with NR rating. Could anybody tell me what the difference was to the PG-13 rating in the theater? The NR version seemed pretty tame to me.
Please - can anyone tell me what the original ending would have been?
I agree that the one in the final version is ludicrously anti-climactic and unsatisfactory.
Originally, the film had a different ending: the plane lands in Moscow rather than crashing in Wales. The passengers are rounded up, and the elderly and sick are executed. Gerry is drafted into the Russian army. An unknown period of time passes, and we see Gerry fighting the zombies. He realizes the zombies are weak in the cold. The film ended with him getting back to the USA and leading a D-Day like invasion against the undead on the Oregon coast. The ending that was used instead made the movie less brutal and ended it with a glimpse of hope.
R167, here's an article discussing the original ending.
It also sounds a bit awful. Another huge showdown, but in Russia. The swarms of zombies got a bit boring to look at after a while - they were pretty bloodless and non-threatening in many scenes.
Also, having the wife prostitute herself after being kicked off the boat doesn't seem in line with the tone of the rest of the movie. It had its moments, but it was definitely a big popcorn film that didn't really strive to be challenging.
Thanks, r168/ 169.
It really does sound like the original ending was even less satisfactory than the one they went with.
But how does the book end? Is it too nihilistic for a big-budget movie?
I liked the suspense and the action but why didn't they explain exactly WHY all the zombie stuff started happening in the first place? Also I though the ending was, well, open ended. Seems kind of sequel ready.
It was awful, and I'm into the whole zombie jandra.
The only interesting/exciting part was when he was in the lab. Otherwise, an MTV video. The quick-action is tiresome and annoying.
I thought the book was horribly written, but it least it made an effort with some social and political commentary that was completely non-existent in the film. I get why the book's fans were disappointed.
The film was watchable, but far from spectacular.
I didn't really understand the whole giant wall 10th man thing. The outbreak was pretty fast all over the world are we to believe Isreal built a massive wall in what..weeks?
If a virus can enter your bloodstream through broken skin, swarm your immune system, kill you, reanimate and have you running after more victims in 12, yes 12, no shit 12 seconds, Israel can build a giant wall in a couple of weeks.
r172 what the hell is a jandra?
noun: genre; plural noun: genres1. a category of artistic composition, as in music or literature, characterized by similarities in form, style, or subject matter
Newbie R176, you're just as annoying as the film.
What does being a Newbie have to do with knowing how to use the correct word? I mean you obviously knew the context of it..well the context of the jandra word. I did you a favor actually. Now you sound less stupid when you talk about being a fan of a Genre....it's better some unknown random on the internet laugh at you than a group of your friends.
You're one of the most iconic voices on this board, R178!
Lol R178. Expect to feel really stupid really soon.
The film was not as bad as I had read online. It was actually entertaining. I found only two moments to be stupid, both were when he was talking about his family.
Anyway, there are always people who hate this film or that one. I absolutely hated The Great Gatsby, which was, in my opinion, a disaster. Anna Karenina was right behind it - two of the worst movies ever made.
Let's be uncharacteristically kind and help r176/ 178 out:
why would I feel stupid...it's still wrong and it only means I spent less of my life caring about stupid shit than the jandra guy.
WHET bo bice anyway?
Aw you should have let him hang a little longer.
It's always the loudest blowhards who are the most clueless.
r185 yes good one I am clueless because jandra is a know fuck up on DL from when Bo Bice was on American Idol. I was 13 then..gee I feel really stupid everyone knows about it but me...oh no wait. no I don't
Must be 12.
Well, R186 maybe when you come to a new website instead of trying to pontificate to others you keep your mouth shut and learn the lay of the land. Otherwise you're bound to recreate the acidic rejection I'm sure you experience in real life.
Stupid movies full of plot holes, inconsistent logic and bad performances. A huge waste of time and nothing at all like the book.
r188 nope I don't get rejected. I reject, probably people like you who think guys way out of their league are attainable.