Ror Reviews: WORLD WAR Z 3D <font color="red">(SPOILERS)</font>

I have yet to read Max Brooks' novel upon which this movie is based, but by all accounts it's a smart, original and thought provoking take on the Zombie genre. If that is the case fans of said book should be prepared to be disappointed, because Marc Forster's adaptation...isn't.

NOTE: I normally avoid spoilers, but in order to talk about why I felt the movie didn't work I do spoil a couple of things..nothing TOO major, but be warned

The story focuses on Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt) and his family's struggle to survive the zombie apocalypse, as he is forced to leave them while he travels the globe in search of a cure. It begins well enough, and there's some early tension, but ultimately things get far too repetitive and it descends into a bit of a snooze-fest. This is, in part, due to the one-man-show that's forced down our throats. Yes, I get that Pitt is the hero but there ARE other people in the story they're telling, so shouldn't we get to know 'em a little? Nope!

Lane is accompanied by a team of course, and you might think we'll be learning more about guys so we'll care if and when they become zombie fodder, but no -- Pitt's character is pretty much the only player you are allowed to give a crap about..and even that's a stretch. For example, Iron Man 3's James Badge Dale pops up as a soldier. He's a familiar face, he sports and impressive beard, he's tough and cool and calls zombies "zeke"..that's enough to make people care when they kill him off right? Wrong. World War Z makes the same mistake so many movies of this type make; it expects the audience to relate and to give a shit simply because it tells us we're supposed to.

Another major problem is the family friendly rating. Obviously I realize not all horror movies need blood 'n guts to create scares and tension, but a ZOMBIE movie kinda does! I mean if your entire movie is based around the human race fighting for survival against a horde of bloodthirsty, murderous creatures bent on carnage, and you're not showing, or -- actually worse -- diluting that carnage, you have a problem. One almost laughably toned-down scene in particular in which Lane has to amputate a soldier's hand after she's bitten, really hammers home how much of a slave to that lucrative PG-13 rating Forster and co. were.

It's not all bad though; Pitt gives a good performance in the lead, even if he doesn't exactly have much opportunity to set the screen on fire. And he's supported by a talented cast..again, not given enough to do. Also there are a couple of interesting ideas that are touched on -- no doubt echoes of the geopolitical themes of the novel -- but never explored properly. Plus, if all you're looking for is an action movie to pass the time then you could do a lot worse -- despite some overly choppy editing (no doubt to refrain from lingering on the nastiness too much) the set pieces are handled pretty well, and there is quite a bit of fun to be had in the final half hour or so, when the zombies go "dormant".

All-in-all not a complete disaster, but decent performances and a few thrills are not enough to recommend this muted, bloodless (in every sense) affair; too afraid to be a full-on zombie movie and not interesting enough to be anything else. Oh, and the 3D conversion is wretched too

Posted By:
Mark Cassidy
Member Since 11/9/2008
Filed Under "Action" 6/13/2013
DISCLAIMER: is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and... [MORE]
1 2
thorhulk77 - 6/13/2013, 5:13 PM
Lol ^
InfiniteMonkey - 6/13/2013, 5:17 PM
Straight to rental this one.
rocky - 6/13/2013, 5:19 PM
I had been reading mostly very positive things
I'm still seeing this
I hate that they deviated so much from the book
but at least it'll feel like something new
ManofSteel23 - 6/13/2013, 5:19 PM
I would rather trust you guys on here about reviews and being critics than the hacks at RT,I wait for this films to come out online
pro346 - 6/13/2013, 5:21 PM
I'm going to see this one! Ror gives it 2 stars must mean its good....80℅ on rotten tomatoes if you care about things like that
ParisSun - 6/13/2013, 5:25 PM
I guess it didn't have enough repetitive action and lense flares for Ror.
eyesore - 6/13/2013, 5:28 PM
Read the book a few years back. The book is nothing like the movie in the visual sense. the movie may have all the locations and follow a similar story line but doesn't read like the movie looks. If that makes any sense.
GLprime2814 - 6/13/2013, 5:28 PM
I don't trust rottentomatoes every movie I've liked they have given it poor score.
RorMachine - 6/13/2013, 5:30 PM
lol, thanks get off my article!!;)
sanyaya - 6/13/2013, 5:30 PM
oh well at least its not 1 star
sanyaya - 6/13/2013, 5:33 PM

Gusto i honestly thought you were dead
marvel72 - 6/13/2013, 5:37 PM
world war zzzzzzzzzzzzzz by the sound of things.
Kevinwillpeabodyproperties - 6/13/2013, 5:41 PM
Stop saying what a movie on rotten tomatoes is!!!!!! Just stop!!!!

It's irrelavent!!!
pro346 - 6/13/2013, 5:41 PM
Rors right 7/10 times you say gusto .....more like 5.5/10
DamienA - 6/13/2013, 5:44 PM
it's got Brad Pitt as the lead it's bound to make a boat load of money.
RorMachine - 6/13/2013, 5:49 PM
I'm sure it will..and it'll prob get a sequel..which it is left GAPING wide open for by the way. Don't expect a full story.
eyesore - 6/13/2013, 5:53 PM
Agree, looks like an over the top zombie flick. I prefer a more casual, slower moving zombie as opposed the aggressive looking ones in this movie. Anyone could play the role Pitt is playing, I don't think it helps this movie having him.
TheClemster - 6/13/2013, 5:58 PM
Oh wow two stars only Ror???

Like always I will have to judge by myself. Maybe you were hoping for a close-to-the-book movie too much???

Tryin' to twist your arm there ...
marvel72 - 6/13/2013, 6:00 PM
@ eyesore

i agree,the lack of blood/gruesome deaths is what pisses me off most.
maryboo - 6/13/2013, 6:02 PM
The books was an absolute masterpiece and I have no idea why critics are praising this movie. It looked like shit from the start. I'm convinced they got paid off.
RorMachine - 6/13/2013, 6:02 PM
An argument could have been made for 2.5 stars if I was feeling generous.

I wasn't DAMMIT!:)
TheClemster - 6/13/2013, 6:05 PM

oh well more zombie movies is always good plus for the gruesome Dawn of the Dead and the Walking Dead are there ...

and Gusto of course

TheClemster - 6/13/2013, 6:06 PM
waiiiiiit I found better

and Gusto of course

rocky - 6/13/2013, 6:07 PM
Am I out of place if I say that I find this review suspicious? ;)
Chewtoy - 6/13/2013, 6:08 PM
It's funny, in a sad kind of way, that a book that featured the collected stories of many survivors became a film where one could complain about the focus being to singularly on one character. There was no lead character in the book.

Still, it does sound like this is an entertaining film taken by itself, at least based on other reviews.
MadTitan - 6/13/2013, 6:21 PM
i have read/heard of the novel. visually it's not what this film looks like based on the novel. regardless of that i would still see it because it's a freakin' zombie film and my reaction could wait. while we can nitpick anything from the novel vs. the short repetitive trailer which really there's nothing much yet to see so what's there to compare or comprehend? bah..
eyesore - 6/13/2013, 6:34 PM
Books are always better than their movies if you like a good story. While there are some great movies titled after their books, they could've called this Zombie Apocalypse 2013 and it would make more sense.
RedeyeJedi - 6/13/2013, 6:39 PM
You people running your mouths about Ror are crazy. He is consistently on point with his reviews and opinions.
eyesore - 6/13/2013, 6:40 PM
When I first heard this movie was being made, I pictured a WWII type documentary with famous actors telling stories of their encounters and the action would be flashback sequences. Then some how bring it all together at the end. But nope, we get to see Pitt try and stop a zombie invasion. Whoopie!
RedeyeJedi - 6/13/2013, 6:41 PM
Oh, and great review as always, Ror!
eyesore - 6/13/2013, 6:42 PM
Hey Gusto, How 'bout "There once was a man from Nantuckett, so go F yourselfs."
LEVITIKUZ - 6/13/2013, 6:50 PM
I've been told RT is Gospel so I don't care for your review.

mctrinket - 6/13/2013, 6:54 PM
RorMachine - 6/13/2013, 7:29 PM
Wasn't me! Didn't even get a chance to read it..what was it about?
LEVITIKUZ - 6/13/2013, 7:42 PM
Aw SRS is defending me.
pro346 - 6/13/2013, 8:36 PM
@alexthekaiser you said it right!
ralfinader - 6/13/2013, 8:39 PM
Figured this would be shit. Get the rights to one of the greatest innovations to the zombie genre and then ignore it to make their own shitty movie. Hope this fails.
RorMachine - 6/13/2013, 9:14 PM
Yeah you've found me out:( ..the movie is actually awesome..go see it!
JohnLamb - 6/13/2013, 10:18 PM
Well it could've been a lot worse. Looking at you After Earth. Piece of sh*t film.
Webhead007 - 6/13/2013, 10:35 PM
I'll redbox this one.
1 2

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.