Single-sentence review of World War Z

I too, want a 12-hour Ken Burns documentary instead of this. I’d also describe John Carter as above-average, though.

Reply

While grammatically legal, is the semi-colon really in the *spirit* of a single-sentence review?

Reply

“While grammatically legal, is the semi-colon really in the *spirit* of a single-sentence review?”

MGK’s grammar is technically correct…the best kind of correct.

The thing about people pre-judging movies is, well, it doesn’t seem like a stretch that if you take a book that’s done in a certain style and then turn it into a movie that essentially resembles Hollywood Action Blockbuster #764732-A then yeah, they’re probably going to judge the shit out of that. Like, even if the movie itself is average with moments that verge into “good” territory…which honestly isn’t a ringing endorsement…Brad Pitt/the studio/whoever’s idea it was to make the movie the way it is had to know that and had to have decided that reaction was an acceptable outcome.

So if WWZ: the Movie doesn’t do as well as it could/should because of people pre-judging it (and I have no idea whether that will happen or not) I can’t help but feel that more of the responsibility for that lies on the creative end than the consumer end. Movies ain’t cheap, man. I judge the shit out of everything before I go and see it because I’m not gonna blow $14-$20 to watch 2-3 hours of a bad, boring movie if I can possibly avoid it.

(Also I’d say calling John Carter average is pretty fair, and I’m glad I didn’t spend ticket prices to watch it either.)

Reply

I will forever lust after the Ken Burns documentary version of the book that will never and could never be made.

I actually think that such a thing could be made. The long series of “Game of Thrones” and the unusual format of the new “Arrested Development” suggest to me that a long-form unorthodox adaptation of World War Z could be produced, and that it could be a quality product, and that a profit could be made from it.

It was always a low possibility, and now that the movie is actually out, it’s an even lower possibility, but I hold out hope that one day, we will get a good “fauxcumentary”.

Reply

Alegretto-

Having not seen the film, I’m hesitant to explain what MGK means, but if I had to guess I’d say its because they didn’t go all out– in the book over the course of the war the planet’s population is reduced by at least 2/3rds and the ultimate solution is a horribly Pyrrhic one thought up by an apartheid era human rights abuser.

Reply

I loved the book, and when I first heard that they were going to make it into a movie, I was very excited. Then I stopped to think. Then I eventually saw the trailers.

Yep. Much like “I, Robot” and “I Am Legend”, take the name and attach it to something that doesn’t resemble the original material in any way. Instant blockbuster!

I’m not surprised, nor am I judgemental. I’ve gotten used to the fact that unless you’re filming for HBO, you can’t put a book onto film without so many radical changes as to make it unrecognizable.

Reply

I would have enjoyed the movie a lot more if not for the overrunning of Jerusalem. That singular plot-point was just entirely too contrived. You could tell they just really wanted to jack-hammer in that last big “Zombie Tidal Wave” scene but couldn’t find a particularly good way to justify it.

Honestly, if there’s one movie I could compare it to: Final Fantasy – Spirits Within. A cool idea, looking for a more compelling plot.

Reply

Since I can’t just bring myself to care less about zombies, I’ve decided to skip it.

Reply