Pros:
Cons:
So there's my thoughts on this film. It's a mixed bag, but ultimately I'd recommend it. It's worth seeing at the cinema just for those spectacular action scenes, and simply so you can see the sheer scale of the biggest budgeted zombie film of all time. It's flawed as hell though, so go in with moderate expectations. It could be a whole lot better, but ultimately the film's still pretty decent, and a good one to experience on the big screen. It's certainly a fine summer blockbuster, but it's unlikely that the film will ever achieve a "classic status."
- Epic scope: This is without a doubt the biggest zombie movie ever made. The exact budget of the film is unknown, but due to its prolonged and troubled production some have estimated the movie cost as much as 250 million dollars to make. And the film-makers really make sure you're aware of how expensive the movie would've been to make, with a number of staggering shots featuring thousands and thousands of zombies swarming all over each other. The movie earns its title, given the fact that it is truly a zombie movie on a global scale.
- Brad Pitt: He's very good in this movie, and is definitely one of the best things about the film. He makes for a compelling and likable hero who has to rely more on his intelligence than physical power. He's no superhero in this film, and his vulnerability and "everyday-man" nature keeps him relatable and likable.
- Action scenes: As mentioned before, there's a ton of zombies in this movie. And yes, a lot of them are CGI, which I personally don't have a problem with because there were so many it's unlikely they could've done a lot of these scenes with actual extras portraying the zombies. The hordes of zombies allow for some truly spectacular action scenes on a large scale, all of which I'd rather not talk about in too much detail, because the zombie/action scenes are really the best part of the film, so it's definitely best not to ruin the scenes by giving you too much of an idea of what to expect
- Use of the word "zombie": This didn't necessarily make the film better, but it was just interesting to see the word "zombie" used frequently by the film's characters. The word "zombie" has been treated for so long as a clichéd term in zombie films that it's now kind of refreshing to see it used so honestly and openly in a serious zombie film.
Cons:
- Lack of gore: Now don't get me wrong, I don't need blood and guts in every single movie I watch. But with zombie films, gory violence is a necessity. You need to see zombies getting ripped apart to emphasise how they are literally the "living dead," and you need to see humans die graphic deaths to reinforce how much of a threat the zombies can be. But this film wants to appeal to pretty much anyone aged 10 and up so Brad Pitt and friends can get more money, so of course we get very little blood, plus no on-screen guts, severed limbs, or exploding heads.
- Shaky cam: This kind of ties in with the lack of gore; it's like the cameraman is shying away from the more graphic moments (it's The Hunger Games all over again). The shaky cam's only really noticeable in the film's first half hour though, while the zombie outbreak is just beginning, so it's not a huge problem. Still a little bothersome though.
- Unfulfilling ending: This movie does end in an abrupt fashion, and kind of left me wanting more. It ends very suddenly, and I kind of thought to myself- "really? That's it?" The biggest action scene in the movie occurs about halfway through the film, and the final zombie confrontation was fairly quiet and low-key, which just felt a bit off to me. That being said, the jarringly sudden ending could be seen as a good thing, as it demonstrated that the movie went by fairly quickly. It's just under two hours long, but the final scene honestly felt as though the film was at about the 80-minute mark. But still, the ending was a little unsatisfying, so I ultimately see the ending as a con.
- Unintentionally funny zombies: Zombies can be funny, and zombie movies can be part-comedy and still be great zombie movies. Shaun of the Dead and ZombieLand are both very funny movies that also manage to be pretty good legitimate zombie films (they don't exclusively poke fun at the zombie genre). George A. Romero worked some great satire into 1978′s Dawn of the Dead, by comparing the zombies in the film's mall to the mindless, braindead consumers who inhabited the mall pre-zombie apocalypse. World War Z didn't feel like it was meant to have much comedy in it with its serious tone and gritty aesthetic, yet at times I found myself laughing at the way the film's zombies expressed exaggerated twitchy movements, and the manner in which more than a few of them chattered their teeth repeatedly in a cartoonish manner.
- Slight lack of tension: The movie lacks some much needed suspense because it's basically Brad Pitt saving the world himself. Maybe if Pitt's character had a few allies forming like a "rag-tag squad" or something, and they went around battling zombies as a group, it would've made things more intense and involving, as a few of them would inevitably die along the way. I don't know, a few more well-developed side characters would've gone quite a long way in making me more invested in the film's events.
So there's my thoughts on this film. It's a mixed bag, but ultimately I'd recommend it. It's worth seeing at the cinema just for those spectacular action scenes, and simply so you can see the sheer scale of the biggest budgeted zombie film of all time. It's flawed as hell though, so go in with moderate expectations. It could be a whole lot better, but ultimately the film's still pretty decent, and a good one to experience on the big screen. It's certainly a fine summer blockbuster, but it's unlikely that the film will ever achieve a "classic status."