At risk of stirring up the brain-dead hordes on this site...

Rating: 6/10 (27 June 2013)

...I have to say that "World War Z" is not a bad piece of mindless entertainment. I trust whoever reads this understands I am damning it with faint praise. Truth is it's a perfectly watchable production that will eventually sink into the great mass of otherwise undistinguished perfectly watchable productions that comprise the bulk of the film industry's output. And in this case, Sturgeon's Revelation notwithstanding, I say so what?
Its major distinction is that it's the first (and will possibly be the only) high-budget tent pole zombie film ever made. If it manages to turn any sort of profit worldwide (and the early indications are positive), there will surely be a follow-up, and for all but the most rabid gore-soaked zombie fans, that's far more encouraging than the thought of the upcoming "Independence Day" sequel. I caught it at a $5 matinée and did not feel cheated; at full price, I admit I might well have thought otherwise. Viewer mileage will vary depending on one's allegiance to the source material, Max Brooks' novel.
Said novel is essentially a compilation of post-apocalypse accounts, virtually un-filmable except, perhaps, as a mini-series. Brad Pitt & Co. chose to retain only the basic scenario (worldwide zombie plague) and the title; hey, they paid for it, they can do with what they wish. Brooks may have whined, but he still cashed the check, didn't he?
Be that as it may, "WWZ" turns out to be a competent action-thriller with a primary attraction of nicely portraying a genuinely international disaster without an overload of "Oh, c'mons!" beyond the core premise. It's essentially "28 Days Later" on a global scale.
Nutshell: Watchable, dispensable product. Hardcore zombie fans will not be pleased.