Zombies were good

Rating: 7/10 (14 January 2016)

I've read up on reviews, and most of the negative reviews originate from the individuals who expected an honest- shall I say- adaptation of the book (this is exactly the issue that faced The Great Gatsby or any other adaptation for that matter). I haven't read the book, which means I don't need to furiously rant about the film's disconnection from its novelistic counterpart. If you haven't read the book, you have no reason to worry about potential disappointment; that's practically reserved for the book's fans. If you're a book fan, on the other hand, you should be expecting the two's differentiation from one another.
So, to put it most understandably, if you're entering this movie the way it was marketed, you'll experience a wild, roller-coaster ride that's fairly effective in its capability of featuring some dramatic moments of diplomatic negotiations and political discussions over the world's collapse and then placing you into intensely impossible situations only to be followed by an incredibly suspenseful, nerve-wracking sequence. It's highly entertainingÂ…however, it's the furthest from originality a film can get. I mean, it's yet another zombie movie, dealing with the entire world under a deadly zombie virus. You've basically seen everything in this movie already as 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later highlighted the serious effects of such an event already. In that case- during its first act- World War Z feels unbelievably similar to the two films mentioned above. Especially considering the decision to exclude the more political aspect of the novel and turning the adaptation into an action flick instead, there's not much here that'll bask in uniqueness, really.