> TEOTWAWKI Blog: Your Thoughts on World War Z?



Your Thoughts on World War Z?

I'm not going to get a chance to see the biggest budget zombie movie ever this weekend, but I wanted to hear from the tribe.

World War Z the movie has very little to do with World War Z the book, and rumors of extensive re-shoots had many judging the film dead on arrival long before it even hit theaters. But, it's out, and initial reviews from the pro movie reviewers are that World War Z is actually pretty good.

Of course, because the artsy film critics enjoy a film doesn't actually mean it's any good.

So, what's the verdict from you, survivalists, preppers and die-hard fans of apocalypse fiction?


  1. I plan on seeing the movie after the crowds die down, no pund intended. I hope it is better than the book. I did not like the format the book was written in. I would get into a story and boom it jumped to another story.

  2. AnonymousJune 22, 2013

    I saw it just this afternoon. It's a good movie, but the only two things in the movie that resemble the book are the name and that there are zombies in it. That said, I didn't spend much time going "this isn't like the book" because well, it was SOOOO unlike the book that I never really felt the dissonance.

    I even took away a thing that should go in our bug out bags from it!

    1. AnonymousJune 23, 2013

      Well, no. NOt road flares, but something that will be handier than road flares. Depending on a road flare for light struck me as pretty unhandy. There are better alternatives, which I plan to stock (flashlights, headlamps, glowsticks that you can ring around your neck, etc.).

    2. Ya, when we have road flares in kits, they are usually for fire starting more than lighting. Not a good choice for lighting, obviously.

  3. I really enjoyed the book, but then again, I never met a zombie book I didn't like. I know the Z's are portrayed very differently in the movie and hope they have an explanation as to why they are such fast movers. The book had smartly explained physiological reasons as to why they were slow moving. Will see the movie on Thursday.

  4. I saw it yesterday and I would read the book again before I watched it. The ending was anti-climatic and really just blah... I thought the beginning was awesome, like 28 day Later, but unlink 28, the rest of the movie went downhill... They did include certain things from the book, like locations and the Jewish solution, but that was about it. I think the one thing they left out that was very key in the book was the way the Zs moved thru water... It was a major part of the book and they just bypassed it. Also, the lack of the use of K9s was also disappointing... But I like Zombie movies and I thought the jaw chopping was very amusing... See it and see for yourself. Yeah the Road Flares are a nice addition to a BOB... Peace.

    1. I Am surprised to hear that anything from the book made it into the movie...I had heard it was similar in name only...which makes you wonder why they paid for the book rights.

  5. AnonymousJune 23, 2013

    I am really disappointed in the blockbuster treatment given Max Brooks wonderfully entertaining book. A unique, non-linear film could have been made by more directly adapting the book, but the film producers just turned it into another uber-budget disaster film. I'll probably rent it from Redbox when the DVD release comes out, but won't be spending any money on this travesty during its theatrical run.

    The "fast" zombie concept seems to be ripped off from the "28 Days" franchise and I find it a little annoying. It takes a little more creativity and pacing to make traditional slow zombies threatening in a film (see the recent "The Dead" about zombies in Africa for traditional zombies done well), and the WWZ film uses fast zombies as a quick and dirty, CGI-heavy vehicle to move the movie along. Again, pretty lame and disappointing. At least it is only two more months until The Walking Dead Season 3 is released on DVD.

    1. AnonymousJune 26, 2013

      It never ceases to amaze me how someone can critique a movie they haven't even seen. Did you formulate your opinions on someone else's review you read, or are you just guessing?

  6. I really liked the movie. Wore my 'don't shoot, not infected' t-shirt to it. The grocery store scene was something that I can see happening for any situation.
    That and the guy shooting himself in the head on the plane ramp... lol.

  7. AnonymousJune 23, 2013

    One thing i liked how they portrayed the special forces as true bad asses n no you dont want to get in a cqb situation with them.
    Other than that grocery scene stuck out cuz i was screaming in my head NO STUPID STUPID STUPID DECISION MAKING.
    Funny how they pushed the bug-out thinking vs the bug-in. Not sure how true it applies in similar shtf but "movement is life"!

  8. AnonymousJune 24, 2013

    I saw the movie without reading the book and thought it was great. The grocery store scene of emergency hoarding/looting seemed to be very realistic of how the unprepared will behave.

    1. That was pretty cool dont wanna be in THAT number because HEAVENS, those that didnt have anything didnt HAVE anything omg...

  9. AnonymousJune 24, 2013

    You Took Away Tomorrow is a much better way to spend your time than World War Z.

    I saw this movie yesterday and thought it was pretty uneventful, boring- even though like normally- Pitt did a good job. The almost rape seen in the Supermarket was pretty stupid, not to mention all the global warming lies they so subtlety threw in there. And then there was the whole anti-Israel theme in the movie. It was just another Hollywood elitist film. All we have in the mainstream movies these days are "end of the world" alien themes and us government being taken over.
    Silly...to bad we do not have a Hollywood movie about how ordinary people wake up to how corrupt our government is, demand a recall for the entire congress while sending them home with no lifetime pensions, elect new leaders and change the world with common sense ideas and love to have a beautiful future- Instead it sounds like we are being prepared for something...

    Glad we have this good blog to talk about the right times and products for the inevitable.

  10. AnonymousJune 24, 2013

    If you watch the movie as another zombie flick, it's fine. If you watch it as "Max Brooks" movie come to life, you will be upset.

    It's a movie, not a survival flick. I watched it as such and throughly enjoyed it, (i also saw it in 3D).

    Any one that preps, or trains, or whatever would rarely make a decision that is simliar to the movie, BUT THATS WHY ITS A MOVIE. Turn your brain off, sit back and enjoy watching brad pitt make stupid decisons... my wife sure as heck did.


  11. Well for one that has read the book many times! and saw the movie that was hyped as loosely based on the book. There were several things that stuck from the book. The viciousness of the zombies and how quickly they spread. The way dogs could detect them. Israel was a perfect rendering from the book. The great walled city! Yea in the book that it the way it ended too. How did anyone ever think that it was going to be like look we found the cure let's cure everyone. And I think his choices went pretty well with the options provided to him. Overall I thought it was very well done.

  12. AnonymousJune 24, 2013

    Since I'm not logging in to post you can call me victor incase you want to comment on my post or ask a question.

    CAUTION there may be spoilers

    As a zombie movie, it was good not great. The fast zombie is not my favorite but it does add a dimension to the movies they are in. It is a deadlier enemy that would make you rethink your tactics. You would need a Chekov's gun to beat these things otherwise the human race is done for. Regular zombies, who are already harder to kill than regular humans, require a head shot or severe cranial trauma to kill. Fast zombies are like a tueller drill from hell.

    WWZ had some very cool scenes like Israel and the passenger plane and I liked the Sherlock scan aspect but some things were bad. From a prepper respective I will list just these: not having an inhaler for your kid but somehow having several road flares, not having security on the wall, giving a complete novice a loaded gun without a safety(I'd have given him a baseball bat or spent the trip to korea doing drills), taking so few seals(I know they are in short supply/high demand but the are a specialized weapon and this is a special mission),they know the things are attracted to sound and don't silence there damn phones. I do kind of feel that some aspects of the movie were taken from Day by day Armageddon. Using a plane to hop around, a gov't/military sanctioned mission to china/korea for a cure, teaming up with a middle eastern soldier, even the scene in nova scotia reminds me of the boat they use in the 1st DBDA.

    I really liked the segments from the book though they could have been longer in many cases. They showed how a lot of different people and a lot of different groups of people dealt with one defined version of a zombie. They would make a great movie or mini series. The battle of Yonkers, the rogue submarine and the other little submersibles, The Indian general who kills zombies with his scimitar, the downed pilot, antartica, north korea going silent, south Africa. And it is the only work of zombie fiction I know of that shows an actual resolution to a full scale zombie outbreak. Now I doubt we will ever see a zombie movie like WWZ or Day by day Armageddon.

    Ill end here before I write a book.

    What global warming lies and what was anti Israel.

  13. The movie was a fun romp, even if it used very little from the book. The plot was thin, the character development was nil, and none of the actors were engaged with the characters they were playing. But the explosions, CGI effects were a blast. Just park your critical faculties at the door and enjoy the popcorn and explosions.

    From a prepper point of view, it wasn't realistic. People in the movie reacted pretty quickly by running away. But would this really happen in real life? Google "negative panic" to see what I mean.

    The zombies were cool, but without some dialogue on why they were so fricken fast, it was too much like comic book super-villains, or the magical running skeletons from "The Mummy". For all the military hardware, it wasn't very scientificy. Did the writers of the movie even read the book?

    I don't want to spoil the movie for you if you haven't seen it yet, but the best idea in the movie was near the end, and was used like a bandaid to "solve" the problem just in time for the credits to roll. A movie that begins poorly can be redeemed by a good ending. But a bad ending cannot be redeemed.

  14. AnonymousJune 25, 2013

    I honestly believe the book will pick up as a sequel. Considering the book took place after the Zombie war and how different cultures battled the infection. Maybe they are setting it up for WWZ II and track the book at that point which would be cool to see.

  15. AnonymousJune 26, 2013

    I took one thing away from this movie...I need more ammo...ooorah!

  16. AnonymousJune 27, 2013

    To tell the truth, I love the movie just as much as I love the book. The film is different from the book because the book is a clump of compiled interviews with survivors. The movie focuses on one character (Gerry Lane), however, some major events and settings in the book important to the progression of events are seen in the film. In my opinion, if the film was focusing on interviews, like the book, I suppose there would be a lot more confusion in the audience. Both the film and the novel present the audience with a hauntingly-realistic vision of a pandemic of apocalyptic proportions. Bravo to Max Brooks and Brad Pitt!