World War Z (2013)

Denby calls it the most gratifying action spectacle in years, despite conventional passages and a soft ending. He praises its ability to restore genuine shock, especially in the chaotic Philadelphia outbreak and the digitally inventive Jerusalem sequence.

Foundas finds the film surprisingly smart, gripping, and imaginative. He praises Forster’s tense action and striking imagery, along with Brad Pitt’s grounded performance.

Kohn finds the film thoughtful but uneven, with its ideas often undercutting its momentum and horror. He praises the intense airplane showdown and final laboratory sequence for finally blending medical intrigue with suspense.

Turan finds the film familiar zombie fare, but says it is made with intelligence and skill. He singles out the unnerving, memorable swarming sequences and their visual centerpiece in Israel for praise.

The critic finds the film an effective but somewhat bland thrill ride. He praises its unnerving opening and vivid images, while wishing it showed more large-scale combat.

McCarthy finds the film an immersive, entertaining action spectacle, though its strong set pieces do not add up to a convincing story. He praises the Jerusalem siege for its scale and clarity, while faulting the adaptation for sacrificing the book’s broader political perspective.

The page is blocked, so the critic’s verdict cannot be verified. No praise or complaint is visible in the available text.

The critic’s verdict is inaccessible in the paywall shell. No specific praise or complaint is visible in the supplied text.

Dowd finds the film a visually enormous but underdeveloped, overly tame zombie blockbuster that fizzles out without a proper ending. He praises the early Philadelphia outbreak sequence for its stunning scale and the suspenseful stealth passage for its humor.

The three-star rating indicates a moderately positive verdict. The review excerpt singles out the zombies’ speed as a distinctive feature.

The critic gives the film a middling three-star verdict. The page highlights its $200 million blockbuster-scale makeover of the traditionally low-budget zombie genre.

Bradshaw finds the film hectic and spectacular but emotionally empty. He praises the huge zombie hordes while criticizing the bloodless, familiar finale and lack of heart.

Cabin finds the film dull and politically shallow, with little of the excitement promised by its zombie premise. He singles out the WHO climax and the escape from South Korea as occasional effective or inventive sequences.

Edelstein finds the film exciting at first but ultimately dull and disappointing. He praises the opening sequence’s visceral editing and sound, while faulting the thin protagonist and uninventive story.

O’Sullivan finds the film bland, bloated and largely pointless. She praises the aerial shots of the zombie hordes, but says the creatures are not scary up close.

Bradshaw pans the film as a bloated, boring adaptation that turns a complex novel into a parody. He singles out the dull CGI and the anticlimactic laboratory finale for particular criticism.

Lambie finds the film solidly entertaining, though its drama and supporting characters are weak. He praises the eerie zombie set-pieces and the spectacle of the swarming undead.

The critic finds the film a fast-paced, exciting survival epic, though its cure-related plot feels underdeveloped. The review praises the tense, atmospheric depiction of vast zombie hordes and citywide destruction.

The review finds the film entertaining in parts but too familiar and uneven overall. It praises the tense, thrilling finale and intimidating zombies, while criticizing the lagging middle and Brad Pitt-centered story.

Burgin finds the film lifeless, criticizing its weak adaptation and clumsy, plot-hole-ridden action. He singles out its frantic CGI monsters and contrived suspense as preventing the story from gaining substance.

The critic finds the film a clunky, tedious blockbuster, despite a more effective final stretch. They praise the research-facility section for steadier camerawork, less frantic editing and genuine tension.

The critic finds the film suspenseful and visually impressive but ultimately let down by its lack of human depth. They praise Marc Forster’s ability to generate terror on both intimate and large scales.

The critic finds the film a jumbled, emotionally hollow mess. They single out its scattered storytelling and weak family motivation as reasons there is little to care about.