POR: BLACK LAVEL
Que la temática Zombie está más de moda que nunca es algo que todos
sabemos, pues se ha expandido a videojuegos, libros, tele-series y películas
(entre otros). Ahora bien, nunca, centrándonos en el terreno audiovisual, hemos
recibido una súper producción basada en tal premisa. (El guión original de
"El día de los muertos vivientes" pudo llegar a serlo, pero la
financiación no acompañó a las intenciones iniciales del siempre genial
Romero.....y aun con todo es, posiblemente, la mejor película de Zombies...junto a Dawn of the dead, claro...)
La tarea de WWZ no era sencilla, pues dentro de este subgénero (cuyas
bases se asientan sobre la magnífica "La noche de los muertos vivientes") se han desarrollado toda clase de guiones e interpretaciones.
Desde el simple enfoque hacia el terror de combatir a los "no
muertos", hasta inclusive la propia naturaleza del hombre ante un acto de
supervivencia extrema, pasando por abundantes producciones con la simple
intención de impactar visualmente, con un enfoque meramente visceral.
Se han tocado todos los palos, pero jamás se ha creado un film que nos
muestre una situación global al detalle.
That the Zombie theme is more fashionable than ever is something we all know, it has expanded into video games, books, television series and movies (among others). Now, ever, focusing on the visual field, we received a super production based on this premise. (The original script of "The Day of the Dead" could become so, but funding did not accompany the great Romero's original intentions ..... and yet it is still possibly the best movie of Zombies .. . alongside Dawn of the dead, of course ...)
The task of WWZ was not easy, because within this subgenre (whose bases are situated on the magnificent "Night of the Living Dead") have developed all kinds of scenarios and interpretations. From simple approach to terror fight the "undead", up to and including the very nature of man to an act of extreme survival, through numerous productions with the simple aim of visual impact, focusing purely visceral.
They have played every club, but never has created a film that shows us a global situation in detail.
That the Zombie theme is more fashionable than ever is something we all know, it has expanded into video games, books, television series and movies (among others). Now, ever, focusing on the visual field, we received a super production based on this premise. (The original script of "The Day of the Dead" could become so, but funding did not accompany the great Romero's original intentions ..... and yet it is still possibly the best movie of Zombies .. . alongside Dawn of the dead, of course ...)
The task of WWZ was not easy, because within this subgenre (whose bases are situated on the magnificent "Night of the Living Dead") have developed all kinds of scenarios and interpretations. From simple approach to terror fight the "undead", up to and including the very nature of man to an act of extreme survival, through numerous productions with the simple aim of visual impact, focusing purely visceral.
They have played every club, but never has created a film that shows us a global situation in detail.
Al basarse en la genial obra literaria de Max Brooks (un relato con
base socio-política) es fácil determinar si se ha acertado, o no, en la
recreación de una auténtica representación de la actitud humana ante la posible
extinción de toda la raza (y de sus consecuencias).....Pero no adelantemos
acontecimientos y centrémonos de inicio en lo que ofrece la película.
Con un coste aproximado de 190 millones de dólares, guión final de Matthew Michael Carnahan y bajo la batuta de Marc Foster (Director sin personalidad
alguna...), se creó una película con un target bastante inquietante: Crear un
film para todas las audiencias.
Esto no sería un problema si habláramos de la adaptación de cualquier
novela del Mago de Oz, de la obra de Michael Ende o de cualquier otro escritor
que no base su narrativa en la destrucción, la violencia o la extinción. Pero
no es el caso.
Paramount Pictures y Plan B (La productora de Brad Pitt) invirtieron en
los derechos de la obra con la clara intención de recrear un espectáculo para
masas, siempre con el enfoque de un entretenimiento para todos los públicos (o
que no llegara a calificaciones tan restrictivas como +18).
Esta "restricción creativa", antes de ver el film, se puede
llegar a entender y es comprensible, pues 190 millones de dólares, son muchos
millones.....Como bien comentaba Raúl (Horror...El Horror!) en su pre-análisis: "el cine es un negocio, y nadie invierte para
perder dinero". Pero hay que saber en lo que se invierte.
Tras una breve introducción, de apenas unos minutos, que nos relata
como comienza "un día cualquiera" en la vida del protagonista (y de
su familia), la cinta nos empuja de lleno hacia lo que de verdad interesa, pero
lo hace de una forma inquietante y que puede herir la sensibilidad de las
audiencias más curtidas en esto de "la no vida".
Building on the great literary works of Max Brooks (story sociopolitical) is easy to determine if it is successful or not in the recreation of a true representation of the human attitude to the possible extinction of the whole race (and its consequences) But ..... not anticipate events start and focus on what provides the film.
With an estimated cost of 190 million dollars, final screenplay Matthew Michael Carnahan and under the direction of Marc Foster (Director without any personality ...) created a film with a rather disturbing target: Create a film for all audiences .
This would not be a problem if we were talking about the adaptation of any novel The Wizard of Oz, Michael Ende's work or any other writer who based his narrative on the destruction, violence or extinction. But it is not the case.
Paramount Pictures and Plan B (Brad Pitt's production company) invested in the rights of the work with the clear intention of creating a show for the masses, always with a focus on entertainment for all audiences (or not so restrictive qualifications reached and +18).
This "creative restriction", before seeing the film, you can get to understand and is understandable, since $ 190 million, many millions ..... As you commented Raul (Horror. .. The Horror!) In their pre-analysis: "Cinema is a business, and no one invests to lose money." But you know what is invested.
After a brief introduction, in just a few minutes, which tells how it starts "a typical day" in the life of the protagonist (and his family), the full tape drives us to what really interested, but does so in a form disturbing and may offend the sensibilities of audiences tanned in this "non-life".
Building on the great literary works of Max Brooks (story sociopolitical) is easy to determine if it is successful or not in the recreation of a true representation of the human attitude to the possible extinction of the whole race (and its consequences) But ..... not anticipate events start and focus on what provides the film.
With an estimated cost of 190 million dollars, final screenplay Matthew Michael Carnahan and under the direction of Marc Foster (Director without any personality ...) created a film with a rather disturbing target: Create a film for all audiences .
This would not be a problem if we were talking about the adaptation of any novel The Wizard of Oz, Michael Ende's work or any other writer who based his narrative on the destruction, violence or extinction. But it is not the case.
Paramount Pictures and Plan B (Brad Pitt's production company) invested in the rights of the work with the clear intention of creating a show for the masses, always with a focus on entertainment for all audiences (or not so restrictive qualifications reached and +18).
This "creative restriction", before seeing the film, you can get to understand and is understandable, since $ 190 million, many millions ..... As you commented Raul (Horror. .. The Horror!) In their pre-analysis: "Cinema is a business, and no one invests to lose money." But you know what is invested.
After a brief introduction, in just a few minutes, which tells how it starts "a typical day" in the life of the protagonist (and his family), the full tape drives us to what really interested, but does so in a form disturbing and may offend the sensibilities of audiences tanned in this "non-life".
Un "Z" con un más que cuestionable maquillaje, se abalanza
sobre su victima, la muerde en un brazo y sale corriendo a por otra.....no se
ve nada, no hay sangre, no hay una pose impactante ni una puesta en escena
inquietante....si nos hubieran dicho que era un loco que mordía a la gente,
hubiera creado la misma sensación.
Dentro de la misma escena, tras este ataque, vemos a un pequeño grupo
de infectados corriendo como locos y abalanzándose sobre la gente (todo esto
ocurre en una concurrida calle), pero tampoco hay detalle o terror alguno,
creando una simple confusión violenta e irracional.....Es más impactante (y detallado) el caos previo que genera el tráfico, que el propio ataque zombie....
Son estos primeros diez minutos los que nos preparan (y desalientan)
para el gozo vergonzoso de "la violencia sin violencia", que es como
comerse un bocadillo de pan: El pan puede estar muy bueno, pero todo el mundo
preferiría rellenarlo con jamón.
Veremos escenas con miles de zombies (muy pocas para lo esperado..y con
una caracterización tan penosa que pasarían por humanos corrientes) pero jamás
contemplaremos una mancha de sangre en sus ropas o rostros (ni tan siquiera
tras morder..), así como tampoco veremos a sus cuerpos descuartizarse tras una
explosión. Incluso, en determinado momento, presenciaremos una amputación sin
sangre (y sin posterior dolor, que es todavía más grave).
Vale que no quieras recrearte, o exagerar, vale que la intención sea
suavizarlo, pero eliminarlo del todo crea una paradoja ridícula que muchos
dábamos por extinta desde épocas de mayor puritanismo.
Todo el film nos deja esa sensación de las películas de los 60 y los 70
(por ejemplo), con abundante material inspirado en las historias del lejano
oeste, con tiroteos incesantes y victimas transformadas en coladores que,
gracias a la censura, no sangraban.
A "Z" with a more than questionable makeup, pounces on his victim, bites on one arm and runs to the other ..... not see anything, no blood, no striking a pose or an update in disturbing scene .... if we had been told it was a bit crazy people, would have created the same feeling.
In the same scene, after this attack, we see a small group of infected running around like crazy and pouncing on people (all this happens on a busy street), but there is no detail or terrors, creating a simple confusion violent and irrational it's shocking ..... (and detailed) prior chaos that generates traffic, which the zombie attack ....
Are these first ten minutes that we prepared (and discourage) for shameful joy "violence without violence", which is like eating a sandwich of bread: Bread can be very good, but everyone would rather fill it with ham.
We'll see scenes with thousands of zombies (very few for expected .. and so painful that characterization by ordinary human would) but never contemplate a spot of blood on his clothes or faces (not even after biting ..) as well as not see their dismembered bodies after an explosion. Even, at some point, we will witness an amputation without blood (without back pain, which is even worse).
Better not want recreate, or exaggerate, the intention is worth soften, but eliminating it altogether ridiculous creates a paradox that many took for extinct since the time of Puritanism.
The whole film leaves us the feeling of the films of the 60s and 70s (for example), with abundant material inspired by the stories of the Wild West, with incessant gunfire victims in strainers transformed, thanks to censorship, no bleeding.
A "Z" with a more than questionable makeup, pounces on his victim, bites on one arm and runs to the other ..... not see anything, no blood, no striking a pose or an update in disturbing scene .... if we had been told it was a bit crazy people, would have created the same feeling.
In the same scene, after this attack, we see a small group of infected running around like crazy and pouncing on people (all this happens on a busy street), but there is no detail or terrors, creating a simple confusion violent and irrational it's shocking ..... (and detailed) prior chaos that generates traffic, which the zombie attack ....
Are these first ten minutes that we prepared (and discourage) for shameful joy "violence without violence", which is like eating a sandwich of bread: Bread can be very good, but everyone would rather fill it with ham.
We'll see scenes with thousands of zombies (very few for expected .. and so painful that characterization by ordinary human would) but never contemplate a spot of blood on his clothes or faces (not even after biting ..) as well as not see their dismembered bodies after an explosion. Even, at some point, we will witness an amputation without blood (without back pain, which is even worse).
Better not want recreate, or exaggerate, the intention is worth soften, but eliminating it altogether ridiculous creates a paradox that many took for extinct since the time of Puritanism.
The whole film leaves us the feeling of the films of the 60s and 70s (for example), with abundant material inspired by the stories of the Wild West, with incessant gunfire victims in strainers transformed, thanks to censorship, no bleeding.
Desde mi punto de vista, es más violento un tipo que no sangra ni sufre
cuando le disparan, que lo contrario....eso confunde y le quita riesgo y drama a la
acción. Lo violento es que alguien muerda a alguien (o dispare...), no que
sangre tras la acción violenta. Queda mucho por enseñarle a este, "de
nuevo", puritánico hollywood.
Como película de terror (porque los zombies deben dar miedo) es un 0
rotundo. Los zombies se ven de pasada, o en la distancia (a excepción del último tramo del film). Es la primera película de zombies que puede englobarse dentro del cine familiar.
Centrándonos en la adaptación de la obra literaria....nos encontramos
con una censura aun más dañina e insultante. El que no conozca la obra de Brooks
se encontrará ante un thriller atípico y entretenido, vaya por delante, pero
muy poco impactante y con poca personalidad. En cambio, los afortunados
lectores del libro, se toparán con una limitadísima adaptación que omite todo
el contexto político de la obra, todos los errores humanos y, lo más
"sangrante", la gran crítica social que esconde la misma.
La pregunta es: ¿Por qué licenciaron WWZ? si lo único
representado son las avalanchas de zombies.....y se ven tres.
Para que lo entiendan los que desconocen la obra, WWZ se relata a
través de entrevistas con supervivientes, tras diez años de conflicto (En la
película no hay ni una sola entrevista, y el conflicto se resuelve en pocos
días...). El film omite, entre muchas otras cosas, las consecuencias
medio-ambientales relatadas en el libro, tras la caza descontrolada por parte de
los humanos que sobreviven en alta-mar y el incombustible apetito de los
zombies, que acaban prácticamente con cualquier especie animal en la tierra.
(Los zombies, en el film, solo muerden a las víctimas y corren a por otras, ni
tan siquiera se alimentan.......)
From my point of view, is more violent show a man who does not bleed or suffer when they shoot, the opposite .... that confuses and takes risk and drama to action. It is violent bite someone else (or fire ...), not blood after violent action. Much remains to teach this, "again", puritanical hollywood.
As a horror film (because the zombies should be scary) is a resounding 0. The zombies are passing, or distance (except for the last part of the film). It is the first zombie movie that can be included within the family movie.
Focusing on the adaptation of the literary work .... we found a censorship even more damaging and insulting. He who does not know the work of Brooks will be before an unusual and entertaining thriller, go ahead, but little shocking and little personality. Instead, the lucky readers of the book, they will encounter a very limited adaptation omits the political context of the work, all human error and most "bleeding" the great social critic who hides it.
The question is: Why do licensed WWZ? if all are represented avalanches of zombies ..... and you see three.
For you to understand the work unfamiliar, WWZ is told through interviews with survivors, after ten years of conflict (In the film there is not a single interview, and the conflict is resolved in a few days ...). The film omits, among other things, the environmental consequences related in the book, after uncontrolled hunting by humans who survive in high-sea and the evergreen appetite for zombies, they just virtually any animal species on earth. (The zombies in the film, just bite victims and run by others, do not feed .......)
Como adaptación literaria, World War Z es tan libre que no hace
justicia alguna, es otro 0, sin duda alguna.
Queda claro que WWZ es mezquina consigo misma y con el espectador,
siendo también una adaptación que no tiene nada, absolutamente nada, que ver
con la obra de la que parte. Pero, además de esto, es una película sin alma,
sin una sola escena que nos quite el hipo o que nos deje un recuerdo
imborrable....
Es entretenida, eso no se puede negar, pero es un fracaso como
película, como adaptación y como forma de arte. Su director es lo más soso que
te puedes echar a la cara (Entre sus últimos films, nos encontramos con la
aburridísima Quantum of Solace y la penosa Machine Gun Preacher....).
Si no quieres mostrar violencia, no hagas películas bélicas o de
zombies, haz comedias románticas.
Si el guión hubiera retratado todos los errores humanos cometidos en el
libro, hubiéramos disfrutado (casi seguro) de una obra con alma y con un
mensaje implícito, pero se conforma con relatar, vagamente, la expansión de un
virus y se centra solo en la búsqueda de la cura. No se molesta en señalar las
consecuencias del desastre y retrata solo la parte violenta....sin
violencia.
Decía también Raúl, con toda la razón del mundo, que no se puede tildar
a una obra de "comercial" solo por intentar llegar a una mayor
audiencia, y es cierto al 100%, pero WWZ no solo intenta llegar a esa
audiencia, sino que licencia una "marca" de éxito, para no tenerla en
cuenta más que a niveles de título.
As literary adaptation, World War Z is so free that does not do justice at all, is another 0, no doubt.
Clearly WWZ is stingy with himself and with the viewer, also an adaptation that has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the work that inspired. But besides this, it is a film without a soul, without a single scene to take away the hiccups or we leave a lasting impression ....
It's entertaining, it can not be denied, but it is a failure as a film, as an adaptation and as an art form. Its director is bland as you can take in the face (Among his recent films, we find the Quantum of Solace boring and painful Machine Gun Preacher ....).
If you do not want to show violence, do not make war or zombie movies, romantic comedies do.
If the script had portrayed all human error in the book, would have enjoyed (almost certainly) of a play with soul, and with an implicit message, but settles for telling vaguely the spread of a virus and focuses only on the search for a cure. Do not bother to point out the consequences of the disaster and portrays only the violent .... without violence.
Raul also said, rightly, that you can tick to a work of "commercial" just to try to reach a wider audience, and this is true 100% but WWZ not just trying to reach that audience, but leave a "mark" of success, to disregard it rather than heading levels.
As literary adaptation, World War Z is so free that does not do justice at all, is another 0, no doubt.
Clearly WWZ is stingy with himself and with the viewer, also an adaptation that has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the work that inspired. But besides this, it is a film without a soul, without a single scene to take away the hiccups or we leave a lasting impression ....
It's entertaining, it can not be denied, but it is a failure as a film, as an adaptation and as an art form. Its director is bland as you can take in the face (Among his recent films, we find the Quantum of Solace boring and painful Machine Gun Preacher ....).
If you do not want to show violence, do not make war or zombie movies, romantic comedies do.
If the script had portrayed all human error in the book, would have enjoyed (almost certainly) of a play with soul, and with an implicit message, but settles for telling vaguely the spread of a virus and focuses only on the search for a cure. Do not bother to point out the consequences of the disaster and portrays only the violent .... without violence.
Raul also said, rightly, that you can tick to a work of "commercial" just to try to reach a wider audience, and this is true 100% but WWZ not just trying to reach that audience, but leave a "mark" of success, to disregard it rather than heading levels.
Por lo tanto, si existe una película actual que pueda considerarse
comercial, WWZ lo es sin debate alguno. No es una película de zombies, ni es
impactante o épica. Tampoco es la panacea de los efectos especiales (y aquí no
hay crítica, ni positiva, ni negativa, es correcta) y cuenta con el maquillaje
más cutre del sub-genero en la actualidad......(Que una teleserie como The Walking
Dead, en su primera temporada, le de 100.000 vueltas, lo dice todo) ¿De donde
esos 190 millones? Publicidad, Brad Pitt y licencia. Nada más.....o eso, o están realmente mal empleados.
A nivel sonoro, sin embargo, debo confesar que la película es
magistral, con una banda sonora impactante, capaz de crear misterio y tensión.
Me recuerda mucho a los sonidos sintéticos empleados en los films de Romero, e
incluso en bastantes cintas de terror Italiano (sin parecerse en excesos, me
transmitió la maravillosa sensación que regalaban los sonidos de
"Goblin", por ejemplo).
Instrumentos pesados, pianos con tonos estridentes y un punto sintético
añadido gracias a Muse, conforman una espectacular banda sonora que bien podría
calificarse como una de las mejores del género.
En conjunto, es posible que sea tan crítico a nivel negativo por
conocer la obra original (recordemos que es una adaptación), cumbre en muchos
aspectos dentro del género (Yo diría que es la obra de zombies más completa
jamás escrita, y la que más énfasis pone en retratar las miserias humanas y las
consecuencias de una epidemia)
Creo que antes de asemejarla o compararla con las demás obras del
género, tendríamos que hacerlo con obras del tipo "Estallido", más
centradas en una epidemia "común" que en Zombies, o en cualquier otro
tipo de muertos vivientes. Este es el gran mal de la obra, pues se titula World
War Z (con "Z" de zombie), y poco, o nada, tiene que ver con el
retrato original. El cine necesita sus licencias, sin duda, y no se puede
esperar una semejanza estrecha hasta ciertos niveles, pero no es perdonable
utilizar una marca definida para crear algo distante a años luz.
Yo no soy el tipo más experto dentro del género, pero son años y años
de consumo del mismo, antes de tan sonado boom, y puedo certificar que obras
tan discutibles como Zombieland, La tierra de los muertos (discutibles según
gustos) o el excelente remake de Dawn of the dead, arriesgaron mucho más,
impactaron de sobremanera en comparación, y supusieron un avance dentro del
mundo fílmico zombie......WWZ no hace nada de esto, contando con un presupuesto
mucho más generoso. Desde cualquier parte
del mundo se pueden escuchar las risas del señor Savini al contemplar a estos
nuevos zombies.
Therefore, if a film that can be considered current commercial WWZ it is without discussion. It's not a zombie movie, nor is shocking or epic. Nor is the "panacea" of special effects (and here there is no criticism, no positive or negative, is correct) and has the most shabby makeup of the sub-genre today ...... (That a TV series as The Walking Dead, in his first season, he turns 100,000, says it all) Where are these 190 million? Advertising, Brad Pitt and license. Nothing ..... either that or they are really bad employees.
A sound level, however, I must confess that the film is masterful, with a stunning soundtrack, able to create mystery and tension. Reminds me of synthetic sounds used in Romero's films, and even in many Italian horror films (without seeming to excesses, gave me the wonderful feeling that gave away the sounds of "Goblin", for example).
Heavy instruments, pianos strident tones and synthetic point added by Muse, make a killer soundtrack that could be described as one of the best of the genre.
Overall, it may be as critical to negative level to know the original work (remember that is an adaptation) summit in many ways within the genre (I would say is the most complete work of zombies ever written, and the most puts emphasis on portraying human misery and the consequences of an epidemic)
I think before liken or compare it with other works of the genre, would have to do with works such as "Outbreak", more focused on an epidemic "common" and not in Zombies, or any other type of undead. This is the great evil of the work, it is titled World War Z (with "Z" zombie), and little, if anything, has to do with the original portrait. The movies need their licenses, no doubt, and no one can expect a close resemblance to certain levels, but it is not excusable to use a defined brand to create something light years distant.
I'm not the most expert in the genre, but they are years and years of using it, as sounded before boom, and I can certify that works as questionable as Zombieland, Land of the Dead (debatable according to taste) or excellent remake of Dawn of the Dead, risked more, impacted heavily upon comparison, and represented a breakthrough in the world ...... WWZ zombie film does none of this, with much more generous budget. "From anywhere in the world you can hear the laughter of Mr. Savini to contemplate these new zombies".
Therefore, if a film that can be considered current commercial WWZ it is without discussion. It's not a zombie movie, nor is shocking or epic. Nor is the "panacea" of special effects (and here there is no criticism, no positive or negative, is correct) and has the most shabby makeup of the sub-genre today ...... (That a TV series as The Walking Dead, in his first season, he turns 100,000, says it all) Where are these 190 million? Advertising, Brad Pitt and license. Nothing ..... either that or they are really bad employees.
A sound level, however, I must confess that the film is masterful, with a stunning soundtrack, able to create mystery and tension. Reminds me of synthetic sounds used in Romero's films, and even in many Italian horror films (without seeming to excesses, gave me the wonderful feeling that gave away the sounds of "Goblin", for example).
Heavy instruments, pianos strident tones and synthetic point added by Muse, make a killer soundtrack that could be described as one of the best of the genre.
Overall, it may be as critical to negative level to know the original work (remember that is an adaptation) summit in many ways within the genre (I would say is the most complete work of zombies ever written, and the most puts emphasis on portraying human misery and the consequences of an epidemic)
I think before liken or compare it with other works of the genre, would have to do with works such as "Outbreak", more focused on an epidemic "common" and not in Zombies, or any other type of undead. This is the great evil of the work, it is titled World War Z (with "Z" zombie), and little, if anything, has to do with the original portrait. The movies need their licenses, no doubt, and no one can expect a close resemblance to certain levels, but it is not excusable to use a defined brand to create something light years distant.
I'm not the most expert in the genre, but they are years and years of using it, as sounded before boom, and I can certify that works as questionable as Zombieland, Land of the Dead (debatable according to taste) or excellent remake of Dawn of the Dead, risked more, impacted heavily upon comparison, and represented a breakthrough in the world ...... WWZ zombie film does none of this, with much more generous budget. "From anywhere in the world you can hear the laughter of Mr. Savini to contemplate these new zombies".
Después de leer, literalmente, cientos de críticas demasiado
favorables, me veo en la obligación de contrariar a tanto experto como hay
suelto por la red, sin idea alguna de lo que define a este género (que poco
tiene que ver con lo visceral, y mucho más con la crítica social), sin
conocimiento sobre la obra original (vuelvo a recordar que se llama WWZ) y
llenos de alabanzas exageradas como "Lo mejor del genero", "Cada
escena aporta una lectura inteligente", "Violencia controlada",
o "muestra la sangre justa"......cualquiera de los que utilizan estas
frases, o similares, no tiene ni idea de cine de zombies. Más claro el
agua.
Los que la definen como una película entretenida, están en lo cierto,
pues entretiene de principio a fin, pero ni supone una renovación, ni una
redefinición, ni una buena adaptación. No es ni tan siquiera un tributo
respetuoso. Es un Thriller entretenido.
Lo mejor: La película no deja de ser entretenida.....si no conoces el
libro. Todo lo concerniente al sonido es excelente.
Lo peor: No hay terror, no hay sangre, no hay respeto por la obra
original. No tiene nada excepto un guión simplemente pasable.
Una de las peores adaptaciones literarias de todos los tiempos. Creo, y
es más que probable que me confunda, que la obra del señor Brooks
solo podría ser llevada con éxito a la
pantalla por dos personas: El maestro Romero y Peter Jackson.
After reading literally hundreds of reviews too favorable, I am obliged to antagonize both expert as there are loose in the network without any idea of what defines this genre (which has little to do with the visceral, and more with social criticism), without knowledge of the original work (I remind called WWZ) and full of exaggerated praises as "Best of gender", "Each scene provides an intelligent reading", "controlled violence" or "the righteous blood sample" ...... any of those who use these phrases, or the like, you have no idea of zombie movies. Clearer water.
Those who define it as an entertaining movie, they are right, it entertains from start to finish, but neither is a renewal, not a redefinition, not a good fit. There is not even a respectful tribute. It is an entertaining thriller.
Best: The film continues to be entertaining ..... if you do not know the book. Everything about the sound is excellent.
Worst: No terror, no blood, no respect for the original work. It has nothing except a script just passable.
One of the worst book adaptations of all time. I think, and is more than likely confuse me, that the work of Mr. Brooks could only be successfully brought to the screen by two people: Master Romero and Peter Jackson.
After reading literally hundreds of reviews too favorable, I am obliged to antagonize both expert as there are loose in the network without any idea of what defines this genre (which has little to do with the visceral, and more with social criticism), without knowledge of the original work (I remind called WWZ) and full of exaggerated praises as "Best of gender", "Each scene provides an intelligent reading", "controlled violence" or "the righteous blood sample" ...... any of those who use these phrases, or the like, you have no idea of zombie movies. Clearer water.
Those who define it as an entertaining movie, they are right, it entertains from start to finish, but neither is a renewal, not a redefinition, not a good fit. There is not even a respectful tribute. It is an entertaining thriller.
Best: The film continues to be entertaining ..... if you do not know the book. Everything about the sound is excellent.
Worst: No terror, no blood, no respect for the original work. It has nothing except a script just passable.
One of the worst book adaptations of all time. I think, and is more than likely confuse me, that the work of Mr. Brooks could only be successfully brought to the screen by two people: Master Romero and Peter Jackson.
6/10
TRAILER
Pues a mi me parecio una obra maestra
ResponderEliminarA mi perro también le pareció una obra maestra....pero no lo voy contando por ahí......
ResponderEliminar