Con: Where's The Gore?
Being a PG-13 zombie flick,
World War Z got a lot of flack for going after the more family-friendly rating from fans of the genre. To paraphrase YouTube legend ItsJustSomeRandomGuy in this
video, when parents have the choice to take their children to see the latest Pixar film or a movie about the zombie apocalypse, I'm sure they'll appreciate having options. In all seriousness, I do understand the decision to make it PG-13. What I don't understand is how bloodless the whole affair was. I'm not saying they should be emulating the Candyland Shootout from
Django Unchained, but I swear there was more blood in the scene where Carl Fredricksen hits the construction worker over the head with his cane in
Up than there was in whole movie of
World War Z. This should not happen. I'm not well-versed in the zombie and horror genres, but I do know that gore and bloody violence are big parts of what make them a favorite among moviegoers. While the zombie sequences were thrilling to watch, I think they would have been augmented somewhat with the inclusion of some more brutality. I don't know if the filmmakers should have just gone all in and targeted an R rating (and we all know that there's a market for R-rated horror films), but if they wanted to keep it PG-13, there's ways to push boundaries and still get away with it. For the most part, the action bits were pretty clean and sterile, even when Gerry hacked off a soldier's hand to prevent an infection. Part of me just thought this was odd. The lack of gore didn't hurt the film that much, but more blood and violence would have made
World War Z better. Fans of the genre expect this stuff and they're no doubt disappointed by this decision.