There may be little to no blood in World War Z


Greetings yet again, friends and-and-and countrymen. First, let me be a little bird real quick — tweet, uh, tweet. I hear Flixist is now trying to open a small store in Newbridge, New South Wales, Australia and in Newbridge, Antarctica. Fascinating, invigorating, and with food that’s absolutely satiating.

So, let’s turn to news. It turns out that World War Z, starring that delightful rapscallion Brad Pitt, doesn’t have a drop of blood. None! Nada! Nothing in the plasma pool! This brief about cinematic exsanguination comes from Mr. Breaks of Aint it Cool News. He, uhh, saw footage from the film and witnessed nary a drop of the spraying red stuff. Well, actually, blood does make a brief appearance, as this excerpt attests:

During the Jerusalem siege (which played like a run-through for a truly harrowing set piece), a young Israeli soldier gets bitten by a zombie. You see a brief close up of the allegedly mangled arm before Brad Pitt chops it off (the film’s rules state that humans have a twelve-second window from exposure to zombification). There’s no blood, no discernable [sic] abrasion, maybe raised skin, but you’re so confused by that point — why isn’t there blood everywhere — that the shot has lost all intended value. Once the arm is severed, the stump is dressed, and you see a red stain underneath cloth. That’s it. At this point, you’re acutely aware that you’re watching a sanitized-for-the-ratings-board movie.

Director Marc Foster even says that he avoided gore on purpose. As some commenters on AICN point out, the show The Walking Dead has more gore than World War Z. If-if-if this doesn’t, umm, give off the reek of dinosaur manure, I’m not sure what does. World War Z will stink up your local theaters on June 21st.

[Via Aint it Cool News]