But is it really carb face on Brad Pitt? Or are we looking at fillers?

I’ve been writing about this for a few months now. Click here, and here, and here for previous examples and comparison.

If it was carb face, the body doesn’t really match. To match the amount of carb on his face, I dunno, I feel like he’d have to be bigger in the body. Again, go back to this post and check him out in Killing Me Softly. It’s only in the cheeks, see? Nothing in the neck, not in the chin...

That, to me, looks like filler. Someone’s turning 50 in 6 months and is fighting it.

Here’s Brad at Good Morning America today, pushing World War Z before its release this Friday. Sarah reviewed it last week -- click here for a refresher. In short, she said it wasn’t good. And some of you are confused because it was sitting at 80% on Rotten Tomatoes for a few days, although that percentage seems to be dropping slightly.

You know what’s interesting about Rotten Tomatoes lately though? Take HitFix’s Drew McWeeny’s review for WWZ, for example. Click here to read it. The title is “Brad Pitt Tries to bring World War Z to life and fails”. So you’d think that would score a “rotten” rating on Rotten Tomatoes, right? No, actually. Rotten Tomatoes listed it as “fresh”. How does a movie review with “fail” in its title end up as “fresh”? And how many others are labelled the same when they’re not all that “fresh”?

Coincidence or conspiracy?

Then Kristopher Tapley tweeted this yesterday:

“Wait, they're spinning the wet fart WWZ anti-climax as an artful choice now?”

There seems to be a very...gentle... can we say gentle...approach to critiquing World War Z. It reminds me of how they used to review Twilight. The movies were so much sh-t. And they kept finding good things to say about it, both to appease the demented ass fans and to gain favour with the studio. Are we dealing with a similar situation here? Brangelunatics, Twi-Hards, Paramount, Summit?

Here’s an extended clip from WWZ that they just released.