2013) and $45.8 million its opening weekend, ranking in third place. Critical response On review aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes, World War Z has a approval rating, based on reviews, with an average rating of ; the site's critical consensus reads: "It's uneven and diverges from the source book, but World War Z still brings smart, fast-moving thrills and a solid performance from Brad Pitt to the zombie genre." On Metacritic, it has a weighted average score of 63 out of 100, based on 46 critics, indicating "generally favorable reviews". Audiences surveyed by CinemaScore gave the film a grade of "B+" on an A+ to F scale. Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun-Times gave the film a 3.5 out of 4, saying: "It's entertaining as hell" and provides "nearly non-stop action". Peter Travers of Rolling Stone gave the film a 3 out of 4, saying that "the suspense is killer". Henry Barnes of The Guardian considered the film an "attempt at large-scale seriousness" in the zombie genre that resulted in a "punchy, if conventional action thriller." Writing for Variety, Scott Foundas found the film a "surprisingly smart, gripping and imaginative addition to the zombie-movie canon", which shows "few visible signs of the massive rewrites, reshoots and other post-production patchwork." Todd McCarthy of The Hollywood Reporter opined that "Brad Pitt delivers a capable performance in an immersive apocalyptic spectacle about a global zombie uprising." A. O. Scott of The New York Times said, "[It] does not try to extend the boundaries of commercial entertainment but does what it can to find interesting ways to pass the time within them." Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times remarked that "World War Z plays a bit like a series of separate films and the juncture where the new final act was grafted onto the proceedings is unmistakable, but unless you knew about the film's troubled past, you'd never guess it existed." In a negative review, Joe Neumaier of the New York Daily News said that World War Z "is no summer thriller. It's an anemic actioner that fosters excitement like dead limbs as it lumbers toward a conclusion." Robbie Collin of The Daily Telegraph thought the film had been affected by its troubled development, observing that "the final product has an elaborate uselessness about it", and the film has "no heart to be found amid the guts." Alonso Duralde of TheWrap said: "For all