Its the shitest film of the year...
Its the shitest film of the year...
You want to see a good zombie flick in the theaters, go to Shaun Of The Dead. Otherwise, stick to the classics on video and DVD.
HAHAAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!!Originally posted by shadowwoelf@Sep 16 2004, 12:08 AM
nah i can rember almost ever movie i ever seen but i might forget someparts but when i wacth the beggining i can rember most of it anyhow plus dont ppl want sequels like to books and stuff when they never finished the ending sequels are like a new book with the same charaters some sequels may suck but they all r not to and i thought that sherk 2 was good new story same old charaters plus dawn of the dead sucked i mean they dont tell you how any of it happed all you now is that people started becoming zombies during the dayit was such a waste of my money and time.
lol ok that took me like 5 minutes to write up and English wasn’t my first language so sue meand let me reiterate my last post....First of all I mentioned that I can remember almost every movie I ever saw in my entire life because of my photographic memory. Secondly I think sequels are another story with the same old good characters and maybe some new ones for example Shrek 2 was different than Shrek 1 because in Shrek one Shrek was dealing with love and how to make Fiona fall in love with him while as in Shreck 2 Shrek was trying to make Fiona's dad to accept him for what he was. On to the last part of my befuddle paragraph
How can u base a movie on another movie? Isn't that called prejudice?*Just so everyone knows prejudice can be about anything all you have to do to be prejudice is pre judged someone or thing thus the name prejudice* :P ok back on topic how can you actually like the movie Dawn of the Dead it had no beginning where it tells you how everything has happened, all you know is that people started to turn into zombies during the daytime*wouldn't zombies prefer the night time since in the daytime they can easily be shot or seen?* and if you are comparing the two films wouldn’t they need to have the same ending where everyone dies? or where you find out why were the people becoming zombies? plus when you compare a movie to another movie sure they will have some similarities and differences like an apple and tomato they are both red and round but they have different taste so if I loathed the way the tomato tastes and I use your sense of thinking then I would never have tried the apple. Here is some tomato history for you guys just so you can see how the tomato was prejudged. The tomato was part of the Solanaceae family where most of the members have toxic qualities when eaten... When they found the tomato they wouldn’t eat it in fear of dieing so they just used them as merley decoration and they where called love apples since they looked like a heart. All this prejudice went away when a man named Robert Gibbon Johnson would in 1820 eat a bushel of tomatoes in front of a court house.
RE Movies and all the Sequels to the original sucked ass.
Its a good concept once, but I don't understand why people pay for the same shit again and again just because they change the graphics...
And the movies... Well the first one spoke for itself.. And this new one ?
Yea I already saw it. It was called Dawn of the Dead
Right. Interesting story about the tomato, there.
But why does a film need to explain everything? Ask many critics and true cineastes (and I don't just mean people who are snobbish about film, but those who have a genuine love for the artform) for a top 20 list, and you'll have lots of people listing films by Kubrick (2001, especially), Tarkovsky (Mirror/Zerkalo, Stalker, Solaris), Resnais (Last Year At Marienbad is quite possibly one of the least explicit films ever, in that it doesn't tell you what's going on), etc etc. Audience's don't need everything spelled out to them in order to enjoy a film. I doubt most people who went to Dawn Of The Dead came out thinking "but what caused the mass reincarnation?". Instead, they were probably talking about how the film was frightening, relatively realistic (for a zombie film, that is.), stuff like that.
well I am the kind of person that looks at the small details and I thought it was preety stupid since it doesnt tell me where they came from I mean its like you just take a book and skip the first 5 chapters and then start from there with all the killing and stuff btw has anyone here look at the disney movies real closely? There is some preety cool stuff there
Okay, but not all movies have to explain everything. Variety is the spice of life. The fact that there is no explanation only makes the film more frightening, it puts you in the same situation as the characters, or as close to that situation as you could be without leaving the theater. They don't know what happens, and since we're seeing their story, why should we? If it were an epic zombie film, covering many locations and groups of survivors, then perhaps an explanation might be in order. But it's not. It's not even about the living dead, it's about the way people react in a situation of intense stress. Some people close themselves off from others, wary of everyone, while others reach out to make a connection, to know that they are not alone. The zombies are a McGuffin, if you will.
Spiff gets award for actually talking to this guy
There are no "rules" to making a good movie.
Oh yeah, and, Spiff's always right when it comes to movies/music. Always.
haha nice one neco you should become a comedian and i have a question if spiff is always right then what happens when someone else is always right comes and argues with spiff who will win that one since they both are always right
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
it was such a waste of my money and time.
and let me reiterate my last post....First of all I mentioned that I can remember almost every movie I ever saw in my entire life because of my photographic memory. Secondly I think sequels are another story with the same old good characters and maybe some new ones for example Shrek 2 was different than Shrek 1 because in Shrek one Shrek was dealing with love and how to make Fiona fall in love with him while as in Shreck 2 Shrek was trying to make Fiona's dad to accept him for what he was. On to the last part of my befuddle paragraph