HarrietTubmanPI  - 2012-11-09
I don't like fast zombies. Zombies are much more terrifying when they are slow and lumbering. When they're slow, you become complacent, and they sneak up on you - adding to the suspense.
George Romero had zombies right in his first couple of movies. They were quiet, didn't make much noise, and would have a nasty habit of being right behind you without you ever knowing it.
|
bongoprophet - 2012-11-09 I want more existentialism in my zombie apocolypse
|
FABIO - 2012-11-09 Slow zombies require the characters to be incompetent clutzes in order for them to be a threat, making you stop caring about them. 90% of kills are due to endless tripping over furniture (100% in Land of the Dead).
Even Romero himself admitted that slow zombies were a joke in the 1990 remake of Night of the Living Dead.
|
Binro the Heretic - 2012-11-09 I never read the book, although I did read Brooks' "The Zombie Survival Guide".
This trailer looks generic to the point of cliche.
|
WHO WANTS DESSERT - 2012-11-09
I have to admit, zombies as a literal sea of humanity that moves like sentient liquid is something I haven't seen before.
The novel was shitty shit for nerds (Japanese Otaku becomes badass swordsman! Armchair generals know more than the actual military! They nicknamed the anti-zombie gun "Meg" because it looked like Megatron!) so I don't care about them ditching a lot of the story, but it would haveb een cool to make a the movie as a fake documentary a la District 9 instead of yet another White Nuclear Family Survives Chaos movie.
|
|
BHWW - 2012-11-09 Even worse was a short story Max Brooks wrote entitled "Steve and Fred", published in an anthology - the gist of it is that it starts off with a "Steve" who is a ridiculous caricature of a cartoonish action hero who executes totally sick motorycycle tricks whilst blowing away barrels of zombies and puts the movies on a lady scientist...a sexy lady scientist and bam pow it's all actually some stupid novel being read by one "Fred" who is a big fat loser trying to barely survive an actual zombie apocalypse - so you see, Brooks deftly sends up all of these over the top action adventure zombie books featuring buttkickingly triumphant heroes that are flooding the subgenre - which of course don't really exist. What Brooks' damage was in: re that story, who knows? Maybe he sees himself as the sole proponent of "realistic" zombie fiction against imaginary enemies.
|
Caminante Nocturno - 2012-11-10 God damn it, those motherfucking nerds keep confounding us at every turn!
|
Adham Nu'man - 2012-11-09
I have no problems with fast zombies. For me, the Dawn of the Dead remake hit the exact right spot with updated visuals and production values while still retaining the pulp feel of an eighties zombie flick. It was funny and cheesy in spots, and it was super tense and violent in others.
This, this just looks like they decided to throw 60% of their budget on panoramic special effects shots and the remaining 40% to paying Brad Pitt.
|
Gmork - 2012-11-09 Running zombies -2 stars
Unconvincing zombies (all trailers need one "gumless" zombie)-1 star
Flimsy archetypal plotline -1 star
Zombies climbing a wall like a bivouac of ants +3 stars.
|
FABIO - 2012-11-09 Yup, Dawn of the Dead remake is still the best. Only thing that comes close is the first half of 28 Days Later.
Other things that made it great:
-Doesn't waste your time with origin story. BAM zombie apocalypse.
-Doesn't waste time with early period of characters not being up to speed on zombie lore. They're trying to kill you, shoot in head. Spares the audience of 10 minute scene where everyone needs explaining to.
-No attempt at social commentary. The worst thing to happen to the genre was people latching onto the idea that the original LotLD was a statement on race. The last thing I want out of a zombie story is a comfortable suburban life offspring like Robert Kirkman lecturing me on REAL human nature. Even Romero's flicks got worse and worse the more MESSAGE he tried to inject into it.
|
|
FABIO - 2012-11-10 There have been tons with cultural subtext, but it's almost always hamhanded and clumsy. That's why it was a strength for DotD(2004) to leave it out entirely.
Are you talking about the original 1968 NotLD and not the 1990 version? I can't find the end credit stills, but I'm pretty sure they weren't actual lynchings. Romero himself said there wasn't any kind of racial angle to the protagonist being black.
I think over time he started buying more and more into the perception that he was some culture critic and his work gradually suffered for it until we ended up with Diary of the Dead.
|
Adham Nu'man - 2012-11-14 I agree with Fabio, the "social commentary" is weak and in any event predictable at this point.
Another thing that pisses me off are these Zombie "comedy" films. Zombie films ARE comedy films, every single one of them. The fact that they can make the viewer tense and jump now and then is not a bad element that should be removed in favor of LOLJOKES!
Zombie flicks are ridiculous scenarios that are inherently funny and you should try your best to make them tense and scary. They'll still be a little bit funny, but at least they'll still be able to surprise you.
Also, despite the fact that I like zombie films, I think we could stop now. Seriously, just let it go for a few years. "NO SEE BUT THESE ZOMBIES CAN FLY PLANES!"
|
Candlejackv616 - 2012-11-09
This looks ok if it wasn't affiliated with the book, as a separate entity i would watch this. But as a movie based off the book im surprised by how off the mark they got this.
Don't get me wrong I never ever expected them to adapt the book in the format its in, for a movie at least, that wouldn't work and would probably suck.
What gets to me though is since its running zombies i have a feeling most are going to just look like regular humans running at you pissed off and either covered in or some light smears of blood on clothing and face. At least with the slow kind of zombie besides the tension being built up by the numbers game and ppl letting their guard down BECAUSE the zombies are slow, I like how they are also usually decaying and grotesque as hell, which scary or not looks visually more interesting than running zombies IMHO.
|
Riskbreaker - 2012-11-09
I'm tired of zombie movies, i'm not watching another one until at least the year 2015.
|
That guy - 2012-11-09 "OK"
....so you're going to watch movies from your island hut after Z day?
|
Triggerbaby - 2012-11-09
I wonder what this movie was called before they vought the rights to world war Z?
|
|
memedumpster - 2012-11-09
This actually looks terrible for a zombie movie.
Damn.
|
Gojira1000 - 2012-11-09
Bored of zombies. Vampires. Werewolves. Republicans.
Dear Hollywood: Do something new.
|
|
misterbuns - 2012-11-09
World War ZZzzzzzZZZZZZzZZzzzz
|
FABIO - 2012-11-09
I Brad Pitt coming back? I missed that.
Fast zombies + instant infection rule, but I'm worried about the overuse of the "human wave" look. Reminds me of the Zion battle in the Matrix sequels where the sentinels were just a solid boring cloud. I got the impression that it wasn't so much an artistic decision as it was just some trick that made it easier to animate.
|
Koda Maja - 2012-11-09
Forget fast and slow zombies. I want zombies that can jog at a brisk pace for several minutes at a time.
|
Binro the Heretic - 2012-11-09 I'd like to see movies & film return to old-school zombies, soulless corpses raised by magic to do the bidding of a bokor.
|
|
Binro the Heretic - 2012-11-10 They could make "Mogworld" into a movie. The undead do everything from walking to running and everything in between.
|
Caminante Nocturno - 2012-11-10
Why did you name it after a book it has nothing to do with?
|
Jet Bin Fever - 2012-11-10
This movie cost a lot to make. Money that could've built a bunch of hospitals in another country.
|
| Register or login To Post a Comment |
Reddit
Digg
Stumble
Facebook
