- No character development. In Shaun of the Dead, the characters were actually enjoyable. In this movie their acting is over the top, silly, and poorly done.
There was plenty of character development. The Tallahassee's dog plot-reveal for example, was a huge bit of character development. The film was constantly giving you insight into who Columbus was through his narration. And the way that they interact with each other is character development. Sorry if, somehow, the film managed to be too subtle for you.
- Not funny. Seriously, how is this movie funny? Sure, there was the twinkie thing, Bill Murray, and the girls screwing them over... just none of it was amusing.
Well, obviously humour is highly subjective and comes down to taste, but you're wrong. It's a very funny film. The character interactions are amusing, the madcap spirit of the entire finale is funny and everything to do with Bill Murray is excellent.
[quote- No emotion. Since this movie isn't funny; maybe it should be sad, scary, moving - nope. There was really no feeling in this film. You don't know how the outbreak began or how it ended. You don't know the characters besides Tallahassee's son dying or Columbus's parents dying/ being a loner. Again, you could care less what happened to these characters[/quote]
There's more than enough emotion for a zombie comedy. There's the usual romantic subplot and the whole characters caring for each other thing, and the previously mentioned plot reveal with the dog packs a genuine emotional punch. It's far more than you get in most zombie movies and it's far more than you get in most comedies.
- Not gory enough or enough zombies. They really should have gone all out, showing much more zombies feeding and extend the gore. The only few gore scenes were brief and at the beginning. Most of the film was them just talking really.
In no way does gore dictate quality. The fact that you seem to think it does speaks wonders about your taste in films.
There were plenty of zombies. They were quite sparse for most of the film, but the ending had countless amounts of them.
- Unrealistic. Yes, I know its a movie, but Walking Dead does a good job at conveying the fear and making it realistic. Even in Shaun of the Dead they seem genuinely terrified, and they show was happens in the future. In this film they are all calm, happy at times, waste bullets and are loud.
It was far more realistic than The Walking Dead in so far as it stuck to its own internal logic. The Walking Dead depicts a world, essentially operating with real-life physics, where you can walk up to a zombie and pass a knife through it's skull as if it were made out of butter.
This film portrays a more realistic interaction between people, if you ask me. If you were one of the last people on Earth in such a situation, I think most people would be jokey and light-hearted whenever possible as opposed to constantly dark, broody and soap-opera-y like they are in The Walking Dead.
Some of the characters' decisions are stupid, but that doesn't really come down to how realistic a film it is. You just have a problem with the characters being stupid. I'll admit that they are, but they're no stupider than characters in The Walking Dead.
Anyways, I think this was one of the lamest and unfunniest movies I've seen, and I'm a zombie fan. Its not funny, acting sucked, story sucked, and everything sucked. I know it's a succesful movie, however I have no idea how.
There was nothing wrong with the acting or the story. Simply saying "it sucked" doesn't even begin to justify an opinion.
Art is a lie that tells the truth.
http://twitter.com/solmaquina
reply
share