MovieChat Forums > Maggie (2015) Discussion > Just a warning

Just a warning

posted 10 years ago by cmbiggs113
22 replies | jump to latest

There has been a lot of hate thrown at this movie, and a lot of immature, close-minded bs. If you haven't seen the movie, here's your warning...if the phrase "it's like Terrence Malick did a zombie movie" has no appeal to you, don't bother watching. Also, if you were disappointed that the Governator wasn't racking up a body count, let me fill you in on something...the internet has trailers for movies long before they come out, and watching them will give you an idea as to what kind of movie you're looking at. I'm pretty sure you can even watch a few here. What we really need is filter that keeps anyone under the age of eighteen from voicing their opinions online, and a virus that kills anyone with an IQ under 100. No offense intended to those under eighteen that would survive said virus, but the needs of the many outweigh those of the few and there are too many ignorant uninformed kids running their mouths.

[–] estester 10 years ago

Just watched this movie knowing fully well what to expect and I loved it.
I think the score here in imdb is because those of whom you speak ...

The movie is simply fantastic and incredibly realistic.
Scientists when speaking of zombies say precisely what this movie does.

It's foremost a drama, and emotional thriller/horror.

I enjoyed it, and love the way they made it thinking outside of the box.

Arnolds performance was incredible.
Especially the scene where he talked to his daughter about his mother, that was a great performance.

Way underrated

[–] ewantbc 10 years ago

Thanks for this, I wasn't sure whether to watch it or not but you just convinced me.

[–] ayf_1983 10 years ago

The main reason I saw this was to see Arnold tackle a role out of his usual.

[–] taticat 10 years ago

If you EVER find a way to invent that filter and virus, PLEASE share it with all of humanity.

[–] Laserseightoclockdayone 10 years ago

If Terrence Malick directed this it might have been good.

Abigail Breslin's career can be best summed up as "Little Miss Sunshine and the 2 worst zombie films in history".

[–] glssr60 10 years ago

I like that. People trash a movie that you watched and then climbed up on your high and mighty horse and then proceeded to advocate the mass extinction of a large amount of the population. All because they don't agree with you on the movie. I am neither under 18 (not by a long shot) nor is my I.Q. under 100 (also not by a long shot) and after 25 minutes I stopped watching this snoozefest. The direction sucked. The script sucked. And most of that 25 minutes was head shots of Arnold (who I am a fan of) trying his best to look serious and resisting the urge to crack wise. Last Action Hero got universally panned and I thought it was smart and funny. Regarding Abigail's *two* bad zombie movies I certainly disagree with you. Zombieland was a very funny movie also. Guess I should go and try to catch that virus now.

[–] TheBeardedWonder 10 years ago

Well put. The movie was just straight up not very well made. It was poorly written, directed, paced, shot, edited, scored, etc. The acting wasn't bad, but the rest was a real melodramatic piece of fluff that amounted to nothing in the end. They started to have stances on diseases and how they play into medical procedures and their safety, assisted suicide, etc, but then never really had anything to say about them.

Zombieland was 10x the movie this was. You can tell just by the critic scores, user scores, and types of releases that most others agree too...

'Get yourself a real dog. Any dog under 50 lbs is a cat and cats are pointless' - Ron Swanson

[–] indyj1 10 years ago

I'm completely in agreement with you. The acting was the only good part of the film. The pacing and the story were just ridiculously slow and pointless. This would have made a terrific short film - 10-20 minutes long at most - still getting all its points across without plodding along aimlessly for another hour +.

[–] tallard 10 years ago

But at least it did not suck as bad as a Terrence Malick movie! But then, that's not hard to do. Terrence Malick is such a fake, I hope not doo many directors head in this direction.

***So I've seen 4 movies/wk in theatre for a 1/4 century, call me crazy?**

[–] fst5000 10 years ago

if genocide and curbing democracy is all that is needed to prevent people from voting this movie lower than is comfortable for your feelings, then i don't know in which side the problem lies.

[–] cmbiggs113 10 years ago

It seems you guys completely miss the point. I don't care about how people rate a movie, as everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I would love it if people would express their opinions as such, instead of presenting their opinions as fact, such as "If Terrence Malick had directed this movie it would have been good." There is a pretty big difference between saying "this movie isn't good" and "I didn't think this movie was good." The point of my statement was for all of the people that complained about the movie not having enough action or a high enough body count, especially since Schwartzeneger was cast in it. That is a pretty juvenile criteria for determining a film's worth, and disappointment could have been avoided by watching the trailer or reading the description of the film's content. The "genocidal" comment was a joke aimed at young or unintelligent people that voice their stupid opinions on the internet. For example, I read a comment from someone saying that the "Evil Dead" reboot looked like a rip-off of "The Cabin in the Woods." Obviously this is an idiotic comment from an uninformed child who does not even posses the knowledge to enter the conversation. These forums are choked with such comments, and I would love it if there was a filter that kept this kind of thing to a minimum.

[–] jlw62987 10 years ago

How can someone be "idiotic" if they are "uninformed"? You strike me as a guy who takes himself way too seriously. How about being a guide to these "childish idiots" instead of being a cynical jerk? Oh sorry...it's just so much easier being cynical isn't it?

[–] bezorta 10 years ago

I think I understand your point and frustration. It's even more obvious if you spend some time on YouTube. When you try to have a discussion on YT about anything, be it cars or science, people post their opinions as FACTS and if you don't agree with them 100% and immediately, they will call you any number of names. The lack of intelligence and reasoning is widespread and it's very frustrating to have an exchange of ideas as nothing gets exchange but insults. Sadly that has become the extend of most peoples intelligence and way of communicating. So most of all these exchanges on internet goes to waste.

[–] vranger 10 years ago

I agree with your basic points, and they were proved by the dummies that didn't get you point or your joke, even though your point was clearly stated, and the joke was obvious as a frustration joke.

[–] jlw62987 10 years ago

You'd be an interesting case study for a psychologist.

So let me get this straight. People who don't agree with you about a film should all die is what you're basically getting at? Who's the "immature, close-minded" one in this case? Your entire post is ironic.

[–] cmbiggs113 10 years ago

You'd be an interesting study to progress the educational system, as you cannot glean content through reading. First of all, I actually never stated whether I liked the movie or not, so as to avoid this whole "you just think anyone who disagrees with you is stupid" bs. I didn't say people who disagree with me should all die. I JOKED about a means to prevent people that trash a movie for not being something it was obviously never meant to be, like complaining about Schwartzeneger racking up a body count and cracking one-liners in an allegory for coping with terminal illness. Having an opinion is fine. Stating it as an opinion instead of as a fact is better. Intelligent discourse is great. People bitching about apples not being oranges is stupid, and no, I don't really believe stupid people should be exterminated. We will need something to eat when the drought and water wars run their course. That was a joke. If you didn't understand that when you read it, you take all of this too seriously, and I look forward to having you for dinner in thirteen years.

[–] hammerogod-496-137451 10 years ago

You summed up almost everything I had to say...thank you for saving me from having to comment and draw the fire.

What we really need is a filter that keeps anyone under the age of eighteen from voicing their opinions online, and a virus that kills anyone with an IQ under 100

I am bone tired of 13-17 yr old children running (and ruining) the internet.
Why would they comment on a movie about loyalty, fatherhood, family, difficult decisions and deep emotional pain when they haven't even shaved or had their first boner yet?

Go play with your toys and games children, the internet, and film-making, seem to be over your heads.

Any reply to this comment will automatically be transltaed to say "Duh, I didn't get it"...so don't bother.