MovieChat Forums > ChiefAlex > Replies
ChiefAlex's Replies
Nice review after hearing all the terrible reviews about this movie. This movie is a prime example of why some movies should be left as a standalone film.
The whole movie was just painful to watch it's like the movie was just trying to shock you with vile images rather than tell a good story ,but to each is own I guess.
Nice Review sounds like you really liked it. Seems like you enjoyed it more than rating that you gave.
From your review seems like you were is leaning towards giving it a 6/10 rather than a 7/10 ,but its was an interesting review though.
Now it currently has 18% on rotten tomatoes that's awful. In comparison Lincoln had 90% and All the Way which depicts Lyndon B Johnson's presidency had a 85% rating.
lol! I thought maybe I was being overly nice or something that’s why I deleted it. I thought you were thinking dude chill! It’s just one movie ,and you’re telling me I should be casting director? 😂
All kidding aside Chris Cooper would have been a better choice.
Oh no I’m not saying that Dennis Quaid is as good as Bryan Cranston. I was only saying that instead of releasing the movie in theaters the producers should have put it out on Netflix or HBO. That’s how All the way with Bryan Cranston was released on HBO.
Dennis Quaid is okay ,but he isn’t any where near as good as Cranston or Daniel Day Lewis.
I'm not sure how this movie will turn out on one hand it is a low budget film costing around 25 million ,but on the other hand I didn't see too many commercials or ads promoting this movie. Lincoln at least had Steven Spielberg ,and Daniel Day Lewis.
Dennis Quaid is okay as an actor ,but he's no Daniel Day Lewis. Probably would have been if they just released it on Netflix or HBO similar to what Bryan Cranston did in All the Way when he portrayed Lyndon B. Johnson.
According to this website everyone died.
https://listofdeaths.fandom.com/wiki/Dawn_of_the_Dead_(2004)
Honestly I thought they were both about the same. I'll probably get eaten for saying this ,but I thought the original was a bit dated ,and at times it dragged a little. I didn't really care for the commentary stuff either. I will admit one thing though it was really impressive that the film made for around half a million. Overall I thought it was a decent B-movie with cheap makeup and special effects.
The remake on the other hand was okay, it had a pretty good start. The movie was certainly entertaining to watch playing off like an action thriller compared to the slow paced horror original. The problem with the movie however is that the ending was ridiculous. The movie just ends on a cliffhanger its like the director of the movie didn't know how to end the movie or something.
Overall while I thought both films were different. I'd probably rate them both about the same a 6/10.
Probably didn't want to waste ammo and missiles. Plus it looked like they were heading a different direction.
Lmao!
Must have been a delicious turd stew because the movie made 494 million in u.s alone and a billion overseas and counting. I got to admit that’s impressive especially for a R-rated movie.
I didn't mind the year it took place ,but one thing I read about regarding the year 1980 was that it was time of high inflation, high unemployment and gas lines etc. I'm not saying they should've shown the election or anything like that ,but I thought they would have at least show gas lines or something.
What if Harrison Ford played the part? Would that have been a better choice?
Honestly I'm not really surprised from the trailers the movie didn't exactly seem too promising. I never knew it was a video game it looked liked some guardians of the galaxy ripoff mixed with suicide squad.
Honestly I'm not really surprised from the trailers the movie didn't exactly seem too promising. I never knew it was a video game it looked liked some guardians of the galaxy ripoff with a touch of suicide squad.