zombking
Joined Dec 2002
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews9
zombking's rating
I am not going to spend very much time on this review, but I just came out of the theater from watching this film and can assure you that it is not worth the time or effort or money of anyone involved.
Apparently, when writing the script, the screenwriter forgot to include jokes. When a plot was considered, nothing new or original or interesting was even looked at. When casting was considered, the directors must have just said "put that American Pie dad in." *sigh* I have never been a fan of Steve Martin, but he must have just been sucked into this one by accident of some sort. Not only are the laughs (or even attempts at laughs) few and far between but and resemblance to hilarity is not even close enough for the movie to shake it's ugly stick at.
I feel ripped off for paying so much to see such a horrible movie. I hate to sound like the "old timers," but if this is any indication of where cinema is going, leave me out.
Apparently, when writing the script, the screenwriter forgot to include jokes. When a plot was considered, nothing new or original or interesting was even looked at. When casting was considered, the directors must have just said "put that American Pie dad in." *sigh* I have never been a fan of Steve Martin, but he must have just been sucked into this one by accident of some sort. Not only are the laughs (or even attempts at laughs) few and far between but and resemblance to hilarity is not even close enough for the movie to shake it's ugly stick at.
I feel ripped off for paying so much to see such a horrible movie. I hate to sound like the "old timers," but if this is any indication of where cinema is going, leave me out.
Following up on his low-budget smash hit from 1968, Night of The Living Dead, Romero decided to make Dawn of the Dead. Little did he know that he would change the course of horror movie history, starting a long string of spinoffs, rip-offs, and semi-sequels.
1978, just one of those years where supposedly everyone danced disco and smoked pot (although survivors of the era know otherwise). George Romero films a medium budget, mainly independant movie that takes the film world by storm. Dawn of the Dead is the story about four people who, during an era where zombies walk the earth, lock themselves up in an abandoned shopping mall to survive and try to live somewhat normal lives.
This is eaiser said than done however, because soon a bunch of outlaws ruins the perfect lives and loots the mall, allowing zombies in.
That is the basic story of Dawn of the Dead, so at this point you may be wondering what makes up the rest of the movie. There are two ways to look at this: literally and philisophically.
Literally, the movie starts out explaining the charicters backgrounds, strengths, and weaknessess. Through an exciting scene in an apartment complex, we find out that this is not your parents movie, as in it uses violence to make a definite point.
When our charicters are united in the mall, each of them has issues to deal with and work out, but those ideas are pushed out of the way when they have to lock up the exits to the mall, one by one, while avoiding zombie attacks (a constant theme thoughout the film, oddly enough)
When all of the zombies around are killed, the group of looters allows in all of the zombies in the mall, and many of the looters are killed slowly, painfully, and very graphically. The violence throughout the film is remarkably high, and for good reason. The ending has some of the charicters killed and some escaping from their doom only to see if they would survive another day.
Philisophically speaking, though, the movie goes deeper than that. Not only does the film follow the charicters, but the rest of the United States to well. It raises a huge "what if..." question that could only be answered though Romero. The charicters represent a viewer from outside, looking in to the world as it destroys itself because it cannot deal with the stress or different ways of life with the zombies. They watch this all on televeision till it happens to them though the looters. This would be society finally destroying itself. Some escape, to find that they may perhaps may have to save the human race.
Should this be taken Literally or Philisophically? Your choice, thats what makes the movie great. Do you like horror or deep thinking? Perhaps watch the movie twice or more, from differenct perspectives every time. The point is that this is one of the greats and a must see for all times.
1978, just one of those years where supposedly everyone danced disco and smoked pot (although survivors of the era know otherwise). George Romero films a medium budget, mainly independant movie that takes the film world by storm. Dawn of the Dead is the story about four people who, during an era where zombies walk the earth, lock themselves up in an abandoned shopping mall to survive and try to live somewhat normal lives.
This is eaiser said than done however, because soon a bunch of outlaws ruins the perfect lives and loots the mall, allowing zombies in.
That is the basic story of Dawn of the Dead, so at this point you may be wondering what makes up the rest of the movie. There are two ways to look at this: literally and philisophically.
Literally, the movie starts out explaining the charicters backgrounds, strengths, and weaknessess. Through an exciting scene in an apartment complex, we find out that this is not your parents movie, as in it uses violence to make a definite point.
When our charicters are united in the mall, each of them has issues to deal with and work out, but those ideas are pushed out of the way when they have to lock up the exits to the mall, one by one, while avoiding zombie attacks (a constant theme thoughout the film, oddly enough)
When all of the zombies around are killed, the group of looters allows in all of the zombies in the mall, and many of the looters are killed slowly, painfully, and very graphically. The violence throughout the film is remarkably high, and for good reason. The ending has some of the charicters killed and some escaping from their doom only to see if they would survive another day.
Philisophically speaking, though, the movie goes deeper than that. Not only does the film follow the charicters, but the rest of the United States to well. It raises a huge "what if..." question that could only be answered though Romero. The charicters represent a viewer from outside, looking in to the world as it destroys itself because it cannot deal with the stress or different ways of life with the zombies. They watch this all on televeision till it happens to them though the looters. This would be society finally destroying itself. Some escape, to find that they may perhaps may have to save the human race.
Should this be taken Literally or Philisophically? Your choice, thats what makes the movie great. Do you like horror or deep thinking? Perhaps watch the movie twice or more, from differenct perspectives every time. The point is that this is one of the greats and a must see for all times.
While Fellini's Satyricon cannot in any way be considered a good film, there are worse. But on the other hand, this is quite possibly the weirdest film I have ever seen, and I have seen a lot over the years. For those who have never seen a Fellini film: Don't start with this one. Try some of his more accessible films at first, then move up to Satyricon if you like those.
The plot, if you want to call it that, is not exactly told chronologically, or in linear form, or just about any form from what I can tell. While every nature of the film is experimental, you can't help but wonder why the film makers even tried it. Fellini's psuedo-realism style is evident, and nothing really makes sense, from the beginning speech to the final credits.
Don't bother trying to make any sense of it, I tried that. It's one weird story to another, told in the oddest of ways. While some may consider all of this "art" not many people are impressed. The content, which revolves around a lot of mature content, won't even please fourth graders looking for a scene they shouldn't be watching. They won't get it, and you probably won't either, so my theory is: Don't Try.
The plot, if you want to call it that, is not exactly told chronologically, or in linear form, or just about any form from what I can tell. While every nature of the film is experimental, you can't help but wonder why the film makers even tried it. Fellini's psuedo-realism style is evident, and nothing really makes sense, from the beginning speech to the final credits.
Don't bother trying to make any sense of it, I tried that. It's one weird story to another, told in the oddest of ways. While some may consider all of this "art" not many people are impressed. The content, which revolves around a lot of mature content, won't even please fourth graders looking for a scene they shouldn't be watching. They won't get it, and you probably won't either, so my theory is: Don't Try.
Recently taken polls
1 total poll taken
