I actually enjoyed the movie. It was pretty funny, the acting was top-notch, and there was more than enough gore to satisfy. Think "Friends," but with zombies. 😁
That said, one specific part had me cracking up (no idea why): that bit at the end where they run the global news montage, showing some kid who looks just like Richard Ramirez holding a shotgun, paired with those tacky 3D graphics and that deep, dramatic narrator voice while scrolling through the rest of the world news... total Zombaid.
Ethan Perez97 said:I actually started downloading that movie, but after browsing around online and seeing how much people were trashing it, I decided to pass.
That’s strange; I was actually expecting more praise for this one than I'm getting.
The trailer looks decent enough, but honestly, I'm starting to get a bit tired of all these endless variations on the 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' trope.
Is this even getting a theatrical release here in the States?
I watched Saw II the other day, and while it doesn't quite hit the heights of the original, it definitely has its moments. There is significantly more gore and violence than in the first film, but since we’re dealing with a larger group of people trapped in a house making some incredibly stupid decisions, that sense of genuine dread is missing. Instead, the violence just feels "cool," much like those big-budget slashers you'd see in the 90s.
Another issue lies with the direction. They seem to rely even more heavily on rapid cuts than they did in the first installment. One particular sequence was actually building up quite a bit of tension—specifically the hallway chase toward the end—only to have these frantic flashback cuts interrupt the flow and completely ruin the scene.
Oh, and I will say, the ending is slightly more logical than what we got in the first movie.
Commando and Cobra (my favorite part has to be when Stallone holds up a lighter, tells them "you have the right to remain silent," and then sets the villain on fire) — both movies are absolutely priceless in their sheer volume of stupidity, terrible acting, ridiculous hairstyles, violence, and pure entertainment. 👍 😳
I have just one question for those who have already seen it: is it truly that good?
(A lot of horror sites are calling it the 'film of the year' or 'horror film of the year,' with comments along the lines of I almost had a heart attack and there are even reports of people passing out in theaters over in England...)
Most importantly, when is this hitting theaters here in the States? 😎
I think that might be him, though I can't say for certain. My main point was that the characters feel rushed into the story far too quickly. Honestly, the film could have used at least another thirty minutes of screen time—even if that meant sacrificing some of the pacing.
There are simply too many characters and concepts to squeeze into a mere 90 minutes, regardless of how long this movie actually runs.
What really threw me off was the constant introduction of new faces and the way the rules kept shifting mid-stream. For instance, there’s that scene where three members of The Watch are tearing down the road in some high-octane car, only for some random guy to appear out of nowhere and flip their vehicle in a full 360-degree spin. (I later found out on an IMDb forum that he’s actually one of the key players in the upcoming 'Day Watch').
Visually, it's impressive, but the narrative is a total mess. People used to criticize 'Constantine' for trying to cram too much into two hours, but Night Watch is a far bigger disaster than 'Constantine' ever was.
The fundamental issue here is that they haven't aired any of Romero's earlier zombie classics on television (and frankly, they probably never will). This creates a massive continuity gap for anyone sitting down to watch Land of the Dead; it feels confusing and poorly handled when the zombies suddenly show signs of evolution, especially since that entire concept was actually pioneered back in Dawn of the Dead. It was there we first saw the zombie Bub (if I recall his name correctly) demonstrating the ability to learn and adapt.
Out of all the various spin-offs and remakes inspired by the Ring and The Grudge franchises, this one stands head and shoulders above the rest. I highly recommend checking it out if you can find it on a streaming service—though I'm still waiting to see when it might land on my local digital storefronts. The real draw isn't necessarily the plot itself, but rather the way it handles scares; its methods for unsettling the audience are distinct from other films in this genre, and frankly, they actually work.
As for the story? Tun is a young photographer living in a cramped apartment with his girlfriend, Jane. After getting pretty hammered at a mutual friend's wedding, they accidentally run over the girl on their way home. Rather than calling 911 or the police, they panic and flee the scene. A few days later, Tun is called in to take graduation photos for a local high school, and that's when things start getting weird through his camera lens (and the developed prints)...
UCLA has screwed up again—and this time, they really botched it. They released Wes Craven's 'Cursed' in our local video stores, but instead of the original 'R' rated cut that played in theaters everywhere else outside the States, they gave us the censored PG-13 version used in the US.
Anyone who actually saw the original cut will tell you that those bloodier scenes were the only thing saving the movie. Honestly, I feel ripped off; I rented a version I had absolutely zero interest in watching.
If you're heading down to the video rental shop, do yourself a favor and skip this one. This butchered edit isn't how Wes Craven makes movies. Even if they put the original scenes back in, it wouldn't be a masterpiece, but at least it would be watchable.
That synopsis is straight-up false, mainly because Adam doesn't even show up in the movie (which would be impossible given what we know happened).
Here is what actually goes down in the sequel:
A detective (Wahlberg) is looking into a murder case that bears a striking resemblance to the work of Jigsaw. Meanwhile, eight people find themselves trapped together in a single room.
So, here’s the deal: apparently, those eight people receive cards containing instructions to kill one of the others in the room (using, of course, the most gruesome methods imaginable). It's essentially a bloody version of Big Brother. And among those eight people is Amanda from the first film.
A few years back, a friend talked me into hitting up the movie theater. Should I mention that I was practically dying of boredom, much like most of the audience sitting there? The only part that actually managed to grab my attention was the opening shootout, which was decent enough to shake me up a bit.
I finally sat down to watch it, and honestly, I’m left wondering—why all the vitriol? If this were actually a garbage movie, I’d get the backlash, but it isn't. Even if I’ll admit the first one holds up a bit better. Is it possible everyone just had impossibly high expectations for a sequel?
The sequel... not quite on the same level. Though, as I previously mentioned, those 90 minutes didn't feel like a waste of time—especially since both Nemesis and Jill Valentine were fully realized.