Why DIARY OF THE DEAD sucked pt6

[Posted by Ted H]

A friend of mine once saw this movie the day it came out. Afterwards he called me right away to tell me how awesome he thought the movie was.............We're not friends anymore.

Diary of the Dead? More like Diarrhea of the Dead, am I right?

Aaaaaaand it's over. This review clocked in +1 entry and at least a thousand more words than the last review, yet I still feel like I had way more to say and bitch about in the LotD review. I think if I were to ever do another movie review...I'll definitely pick a movie I like instead of a steaming pile of shit movie...just a thought.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

------------------------------------------

[Why DIARY OF THE DEAD sucked pt6]

Part 6: Challenge Pissing (of the Dead)

I have previously gone on record as saying George Romero is like George Lucas; following up to a beloved and classic trilogy of genre defining movies with three turds of a follow-up trilogy that ruins the classic movies by association. And while LAND OF THE DEAD is indeed like THE PHANTOM MENACE in terms of a jarring shitty movie to introduce us to the new trilogy, DIARY OF THE DEAD follows that trend well by being like ATTACK OF THE CLONES where you watch it and realize that the previous movie was no accident.

Yes, I do realize that this movie was intentionally low budget, indie style  and what not, and I did try to curb my bile in regards to all that. But what can't be forgiven no matter the movie and budget is poor writing and directing, especially by someone who knows better (and yes, this movie was both written AND directed by Romero).

Both major characters in this film (Jason and Deb) are completely inconsistent throughout the entire run time. Deb constantly switches her opinion on Jason filming the events as the movie goes on between hating him for it and being completely ok with it. Meanwhile, Jason keeps going on and on about making this movie will save lives, but every time someone is in danger, he does fuck all to try to help them. Everyone is running around the hospital, looking for help for a dying Mary, and Jason instead decides to film his camera charging...He watches and fails to bother warning Boyfriend about an incoming zombie...Deb has a zombie hanging off her back trying to eat her, but the angle of the shot was way more important than helping...Girlfriend is running for her life in the woods from a zombie, but he decides to instead act like it's instead his monster movie from the beginning...Hell, at least he's consistent at the end when he himself is finally being eaten, and he decides to film his demise rather than escape it. It's like he was gonna name this movie "Survive the zombie apocalypse by doing the exact opposite of what me and my friends are doing."

So let's talk about the overall theme that Romero forced into this movie, as he does usually. Don't trust the media...and people will always be compelled to record tragedies. The whole "Media tells LIES" thing is a bit unnecessary since the whole "Dead rising to eat the living" thing is a bit impossible to cover up for more than an hour when it's as widespread as being let on. Local? Yes, that could be contained. Worldwide? No, you can't cover that up.

As for the whole "Being compelled" thing. I still call that horse shit. I refer you back to my comparison to 9/11. According to Romero, if Jason was in the World Trade Center, he'd be filming while still inside the burning towers, doing absolutely nothing to help anyone hurt he came across.

Like I said before, yes people will feel it appropriate to film terrible events, but only from a position of safety. There was only one time in this movie where Jason was in a position of relative safety: when he and his gang were with the Black Militia. Bunch of people with runs? Yeah, best leave the zombie fighting to them, you can just film it since there's nothing of value you need to do. If the entire movie took place with the Black Militia, then my biggest gripe about Jason would be gone.

So...Is there a better movie in here?

Is it worth saving? You tell me. (See what I did there?...Nevermind...)

The challenge: Make an improved pitch for the bad movie. I'm not allowed to add new characters or change too much about existing ones. I can ignore some characters, or at least downgrade them to minor characters who have no bearing on the story. The location and elements within must also have minimal tweaking.

Now, I'm going to keep the Indie spirit mentality that this movie was made with and not go for broke on things that happen. I'm also handcuffing myself to the idea that this MUST be a "found footage" style movie, so everything involved must be shot with either Jason's camera or the other camera they found in the hospital. But can I still find a better script in here?

A better version of DotD would work like this:
Skip all the bull shit and voiceovers and start right with our "heroes" in the woods shooting their monster movie. You can still have Elliot calling in the background over how "You guys should hear this, something weird is on the news" but have Jason ignore it because he needs to get this scene where Mummy-guy chases Girlfriend in the woods right. See how I made Jason still an insufferable prick while still making it not retarded?

Enter an actual zombie that Jason and Girlfriend mistake for Mummy-guy in the dark. The zombie eats Girlfriend and THAT is our introduction to zombies in this fucking zombie movie. Not some news video, not a jump scare, but actual action. The group fights off and Mary (who somehow had a gun remember) kills the zombie. Instead of shooting herself out of shock of what she did, the group can take a rational response to Mary having a gun and just take it away from her so she can sulk in the RV for a while.

Everyone can freak out over what's happening like in Romero's version: Mummy-guy and that random girl can drive off while Jason decides he needs to find Deb. Also we can add Girlfriend dying right now and biting Boyfriend's dick off or something. The group can panic here and drive off without them, effectively saving us from bad acting and "Don't mess with Texas" in one awesome swing.

This is where my version gets way better than Romero's: While in the dorm to find Deb, instead of running into some random criminal, Jason instead runs into a zombie that gets a bite in. Jason is now effectively dying. Instead of videotaping his friends all dying, he decides in my version that he wants to chronicle his slow death on camera so that the rest of the world can have a firsthand account of how this zombie virus is happening.

The rest of the movie suddenly becomes tolerable because we're no longer trying to comprehend why Jason is insisting on taping. Then at the end we could have a bad ass death for Jason, where as he finally succumbs to the virus inside him, he hands Deb a camera and says "When I turn...shoot me." Then Deb films him waking up as a zombie before she blows his brains out.

...Also the Professor can still take the stupid bow and arrow, but the idea that it could help him fight off the undead leads to an immediate and hilarious demise.

This movie COULD be good, but it wasn't. Romero tried to go back to his roots a bit with this one after fumbling LAND. We couldn't see ourselves as these characters like in other Romero Dead films. NIGHT had a bunch of strangers trying to survive together in a farmhouse...DAWN had a few schmucks hole up in a shopping mall. Both films involved the characters acting in realistic ways. We could see ourselves in certain characters

DIARY has no realistic characters. No one would be like Jason where you'd have to be a complete scumbag to wanna not only film everything, but also do jack shit if anyone was in danger. And none of the other characters were realistic since literally anyone else would just chuck that fucking camera out the RV while it's driving over a bridge, 1st chance.

This movie is not as bad as LAND OF THE DEAD. LAND was a fucking mess beginning to end. You walked away from that movie with a bad taste in your mouth and no hope for George Romero's career. DIARY had its moments, but you left that movie with a bad taste too, just a different kind of bad taste. You leave it thinking and feeling that it was such a waste of potential. And sometimes that feeling is what makes this movie hurt more than the other.

It's that feeling that makes me never even acknowledge SURVIVAL OF THE DEAD. I'd rather watch that shitty remake of DAY OF THE DEAD a thousand times...and that's saying a lot.

Why DIARY OF THE DEAD sucked pt5

[Posted by Ted H]

"Prelude in D Flat Major" is the way overused music in this movie. I've learned to hate it.
...Also, the movie was shot in Canada...because Romero's love for Pennsylvania isn't as big as it used to be...

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

----------------------------

[Why DIARY OF THE DEAD sucked pt5]

Part 5: Women and children first!

The overarching plot to this mess is finally reaching its payoff. We have reached Scranton and arrived to Deb's house. After a bit of speculation as to why the house looks abandoned*, Deb decides to abandon the party and urges everyone to get back on the road without her. I am all for this idea. Sadly, this won't happen.

*Did I mention the family was vacationing at the time? And that at one point they managed to get a text out to her that they're ok (at the time) and are driving home? No? Did I gloss over those parts? My bad, I must not have cared. To be fair, the scene where Deb gets a text is right after the 72,000 Myspace views argument and I was still blind with rage at this movie...

Before deciding to leave, Deb looks to the camera (because that's the only way to talk to Jason anymore) and says something along the lines of "I guess I'll call you," like this whole zombie apocalypse thing was more of an awkward first date or something with Jason replying in equally dumb fashion. At this point Jason is committed to the idea that he's gonna leave his girlfriend home alone during the zombie apocalypse to keep filming his Myspace movie. Tony quickly calls bull shit on this and decides to stay with Deb so she isn't alone. Then everyone quickly decides they have their own reason to get off the RV and chill at Deb's house; Girlfriend wants to pee, Elliot wants to play video games, Professor wants to get drunk...I'm not shitting you on any of these reasons...but the only person who has no legitimate stated reason for wanting to stay with Deb is her own fucking boyfriend.

So, upon reflection, it's more and more likely that Jason isn't so much Deb's boyfriend throughout this movie as much as Tony is. Go back and watch some parts of this movie; whenever Deb needs someone to lean on or for general support, it seems like she goes for Tony way more often than she even acknowledges Jason as an option. Maybe because it's Tony actually making an effort for the group to survive, or maybe it's because Deb has silently agreed that she needs to dump Jason for being a dipshit (she just needs to find the right off camera moment to have "that talk") and has already decided Tony makes a fantastic rebound.

Into the house we go and we discover that the family did indeed make it home, but they're nowhere in sight. Deb discovers the abandoned car they drove home on and is pointed to a damaged and bloody window in the front passenger side. So yeah, shit looks bleak. Deb starts freaking out and needs to find them, only for Tony to stop her and explain that they might not be ok. Ya know, gear her up for the worst case scenario...shit a boyfriend would do....while her actual boyfriend silently records it and says nothing. At this point I'm convinced that they did break up off camera.

While Tony is being the concerned apocalypse boyfriend to Deb, you should at this point take notice of the Professor standing over them, rocking out his dumb fucking bow and arrow set and you just know that shit's gonna get shoehorned in this movie now. Just, gear yourselves up now for that. Meanwhile, Elliot and Girlfriend are somewhere else in the house and...not looking for the family? Cuz seriously, how hard is it to find either 3 zombies, 3 scared alive people, or any combination of the two?

Before we continue, I must warn you, this next bit is where the movie fucking dies. Before it was just a shaky plot with some seriously underwhelming acting. But the part where Deb's brother, as a zombie, ninjas over and jumps onto Deb's back (without biting her, because why would a zombie do anything like that?) is the part where the S.S. Diary of the Dead can officially be classified as a sinking ship.

Why DIARY OF THE DEAD sucked pt4

[Posted by Ted H]

Just gonna go ahead and announce that it'll be a cold COLD day in hell before I review Survival of the Dead...........

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3
-----------------------------------------

[Why DIARY OF THE DEAD sucked pt4]

Part 4: Why I hate Deb

Cut to everyone* pushing the RV because something is wrong with it. Girlfriend says it's the fuel line (because her dad was a pit crew guy for some redneck NASCAR driver. Fire arms and cars, she's from the south you guys, GET IT?) so they gotta fix it up. Only after already pushing the RV onto a strangers property does anyone think to maybe ask the owner if it's cool. Don't worry though, the owner is just walking by because anyone having to find him without Jason to film it just wouldn't do.

*Obviously Jason doesn't help because he's too busy filming it, because he's a fucking cunt, and because every single tiny detail MUST be filmed!

The owner does enter immediately, but because this film is full of dumb choices, he's a deaf Amish guy who announces his presence by groaning in the way deaf people do, but it sounds similar to a zombie moan, so everyone needs a dumb jump scare. After quick introductions, the Amish dude points out actual zombies that are pulling a ninja zombie attempt. Then the Amish dude tosses some dynamite and blows them up in a really shitty looking way.

Why DIARY OF THE DEAD sucked pt3

[Posted by Ted H]

I'm gonna try to power through this movie as best I can before I move. That way I can give this shitty movie back to my brother. I'd hate to rush the end. If I'm gonna hate on a movie, I'm gonna hate on it right, God dammit!

Part 1

Part 2

------------------------------------------------------

[Why DIARY OF THE DEAD sucked pt3]

Part 3: Priorities
Into the hospital we go...and it too is abandoned. At this point Deb pulls an idea from the Fred Jones playbook: Let's split up, gang! So the group splits up despite one group not being able to bring the injured Mary with them. What happens if they find help first? Run around lost, looking for Mary so they can save her? I know Deb said "We'll look for the ER" but what if whatever help you find goes to the ER to meet them there only to find that Deb and company went to the wrong fucking floor or something? This was not a rational decision, but a Romero decision because we're gonna be in a situation soon where it's just Jason talking to Mary and we need the other characters to not be around for that.

So Jason, Deb and the lovebirds take Mary and eventually run into a zombie. Along the way they hear a radio transmission that explains that you gotta shoot em in the head. Thankfully the male love bird has the gun so he can fight off the zombie. What the shit though-everyone splits up but only one group takes Mary AND the only weapon.

Now another zombie shows up, but OH NO! THE GUN JAMMED! Then Deb walks by the zombie within arms reach and gets some defibrillators, and the zombie doesn't even attempt to go after. Then Deb does the clichéd defibrillator dispatch from every move featuring one ever (except for CRANK) then the zombie falls dead out of frame in a way that won't match its position when the camera pans down to see the body. Sloppy sloppy sloppy. But wait, the zombie isn't dead and gets up for a jump scare despite Jason facing that direction. And I know he's facing that direction because that's where the fucking camera is pointed! A little heads up, Jason?

Time to resume getting help, but wait, the camera is low on battery power. Clearly Jason has to stay behind to charge the camera while still filming despite there being nothing to film because everyone else has gone ahead to find help but leaving Mary behind with Jason. So now one group has the only gun, Jason alone has Mary, and the other group has nothing. WHY BOTHER SPLITTING UP? The most likely outcome here is the group with the gun finds nothing while the other group gets eaten because they're defenseless while Mary just dies because she's sitting around waiting for help in a clearly abandoned hospital!

So now we have Jason alone with a dying Mary and a couple dead zombies that I swear to God their position on the floor changed again. Jason is lamenting on how useless he feels being unable to help cuz he's stuck babysitting his charging camera. Don't worry, charging a video camera, and documenting the charging of said video camera is WAY more important than trying to save the life of your friend. This is invaluable footage of a girl dying that the world needs to see!

Scream off-screen and gunshots happen. Normal people would think to help, but not Jason because this camera charging footage isn't gonna shoot itself. Deb returns with a video camera of her own in tow. She uses it as a shame tactic against Jason for everything I talked about in the previous two paragraphs. Jason pleads for Deb to put her camera down and just tell him what happened. Deb does with Jason still filming because fuck consistency in an argument! She tells the story and plays it up for the camera, then halfway through her bullshit another dead guy arrives and Deb IMMEDIATLY starts filming it too on her camera. Didn't you just get done chastising Jason for doing nothing except film shit during this whole ordeal?

Male love bird, that was his cue, now walks in and dispatches the new zombie like it's his fucking dead end job or something then gives one of the most phoned in "I just killed another man" zombie movie speeches ever. And out of nowhere comes the Professor to give some speech about how he was in war or something and killing becomes easier and blah blah blah. Then it becomes his turn to chastise Jason for videotaping everything instead of doing a damn thing to actually help.

Jason, seriously, not a single person so far has said anything along the lines of "Dude, yes, videotape the zombie apocalypse. This is definitely helping us survive this ordeal." Everyone who has weighed in on you so far (Tony, the random criminal in the girls dorm, your girlfriend and your fucking college professor who is the reason you got into directing) have all agreed: stop being a twit and actually contribute.

Before anyone can delve deeper into how much of a fuckass Jason is, Mary dies and starts turning. Male lovebird once again phones in his performance as he goes through the motions of trying to decide if he can go through with killing zombie-Mary even though she's his friend (I think? It was never really established how she knew the rest of the group. My only theories are 1-Deb's bff...2-no ones friend but rather the one chick who has access to the RV everyone wants to party in so everyone pretends to be her friend to get to the RV...3-the naive chick who the Professors been fucking on the side cuz the Professor looks like the type to take advantage of the occasional student) Anyway, the professor takes the gun, dispatches Mary, then continues to bitch out Jason while pawning off the gun to Tony because of psychotic reasoning. Dude, the Professor is a fucking asshole when he's sober. Somebody get this man a whiskey!

Some more preachy bull shit from Deb's voiceover happens and I choose to not acknowledge because I'm trying to get through this part in one sitting. Then the cream-de-la-crop of Jason being a fucking useless human being happens. He fucking films a zombie walking right up to the male love bird and barely warns him as the zombie bites into the guys arm. Then he just fucking stands there filming while the poor bastard tries to fight off the zombie while Elliot feebly pushes the zombie away, then uses an IV pole to stab the attacker in the chest to show everyone else that the zombie is a zombie.

Anyone remember Tom Savini's NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD remake? Remember the scene where not-Barbara shoots a zombie a couple times in the chest to show it's a zombie because she's sick and fucking tired of everyone bitching about how the attacking zombies can't possibly be dead? Yeah, Elliot's doing pretty much that right now. My problem here is we've seen plenty of zombie killing action to the point that no one should be questioning that the dead are returning to life. Fuck, didn't everyone just get done watching Mary die and turn? Elliot and not-Barbara's tirades are always a pleasure to watch, but only if you don't feel like it was forced in after you stop and think about the context for a moment. Trust me, there was plenty wrong with Savini's NIGHT, but that scene wasn't one of them (now that shirtless zombie that happened immediately after is a different story, but let's save that for a review that I hopefully never do)

Zombie dead, female love bird rushes to her now (slowly) dying man, who is now poorly acting his way through his post zombie bite. Deb is filming this when she suddenly catches herself and realizes she's a fucking hypocrite. Now more Deb voiceover where she wonders what is it that makes people so interested in tragedies. Let's skip that and talk about what makes Jason so compelled to record everything thus far.

Yes, people are interested when crazy shit happens. And yes, they often times record it. Nowadays it's because their YouTube hits will skyrocket for it. But what they don't do is record horrific events while they themselves are active participants in immediate danger. Yes, people are compelled to record terrible things, but only from a position of relative safety. Need a plausible real world example?

Let's talk about 9/11...

The events at the destruction of the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001 stands as one of (if not #1) the most well documented tragedy in freakin history. Go to YouTube right now and type in 9/11 or anything similar and you'll be buried in a shit ton of results made by people taping and documenting the attack and eventual collapse of the two towers. You've got angles of people hanging out of windows with an inferno behind them. You have angles of people jumping to their deaths, with the camera following their decent as best they can. You even have some idiots who run onto the main plaza to get a better look at the scene (naturally unaware of the potential of the towers collapsing, otherwise he'd be a mile away.)

And speaking of collapsing. There are angles upon angles upon footage upon footage of each tower collapsing. And on top of that, we have countless shots of the 2nd plane crashing into the south tower to go with the one or two rare pieces of footage of the 1st plane hitting the north tower. (Fun fact: the most well known footage of the 1st plane strike was taped by a guy shooting a documentary of a rookie firefighter. He was getting some B-roll footage of the chief doing some lazy Tuesday morning bull shit when the plane happened to fly low overhead and get everyone's attention.)

So, where's the outrage for anyone making 9/11 tapes? Well, it wasn't like they were shooting their footage while inside the towers. Unlike Jason, they were recording their footage from a safe perspective. I mean, yeah, on 9/11 America was under attack and technically nowhere was safe, but everyone with a cell phone camera or whatever were recording their footage from a (relatively) safe place. And it's not like any non-first responder is gonna be of any use anyway.

Jason, on the other hand, is right smack in the middle of the zombie apocalypse. He is not shooting his film from a safe location and he can be of use to his friends if he bothered to put the camera down and help. People around him are dying and all her can do is record it as opposed to bothering to help. There is the outrage. He is a detriment to his group and his actions (or non-actions) are costing other people their lives.

New day and Mary is buried. Jason had the common courtesy to not film the process but I highly doubt he lifted a finger to help. Everyone with a shovel (where did they find a couple shovels?) is finishing up the grave while we pan out to find that the male love bird is already dead. You guys think that maybe a 2nd grave is warranted? No? Did nobody like this guy? Was he only around because he was the blond chicks fuck buddy?

Enter the standard fare of "Why is he dead after one bite?" and the usual conversation as to what could have caused such a quick and fatal infection. Nothing to gripe about there unless you don't like zombie movies (And if you don't, why are you here?). Tony decides that it's time to kill the male love bird before he turns...and for some reason decides that the best way to announce this is by cocking the chamber right next to the grieving (poorly grieving) girlfriend's ear. (Why are you cocking the gun? It's already loaded and has already been fired before. All you're doing is wasting a bullet!)

More run of the mill "He might not turn" or "Let's just wait and see what happens" which is fucking stupid because you just got done burying Mary! Who died and came back without being bitten! So guess what's gonna happen to someone dead who was bitten! This all ultimately turns into the girlfriend having to kill her dead boyfriend as he awakens...alone...because closure? This never really gets explained, which is inexcusable. Jason insists on taping everything he finds relevant to this apocalypse, and if people get pissed, he just pretends to stop filming, just to get what he wants on film. So the conversation where the girlfriend decides she'll wait alone for her boyfriend to reanimate so she can kill him seems like a pretty big conversation to skip.

Whatever, boyfriend reanimates, and the girlfriend shoots him in the head, first try, without properly aiming (or any firearms training but I guess it's assumed that since she's from Texas she should already know firearms? Like it's taught in grammar school right after Math.) Male lovebird is now gone, poorly acting his death as he did everything else in life. Then the Professor makes some tasteless comment about the boyfriend "he just flunked out." I know he's been drinking steadily since at least Mary's burial, but you don't get to make a stern speech to Jason about being a twit in the zombie apocalypse, then turn around and make stupid one liners like you're kicking off an episode of NCIS Miami.

Dead are now buried, we can get on with this road trip. But not before Jason pisses off more people by taping their reactions to the impromptu double burials. You guys go on ahead though and leave me with the bodies. No? Fine, let's keep this train wreck a-chuggin!

Next stop: Amish country!

Why DIARY OF THE DEAD sucked pt2

[Posted by Ted H]

Oh man, I now know how to end Pure Human. I just, ya know, have to make time to actually write it. But in the meantime-I've been watching a bad movie some more to review!

Part 1

--------------------------------------------

[Why DIARY OF THE DEAD sucked pt2]

Part 2: ROLE CALL!
So the movie started and so far it looks like it can pull off a decent run. The start has introduced us to a bunch of idiots, but the story has hit all the right points and maybe putting these characters through some shit can force a character arch on a couple and make them likable. This movie CAN be good, it just can't throw anything else stupid to make things worse. This was all set up, however, before we meet Deb.

Enter the dorms! And about an hour has passed since it's been first reported that zombie shits going down, everyone in the dorm has abandoned ship. It's iffy to say the least, but it sets up a nice scene, so I'm all for it. Something crashes off screen and Jason investigates to reveal some random dude stealing shit and freely admitting to it to a camera. Right...cuz anyone committing a crime will just up and say it on camera to a total stranger. Ok...maybe they would, but it would be that stupid looking. Anyway, the random criminal turns the conversation back at Jason by asking "What's a guy with a video camera doing in the women's dorm?"

That...is a very valid question. I'll stop complaining about this guys needless insertion to the movie for that.

Anyway, about 10 seconds later we meet Deb, the only actual college student in the dorm who didn't leave. How very fucking convenient. The first thing she says is a question as to why Jason is recording the zombie apocalypse. Get used to that question, kids. Jason then puts the camera down, assuming his girlfriend won't notice it's on. Get real used to that, too.

On Deb's computer is a video playing of the zombie attack that opened the movie. Wait, I thought it was mentioned that this was uploaded later by the cameraman? This video playing is pretty much a highlight reel of the good parts with someone talking over it. Considering how the zombie apocalypse is just starting, that's pretty quick for someone to upload the "truth" seeing how there's barely been enough time for any "lie" about this whole situation to even be reported.

Deb has been trying to call home and check on her family to no avail. She decides now that she wants to go home. I guess she was just waiting for her boyfriend to find her? The entire dorm is long gone and there was definitely no certainty that Jason would show up and not (oh, I dunno) try to find his own family (assuming he or anyone else in his little group has one since literally no one else shows any interest in finding their own family in all this) so wouldn't it be a better and smarter option to just make for home first chance you get? Don't have a car? Bum a ride with someone else. Not everyone in a college is a local and not every non-local is gonna want to brave the zombie apocalypse to go all the way home. Worried about your family? Get your ass home. Leave Jason a fucking note if you honestly think he'll break into your dorm room and look for you. Have him catch up later. There's nothing about him that says "this aspiring film director is a must have for when the world descends into chaos."

Deb voiceover: "I think that's what started the panic-not knowing the truth." Oh lord, shut up. I'm pretty sure knowing the truth about the rise of the undead would still stir a fucking panic, probably a bigger panic. Stop trying to be deep.

Now we're in the RV, and the first thing Deb does is question the camera again (that's 2) and Jason decides everyone should introduce themselves to the camera/audience...because that's the sign of a great movie-having to stop the film so we can get to know the characters. Ya know, maybe Romero was on to something. So let me stop this review and introduce everyone as well...

Batting (and dying) 1st: Mary. She just wants to go home. And the best way to accomplish that is to drive to someone else's home first. I dunno why, maybe it's along the way. Where is she driving right now? "I dunno. Just trying to get out of dodge." Because picking a random direction instead of trying to get some place specific is a totally rational idea for everyone to be following. At one point she also points out that she's currently not dating anyone. She is also the only person in this film without any sort of significant other (Jason+Deb...Jason+Elliot...Tony+his established counter nature to Jason that won't end until Jason gets some sort of final 1 up over him...the one love birt+the other love bird...the Professor+booze) So unless Mary hooks up and hooks up quick, she's a goner. Besides, everyone knows how hard it is to find love in the zombie apocalypse. Finally, she's religious, because that won't aid in her expandability in this movie.

2nd: Deb, who twice in her bit questions the camera (4). She just wants to go home, too. And her home is SCRANTON...because aside from a missile silo in Florida, the zombie apocalypse is only allowed to happen in Pennsylvania for George Romero (Night: rural PA...Dawn: some mall in PA...Land: Pittsburgh, PA) The longer the impromptu interview goes, the more Deb gets pissed at Jason for filming. I wanna say that Deb is doing a good job portraying my own attitude to Jason in this movie but she soon descends into insufferable herself. So in retrospect, I hate her from the start.

3rd: Tony. Tony is suppose to be the "too cool for the rest of you" guy who is with the group, but clearly against Jason in a non threatening way. Anyone remember Cholo from LAND? Yeah, he's Cholo; an ass who Romero wants us to think is a bad ass. During this interview, Tony mentions how he wasn't suppose to do makeup for the monster movie and Deb mentions that she was suppose to but "Sorry babe, but you know what happens when we try to work together." Again, not shit people say knowingly on camera...but maybe she does this to embarrass Jason into not filming anymore. Tony is from Queens, meaning he isn't going to die. Everyone also knows that New Yorkers don't get killed by zombies. They're too awesome to die.

Batting cleanup: Elliot. Elliot is clearly Jason's bff. He introduces himself by fixing a TV that we didn't know was broken so that he and Jason can have a generic back and forth about the government explanation to the beginning of the zombies. So...the "lie" is just now making its rounds on the news...now would be a good time for that cameraman to upload the "truth", not before the "lie", AFTER! Anyway, Elliot wants to get home as well, but I guess it's along the way, or maybe he was being sarcastic.

5th and 6th come the lovebirds. Because this film needs two people who love each other (as opposed to Jason and Deb). The one girl has to explain that there's a camera in her phone (because in 2007 we still need to point out that phones have camera functions.)

7th comes the Professor who has nothing serious to contribute, but at least plays along. And I'm pretty sure he's an alcoholic.

There's also Jason. But he's too busy being a cameraman to be a character.

Back to the movie! The RV comes to a car crash scene. "Oh my God, we'll never get passed that," someone says despite the right side of the road being open. A burnt zombie approaches the RV while everyone debates on if it's really a zombie. Just then, the camera has an unknown issue and cuts out for a second, but comes back just in time for a jump scare as the zombie throws its face against the driver's side window...and everyone right then freaks out. So I guess everyone went blind along with the camera?

Mary freaks out and starts driving away (which involves driving passed that seemingly impassable car crash) and along the way runs over three zombies (all on the right side of the road while the left side was wide open)...Later on she pulls over and has a breakdown over the belief that the zombies she ran over were actually living people. Then she goes into a field and shoots herself (with a gun that wasn't even hinted about), but not fatally, because a fatal head shot would be too easy.

Again, this movie is hitting all the points, it's just the acting that's failing hard. And it's really hard to communicate the bad acting on a write up. Don't worry though, the directing and character actions will soon descent into a LAND OF THE DEAD style mess soon enough.

For now though, this movie has an immediate purpose and direction, as opposed to just aimlessly driving around and talking about going home: Get Mary to the hospital before it's too late.

Next time: It's too late

Why DIARY OF THE DEAD sucked pt.1

[Posted by Ted H]

This is a cry for help...Intentionally watching this movie on a critical level is considered by some to be self-destructive behavior...But my pain is your gain...

------------------------------------------------------------

[Why DIARY OF THE DEAD sucked pt.1]

*I will spoil the shit out of this movie in this review. You have been warned*

Welcome back to HELL! Recently, I was feeling a bit masochistic and decided it was as good a time as any to review Diary is a similar fashion to what I did previously. This is a cry for help, because I was contemplating suicide by the end of Land of the Dead the last time I did this. Once again, I clearly do not own this movie personally, so I stole it from my brother.

Anyway, some history for me with this movie. When it was announced, I kept my expectations tapered. Land burned me already and I wasn't ready to trust Romero so quickly. Romero scaling it back from the huge production his previous movie was gave me some hope though, as did the announced storyline. I still skipped it in theaters and waited for it to come out on DVD where I rented it. I began watching it with a mixture of hope and dread, and by the end only dread remained. I let Romero do it to me again. It began well and I let myself get excited, only to be let down all over again. This has become an abusive relationship.

Let's just get this over with...

Part 1: Dear Diary...

Let's open up high. Camera man setting up for a news report. Some murder-homicide went down and everyone is going about it like just another day in the world. Obviously this is before the zombie apocalypse starts. It all looks to be setting up for a "Surprise! Zombies!" beginning to the apocalypse akin to Night of the Living Dead where Barbara and Johnny were simply going to the cemetery before they unwittingly entered hell.

-Then the voiceover begins; The woman who I will despise the most out of this entire movie, and there were a lot of takers for that position.

She talks about how what we're watching is footage uploaded by the cameraman as his way of getting the "truth" out. The scene was fine without the voiceover. We didn't need the woman narrating, but Romero did to set up the rest of his intro. The scene however, would've worked as is. Show these assholes assuming it was just another day, enter zombies, show how everything kinda went to shit. Luckily the woman shuts up and lets the magic happen, and the only genuinely good scene in this entire movie plays out.

Then the voiceover continues. To be fair, I hate the voiceover in retrospect because I know how the rest of this movie goes. In the moment, I give it a pass. To Romero's credit, it was needed to setup the opening. Sure, he could have let it all play out silently-just let the montage of the world falling apart play out. But that's been done before. Sure, the woman comes off as a bit preachy and hipster-like, but whatever.

"We made a film" is said as "The Death of Death" flashes on screen before the woman continues "Actually, Jason wanted to make it." So we know right now, whoever Jason is-he's already dead. Sure hope he isn't a major character in this, because the only drama associated with him in every life-or-death situation he'll find himself in will be "Will this be the thing that finally does him in?".......Actually, no. Either he dies (or gets infected) right away, or he'll be everything proof until the end where some lame thing happens that'll kill him off for the sake of killing him off.

The woman begins to talk about what kind of cameras were used and who did what and how she did the final cut and WHO THE FUCK CARES!?!?!?! She also said she added music n shit in an attempt to scare you...I'm guessing the actress accidentally read Romero's linear notes on the movie and George decided "What the hell, I'll leave that in" while editing the voiceover.

"Anyway, here it is...Jason Creed's The Death of Death." So yeah, another reminder that Jason is a dead man.....also "The Death of Death"? Really? Even by college film titles that's retarded. Then again, this is Romero's 5th [blank] of the Dead movie, so originality in titles clearly isn't his strong suit.

We begin in the movie where some cheesy crap is happening. I'll ignore this. For all I know it was intentionally cheesy since it's suppose to be college kids making some stupid monster movie for a class project. The only fault on Romero was he forgot to tell the actors to stop acting cheesy for the rest of the movie. Anyway, more college kids bantering between each other that I choose to ignore because it's college kids bantering.

Enter: the professor, almost down to a cliché the way he acts. Normally, I'd rally the fuck against the guy, but he's pretty much my Creative Writing professor from college, except he's a dude. So while I plan to harp on and on against the characters in this movie, this guy will get [mostly] a pass since the real world has given me an example of him. Go figure. The most over the top character in this film is the most believable. I still think Romero pulled this off by accident.

Some other guys comes in with the usual "Guys, you should check this out. Something's happening out there." Whatever. At this point, I'm gonna take a moment to bring up the question as to why the camera is still on. He's filming a movie (also, why is the director also the camera man?) so why is behind the scenes stuff being filmed? They established that they're 4 days over a 3 day shooting schedule, so they've been doing this for a week. Resources are finite, stop wasting film (or memory) on trivial shit. Sure, the argument he was having on film with the makeup guy could be thrown up to shit happening in the moment and he forgot to stop filming because he's so far up his own ass over his "vision" but when his friend shows up to mention something weird is happening out in the world, that should be a good time to cut the film.

Yeah....this is a movie comprised of all the film student camera shots and this next part is important, but it's unnatural and stupid...and it's far from the last time this happens. Maybe strictly making this movie a "found footage" type of film was a bad choice. Maybe make only certain parts shot from the perspective of film students and the rest shot like a traditional movie? Probably would have been odd, but it still would have been better than what we got.

Anyway, the news says the dead are returning to life, some characters banter over the believability of it all, then some unknown sound in the woods scares them. Couple people run away and Jason decided to return to his girlfriend at the campus. This movie has started off fine. Not great, but the foundation has been laid out for something truly memorable. The beginning is fine, the premise is solid and it all has the potential to end fairly well as long as the actors don't fuck it up.

The actors fucked it up. They fucked it up bad. The acting of this movie did not stick the landing....it didn't even maintain flight.......hell, they couldn't even get off the runway. It's like all these actors were actual college students who were legitimately filming some cheesy and stupid monster movie called "The Death of Death" when George fucking Romero walked out to them from the middle of the woods and said "Hey guys, who wants to turn this into a crazy zombie movie?" Then he threw everyone $20 and they all jumped at the idea. Never mind the fact that no one knows how to act, we're in a zombie movie, guys!

This movie was shot differently than the others and was independently produced as opposed to the previous travesty, I get that. But this is a DEAD film by Romero, a big boy director. He doesn't get away with allowing half-ass acting. The actors weren't exactly A-listers, the only notable actor I can remember from this film is the guy who went on to play Wesker in the equally tragic Paul Anderson Resident Evil movies (another set of movies I should rip apart one day), but it's up to the director to make his actors better on film. Sadly though, the script was clichéd at many points, making it near impossible to get a decent job from the actors.

My God, this movie was hampered by so much stupid shit. Like I said, this movie starts off with a solid premise, but it all gets fumbled during the run time and it crosses the finish line dragging its face in the dirt.

Let's go meet my least favorite character!

Third Thoughts After Seeing The Evil Dead Remake

[Posted by Ted H]

part 3 of 3...

This wasn't suppose to be long, just a wrap up where I also bring up the future planned installments.
--------------------------------------

 

There is a known distinction between The Evil Dead and its remake...the original is known as "The Evil Dead" while the remake is known simply as "Evil Dead"...so what's the point? Well, apparently this is happening alongside the original Evil Dead movies, and not just a remake, which makes it waaaaaaaaaay worse.

The apparent "plan" in action here (and whether or not Sam Raimi will actually do this is up for debate) is that this remake will get its own sequel, and then  Ash Williams will return for an Evil Dead 4, and then Ash and Mia will team up for a 7th movie.

But wait! Doesn't that excuse the remake for taking such a radical departure from the source material? These technically aren't the original 5 in the original situation, so even though the first 80% of shit going down went play for play like the original, it's actually suppose to be different! It's all kosher now, right?

No. Because now instead of half the action from the remake taken from the original being a loving homage or a reference, they all become blatant rip-offs. Nobody likes a sequel that offers nothing new and is constantly rehashing stuff from the previous installments. Take away everything that wasn't original and suddenly there isn't enough in this movie to make it good. Suddenly it's relying on an overabundance or gore and stupid character decisions to carry it, just like every other bad horror movie. It needs everything from the original to make it stand out as the best horror movie in years. As a remake, this would be excusable. But as another installment?

Lemme put it this way. Everyone loves the chainsaw hand thing Ash did in Evil Dead 2. And while it make an appearance in Army of Darkness, it was discarded for the mechanical hand. AoD didn't rehash the chainsaw hand. Instead it found something else.

I dunno...maybe I'm just one of those people who thinks it isn't a proper Evil Dead movie unless Ash Williams is front and center. But either way, this movie ultimately failed to leave a lasting impression on me. Anything truly good done was a rehash of a prior Evil Dead movie (and mostly done better in the originals). This movie was good, but if I find myself wanting to see a good horror movie late one night, I'm gonna reach for Evil Dead...the 1982 classic. The remake will still be on my shelf, but it will have to forever live in the overbearing shadows of its 3 superior siblings...

Second Thoughts After Seeing The Evil Dead Remake

[Posted by Ted H]

This is a 3 part mini-series...part 1 was what I thought right after seeing the movie...this part is what I thought after letting it all sink in for about a week....The finale is next week where I wrap everything up in a broad sense...
You may be wondering why I deem it necessary to talk about this movie when I've got stories to write, but the Sam Raimi Evil Deads are a huge inspiration to me, and any variant (good, bad or otherwise) would have garnered a response out of me.

-----------------------------------------------

 

I'm gonna point this out right now: overall, I loved Evil Dead (2013)...just not nearly as much as any of the other Evil Deads. For every negative thing I have to say about the remake, there are three things I didn't say that were outstanding.

 

As far as I am concerned with movies, there are two types of remakes: one is where you faithfully recreate the original film with updated themes and technology...another is where you take the basic layout, and change the entire direction. Both are valid.

Night of the Living Dead is an example of the former. The Romero and Savini variants both have the same characters involved, same set up and plot points. It tapered off at the end and I could write an essay over how that worked and didn't work, but for the sake of time, I'll move on. The 1990 version made no subtleties over their movie. "We're taking the same people and the same plot and updating the hell out of it. We may change a few things (this is a remake, not a retelling) but essentially it's like the first.

Dawn of the Dead is an example of the latter. Romeros version had 4 people in a mall dealing with life in the zombie apocalypse. How they dealt with the dead, each other and other living people is what drove the plot. Snyders version had about a dozen or so people in a mall. Sure there were characters that seemed like they were recasts (Peter-Kenneth...Francine-Anna...Roger-CJ...Stephen-Michael) the movie made sure to point out they were NOT the same people...then tacked on a bunch of other people, changed locations and had radically different themes and endings.

Both ideas are valid. Now enter the Evil Dead remake. Which type of remake was it trying to be? Trick question, it tried to be both. It ended up being at odds with its own identity and fell over from over ambition. It went out of its way to be both a retread of the Sam Raimi classic, and stand on its own merits.

The problem is, it seemed to lock itself into a retelling from the get-go. If you didn't want to come off as a retelling, then why does it star five people incredibly similar to the five people in the original. From that starting point, it seems to be a retelling (with a little deviation here and there but it's all good) and the times it references aspects from the original are high points in the movie, but everything original to a certain point are solid on their own as well.

...then Scott decides to try burning the book. In the original, Ash won out in the end (kinda) by burning the book...it lasted all of two minutes before he was attacked, but all the crazy shit (minus the big bad) was stopped by burning the book...in the remake, Scott tries burning the book only to find the book doesn't burn and the crazy shit carries on undeterred. From there the movie puts its foot down and states that it is a different telling. It is not going to be like the original...and it does stick to that script for a while. The Linda character is attacked and ultimately dispatched in different fashion...but not before her hand (sorta) gets possessed and she cuts it off...so now we're referencing the high points of 2 Evil Dead movies? If her severed hand came to life and did shit on its own, I'm pretty sure I would've taken the DVD out and tossed it out my window though.

While referencing the original Evil Dead were high points in this movie, as we roll into the end, referencing the original was also accounting for the low points as well. I was honestly tired of this version running back to the well for nostalgia to help it stand on its own. It got to the point where it wanted to stand on its own merits, but it couldn't do that well without help from the original.

 

Don't get me wrong, similarities and differences aside, I was having a fucking blast up until Ash decided to bury his sister alive and unpossess her. It wasn't until it started raining blood that I was getting pissed. I would still recommend this movie because it's one of the best horror movies of the last few years, but the ending is jarringly and profoundly inane.

Kinda like how the best Mass Effect 3 ending is to turn off your game after Anderson dies...the best ending to this movie is to turn off the movie once Ash blows up the cabin.

First Thoughts After Seeing The Evil Dead Remake

[Posted by Ted H]

So...I finally got around to seeing The Evil Dead remake.

...spoilers galore...

When it was first announced that Sam Raimi was only producing and instead it would be directed by: not-Sam-Raimi, I didn't know what to think. On one hand, Raimi was involved, surely he wouldn't let a remake of his greatest series get out of hand, right? On the other hand, someone else would be calling the shots.

What we got was a mixed bag.

2013-Evil Dead clearly made a volley to stand alone from it's predecessor, which is not a bad thing. But it made way too many references to the original series that it came across more as a bastardization...or fan-fiction, which is worse.

Differences!
Going to the cabin:
Original: Why the fuck not?
Remake: Mia needs to cold-turkey some drugs.

Releasing the demon:
Original: "Hey guys, let's play this tape we found in the basement next to this book."
Remake: Scotty (whatever his name is, besides Mia, I didn't bother to remember their names) fucking around with shit he's not suppose to.

Stopping the demons:
Original: Chop those fuckers up!
Remake: Chop em, burn em or...bury them? Dafaq?
Stopping ALL the demons:
Original: Burn the book.
Remake: ...404 file not found...

That scene in particular where Scotty is TRYING to burn the book and can't should have been the last call back to the original movies. "Look, he's trying right now the same thing Ash did in the original, but it isn't working. That means we have a clean slate now." Lol...nope.

This version could have done way better if it weren't constantly trying to reference shit from the original or even ED2. Cutting off a hand, singing "We're gonna get you" (in the trailer), the image of the "abomination", "I'll feast/swallow your soul" and "Feast on/swallow this.", "We just killed our girlfriend/your girlfriend just cut off her arm...does that sound fine?" and the chainsaw arm bit. And that's all shit off the top of my head. Maybe one or two would work (except anything from ED2 cuz that's such a radical departure form strait horror) but when you try to shoehorn as much as you can from the original source material into a remake, and still try to stand alone as your own movie, then everything starts to crumble.

And why do I take such offense to the chainsaw bit from this movie when I absolutely loved it when done in Evil Dead 2? Because ED2 wasn't trying to be a strait faced horror like the original. The scene where he reworks the chainsaw to fit his stump, cuts off the barrel of his shogun and says "Groovy" fits perfectly with the theme that movie maintained prior. Had Ash done all that in the climax of ED1, it would have been jarring and stupid. This movie was a strait faced horror all the way until Mia decided "I know, lemme shove my stump into the handle of this chainsaw then fire off a one liner."

That whole climax seemed forced. Like at the end of a video game where some random bloke shows up as the final boss. Who the fuck is this and why do I have to deal with it? And the concept of Mia even coming back to normal is rubbish. Possessed-Mia was the single biggest threat in the entire movie, but once that was no longer an option the people in charge were like "We want Mia to be the hero at the end, but we also want possessed-Mia to be the monster at the end." and then that little Mexican child walks into the office and says "Why not both?" Isn't the whole concept of possession that the possessor needs your body, otherwise it's not a problem? I guess we're hand-waving that. And while we're hand-waving shit, how about how Mia got unpinned from the overturned Jeep. It's not like there are and bones or muscles keeping your hand attached to your arm, just rip that shit right off like it's nothing. Also how there was no way in hell that Mia got enough gas into the chainsaw for it to start, let alone run for as long as it did at the ending.

...and my personal pet peeve: improbable nail guns. There was no compression hose, or any sign on a portable air compressor on that nail gun...so how could it work? Even if you hand-wave that, what about the safety feature of every nail gun that prevents you from just randomly firing nails like a gun? I mean you can easily bypass that by...oh wait, you need two hands for that, and possessed-Linda didn't have 2 hands...

Now don't get me wrong, 2013-Evil Dead was a great movie. I just cant get over the schizophrenic tone of it all. They wanted to be their own movie, but kept constantly elbowing you over "Hey, remember this from the original?" And then it all fell apart at the end with their surprise monster.
...and wasn't it mentioned earlier that the only way the Abomination would be able to cross over is if 5 souls were claimed...so did "saving" Mia's soul not count?...and when Ash died from the explosion and not from a demon possession. Seriously? More hand-waving?

...and now for a quick round of Challenge Pissing...
A better ending would be:
After "saving" Mia, Ash heads back inside to get his keys when possessed-Scotty shows up and attacks. Oh shit! Ash limps for the door to find Mia and OH SHIT! She's possessed again because the concept of saving her was fucking stupid. Ash is trapped and pretty much getting raped by two demons. He then realizes he still has his lighter and there's gasoline all over the place still. He then lures both possessed to the cellar and lights shit up. Everybody dies and everybody loses, just like in the original...or he shotguns the gas can and blows the house with everyone still inside. Either way is better than what we got.

Or better yet: fire wont kill the book? How about a shotgun blast?

Why LAND OF THE DEAD sucked pt.5

[...Posted by Ted H]

Oh. My. God. A new writer? This means I can actually slack off a bit and not rush anything out the door? Fuck yeah, baby. Welcome Anthony to the asylum club blog trap err...asylum.

Can't tell the difference between us? Well one way you can tell is I'm the one who keeps bitching about a bad movie (though this is the last part) before I return to regularly scheduled apocalyptic stories...though both of us seem to be covering our own variant of the end of days...
................or there's the fact that I point myself out at the beginning of every post I do [...with this retarded style]

As stated, this is the final part of my LotD hate-fest. I had this ready for a while and just wanted it out, plus I'm typing this on a Thursday, knowing full well I won't be able to do much writing until at least Sunday night. So rather than try to pound something out for either MDZ of BGIv3, Ill just wrap this saga up and give myself more time to trudge through the slow parts I've written myself into.

For the record: I found that I hate this movie all the more ever since I took the time to nitpick everything wrong with it. Things that I previously didn't notice/care about came to light as I progressed and made me resent Romero all the more for it. It just made me bitter at how much of a missed opportunity this was. I never thought that I'd ever sympathize with Star Wars fans in any way, but this movie was Romero's Phantom Menace.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

-------------------------------------------------------------------

[Why LAND OF THE DEAD sucked pt.5]

Part 5: Challenge Pissing 

The long awaited follow-up to Romeros Dead trilogy, to the point where it was originally titled as "Twilight of the Dead", Land of the Dead did anything but live up to the hype. Hell, the only smart move at the end of the day seemed to be the re-title.

 Could this movie be salvaged? Tough call cuz I went back and watched the opening again. It presents a decent premise at the onset but it trips over itself with needless bullshit. Take away Dead Reckoning and you get a bit more even fight and reason to be fearful in the opening. While not vital, it would be a big fucking plus if Charlie wasn't a retard. If you want to keep him distinguished with the way his face was, fine, but making him retarded was overkill. Again, microcosm; trying too hard to get a theme and struggle across that it ends up looking dumb and pretentious.

 Let's make Charlie, not a retard, but maybe a bit more grizzled. His face looking like shit could signify the fact that he and Riley have been through a lot together during the zombie apocalypse without getting into too much detail. It also makes him more competent sounding. The movie makes him out to be somewhat important, when he was about as useful as the fat guy later on. He is to this movie what Jar-Jar was to the Star Wars prequels.

 As for Fiddlers Green, if you're going to present something seemingly invincible and then show how it falls, you need to give a more plausible downfall. The chain link fence falling in under 30 seconds? The river having absolutely no fortifications? The armed soldiers and Nazi security having absolutely no screen time after the undead breach FG, thus inferring that they had no prepared response in the event of zombies? Complete rubbish. Fiddlers Green was presented as a well established haven from the zombie apocalypse, and yet the zombies didn't even need to be halfway intelligent to infiltrate; any decent sized horde would waltz right through.

 Give us plausible cracks in the foundation of FG! Maybe the system keeping the electric fences working is slowly breaking down and you just don't have the resources to keep it up forever. How bout something happens to the river; it raises too high and starts breaking down the surrounding defenses (that should be in place) or it lowers granting easier access for outside threats. And if you're feeling daring enough: The never ending hordes of zombies are constantly outside the gates and the manpower required to keep them at bay forever is dwindling as are the supplies required for them to do their jobs.

 Hell, I mentioned earlier that Safe Haven was the less stupid variant of Fiddlers Green. For that place, it's protected on all sides by giant walls comprised of debris. The long term issue for that is there is no safe or intelligent way to perform the necessary maintenance on the walls from the outside. The defenses were constructed in a hurry as a last bastion for humanity at the onset of the zombie apocalypse. The penalty for such a desperate job is it slowly rots from the outside with no adequate way to repair.

 Safe Haven having a defense that is breaking down, and can only be patched and never really fixed, allows me (the author) to introduce zombie related tension to the city in a way that doesn't require any hand waving or the audience to have any suspension of disbelief.

 But you can change all that and still have one thing dragging down this movie in a big way. Let's go back to the central conflict in this movie, the main issue driving the humans. Cholo is threatening to shoot missiles at the Green and Riley is leading the charge to stop him because a lot of POOR people might get hurt. You know what's missing from that last sentence? Any mention of the living fucking dead!

 Take the missiles away and maybe we can save this thing. Maybe the driving force now can be that Cholo stole the tank and is holding the tank itself hostage. Maybe make it so that without the tank, the humans no longer have their trusty trump card against the zombies and any future (and already risky) ventures into the zombie wastelands for supplies become all the more dire and perhaps now impossible without Dead Reckoning. That may make a little sense, and at least put a little bit of the spotlight back on the zombies in this zombie movie.

 Now obviously something needs doing about the biggest gripe I have with this movie: The RICH and the POOR theme bullshit. I can maybe swallow the notion that there would be people who still honor the dollar in the zombie apocalypse, but my earlier question still stands: How are any of those RICH people making money? We see people running around and enjoying themselves in that mall, spending money and shit, but where is their revenue coming from?

 You want to have people be of a higher status in the zombie apocalypse? Then those people better be doing something to earn that status. I'm talking about doctors, farmers, military tacticians, construction and scientists. People who have valuable skills for a post-apocalyptic setting could reap the higher status of their skills. People with useless skills: retail, lawyers, certain politicians and sports can all take their useless trades and chill out as the poor class. Notice how those group types, when compared against social norms, are now jumbled? I know, right?

This restructured social ladder would also harbor less resentment all around. People will treat the farmers and doctors with higher respect because they are offering indispensable knowledge and skills for the undead world. Lawyers will be looked down upon mostly because hey, who gives a fuck now? You want to be of a higher status? Learn how to grow and process grain or maybe learn how to properly plan and construct a building. There will be no stigma of being "the wrong kind" because the only wrong kind is "useless" and only effort, not money or heritage, will change that.

 The evolution garbage that I am expected to swallow doesn't need much explaining at this point as to why it's just plain wrong. But if one insists that it remain, then this movie can still work despite the ill advised concept. It just requires that most if not all of my earlier suggestions be implemented.

 Can we make a better version?

The challenge: Make an improved pitch for the bad movie. I'm not allowed to add new characters or change too much about existing ones. I can ignore some characters, or at least downgrade them to minor characters who have no bearing on the story. The location and elements within must also have minimal tweaking.

 A better version of LotD would work like this:

The city of survivors at Fiddlers Green have to contend with the fact that all their defenses from the outside zombies are breaking down. There are two prevailing opinions over what to do now. Some think that it's time to flee and find a new refuge. Others believe that nowhere else would be safe and they might as well double down of FG and at least die trying to defend it.

 We can introduce Riley and Cholo through this conflict. Riley can lead team "Get the hell out of dodge" while Cholo can lead team "We're dead no matter where we go-might as well stay!" The only thing keeping Riley and company around is the question over what to do with Dead Reckoning. If the group splinters, then whichever group doesn't get Dead Reckoning will be fucked; the ones that stay will be hard pressed to defend Fiddlers Green long without it, while those who leave would have a tough time lasting in case there's a major problem. So unless Riley and Cholo can decide upon a solution for everyone, then people will die.

 Then we learn that the "evolved" zombies have been biding their time and have decided to strike now, when FG is at its most vulnerable. Not only that, but in the ensuing chaos, they've compromised the area where Dead Reckoning is kept, effectively cutting it off from the humans. At this point the human v human drama can be "Who can get to Dead Reckoning first?" Team Cholo wants to get it first so he can try to fight off the zombies and keep FG under human control. Team Riley wants to get it first so he and his friends can all get out and survive out in the zombie wastelands. I know this effectively makes Riley the "bad guy" here but I'm only working off the established character motivations presented by Romero; Riley wants to go to Canada, and Cholo wants to make a better life for himself in FG. Yeah Riley returns to save the day in Romeros version, but in my version all his friends are with him at the onset.

 What about Big Daddy you ask? He can be included. Hell, he can be the biggest zombie threat in the movie, but not the leader. He can be allowed to "learn" to shoot a gun all in the name of making him more dangerous. This could also lead up to a final confrontation with him and Riley. It would offer a payoff to all the buildup of Big Daddy and Riley as separate forces. Because I couldn't have been the only person who felt ripped that Big Daddy never had to face off against Cholo or Riley.

 So the movie can climax with Riley getting to Dead Reckoning first, but Cholo manages to convince him to stay long enough to help the remaining people trapped in the city so that everyone can escape together or some shit. Maybe Riley got infected during his face off against Big Daddy and now he had a change in his short term perspective. Saving all those people he previously thought so little of could be his defining moment and actually give him a bit of a character arc (as opposed to "I don't want to be here, bitch bitch bitch, Canada"). The movie can end with all the survivors driving off to an uncertain future. Their hopes are bleak because they clearly are not well enough equipped and won't last very long even with Dead Reckoning. Kind of a downer, but hey, that's zombie movies for you.

 This is much better for three reasons: 1) Notice how I never mentioned Kaufman, the whore or the retard? They're dumb characters and have nothing to offer my better movie. 2) It keeps the zombies as the central threat. There's still plenty of human on human drama, but it always takes place under the overarching threat of the undead attack. And it also leads to my third point. 3) It keeps the zombie threat on our "heroes" throughout. Everyone in Night had the constant threat of the undead on top of them. Dawn had a few notable "Oh shit, what are we gonna do about all these zombies?" moments. And Day had the one notable part at the end, and through that the characters at least earned their happy ending.

 Tell me one point in Land where Riley was truly vulnerable to the undead? At all times he was either accompanied by well armed backup, or inside Dead Reckoning. The closest he came to being in any real danger was when he and the bull fighter were looking for ammo, and all those zombies were too busy eating to be any threat. The worst the whore got was when the midget had her thrown at two zombies for sport, so that doesn't count. The worst the retard got was for a jump scare. And all Cholo got was the one ninja zombie.

 In no point in Land of the Dead were any major characters in any real danger, unless the script called for ninja zombies. In doing so, Romero swung and missed at the cornerstone of fear of the genre that he himself popularized. If Night of the Living Dead took place in a fallout shelter instead of the farmhouse, then that would be fucking stupid, and Romero would never get the chance to make any other movies. The best scare involving zombies is the notion that nowhere is ever really safe. No matter where you are or well fortified and protected you are, the dead will eventually find a way in and kill you. Dead Reckoning, essentially, was Romeros way of including an "always safe" place for the main characters.

 A major misstep in this movie was the inclusion of Dead Reckoning. How breaking was this tank? Along with "Twilight of the Dead" another early title for this movie was to simply name it "Dead Reckoning." That's right, not only did Dead Reckoning take the focus of the zombie movie away from the zombies, but it almost took the title away from them too. My guess as to why he changed the title from that was to ensure more people would buy tickets, because at the end of the day fans will line up for this movie based on its title. "Oh snap, [Blank] of the Dead directed by THE George Romero? Shut up and take my money!" Don't believe me? I refer you to the two movies that follow.

 As implausible as it sounds though, maybe it isn't too unrealistic to say that people would be able to construct that kind of vehicle in the zombie apocalypse. What I am saying though is that the only way to make a zombie movie engaging with the tank involved is to compromise the tank or at least compromise the humans ability to properly utilize it. Force them to remember just how hard life can be when you don't have your trump card to use against the zombies.

 I guess what I'm trying to say here is: a zombie movie where the main characters have no real reason to fear the zombies is a really stupid movie. Dead Reckoning was a dumb idea.

 Land of the Dead featured some...interesting concepts, but shit all over itself in the delivery. I'd like to think my five-part bitch fest might have some sort of impact in a world where crappy movies by established directors are allowed, but I am far too late for that. Maybe if I didn't spend the next year after first seeing this movie in denial about its awfulness...maybe. But since that movie, Romero has in turn shit out two more movies that I am led to believe, like this one, happens in the same universe as the original trilogy.

 To this day I still haven't forced myself to watch Survival of the Dead. I might if I make myself do a write up for it like this movie, but that would require me to first endure Diary of the Dead, and like a root canal, I am just not looking forward to doing that. For now I am content to know that I have said my piece about this singular tragedy of a movie. Lord knows there are far worse zombie movies out there, but this one was made by a man who should know better, and claims to be a follow-up to three movies it could never hold a candle to. To let this slip by would be to say I don't care. And I just can't allow that because I do care. Otherwise I wouldn't have written 10,000 words explaining why.