Reviews written by registered user

5 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

153 out of 296 people found the following review useful:
A solid, complete zombie film., 11 May 2007

I must immediately stress that critics who made the interpretation that this was a statement on the Iraq War seem to know as little about it as they do allegory. I'll write more on this later.

To put it succinctly, this movie has all that modern zombie movies are supposed to have. Incredible gore? Check. Virus zombies? Check. Biting zombies? Check. Soldiers shooting zombies? Check. A horror plot that has people falling to their own weaknesses? Check.

The shocks are there, the plot is excellent, and the acting is very, very good. My only issue with the movie, actually, was its use of some recognizable actors- casting semi-unknowns makes the movie more visceral, instead of having fans think, 'Oh, I saw that guy in...'.

Thankfully, fans of the first movie will notice that it doesn't try to ret-con anything, and the same action-focused, grainy camera work makes a welcome return. The movie moves along at a nice pace, never leaving you room to get bored.

Carina Chocano in the Los Angeles Times commented, "The director's message is less overtly political than it is allegorical -- that chaos breeds chaos and that force only serves to amplify it." Given that from the very first moment, without getting too specific, people abandoning their duties defines the movie (as it does virtually all zombie films), I would have to completely disagree. I even set upon another viewing of this movie simply for the purpose of finding an Iraq metaphor- and it's not really there; at this point, they would find a war metaphor in Disney's 'Dumbo'. Unfortunately, I'd have to say that this time, the critics are pretentiously political; so don't worry about getting preached to, as I did. If you're looking for military/force/war metaphors, look to the first film, 28 Days Later. If you're looking for an excellent, fun, gore-infested romp, watch this right afterwards.

"DumbLand" (2002)
12 out of 17 people found the following review useful:
Crude, odd, and sometimes funny..., 21 June 2006

This is a short, crudely animated series by David Lynch (as it says in the beginning), and it follows the misadventures of a backwoods, overall-wearing large man, with a wife who has a stress disorder and an annoying son. Both of those elements are harped upon repeatedly in the short episodes, and there's no real plot to be seen. It's easier if you think of this as an exceptionally odd, slightly macabre Looney Tunes- with far more gore, profanity, bloody violence, and occasional moments of hilarity.

I bought the DVD along with Eraserhead, having previously seen Eraserhead. Don't look to this series if you want an artistic masterpiece- this is anything but. In fact, it seems to almost be a statement against such things, as its rough style spits in the face of any sort of animation convention you may see. As Lynch says, "If this is funny, it is only funny because we see the absurdity of it all."

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Hilariously Bad, 3 April 2004

I took a look at this movie relatively excited. As a big horror fan, the previews looked great, and the original movies were the only classic horror series I hadn't seen- unfortunately, I laughed at this movie far more often than I even thought to be frightened. The characters are annoying, the storyline goes to nonsensical lengths to make a bad attempt to remain vague, and the absolutely moronic villain is a joke. From bad acting to goofy redneck lines to camera shots stolen from Orson Welles movies (running through a slatted hallway with lights through the slats, stolen from "The Trial"), this movie is great if you want a good laugh at a crappy horror movie. If not, look for something better.

13 out of 48 people found the following review useful:
I'm just disgusted with the whole thing..., 15 December 2003

Frankly, I found the story disgusting, and my opinion had nothing to do with homosexuals. The acts and people portrayed in it are horrible human beings, and the so called "suffering" portrayed in it is brought on by the characters themselves. Furthermore, this movie is so political that saying it showcases human nature is a paradox; it's simply a liberal vehicle to mock conservatives (and I'm an independent moderate). The original play was vile, and so was this adaption. I'm surprised that HBO had the poor taste to put it on their network, but I suppose they're seeing the effects of it now, with many cancelling their subscriptions to the channel. The award winning? Well, it seems these days that if you do anything "progressive" (read: offensive), and "showcasing modern suffering" (read: showcasing scum), then you'll win an award for it. Just look at the Turner Art Museum prize, where awards are given to people for non-art.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Great movie, 22 November 2003

While I did like the previous two movies quite a lot, I thought that this one had a lot more care put into it, and it definitely makes for a high-quality watch, despite some of the puns. Johnny Depp and Antonio Banderas serve their roles well. One possible problem is that some fans didn't seem to realize that the focus of the movie is Agent Sands, not El Mariachi- and they seem to think that a falling point, although I did not think so.