so boring i fell asleep…
-
bowery_boy — 16 years ago(February 23, 2010 10:31 AM)
I just finished watching this last night (it took me two days to get through it) and I agree with m-prime.
This was a very boring and extremely bad movie with a
huge
potential of being totally awesome in a cult classic way.
I mean there's very little plot at all. The film jumps back and forth between the main characters as they try to get away from the military and break through the quarantine and the military sergeants and scientists yelling at each other.
Where were the crazies the title promised? I was thinking the story would focus on the small group of people trying to get away from the crazy people who are trying to kill them. The suspense would come from not knowing who is crazy or when they'll turn crazy.
This is an example of a stinking turd of a movie that a remake could only make better. I mean the only way a remake could go is up.
Hopefully. -
kenpringle95 — 16 years ago(February 23, 2010 05:15 PM)
I could understand not liking the movie if you're not into the low-budget Romero style, but I can't agree that there's no plot - the storyline is probably my favorite element of the film, and it's why I think there's so much potential in the new remake. I think the problem is that the story is really too big for the micro budget Romero had to work with, which looks like it should be corrected in the new movie (I think they got something like $12 million to make the new film with, versus less than half a mil for the original).
And what do you mean there's no crazies? Grandma randomly kills a guy with knitting needles - if that ain't crazy, I don't know what is!
-
bowery_boy — 16 years ago(February 25, 2010 08:49 AM)
I didn't like the movie because it had so much potential to be more than it was and that was due to sloppy storytelling not budget. I love low budget movies. I'm a HUGE fan of giallo, need I say more?
What blew the movie for me was the lack of crazies. Ok, so there was crazy grandma, probably the only memorable crazy scene and the only scene I recall where a crazy
really
killed someone. And the crazy woman sweeping the grass as a civil war between crazies and soldiers plays out around her. That was about it.
Essentially the plot revolved around the generals and scientists yelling their lines at each other (some of the most irritating scenes) and the five people trying to escape the clutches of the military,
not
the crazies, as they slowly go crazy as well.
I get the movie was making a political statement about the government hence the protagonists refusal to comply with the military. But really, it was hard to emphatize with them.
I mean there's an outbreak of a highly contagious virus and all they care about is trying to break through the quarantine. Never mind the fact that the military may actually have an antidote. Never mind the fact that they could possibly spread the virus to other cities as well.
Then there was the wildly inappropriate music. Even an eerie soundtrack would have created more suspense.
What I was expecting was the five characters trapped in a quarantined town, fighting for survival while fending off their crazy friends, family, and neighbors with the rub being not knowing if someone is crazy or will turn crazy. Sort of like Romero's Night of the Living dead without zombies or that movie [REC] but taking place in a town instead of an apartment building.
I think this is where the remake is going to succeed. -
kenpringle95 — 16 years ago(February 25, 2010 05:23 PM)
You've got a fair point about a "lack of Crazies", although I'd attribute that more to the budget than anything else. To me, it wasn't so much a film about wave after wave of Crazies as it was about the tension between the main characters, not knowing if or when one of them might turn.
And it appears that the remake is indeed succeeding, at least in the eyes of the critics - Rotten Tomatoes has the new "Crazies" listed at an eye-popping 88% Fresh right now, which puts it way ahead of the "Dawn of the Dead" remake (which I also LOVED). That's pretty impressive. -
bowery_boy — 16 years ago(February 26, 2010 08:22 AM)
I disagree that the lack of Crazies was due to budget.
I mean all they would need to do is a get an actor or an extra to act crazy, run around with an axe, and attempt to kill one of the main characters. Since they're crazy, no FX would be needed to make them look different. And then repeat variations of this scenario as the characters try to escape compounded by the fact that they're also being tracked down by the military. It already sounds better to me.
And if it came down to a matter of FX budget, do the violence offscreen or in silohuette.
I do agree a part of the suspense (and I use that term loosely in regards to the film) was due to the tension between the main characters and whether or not one of them might turn, but even that was handled poorly. -
kenpringle95 — 16 years ago(February 26, 2010 05:15 PM)
Getting extra actors to "act crazy" is no big deal when you've got a decent budget - like the current "Crazies" remake, which I believe has a budget of about $12 million - but when you're on a micro-budget like Romero was, it's a big difference. Do you know how much an actor costs - per day - even if he's a no-name guy that you're just paying scale? It's something like a MINIMUM of $600 a day for union scale, and that's just for ONE guy. Plus you'll have to hire extra makeup people and costumers, plus provide extra wardrobe - each additional person could end up running you close to an extra thousand bucks or so. That's a drop in the bucket when the budget is $12 mil, but I think the original "Crazies" was made for less than $250,000 - one extra guy, let alone 20 or 30, could break the bank in that case.
Of course, it doesn't look like the new film is going to have those same restrictions - so hopefully they play it up! I'm going to see it tonight - can't wait! -
bowery_boy — 16 years ago(March 01, 2010 08:38 AM)
Still, I respectfully disagree.
Are you basing scale pay on 2010 standards or 1973 standards? I'm hard pressed to believe that scale pay was a
minimum
of $600 in 1973. That's sounds a bit exorbitant by 1970s standards but what do I know.
Also, in 1973 there was still a very grassroots approach to making independent and low budget films. I mean, weren't most of the extras in this film locals they recruited? I'm sure many of them wouldn't mind playing a bit part in the movie for free (assuming they were paid in the first place). Film makers, especially low budget non-Hollywood film makers, still operated that way back then, sometimes even using friends and family as extras. A perfect example are Andy Warhol films from this era.
As far as make up and costumes, in my opinion very little to no make-up or FX would be needed for the role of a crazy and costumes could be the clothes they're wearing.
I do believe this could have been a much more effective movie within the constraints of the budget.
I don't believe the budget is the culprit for a bad movie with sloppy storytelling.
Heck,
Night of the Living Dead
was made on a small budget as well yet is ten times more effective and suspenseful than this.
In any case, I will be curious to hear your thoughts on the remake. -
plingotti — 16 years ago(March 06, 2010 08:29 PM)
just tried watching this for the first time today. i saw the remake a week ago and heard good things about the original and wanted to see how different the two films were. most people hate when movies are remade, but i have to say that the remake is far superior. this movie is the reason i dont watch movies made before 1980. terrible sound editing, over the top acting, bad effects, slow and pointless dialog. if this movie had originally been made in the early to mid 80's things would be different. im still glad i tried watching this, because if i hadnt, i might always wonder if the original was good or not.
-
KristianHT — 16 years ago(March 08, 2010 05:08 PM)
This is not a well-made movie, but your notions about old movies lacking the handicraft of modern productions are simply ignorant. Technically excellent movies - watch pretty much any Hitchcock or Welles directed effort, and you'll find razor sharp technical ability on display. Plenty of modern movies have bad production value
Regarding the lack of crazies, I think the original 2000 Maniacs did a lot better job - and made for a better, and less misguidedly ambitious experience