MovieChat Forums > Dawn of the Dead Discussion > The disrespect towards this movie is dis...

The disrespect towards this movie is disgusting!



The negative posts are becoming more frequent, and I can bet it's coming from young people. People who are lost in the modern world of facebook, cellphones and video gaming who have no appreciation for historic art. If you can't appreciate great story telling, or brilliant character building like in DOTD simply because a movie is 30 years old you truly lack imagination. Put yourself in the survivors situation, you have a mall all to yourself, a safe haven that is suddenly pulled away from under your feet when sadistic bikers show up. Trapped in an elevator with a horde coming at you. Waiting to see if your husband is dead or alive to find him coming through the door as a zombie. Putting a bullet in your best friends head after he's been bitten. Sorry, but that is great horror, and that is great drama. The walking dead has never pulled anything like that off.

reply

In a way you're right, I'm a young person (19 years old) and I was not able to appreciate the movie, or to be more specific, I was not able to understand why everybody was so impressed by this movie. But although I'm a person who 'didn't get ' the film, I do not recognize myself in tour discreption as one who is ' lost in the modern world of facebook, cellphones and video gaming who have no appreciation for historic art'. There are a lot of 'old movies' that I love and appreciate, like The Birds (1963) and my all time favorite: Once Upon a Time in the West (1968).

The point with DotD is that it is, to my generation, terribly out-dated. In a zombi-movie it is important to be schocked and convinced by the effects, in DotD this is not the case anymore. I tried my best to put myself in the survivors position but everytime I was dragged out of there because the whole movie just looked so, how do you call it?, 'silly'. The effects, the acting, the dialog - to me it was just - and I'm sorry to say it - laughable.

You're right about the fact that liking this movie or not is an age-thing. But not everybody who disliked the movie is somebody who is not able to enjoy older movies at all. DotD is just the kind of movie that doesn't work anymore 30 years later.

And about the Walking Dead you're right, that's total bs.

reply


I'm 31, this movie is before my time and it totally works for me and many other people I know around my age. It doesn't work for you, doesn't mean to say it doesn't work for other people your age, but to put it "it doesn't work anymore" comes across as just another arrogant comment from a younger audience member. I've NEVER had a problem with the acting or dialogue and not once did I find this movie laughable.

reply

You're right, I can only speak for myself - I meant "it doesn't work anymore for me". But stating that young people who didn't like the movie have no appreciation for historic art - and all that - comes across as just another condescending comment from just another fanboy. We both have good reasons for liking and disliking this movie. And I think in general you can say that younger people dislike this movie more because it's just 'too old' for them (and for me). I wish I could look pass the age of this movie, and normally I can, but I just couldn't - count yourself lucky that you were able to do so.

reply

I'm 31, this movie is before my time and it totally works for me and many other people I know around my age. It doesn't work for you, doesn't mean to say it doesn't work for other people your age, but to put it "it doesn't work anymore" comes across as just another arrogant comment from a younger audience member.
Less arrogant than this:

"...and I can bet it's coming from young people. People who are lost in the modern world of facebook, cellphones and video gaming who have no appreciation for historic art."

For the record, I saw this movie thirty years ago this year at a midnight movie at the age of 16. It was, and still is, my favorite movie of all time. I continue to re-watch it from time to time and it never fails to delight me. So perhaps it will be a source of surprise that I agree with everything young people say about this movie. It is cheesy and laughable in some places. The special effects are crap, the writing and directing is sloppy and the "social commentary" is ham-handed and ridiculous. I don't need to convince myself that this movie is High Art in order to enjoy it immensely. Romero isn't an auteur, he's a hack who was good at establishing an atmosphere and was in the right place at the right time with the right thing. He lost it after Day of the Dead '85 and never got it back.

The snobbishness, condescension and abuse heaped on anyone who speaks less than glowingly about this movie on this board disgusts me. Zombie movies aren't haute cuisine, they're Skittles. I enjoyed the remake nearly as much as I enjoyed the original and I have nothing but contempt for people who are so intellectually insecure that they have to denigrate others for their taste in zombie movies. Different things work for different people and if we all liked the same things it would be a miserably boring world.

Put your money where your stumps are.

reply


Osbourne, this is your favourite movie? I've never read a single good thing you've had to say about it.

"It is cheesy and laughable in some places. The special effects are crap, the writing and directing is sloppy and the "social commentary" is ham-handed and ridiculous"

What, when the laughs are intentional? (like the pie fights) or just that the movie is laughable? again with the special effects, how is the writing sloppy? and how is the social commentary ham-handed and ridiculous? I would honestly love for you to explain this. When it comes to writing, the story is told beautifully, it's engaging, intense at times and the movie has memorable characters.

The abuse is given because the critism is NEVER constructive, it's always about the f/cking special effects.

I think this movie is more of a guilty pleasure for you. You clearly have very little respect for it.

reply

Osbourne, this is your favourite movie? I've never read a single good thing you've had to say about it.
What do I need to say? Dawn of the Dead '78 is my favorite movie. Of. All. Time. IF there was an exclusive club for people who claimed the same, and IF you were the official gatekeeper for the club and IF the requirements for membership were to write all then nice things I could think of where YOU could read them...I still wouldn't. Because joining a club of dorks wouldn't make Dawn of the Dead '78 any more my favorite movie of all time.
"It is cheesy and laughable in some places. The special effects are crap, the writing and directing is sloppy and the "social commentary" is ham-handed and ridiculous"

What, when the laughs are intentional? (like the pie fights) or just that the movie is laughable?
The pie fight was an idiotic non-sequitur. A stupid bit of comic relief in the middle of a running battle is like a nice dollop of whipped cream on your filet mignon.
again with the special effects, how is the writing sloppy?
When you sacrifice plausibility to set up a certain scene, that is sloppy writing. Why was Peter ever out of line of sight of Roger while he hot-wired the trucks? Because otherwise Roger would have never had the life and death struggle with the female zombie that unhinged him. But two SWAT cops would have never made that mistake, having trained in small-unit tactics based on dependence on partners. Why did that goddamned biker come back twice to check his blood pressure? So Romero could drop the sight gag of a dismembered arm squirting blood in a blood pressure cuff reading 00/00. That's just two of many examples.
and how is the social commentary ham-handed and ridiculous? I would honestly love for you to explain this.
Stephen defies Peter's edict that they allow the bikers free access to the mall because he's seduced by the material wealth of the place. He places his friend, his woman and unborn child in jeopardy in an impossible effort to repel the bikers. Yeah, I saw what Romero did there and it was only a bit more plausible than Kaufman in Land of the Dead attempting to escape with a suitcase of money while the zombies are swarming in.
When it comes to writing, the story is told beautifully, it's engaging, intense at times and the movie has memorable characters.
Yes, this is all true, but there are a good many turds in the punchbowl as well.
The abuse is given because the critism is NEVER constructive, it's always about the f/cking special effects.
Just so we're clear, you reserve the right to abuse people who abuse a movie? Very enlightened and authoritative.
I think this movie is more of a guilty pleasure for you. You clearly have very little respect for it.
Vomitus. I suffer from zero guilt in the considerable pleasure I take from this movie. The examples of sloppy writing that I gave resulted in highly entertaining scenes. I think quite the opposite is the case; this movie is a guilty pleasure for you. That's why you feel the need to clothe it in the unearned trappings of art and poetry. I don't need to dress this whore up like a lady; it's the ride that keeps me coming back, and for that I don't have an ounce of shame. I enjoy movies with guns, explosions, titties and monsters. And if "respecting" a movie means being a dick to human beings who, for whatever reasons don't respect it, then I don't want to start respecting it anytime soon.

Put your money where your stumps are.

reply


The points you made against the writing are pretty pathetic, just nit picking. As for being a dork, I remember you and your cronies from the dotd remake board, you spectre and alice were the biggest f/cking geeks I ever stumbled across. You all acted as if you owned that board and pretty much dedicated your lives to it, you were posting every day! and ridiculed anybody that had a bad word to say about that movie.

reply

That's entirely unfair; we ridiculed people had good words to say about the movie equally. Sorry we hurt your feelings, dork.

Put your money where your stumps are.

reply


Lol, I wasn't even refering to myself. I liked that movie but to call me a dork is outrageous, you guys were the defintion of dork and probably still are (haven't been on that board in a long time). Honestly I remember you once wrote something on the lines of "well we were on this board long before you, so that kind of gives us more of a say as to what goes on this board. You f/cking geeks think you are imdb! I'm assuming you all still dedicate your lives to that board, anybody who spends as much time on imdb as you has absolutely no right to call others a dork.

reply

Honestly I remember you once wrote something on the lines of "well we were on this board long before you, so that kind of gives us more of a say as to what goes on this board.
I don't blame you for trying to shift focus to some dimly remembered and unverifiable past interaction and away from this embarrassingly whiny thread about the poor treatment this jewel of a movie receives at the drool-stained keyboards of the current generation of Facebook philistines. The umbrage you take at being called a dork, your failure to address or acknowledge any of my points and your headlong retreat into rehashing how you got clowned on another board by someone who may or may have not been me...suggests I may be spot on in my assessment of the content of your post and your character.


Put your money where your stumps are.

reply



I wasn't trying to shift focus at all, I simply pointed out a past experience that clearly identified you as the dork you are, as it was you trying to insinuate that I am one. My failure to address your previous observations about the movie wasn't done out of denial for this movies credibility, it was simply done because your "whiny" rant was boring to read. You're a hypocrite, you had a go at me for "having a go at someone for having a different opinion to mine" when you and your cronies did exactly just that on the remake board. Anybody that claims a imdb to be their own is seriously lacking a social life, or any kind of life worth living for that matter. Lol

reply

Ladies and Gentlemen: Message boards.

"...full of sound and fury..."

reply

I wasn't trying to shift focus at all, I simply pointed out a past experience that clearly identified you as the dork you are, as it was you trying to insinuate that I am one.
If you can't post a link to the exchange in question, your "past experience" is probative of nothing. I may well have ridiculed you in the past, particularly if you were acting like as much of a dork as you are now. Others may have ridiculed you as well, for the same reason. I don't expect you to characterize it in anything but the most self-serving way possible.
My failure to address your previous observations about the movie wasn't done out of denial for this movies credibility, it was simply done because your "whiny" rant was boring to read.
At least you admit your failure. That's a positive step. It's not like you can say much to defend it anyway.
You're a hypocrite, you had a go at me for "having a go at someone for having a different opinion to mine" when you and your cronies did exactly just that on the remake board.
A lie. You said you liked the Dawn remake of '04. What difference of opinion would I or anyone "have a go at you" for? It's far more likely you were playing the pompous ass just like on this thread and were duly clowned.
Anybody that claims a imdb to be their own is seriously lacking a social life, or any kind of life worth living for that matter.
Anyone who whines online about the ill treatment of a dated cult movie then refuses to defend it needs to get realistic about why they get laughed at everywhere they post.

Put your money where your stumps are.

reply


Well how long have you been working on this reply osbourne? we're on imdb for christ sake lol no one has any right to call anyone a dork here. You and your cyber friends dedicated so much time to the remake board, and you have the nerve to call me a dork! it's just laughable.

reply

Well how long have you been working on this reply osbourne?
About ten minutes, dork. Just because you say I spend a lot of time on these boards doesn't mean I actually do spend much time on these boards. Reality is funny like that. My posting history and frequency is public.
we're on imdb for christ sake lol no one has any right to call anyone a dork here.
Bwahahaha! That's like a chicken telling me, "we're both bipeds."
You and your cyber friends dedicated so much time to the remake board, and you have the nerve to call me a dork! it's just laughable.
Posting frequency and content is public. You failed to produce a link to the fictional exchange wherein you claim I somehow slammed you over a difference of opinion on a movie we both like. Spending time on a message board doesn't automatically classify one as dork. Whining about how people unfairly criticize a low budget turkey of a movie that achieved cult status does classify one as a dork. Sidestepping legitimate critiques of the movie in question and steering the dialogue into the inane question of who's a dork, really makes you a dork. You argued the only argument you thought you could win, and you won it...for me.

Put your money where your stumps are.

reply


Seriously, are you hitting on me now? you're so obsessed about winning this argument that you have gone as far as to credit yourself as winning. There's no point in even accusing you of being a dork, the evidence is in your last reply.

reply

I admit it is rather gauche to claim victory when I'm essentially the only one who showed up. Your response to my critiques of the movie was No response. Your response to my calling you a dork was, "yeah, but you're a dork too," based on the fact that I post on IMdb.

And no, I'm not hitting on you. I like smart girls.

Put your money where your stumps are.

reply

This is directed towards Gert-Janroodehal.

You seem pretty leveled. Okay, this movie didn't work for you. That's cool. I'm 40, there are film classics out there that are beloved, that leave me scraching my head (recently saw "After Hours" [1985] for the first time, did not like it).

The effects in DOTD are dated, true. But gore effects in that time was still in its infancy. For its time it was horrific. It bothers fans like myself that effects for your generation have for many replaced imagination. CGI MUST BE photo realistic or it takes you out of the movie. Gore must be vomit educing or it fails. A lot can be attributed to instant gratification; anticipation has been taken out. Man, that's really sad.

I can see that in Legos. I don't give a crap. I still like Legos and buy them from time to time. What I've seen is a movement towards less pieces, more single 'bricks' that cover mainly that design and not much else. A plane that can only be a plane and so on. It's like they're taking creativeness out for point and click. See this instruction? Build this, now you're DONE.

Ponder. Have imaginations. Think outside your sphere.

How many folks from Gen Y would change the channel than watch an old episode of "Doctor Who"? Their laser guns have beams that shoot a couple inches below the barrow. That's okay, the story made up for that fact.

The other trend I'm seeing in Gen Y is the lack of subtly. It has to be in your face or it's not effective.

I'm not attacking you, Gert-Janroodehal (you seem all right). I'm disappointed in the shunning of anything older than their age. While we live in a time of wonders, it's not so great; we loose/surrender a common thread. Raging over someone about a parking spot happened in the 1980s, but it's not like now - a common occurrence. I've had it happen to me, which was stupid, there were plenty of parking around.

I say a thread, since for the most part, cinema was a binding topic - didn't matter what race or religion you are; movie brought us together. A story I enjoy is about a screening of "Blazing Saddles" (1974) that happened during the Rodney King riots. It could've been canceled, but they believed we needed something to bring us together. So people laughed and had a good time, they opted out from the madness outside.

You see, Gert-Janroodehal, up until now features were never considered boxed. It was open for ALL generations, there was no time bracket. Pick and choose your entertainment from nearly a hundred years of movies. Gen Y doesn't see it that way. While that statement doesn't blanket everyone - and I'm glad it doesn't. It's far more true than false.

I'm a fan of DeadPit, a horror movie podcast from Kentucky. The hosts Uncle Bill and the Creepy Kentuckian talked about DOTD a few years back. How Uncle Bill gave the film a viewing to a couple of his younger family members. They thought it was a comedy.

My heart sank, as did theirs.

We are losing these threads.

reply


You know Osbourne, you could have just said "no I'm not hitting on you" but the fact that you ended by stating you like girls and not just girls but "smart girls" leads me to believe there was a bit of insecurity being shown from you. Why did you feel the need to stress that you like girls? and also a particular type? that felt very "shut up I'm not gay!" to me. I think you're enjoying arguing with me a little too much silly.

reply

You know Osbourne, you could have just said "no I'm not hitting on you" but the fact that you ended by stating you like girls and not just girls but "smart girls" leads me to believe there was a bit of insecurity being shown from you.
This absurd supposition on your part is based on your certainty that I assumed you were male. I did not.
Why did you feel the need to stress that you like girls?
Why did you make the completely unfounded and non-sequitur statement that I was "hitting on you"? Do people who hit on you shower you with ridicule and call you a dork typically?
and also a particular type?
Yes, smart. As opposed to dumb, like you.
that felt very "shut up I'm not gay!" to me.
If you're not female and you accuse me of "hitting on you" when all I've been doing is deriding you, it strikes me as a little too much like this: http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff235/OsborneDeformed/Various%20and %20Sundry/yergay.jpg
I think you're enjoying arguing with me a little too much silly.
I enjoy the lengths you've gone to deflect attention from your idiotic original topic. I wouldn't call what you're doing an argument; I'd call it a botched attempt at a face-saving capitulation.

Put your money where your stumps are.

reply


My name is Marko, you know that! why would you assume I'm a girl? and the fact that you stated you like smart girls and the way you try too hard to come across as an intellect just shows that you're a pretentious snob. You are determined to have the last say and you come across as someone who is easily wound up. I'm only replying now because I'm geting a cheap laugh from your replys, you seem very agressive at times, it's laughable how defensive you are. My original argument was about this movie, I can't even remember the rest of the argument, but I stand true to my original beliefs in the way people critise this movie.

What was the rest of the argument? you trying to prove that I'm a dork and you're not? You write like a dork, like someone who is not being natural and trying too hard to come across as intelligent. You're probably one of these people that looks down on others and thinks you're better than everyone else. "I like smart girls" get over yourself you f/cking dork lol. Who says pretentious sh/t like that when looking for a girlfriend?

reply

Dawn of the Dead(78) was meant to have a "comic book" feel to it. What I liked about it was two points: 1. How humans became so consumer driven fools. As it shows, mindless, shuffling undead wandering aimlessly through a mall. I see this during holidays, even non holidays. Zombies went there out of instinct, much like we do, we go there when we have nothing to do, and yet, mindlessly buy stuff we really do not need, but want. Zombies wanted food(i.e human flesh) but did not need it. They could eat and eat and never be satisfied. We shop and shop and never have enough.

Second point: The complete collapse of society as a whole. Communications, Police, the entire infrastructure of the country( world more than likely) breaking down.

The remake, I just could not enjoy. No real build up, no true back story to set the scene right. Don't get me wrong, people liked it, some liked it better than the original. I was not one of them. However, to me, which is better is a matter of personal opinion, and some just need to respect that.

reply

My name is Marko, you know that!
Screen names don’t mean a thing. You know that.
why would you assume I'm a girl?
Because you accused me of hitting on you straight out of nowhere and it made no sense at all unless you were female. I see now that this was the case: http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff235/OsborneDeformed/Various%20and %20Sundry/yergay.jpg. Quite honestly, I didn’t want to believe you'd make such a dumb, cliched play. I preferred to think you were female.
and the fact that you stated you like smart girls and the way you try too hard to come across as an intellect just shows that you're a pretentious snob.
That’s an odd accusation from someone who posts a screed about how anyone who expresses a negative opinion about your favorite zombie movie has no appreciation for historic art, lacks imagination, and is lost in a world of facebook, cellphones and video gaming. Not that they simply have different tastes.
You are determined to have the last say and you come across as someone who is easily wound up.
Pot meet kettle.
I'm only replying now because I'm geting a cheap laugh from your replys
It’s good to be able to appreciate humor at your expense.
you seem very agressive at times, it's laughable how defensive you are.
As opposed to defenseless, like you.
My original argument was about this movie
So was mine, but you decided not to debate the relative merits of the movie, choosing instead to follow your “dork” angle.
I can't even remember the rest of the argument
It’s all right there, just click on it you unbelievable fool.
but I stand true to my original beliefs in the way people critise this movie.
Yes, it’s hard to shift perspective when your view is limited to the inside of your colon.

What was the rest of the argument?
It wasn’t an argument, it was a grand evasion on your part.
you trying to prove that I'm a dork and you're not?
The whole “dork” issue is entirely of your own manufacture. You read this offhand comment from me: “ Because joining a club of dorks wouldn't make Dawn of the Dead '78 any more my favorite movie of all time.” and went off on a useless, tangential tirade about something you claim happened on the Dawn ’04 board that you couldn’t back up. I didn’t call you a dork at that time and I didn’t realize what a dork you were until you took such issue with it. That’s when I knew I’d inadvertently hit close to home. I really don’t care if you, or anyone else thinks I’m a dork. I don’t down people for criticizing the movies I like.
You write like a dork, like someone who is not being natural and trying too hard to come across as intelligent.
I’m mildly flattered you think I come across as intelligent, although to someone that thinks of Dawn of the Dead as “historic art”, it probably doesn’t take much. Equating “being natural” to sounding stupid says more about you than me, Corky.
You're probably one of these people that looks down on others and thinks you're better than everyone else.
My original post in this thread was me taking issue with the arrogance, disrespect and dismissiveness with which you address anyone who speaks less than glowingly about Dawn ’78. How did you miss that fairly pivotal detail?
"I like smart girls" get over yourself you f/cking dork lol. Who says pretentious sh/t like that when looking for a girlfriend?
If you think this exchange was me looking for a girlfriend, it says more about you than me.


Put your money where your stumps are.

reply


Osbourne, I read about half of that rant, honestly the lengths you go to to try win an argument (oh sorry I forgot, you've already won because you've declared yourself the winner in a previous reply). Accusing you of hitting on me makes no sense at all unless I was a female? have you never heard of gay people? You've copied and paste my replys, written you own replys and copied and pasted a photo all in the same reply, how much time are you spending doing all this? Look at my replys and then yours, it's very easy to see who the pretentious snob is. So what exactly do you want from all this Osbourne? or from me? or is this just going to keep going on and on? and for godsake stop breaking down every segment of my replys and commenting on them individually like an obsessive mong, keep it short.

reply

Osbourne, I read about half of that rant
Reading is hard, I know.
honestly the lengths you go to to try win an argument (oh sorry I forgot, you've already won because you've declared yourself the winner in a previous reply).
It's not an argument. Please try to pay attention.
Accusing you of hitting on me makes no sense at all unless I was a female? have you never heard of gay people?
Yes. They comprise about 1% of the population; females comprise 51%. Have you ever heard of statistics?
You've copied and paste my replys, written you own replys and copied and pasted a photo all in the same reply, how much time are you spending doing all this?
When I found your reply, it had been up for 10 minutes. Look at the time stamp on this reply. Do the math.
Look at my replys and then yours, it's very easy to see who the pretentious snob is.
No, its easy to see who the lazy thinker is.
So what exactly do you want from all this Osbourne? or from me? or is this just going to keep going on and on? and for godsake stop breaking down every segment of my replys and commenting on them individually like an obsessive mong, keep it short.
Don't tell me how to communicate and I won't tell you how to fail to communicate.

Put your money where your stumps are.

reply


So sugar, what is it you want from me? as this has been going on for over a month now, granted it's quite funny to see how much I get under your skin.

reply

And I'll stop posting because you think it's funny how much you get under my skin. Or because people will think I'm gay and I'm hitting on you. Or because people will think I'm insecure about being thought to be gay. Or that I'm a dork. Or that I have no life and all I do is post on the Dawn '04 board with my cronies.

All disingenuous nonsense. Like the ink a threatened octopus ejaculates in its wake. You ask what I want from you? Acknowledge what a gargantuan bellend you are for basing character judgments on peoples esteem of a craptastic late seventies low-budget cult movie. Introspect on whether maybe two people can look at the same thing and arrive at a different conclusion based on their backgrounds and bias, and that both conclusions can be equally worthy. And maybe consider whether a point not worth defending is worth posting. Sugar.





Put your money where your stumps are.

reply


The first paragraph... fair enough, the second paragraph however is just proving how much of a pretentious "bell end" you are. "All disingenuous nonsense" for f/ck sake lol, how do you not get smacked on nights out? craptastic late seventies low-budget cult movie? seriously? I'll acknowledge how much of a bell end I am when you stop making disgracefully disrepectful comments like that and I'm sure many people on this board would agree with me. You have no taste and no class.

I know I get under your skin sugar, so you care what people think hmm? I still think it's outrageous that you called me a dork! lol. I can almost guarantee that if we were both to post images of ourselves, you would hit the stereotype of looking like an internet dork more than I would. Let me guess, bald, middle aged and overweight, not obese but could definetly do with going to the gym. Married to an absolute hound with a awful personality to go with it, hence why you spend most of your time on here.

reply

The first paragraph... fair enough, the second paragraph however is just proving how much of a pretentious "bell end" you are.
I'm glad I was finally able to compose something didn't tax your reading ability. Of course, your comprehension is still poor.
"All disingenuous nonsense" for f/ck sake lol, how do you not get smacked on nights out?
What about the phrase "disingenuous nonsense" provokes a violent response in you? That it applies to you, or that you don't know the word "disingenous"?
craptastic late seventies low-budget cult movie? seriously? I'll acknowledge how much of a bell end I am when you stop making disgracefully disrepectful comments like that
Okay, I've stopped. Your turn.
and I'm sure many people on this board would agree with me. You have no taste and no class.
Which brings me back to your reading comprehension. Just out of idle curiosity, is your brain damage pre or postnatal in nature? Rather than re-re-restating my thoughts on this movie, I'll just provide a link:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077402/board/thread/207665885?d=207900500 &p=1#207900500

Read.

Slowly.

I know I get under your skin sugar, so you care what people think hmm? I still think it's outrageous that you called me a dork! lol. I can almost guarantee that if we were both to post images of ourselves, you would hit the stereotype of looking like an internet dork more than I would. Let me guess, bald, middle aged and overweight, not obese but could definetly do with going to the gym. Married to an absolute hound with a awful personality to go with it, hence why you spend most of your time on here.
Well thank you for imagining me as someone that anyone would remotely wish to mate with! In all actuality, I live in my Mum's basement and spend eighteen hours a day typing away on my spermy keyboard. Seriously, that's the only cliche you haven't used in this exchange. "I'll bet you're a fatty with a nasty hog wife." Good God, is that wit in the world behind your eyes?

Anyhow, I prefer to keep my speculations about you confined to what I can directly extrapolate from your posts. Like most less-bright people with a need to feel special, you cling to some make-believe source of self-esteem. Usually, it's fundamentalist religious beliefs. However, you're too dumb to retain things I wrote three posts ago, so the bible is out of the question for you. So you cultivate the pretension of being a great art lover; a person of taste and class, yes? But you wouldn't know fine art from a dog's ass. But you do like zombie movies! And there's none better than George Romero's Dawn of the Dead. Predictably, you delude yourself into believing this craptastic late seventies low-budget cult movie that is admittedly well-told and contains some remarkably poignant scenes, is the pinnacle of cinema and you defend this delusion with the gleeful irrationality of a Westboro Baptist Church member. But you know you can't defend it intellectually, so you default to the infantile, "I'm not a dork, you are" and "you're hitting on me you queer" and "you're insecure that someone might think you're queer" and "I get under your skin, huh huh" and finally "I bet you're a fatty." And it's interesting that you'd equate appearance with being a dork. You're probably quite diligent about your looks, knowing on some level that no one will ever love you for your mind.

I can't wait until the next person posts some criticism of this movie and you show up to "have a go" at him. I'll just post a link to this thread to show him what he's dealing with. I'm sure you'll impress them with your scathing repartee. Hur dur.



Put your money where your stumps are.

reply

Osbourne, you really are the most pretentious person I've ever came across on imdb. You have your head so far up your own arse it's unbelievable! why can't you write like a normal person? instead of someone who has just swallowed a thesaurus. You're intelligent, I get it, but not having your range of vocabulary doesn't make me a dumb person or anyone else for that matter. It just means you go out of your way to prove your smart and you obviously want others to know it, because NOBODY writes the kind of replies you do. You've proven how pretentious you are with your "I like smart girls" comments. That last reply was just f/cking embarrassing to read, did you snort five times and pat yourself on the back when you wrote it? seriously, stop caring what I think and get your head out of your arse you snob.

End of the day, I've never attacked anyone personally, I had a go at them for criticising a movie, that's not a personal attack. You've gone out of your way to insult my intelligence, with comments like "reading's hard I know" or something on the lines of that. I would never attack someone as personally as you have done, but then again I'm not a pretentious snob who thinks he is better than everyone else. Insulting people by calling them dumb is a viciously shallow thing to do, I would never do it to others. You've proven how much of a snob you are, I've obviously affected you because you've become very personal and quite vicious to be frank. I happen to read on a daily basis (sorry it's Stephen king and dean koontz, probably not up to your reading level) I have a college education and have built a fine career for myself. I'm clearly not as smart as you, but if I were to go on the way you do then thank god. Stop judging others by how intelligent they are, (especially with your, I like smart girls drivel) and realise there are interesting people from all walks of life.

reply

Osbourne, you really are the most pretentious person I've ever came across on imdb.
I take it you don’t read your own posts.
You have your head so far up your own arse it's unbelievable! why can't you write like a normal person? instead of someone who has just swallowed a thesaurus.
I get this sometimes, always from people who feel they have reason to be displeased with me. I write and speak exactly how I think. I don’t think I’m remarkably intelligent, but I believe in precision in communication, so I use the words that express exactly what I mean. I used to try to sound like everyone else and I stopped because it wasn’t who I was. If I were to make an effort to “dumb down” the way I write, it would be truly condescending. Instead, I assume everyone can understand what I’m saying and if they indicate that they don’t, I’m happy to clarify myself.
You're intelligent, I get it, but not having your range of vocabulary doesn't make me a dumb person or anyone else for that matter.
I never suggested it did. Your vocabulary has nothing to do with you being a dumb person.
It just means you go out of your way to prove your smart and you obviously want others to know it, because NOBODY writes the kind of replies you do.
That’s not true. I’d have to go out of my way to write like what you think of as a “normal person” (whatever the hell that is). What others make of that is something I just can’t want to care about.
You've proven how pretentious you are with your "I like smart girls" comments.
I already explained that; I thought you were a dumb girl when I made that statement. Are you deliberately ignoring what I write or does it honestly not register with you?
That last reply was just f/cking embarrassing to read, did you snort five times and pat yourself on the back when you wrote it? seriously, stop caring what I think and get your head out of your arse you snob.
I’ve explained the way I write as much as I ever will. Stop repeating yourself like a mentally ill bag lady.
End of the day, I've never attacked anyone personally, I had a go at them for criticising a movie, that's not a personal attack.
Oh, I disagree. You said in your original post that they didn’t understand historic art, had no imagination and were lost in a world of Facebook, cellphones and video gaming. You as much as called me a liar when I said Dawn of the Dead ’78 was my favorite movie and when I gave you examples of clumsy writing and direction per your request, you dismissed them as “pathetic and nit-picky” and instead of proving my examples wrong, you chose to bring up some fictitious exchange on another board to discredit me. I was being quite civil up until then.
You've gone out of your way to insult my intelligence, with comments like "reading's hard I know" or something on the lines of that.
You stated that you could only read half my post. It wasn’t a printed page long, so reading must be hard for you.
I would never attack someone as personally as you have done,
Not true, you just don’t think of your personal attacks as personal attacks.
but then again I'm not a pretentious snob who thinks he is better than everyone else.
You’d better not!
Insulting people by calling them dumb is a viciously shallow thing to do, I would never do it to others.
Stop trying to pretend that my exchange with you is somehow typical of my online exchanges, it’s a weak play for sympathy. I called you stupid because you acted stupid, I don't go around ambushing random people and I never insult anyone without provocation.
You've proven how much of a snob you are, I've obviously affected you because you've become very personal and quite vicious to be frank.
You made up a cute story about how I was a fatso with a ghastly wife and no life; I made up a cute story about how you’re a stupid, shallow, unlovable twerp. You just don’t enjoy dancing to the tune you chose to play, you contemptible crybaby.
I happen to read on a daily basis (sorry it's Stephen king and dean koontz, probably not up to your reading level) I have a college education and have built a fine career for myself. I'm clearly not as smart as you, but if I were to go on the way you do then thank god.
You do go on the way I do, you just do it very poorly.
Stop judging others by how intelligent they are, (especially with your, I like smart girls drivel) and realise there are interesting people from all walks of life.
Jesus Christ, IS THAT NOT WHAT I WROTE IN MY ORIGINAL POST?! Excepting that you judge intelligence by what people think of a goddamned zombie movie.

I could almost feel sorry for you. I can’t even say you’re a hypocrite, because I honestly don’t believe you have the capacity to understand that when you say someone can’t appreciate art, has no imagination and is lost in some world or another, you’re doing exactly what you accuse me of, being a snob and calling people stupid, which is what I spoke out against in the first place.

During this entire exchange, you’ve done everything to avoid discussing this movie, or your original statement. You accused me of being a dork, of being gay, of being pretentious, of being arrogant, and of being vicious. Me, me, me. If this went places you don’t like, it’s because you steered it there. Take responsibility for your words, you cowardly codpiece. I’m only half of this exchange. The better half, to be sure, but still only half.


Put your money where your stumps are.

reply


Osbourne, this is getting us nowhere, however I leave you with this gift. Whenever I think of you and I meeting in the real world this scene from one of my favourite movies always plays in my mind. Have a watch, you might find it funny. You're the fat one in the video by the way, he actually talks like you as well...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNzFLwsFiOM

reply

"This video contains content from Image Entertainment and Sony Pictures Movies & Shows, one or more of whom have blocked it in your country on copyright grounds."

You can't do anything right, you ridiculous bag o' wank.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yytbDZrw1jc

Put your money where your stumps are.

reply


Damn it! I really wanted you to see that video. It's the scene from Withnail and I when Uncle Monty sneaks in to Marwood's room and tries to bugger him.

reply

I don't normaly get involved in "pie fights"
But I feel I have to declare you the winner due to your sterling use of Withnail and I, I'm still laughing :)

I come in peace, Shoot to kill!!!

reply


Lol, thanks Charlie. Osbourne really reminds me of Uncle Monty, a obese, homosexual. And the most pretentious muthaf/ker in the history of imdb. "I mean to have you dear boy, even if it must be bulgary!"

reply

So... what do your fantasies about Osborne have to do with DAWN OF THE DEAD, Marko?

I completely agree with him that the writing and directing here are a bit sloppy at times. The directing especially. Sometimes it even feels painfully amateurish. And that's not nitpicking at all - this movie definitely has its share of glaring flaws.

Take the opening 25 seconds for instance. Boy, how I hate them! What a lousy way to start such a good movie - any movie! By showing a woman with that nasty brown wall in the background who totally fails to make it look like she's having a nightmare. How amateurish. The first 25 seconds really cheapen the film.

By the way:

- I like this film; I think it's a great concept which is realized rather beautifully (especially considering its low budget)

- I hate the remake; too much action, too fast-paced

- I like blue make-up and orange blood - they fit this movie nicely

- This modern idea of fast running zombies is lame and boring; living dead should not look and act like werewolves

- I'm 24

- I saw both the original and the remake when I was 14. I never changed my opinion since I'd first seen them.

'Stupid f...ing white man!'

DEAD MAN (1995)

reply

This is the best piece I've read today. I saw this film for the first time in 2003 as a 16 year old. While I enjoyed the movie, I was laughing my ass off at its campy/corny sequences. No doubt the special effects are crap and the writing and direction is sloppy, but that didn't stop me from enjoying it. I agree with you that Romero was in the right place at the right time with the right product, however I wouldn't call it a great piece of historic art - just good fun.

reply

19 isn't young. anyway, your post is already outdated

reply

This campy zombie flick, historic art...? :I
But please, keep your silly generalizations to yourself. The "kids these days" rants are getting really boring. It's got nothing to do with age. I for example simply don't like the movie's script, music, cinematography, effects, acting by pretty much all side characters, etc. But I got nothing against older movies. Blade Runner, One flew over the Cuckoo's Nest, Cinema Paradiso, those I think are amazing.



I'm the grim reaper, lardass, and you're my next customer.

reply


I appreciate that people like different things. The point I was trying to make is that people don't critise this movie constructively. It's always in regards to the special effects and 9 out of 10 times it's coming from young people. So what the effects aren't up to todays standards, is your imagine so corrupted by modern technology that you can't appreciate good story telling?

reply

Check out the user ratings of this movie. The highest average comes from males under 18. Second highest score comes from males between 18-29 years old. The lowest score? People over 45.

Bad effects don't usually bother me, but the effects and make-up here are just so bad they just completely take me out of the movie. The storytelling is fine, but the fake zombies turn all tense moments into funny moments. This just ruins it for me. I mean, I just saw An American Werewolf in London yesterday for the first time as well, and the make-up is so much better (not just the werewolf, but the undead guy as well)! It aged really well.



I'm the grim reaper, lardass, and you're my next customer.

reply

I find Day of the Dead ('85) works better than the original Dawn of the Dead nowadays.It's my personal fave amongst Romero's "Dead" series.I'm not dissing "Dawn" though, it's still a great flick IMO.

reply

I love Dawn of the Dead, I realise the effects suck, but somehow It never bothers me on 70's films, I guess its what I grew up watching, (I'm 38)it totally freaked me out as a kid, and then as a teenage it became the perfect chilling out with mates,a six pack and a doobie film.

When I first watched American Werewolf the effects blew my mind, even now they still hold up. The same with The Thing.

Dawn of the Dead has its place in cinema history, but I can easily understand why a lot of people don't like it. What did you think about Day of the Dead? the effects were much better.

I come in peace, Shoot to kill!!!

reply

Haven't seen that one yet. I was planning on watching all of those ''of the Dead'' movies, but stopped at this one (the first I watched). I'll check out Day of the Dead then, heh.




If you've heard of it, it's already too mainstream for me.

reply

This campy zombie flick, historic art...?


They're surely not mutually exclusive.

reply

So do you think this movie is art then? Or that zombie movies can be art, but this one isn't?



I'm the grim reaper, lardass, and you're my next customer.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

I'm a 17 year old, by the time I watch this movie for the first time, I was 15, and I was completely able to appreciate this. When I see it, this just felt like the best movie I've ever seen, the dialogues were so great and the gore so shocking and funny at the same time, the social commentary so masterfully done, the drama and the characters well constructed (I've cared for all the 4, all the time), it's nothing you can see in this CGI-packed *beep* like Resident Evil or The Walking Dead, this is real cinema, and it's great - for all ages.




Yeah, well, you know, that's just like... My opinion, man

reply

I have the same opinion of DotD as you do, but...

Put yourself in the survivors situation, you have a mall all to yourself, a safe haven that is suddenly pulled away from under your feet when sadistic bikers show up. Trapped in an elevator with a horde coming at you. Waiting to see if your husband is dead or alive to find him coming through the door as a zombie. Putting a bullet in your best friends head after he's been bitten. Sorry, but that is great horror, and that is great drama. The walking dead has never pulled anything like that off.


What? Dislike the show all you want, but The Walking Dead has had plenty of stuff in that vein.

reply

This movie has been my favorite movie ever since I was 10.

CG GORE IS THE WORST THING THAT HAS EVER HAPPENED TO THE HORROR GENRE!

reply