MovieChat Forums > Carriers (2009) Discussion > this movie was terrible

this movie was terrible

posted 15 years ago by Heathonistt
42 replies | jump to latest

horrible acting, cheesy dialogue, stereotypical characters that somehow survive the apocalypse despite looking and acting like they're in a frat house. this movie did not make me laugh once, or make me jump/feel surprised. i rolled my eyes about every 5 minutes groaning "god this is so boring." this seems in many parts like a bad american ripoff of 28 days later/every other zombie movie. the characters are impossible to sympathize with because they're all so stupid. this movie has no message whatsoever. if this "outbreak" did happen and was as contageous as they say in the film, the entire planet would be infected within a week at the MOST (it's airborn and spreads by touching the same things the infected people touch) - yet the main characters enjoy removing their face masks and gloves frequently while entering infected areas because they were obviously only cast in the film for the way they look - - which isn't even attractive. the women are all stupid and constantly put themselves at risk for infection because they want to help the dying people. the main male character is the biggest douche i've seen in any film in years. not because he's an *beep* in the film, which he is, but because he acts like he was pulled straight from mtv's bromance. total douche.

waste of time, seriously don't bother.

***************
sookie is MINE!

[–] DeepSleeper 15 years ago

WOW..tell us how you really feel.

I agree though: boring, zombie Abercrombie & Fitch ad.

Note to Hollywood: Make us CARE about the main characters. It helps.

[–] mr_Goodbomb 15 years ago

Whoever says this was a zombie movie clearly saw something else. This isn't one, and the only reason to suggest it's an "Abercrombie" ad is because it happens to star young people. Go figure a movie aimed at a younger audience might use young lead actors.

[–] The-Kurgan 15 years ago

Don't know why I keep seeing people referencing zombies. This was just a lame story about a few "normal" idiots chasing a pipe dream across a devastated America after a plague killed most of the population.

And yeah, it pretty well sucked. I disagree with the OP on some points, though. The production and acting, etc. weren't bad at all. It was the lousy story they had to use that made this a stinker.

Listen up studio execs and Hollyweird types: We, the audience, already know how your average Joe Blow would handle him or herself in such circumstances. Yep, the average Joe would be a total prick, out for himself, taking what he needed at the expense of others, etc. Stories that show this aren't "deep, penetrating tales of social and psychological regression that reveal our secret dark sides," they're just frickin' boring because it's no big secret, and not very entertaining to watch for anyone who isn't in love with the Jackass franchise.

Now, what is entertaining to watch is a group of protagonists who, against all odds and expectations, rises above their baser instincts, doing what's right regardless of circumstances, being self-giving and honorable. Audiences just love a "good guy" to root for and care about, and maybe do a little vicarious living through. Doesn't mean said Good Guy has to be a pushover or moron, either (See The Book of Eli, or any Dirty Harry movie for an example). :)

I can't wait for the day that movie makers finally get it through their collective skulls that dreary, depressing, self-serving characters and stories
are, well, dreary, depressing, and self-serving.

It's not art, it's the cinematic equivalent of a monkey flinging its own poo at a big screen.

[–] dragmio 15 years ago

Now, what is entertaining to watch is a group of protagonists who, against all odds and expectations, rises above their baser instincts, doing what's right regardless of circumstances, being self-giving and honorable. Audiences just love a "good guy" to root for and care about, and maybe do a little vicarious living through. Doesn't mean said Good Guy has to be a pushover or moron, either (See The Book of Eli, or any Dirty Harry movie for an example).

LOL, so even this movie had too much realism for you. A couple of bleak endings in a couple of recent years and you miss your good old Hollywood already. Maybe you should stop eating up TV series about selfish morons like popcorns. Movie execs want a part of that cake, you know.

What they don't realize is that TV is for selfishness and obnoxious douches, while big screen is for heroism. So while "Joe Blow" is at home, comfy on his couch, and nurtured by his six pack, he can take "realism", he can take selfishness. He says: "yeah, that's life".
But when he goes out to a theatre, when he dresses up, and combs his hair, maybe even brushes his teeth, he wants to be lied to. He didn't dress up for nothing, after all.

[–] The-Kurgan 15 years ago

Not exactly. All I'm saying is that I, for one, am tired of seeing things on TV, or in the theater, that are mundane and common, reflecting how most people really are. That's not entertaining, that's just recreating what I can find any day of the week by looking out my window. Changing the setting alone doesn't cut it if the characters are still greedy, self-involved jerks. What I do happen to find entertaining are the exceptions to the rule, whether they be "regular" folks that do noble or heroic things, or things of a fantastical nature (special abilities, etc).

Let's use an ideal example. Ya go to see a movie, and it's about, say, an evil mummy, resurrected and wreaking havoc. It comes shambling out and scares the daylights out of a crowd of people. All but one of them runs in panic, trampling each other to get away from the danger. The holdout, however, turns and faces the danger, maybe saves some scared kid first, then attempts to oppose or neutralize the threat. Now, the question is, who would you want the camera lens to follow? The heroic person, or the crowd of panicked people? The answer, of course, is the former. The latter is just plain boring. Carriers is a good example of the camera maintaining its focus on the crowd.

[–] dragmio 15 years ago

Simply put, you ran out of Sly, Ahnold and Van Damnit movies to watch. Rest assured, a new action hero will come along to save the day.

[–] dophin26 14 years ago

I enjoyed this movie. It needed a little action, but other than that, it was a great look into what people are willing to do under duress.

[–] JollyBoy79 15 years ago

Agreed. Really boring, and adds nothing to the genre whatsoever.

[–] Mystikal_Spirit 15 years ago

Agreed! It was like a bad, american remake of 28 days later

[–] Foxxo 15 years ago

You guys don't know what you're talking about. This isn't a zombie movie like 28 Days Later, REC, Dawn of the Dead etc. This is a group of four young Americans travelling through a post-apocalyptic America.

"Carriers" aims for realism and achieves it. Obviously some characters aren't likeable, but that is what is real; not all humans are likeable. Second, the idea of abandonment to ensure survival is something that would be extremely prevalent in this world. Thirdly, they left a lot of information out of the story to ensure ambiguity. You're not meant to know what the disease is entirely, only what the characters know or suspect. This could mean it's not nearly as airborne as viewers may think, but rather extremely contagious when in close proximity. This helps keep the attention off the grand scheme of this world and focus attention on the individuals stories and behaviours.

In the end, this movie didn't look to educate viewers as to what this new world is. Rather it tries to show how humans may act and think in a world where stress dominates the mind through a constant fear of exposure to disease and painful death. You are all just simple-minded movie-goers who need something concrete to catch your attention, you don't know how these movies are supposed to work. Your loss.

Wulf_Man

[–] jon-385 15 years ago

I liked it allot. Very realistic. And it was difficult watching them having to leave each other behind.

[–] jensmile1 15 years ago

" "Carriers" aims for realism and achieves it. "

realism?? what?? read the post 100 things i learned from carriers, i think this proves the amount of unrealistic points in this movie.

[–] fallen_elite 11 years ago

Really? You base "realism" around 100 things I learned threads...

You might as well call those "100 things a random @#$! didn't like, couldn't imagine, or couldn't comprehend" threads. Half of those threads are from people who want a horror movie with perfectly rational actors (which isn't rational since fear can hinder ones thought process.) Not to mention a movie with perfect decisions is boring as hell!

1.) Everyone behaves perfectly and no one dies since it is something people can overcome. 2.) Everyone behaves perfectly and dies due to dumb luck since the movie is such an absurd premise nothing can save you.... Wow, that sounds amazing. Please, sign me up for 20 movies where no move could save the main characters or where everything is easily overcome.

Meh. Well I may go give this a movie a shot now. The complaints I've read that avoid spoilers seem weak so it might be ok. Yes, I was foolish/arrogant enough to use IMDB to judge a move pre-viewing.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] vargamor 15 years ago

I gave it middle of the road marks. Every time I see someone say "zombie" I, too, wonder what they're smoking.

I was excited to see Chris Pine, and I thought he did a great job playing a complete prick.

The only "gripe" I had with this movie is why the survivors in the hotel didn't just shoot them all when Piper's character was found to be sick. Well, I guess a small gripe with the way she stupidly went jumping in the back of the car to help the little girl after she had already proven that she wasn't all that selfless.

[–] Bram-e 15 years ago

27 minutes in they blew it.
When the girl almost passes out in the car at the school.
She tries to give her oxygen...
She could've just opened the back of the truck.
And even if she did she would put her mask on properly, instead of holding it in front of her.
This movie blows, mainly due to very poor writing..

[–] JesterSevens 15 years ago

lol that bit really bugged me as well, glad i wasnt the only one!

your opinion is the wrong one!

[–] rickthemistocli 15 years ago

yeah terribly dull movie

[–] firebox-1 15 years ago

The first part of it was good and the acting was pretty decent in the first part of it.. but the story went no where and had no real point. It all could of been avoided if they followed all their own rules. It also seemed like it was marketed as a zombie movie, clearly it was just a movie about "SuperAids!"

[–] vbfhenrmreturns 15 years ago

I didn´t like Chris Pine but I think the movie was decent.
5/10

[–] entej 15 years ago

I didnt hate it but it was bad

[–] oyster_without_soul 15 years ago

It is a blend of movies already filmed, so what is the point of making a movie that adds nothing new to the genre, just repeats the same questions, and gives the same answers. Well, directors need to practice themselves too on something I guess, gain experience. There are a lot of movies just beating the dead horse again, and again these days, don't get me wrong. And then there are the remakes too. :-)