MovieChat Forums > The Crazies (1973) Discussion > Great concept, good in parts, but here's...

Great concept, good in parts, but here's its bad points


1) The worst example of acting EVER. Apart from the black guy with the moustache, the rest of the cast couldn't act any worse than if they tried.

2) Very bad editing. Half the time, I had to shift my eyes very fast to keep up with the director's shaky and unprofessional cuts.

3) Bad special effects. The man being stabbed by the old woman looks as if he's dancing.

4) Why are the guys in the white jump suits trying to take the crazies alive. I counted at least six guys in jump suits dying trying to capture alive this hillbilly with a shot-gun. WHY?

5) The fat man with the black beard is supposed to be carrying the film with his breath of knowledge, yet I wouldn't trust him to make a cup of coffee.

All in all, ok, as a curio. But!

reply

Reasonably good points there. All of what you mentioned is why I think that if ONE film had to be remade its definitely this one. I am generally against remakes; Wicker Man was complete blasphemy. But this one and a few others like Westworld and Logans Run NEEEEEEEED to be remade; in fact theyre crying out desperately to be remade ESPECIALLY this one out of the three I mentioned

I actually didnt find the acting to be THAT bad. Some of it was quite natural. The one moment that I absolutely loved in it was Lynn Lowry's character going "oh" while grinning and then falls to the ground. I think the acting got better towards the end. I really did like the black guy's acting, but he overacted a little bit. THE WORST acting award for this film goes to the scientist dude...TALK ABOUT overacting!! Yikes!

The worst scene has to be where they are carting the scientist in on the back of that jeep/go-cart kinda thing and the editing is ridiculous in that it cuts back and forth between them and the guys in the safe room (the room where the black dude is the entire time). It just goes back and forth and back and forth and the characters are each screaming their dialogues and it just doesnt work. Thats something that the editor definitely could have fixed.

The other thing I didnt like about it was the candy blood. Jeez, red tempera paint IS NOT BLOOD!!

I really thought Lynn Lowry was a godsend for the film though. She really kept the fim going if you ask me. The other female lead (the pregnant one) was also pretty good once she put on the beenie (there was one scene where it looked like the beenie was just laying on her head though). I think both the females did very well.

Overall, here are my rants

1. the editing. The editing is crime #1 in this film moreso than ANY OTHER flaw. I hope the editor never got another job in film again after this

2. the blood. There are LOTS of low budget films that can manage to make blood A LITTLE more realistic than that. C'mon guys

3. Ugly!!! Every single male character in this film was completely BUTT UGLY. Now, I want far from a fashion show when I watch a film, but DAMN, can we at least get some people that are passable?

I cant wait for this to be remade. At first, Brad Anderson (of Session 9 and Machinist fame) was slated to direct, but then they shelved it and now it seems like they are back at it again WITH Scott Kosar (Anderson collaborater) so *fingers crossed*.

For the Lynn Lowry character I would LOVE to see Sherri Moon Zombie in the lead. Rob wouldnt be too bad as a bacl-up director though.

My Collection: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=11097838

reply

@rivethead


Finally saw this flick a couple of years after having seen the remake,and yes, it is very flawed---Romero could have gotten way better actors in some cases, but the actors playing the main characters (particularly the main military guys in the town in charge of the operation, and the arrogant scientist,who was actually funny as heck) did the best acting in the film, so I was surprised to see that none of them,according to IMDB, did more than a handful of films after that. The actors who played David and his friend were actually pretty good. I didn't understand why none of the women were using any guns to protect themselves along with the men, especially living in a rural area---that just seemed strange to me.

And frankly, I didn't find any of the male actors ugly---I thought the main ones I mentioned were good-looking in a real life way, not in some pretty boy Hollywood way---none of them were anywhere near what I'd call straight-up ugly at all. Plus THE CRAZIES was an indie production, not from Hollywood, so of course the people in looked more real. (I'm a woman,BTW.) I mean, c'mon this was a sci-fi disaster movie---they didn't need a cast full of pretty people with perfect hair to tell what the hell was going on. The two lead actresses were also pretty in a refreshing non-Hollywood way, too. Overall, the film was pretty good for what it was---not surprised that it was remade, since the subject matter was ripe for one,anyway.

reply

I agree that we are 'zombified' as to what people should look like. That characters all gotta be glamorous or else something is not worth seeing.

Glam movies are fun but, I wouldn't trash a film because it's not filled with pinups.


http://www.cgonzales.net & http://www.drxcreatures.com

reply

4-They needed the crazies alive to test them for immunity and perhaps create an antidote from the blood.

In retrospect perhaps they should have dropped knockout gas on the town and gathered the unconcious people up.

reply

[deleted]

I found it very disappointing. I think the main problem is that you never really see that many people acting crazy and so have no sense of danger or threat. I found it pretty boring.

'The Andromeda Strain' does the science-against-disease plot much better and '28 Days Later' takes this idea in the direction Romero should have taken it. He should stick to Zombie films.

reply

This is an awful movie. One of Romero's worst, up there with SEASON OF THE WITCH. Too much bad dialog, poor characters too.

And where the hell are all THE CRAZIES? You have one nut job that burns his house. It should be called THE CRAZY.

When Romero is good, he's great- MARTIN, NOLD, DAWN, DAY, CREEPSHOW

When he's bad, he stinks like a rotten carp- CRAZIES, BRUISER, LAND, DIARY.

HIs last really good flick was DAY OF THE DEAD. 1985...wow over 20 years since he made magic. What a shame.
------------------------------------

>>>Go die.>>>

reply


You guys really have no taste and don't know what you're talking about. Whether or not you like the acting or find the plot plausible is up to you.

But George A. Romero himself was the editor on this film, like he was on the Dead trilogy and all of his other films. He is probably one of the best editors in the business and it is truly amazing he is able wear so many hats on his movies. He is a true auteur and one of the best filmmakers of the 20th century.

The pacing of this film is extemely well done. Its exciting to watch and a lot of that magic comes from the editing of George Romero.

By the way, GET *beep*

reply

I think Romero is a brilliant editor and a pretty damn good director, but thats doesn't mean you have to like everything he does. I love the Dead series, Martin, and Creepshow. The Crazies however, is almost undeniably his weakest effort. Its a good idea but it loses steam very quickly due to the inept abilities of the actors. The music sucked too. Come to think of it, the dialog was also very poor.

"GARBAGE DAY!!!"-Eric Freeman

reply

yes its sad but true- this is a bad romerofilm. i liked it as a kid, but 20 years later i watched it again, yesterday night. i was prepared for my usual movie session with 2 hash jollys (oh yeah baby). very soon, maybe 10 minutes into the film i realized: it was boring and just bad filmmaking... most of the time there are bad actors, shouting bad lines to each other or into a phone. not enough focus on our "hero" and his group. not enough focus on the crazies neither. only in the last 15 minutes romero manages to show us what this movie SHOULD have been...

i admire romeros films, especially the first 2 zombiefilms and creepshow- but this one is just a failure imho.

reply

I don't understand why there is so much hate towards the acting. I think all of Romero's movies could be be accused of having bad acting. There are parts of Night Of The Living Dead where the acting is over the top and bad. It's all in how the viewer reacts. Also some of the actors from The Crazies were also in Dawn Of The Dead, among other Romero films, and once again you could make the case that Dawn of The Dead or Day of The Dead has bad acting if you wanted to.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confess To The Holy Consumption
http://www.theholyconsumption.com/





reply

I couldn't agree more. I found the plot compelling enough to keep watching the first hour, but when I had to stop it for some interruption, the bad acting prevented me from going back and finishing it.

The whole thing struck me as vaguely a rip off of Andromeda Strain, but in many respects it seemed like a practice session for Dawn Of the Dead.

I was really surprised to see a remake planned for a 2010 release. Maybe with a budget and some professional actors it will turn out a little better, although I'm worried that the plot will just turn on a series of idiotic mistakes.

reply

Everyone is so right. Yes, NOLTD and DOTD were cheap but they had acting and some redeeming qualities. This was just bad, bad. The only reason I watched this was I saw the remake and loved it. Where do I begin?

1. Yes the two main male actors are butt ugly and just had no acting ability. I never identified or felt for either one of them.

2. Where are the crazies? Well said by a previous poster. The guy burning down his house was a good start. Then...pretty much nothing. Ok we see some people shooting at the soldiers...so what?

3. The laughable scene with the guy who was Dr. Frankenstein (from DOTD) when he hung himself. It looked like he had brown shoepolish on his face. What the hell was that?

4. Did anyone get tired of seeing the guys in the masks? It just got annoying. And the military soldiers acted so stupid and inept, it was tough to take seriously.

reply

While I'm a fan of Romero, this is a fairly poor effort

reply

I thought the acting was quite good. I actually thought the scientist guy very convincing. I've been in the presence of guys who acted just like that - pushy, loudmouthed, self-righteous know-it-alls. Maybe they are faking it, maybe they're faking their way through life, I don't know. I just took him as real. I actually think the acting in this movie is quite natural, some parts seem documentary style, much better than Cloverfield. And I like the jumpy edits, it went well with the theme. For instance, jumping from the one guy banging things to the incest scene.

But not saying I don't like the post, I always like well thought out imdb posts that aren't just "it sucks" or whatever.

-----
Reason is a pursuit, not a conclusion.

reply

This isn't the best film Romero made, but it definitely isn't the worst either. I have seen it twice now and it is more enjoyable the second time around. I think this film works mostly because it feels like something that could really happen in real life. With all of the panic that the Swine Flu caused, if something like this were to really happen, it would cause widespread panic just like the movie. I was fascinated by this movie because I wanted to see whether or not the characters lived and if a cure would be found for the disease. I didn't think the acting was that bad. Lynn Lowry's performance was great. It was because of her performance in this movie that I decided to watch I Drink Your Blood, Cat People, and Shivers. I wouldn't have discovered those films if it weren't for seeing her performance in this movie and enjoying it so I am glad I watched it.

Come, fly the teeth of the wind. Share my wings.

reply