Having just watched it, I figure I can toss in some input here. It's kind of hard to go outside the "you like it or not" kind of answer though, because you saw it and hated it. As shown in the other line of replies here, you'll have a hard time accepting what some people see as redeeming aspects of this movie.
With that said, I admit, it's weird to call this a good movie. On par with mainstream classics from Casablanca up to the Lord of the Rings movies, it doesn't hold a candle. It's out-shined in every way imaginable.
You gotta understand though, this is just a schlocky, tongue in cheek, indy horror flick. It's not meant to stand up there with classics outside of the genre.
On the plus side of The Dead Next Door, you've got the story. It was great, original and intriguing enough to get me to pick the movie up. There's also the effects which make it really enjoyable. Sure, by today's gags, they're out of date. Regardless, they still looked great. For instance, in the beginning when the one squad member gets his fingers bitten off by the decapitated head. The head looks great swallowing and then the fingers coming back out the throat, killer stuff. The throat rips, the machete hit, the bites, they all looked great. Another thing, just the generally corny things you can draw some chuckles from, Moullson's hat for example. It's impossible not to look at this "doctor" and not get a chuckle out of the "Once I thought I was wrong but I was mistaken!" hat. I'm not saying it was hilarious, but you know, it garners a smile. There's also the point at the end where zombie Mercer takes Moullson's hat as he's being devoured and Moullson cries out for it, worth another chuckle. It was also somewhat amusing to hear Bruce Campbell's voice dubbed in.
Now, don't get me wrong, I ain't saying there ain't a thing wrong with the movie, take the acting for example. As an indy/no-budget filmmaker myself, there were a handful of points where I couldn't help but laugh and compare some bad acting to a person or two that I've worked with. It was enjoyable in that sense, but at the same time, nobody likes to sit through horrible acting. Also, the constant nods to other horror icons was really annoying. I can deal with the occasional nod or reference to pay homage, but to name practically your whole cast after horror icons is a bit out there. I get the tribute, but that just bugged me. Finally, zombie Mercer. Everything was all good until he spoke. I really can't stand when voices are altered to sound that bad. Just a big pet peeve of mine.
So you know, it's like I said earlier, you either liked it or you didn't. Personally, I loved it. It's a movie I've been wanting to see for years and it didn't disappoint. I didn't expect it to be as great as the Evil Dead or Romero movies, I was just looking for a good b-zombie movie to kill the evening with and that's just what I got.
reply
share
GerFalcon
19 years ago
Ok, but I wanted to go beyond subjectivity. I know it is hard to give objective criteria by which you can judge a movie, but I think the acting, the level of conviction the actors transpose, the storyline or plot, is it likely the way it develops, are the most important ones. I must say this movie doesn't succeed well on either front.
Objectivity also means looking beyond the effort the people involved made, they invested a reasonable amount of their spare time I gather, and it may have been fun to make this movie, etc. etc, but I may not take that into consideration while I'm judging a movie. What is shown to the audience is what counts.
If you're a filmmaker yourself you look at it from a different angle than a 'normal' audience, at least I suppose so. But are movies made for the fun of the director (and the others involved) or for the audience? That is the major question. I think if you lose that perspective you're on the wrong track, it's no use pretending you're not making the movie for at least some kind of audience beyond your livingroom, the audience has to complete the circle. And every director likes to have a large audience, true or false? Despite his struggles to maintain his identity by not doing too many concessions and in spite of the burdon of an empty purse.
So I will not judge mildly out of compassion or as a good colleague or whatever but as an audience, let’s say I play a different role here. But that doesn't imply that I'm always right or void of subjectivity, no one ever is.
reply
share
Joshferatu
19 years ago
That's just it though, people watch movies on a subjective level. I liked it, you didn't. It's hard to explain beyond that. Where it failed for you, it held up for me and the other person posting in this thread.
I agree with you, the acting is (for the most part) horrible, there's no real suspense and it's not that funny. What's left is wondering where the story goes. Despite what the movie's lacking, the story is enough to keep you watching. Some of us enjoy the story, some of us hate it.
When I watched this movie, I didn't watch it in consideration to those making it and what went into it. I respect anyone who has put the time and effort into making a movie, but the respect for those people isn't going to win over my opinion on the movie.
reply
share
MovieManiacX
19 years ago
You are expecting way too much out of this wonderful little zombie B-Movie. If you're a horror fan, you should know that most horror movies, with a few exceptions, rarely have good acting and are not scary. If you were expecting a horror movie along the lines of The Omen or Rosemary's Baby, or a zombie movie equivalent to Romero's Dawn of the Dead, then you were sorely mistaken.
So, I'll tell you why this is good. It's a decent zombie movie with lots of nods to other horror movies and some good gore. I don't know what you more you'd expect from a B-Movie made to please fans of the genre. If you want more than that from a horror movie, then the horror genre is not the genre for you.
___________________________________________
You're not just playing with your life, you're playing with mine!
Peter, Dawn of the Dead
http://www.dvdaficionado.com/dvds.html?cat=1&sub=Horror&id=moviemaniacx
reply
share
sheilah_steven
19 years ago
Just saw it for the first time and really, really liked it.
I think, for all the obvious problems (especially the acting and a few lousy prop guns), Bookwalter got it right in the script. Zombie rights protestors, the cult; let's face it, this is pretty much a Romero film with some new paint, and that's not a bad thing.
Those new story twists were what made me want to see it, not to mention all the critics' talk about the impressive scale, which I must agree with. That helicopter shot with hundreds of zombies, all the extras in the cult's holding pen (one of the coolest moments has to be when Raimi walks past and all the pressing zombie hands stretch out the chicken wire).
With all due respect to Bookwalter (I think he did an admirable job and he's way too hard on himself on the dvd commentary), all these positives are a testament to he enduring power of Romero's concepts; people's inability to co-operate in a crisis, the failure of science. Moulsson's death as he tries to read out the anti-virus formula over the phone was fantastic and scary (reminded me of The Crazies and that scientist who's trampled as he tries to bring the solution to the powers that be). Hiding in that cage as the zombies press against it....brrr. I also like the hat; makes him seem a little crazy, a la Dr. 'Frankenstein' in Romero's 'Day...'
Again on the negative side, the closing theme song is pretty silly and I'm not sure about the 'superzombies' concept (as someone else has already said, the voices sounded pretty dumb). Still, this was a winner overall as far as I'm concerned.
I have one lingering question, though: What exactly were Jason and the cultists up to in the opening scene with Dr. Bow? Were they somehow a part of unleashing the virus in the first place?
reply
share
flamingzombieunicorn
19 years ago
I can see why people don't like this movie but in my opinion it was a fun movie, sure horror movies can be better than this but if the movie is fun then I have no problem with it. I think it's also nice for any one who enjoys amateur films to have a film shot in super 8 with their dvd collection, another nice but I am sure unintentional touch for the film. Of course the dialogue was bad as well as the acting (which can be a lethal mix) but with enough action and some gore it became a fun movie.
reply
share
guardian_owl
19 years ago
I liked it because it had some fresh ideas for no-budget film, save-the-zombie protestors? An overzealous religious cult? Hell, I think these ideas are just as pertinent today as they were in the late 80's. That, and the main guy is dubbed over by Bruce Campbell, that automatically bumps the film up by one star by coolness factor alone. That and often I do consider the effort put into the film when judging whether I like a film or not. Typically people doing super-low or no-budget movies are in it because they have a passion for making the films, they love the genre in which they are releasing their creation.
That is why I am much more forgiving when looking at the flaws in films such as Dead Next Door, Saw, Bad Taste, etc. because they did the best they could do with what they had to work with, and I'd take that any day over a film with ample resources and no soul. IMHO souless, mediocre/awful movies is why ticket sales overall are down: not piracy, high ticket prices, or DVDs.
reply
share