Cmon you other posters. It's an indie/b zombie flick, what were you expecting?
I thought it was decent considering they probably had no budget, no actors etc. The lead wasn't that good, a little too wooden but the second in command guy did a decent job.
Man, I've seen much worse.
I'm gonna go as far as to say that I thought this film was GOOD. I don't think it was terrible by any stretch of the imagination. The actors weren't the best, the budget wasn't the highest, the music was silly but loomed in the background and wasn't annoying, and the story was actually decent and revised the tired zombie type. The budget shows it's true, but there's plenty of big budget films that were amazingly *beep* than this, and had to do with zombies (House of the Dead) or tried to put a spin on the zombie thing and failed (Flight of the Living Dead AKA Plane Dead). The movie also moves fast and it's only 80mins, takes not much of your time anyway.
shareI enjoyed it.. like you said, kind of a new spin on zombie movies. But it's also probably only for fans of zombie movies.
The real trick to life is not to be in the know, but to be in the mystery. -Fred Alan Wolf
I love zombie flicks, but did was just horrific, and not in a good horror wayWhen there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...
I agree. Only zombie fans need apply.
I am a huge zombie fan, so much so that i go out of my way to hunt down even the most obscure examples.
However this movie is very bad. It is certainly not the worst i have seen, there are some redeeming qualities, but it is a solid 2/10 at best. The thing is even though it is low-budget indie, so are many other movies that succeed. Compared to them, it just is not very good.
The problem with many of these productions is that they may have an interesting script, but simply do not have the ability or budget to film every scene they want. Then they do it anyway and it comes off looking amateurish and cheap. Watch Night of the Living dead, that had a micro budget too, but it worked because it simply did not overextend itself. It did not shoot any outrageous evisceration scenes, or even all that much blood and gore to be genuinely creepy. They worked in what they COULD shoot, and managed to make the movie good anyway.
Too many try to do it all on their first try, instead of just looking for a good script, showing off their abilities with what they have, write around what they can't shoot, and maybe EARN a bigger budget for the next movie, where they then can incorporate more gore or more guns or whatever.
To make a Zombie movie look good you either HAVE to go the Romero route (less is more, or have an extremely talented FX team at least), or a lot of money.
To wrap it up, i do not hate this movie, but with less action, and more acting it could have been better. I also did not like that they wanted to do something different. That has to such a trope by now (TV Tropes agrees, see: "Our Zombies are different"). Just make them straight up Undead. It has been some time we have seen that outside of Walking Dead anyway.
Your comment was well thought-out and it's obvious you're a genuine fan of zombie flicks. I am too (perhaps unhealthily so, haha). I have roghly 650 zombie movies (I keep a running list) So, I am a big fan of the subgenre too. I can relate to hunting down and collecting zombie flicks.
I'm forced to rewatch this particular one to give an accurate response, as my reply was 8 years ago. This is actually the third time I've seen this movie (a rare thing for me as I hardly ever watch these no-budget zombie flicks more than twice, since there's sooo many of them out there).
The immediate thing that strikes me is how quickly we jump into the zombie epidemic, and how calm and almost nonchalant the lead character is while walking to his car in the first couple minutes. It's an intense scenario that is not seen too often in zombie flicks (at least, not so quickly). I'm immediately intrigued by "who is this man? Why is he so in control and dispassionate?" That right there, sucked me in and gave me hope that I'm in for something a bit more than your average no-budget zombie flick.
I gotta say that you comparing this to NOTLD is unfair. What was "micro-budget" in 1968 is not the same as "micro-budget" in 2005 (when Day X was made). Romero had been in the industry, to a small extent, and had experience many years before making NOTLD, shooting commercials and short films. The budget for NOTLD was $114,000 in 1968, which would be $639,947 in 2005 dollars (according to http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm). I can't find the budget for Day X, but even if it were $20,000 (which is generous) it would equal $3,563 in 1968 dollars. NOTLD clearly had a much larger budget.
Also your argument that they worked with what they COULD shoot instead of going for gore can definitely be argued: they didn't go for gore (like in the later sequels Dawn and Day) not because it was beyond their means, but because for 1968, what little violence and gore was in the film was entirely shocking for the time. They could have easily added more but it was already pushing the boundaries.
The script of these things is what makes the no-budget zombie flick. They don't have the money or resources for good actors or special effects, but you don't need money for an interesting story. It's my opinion that this no-budget zed flick has at least that; and for a no-budget zed flick, that's better than 80% of them.
You say you didn't like that they wanted to do something different with their zombie movie. Again, I would remind you that this came out in 2005, right in the midst of the first modern zombie movie resurrgence. I cannot understand how one can criticize a zombie flick for trying something different in a sea of so many other generic zombie flicks of the time.
The real trick to life is not to be in the know, but to be in the mystery. -Fred Alan Wolf
Thank you for your well argued response. Of course i realize that no/low budget these days means something else than 1968, BUT it is also true that is is much easier these days to get access to FX, filming equipment and distribution. So i think all that cancels each other out.
It may be a little bit unfair to compare NOTLD to this, but only because it is the standard bearer of the genre. Maybe i should compare it to other more recent no budget experiments like Halloween or Evil Dead (both meaning the originals of course, not the remakes)?
We are not in complete disagreement as to script and story, i rather liked that here as well. But my point about needing to revisit the script so it better fits your abilities still stands. Many low budget movies could be so much better if they did not resort to cheap and bad FX (or even CGI, like some gunsmoke in this). Unless the movie is MEANT to be cheap looking (The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra, which was awesome).
My point about doing something different was not necessarily a knock. I do not mind variation, but it was badly done here, just for the sake of being different. I felt that it would have been better to be straight up Romero zombies (which we have far too few of anyway, sorry this is a pet peeve of mine. Same with Werewolves and Vampires, there is this assumption that "the norm" is all present, when in fact the variations rule and there is only three or four movies where the "normal rules" apply anyway).
I understand this came out in 2005, but why would that excuse it in any way? Especially if that was right in the middle of all the "difference". Woudln't that just mean using the standard Romero rules would have made it stand out more?
I feel we are just arguing about details here, and not generally disagreeing with each other. My 2/10 vote is just meant to be compared to movies in general. Compared to other low budget Z-movies it would probably be a 4/10, because i have seen MANY worse than this. This at least kept me entertained.
Strong points are clearly the story, and the attempts at a coherent resolution (although that fell apart at the end, with the anti-body girl suddenly suiciding?!?).
Nice exchanging thoughts with you :)