Question about all the 1 ratings for the film. - Deadlands: The Rising (2006) Discussion

[–] kvosher 17 years ago

They probably haven't seen it. Don't let it bother you. For what it is worth, I liked it.

reply

[–] bturk1978 17 years ago

5 now lol *beep* awful

reply

[–] DjfunkmasterG 17 years ago

Seems to me you don't like any type of indie films. I read your comment for Stink of Flesh and you lambasted that as well. So to you everything has to be one dimensional, hollywood flash and flaunt?

Am I correct in assuming if it has a low budget you won't like it? Why don't you explain, in detail, what you didn't like about it? Using specific scenes or characters.

It helps us filmmakers when you let us know whats wrong, otherwise to us you just seem like someone who never really watched the film and only voted it low just to be a jack ass. So is there anything in particular you didn't like?

_____________________
DEADLANDS: The Rising
http://imdb.com/title/tt0861701/

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DjfunkmasterG 17 years ago

That is true LoS, I know where 2 of the 10's came from, they are cast & crew. I voted it a 9 (my film, why not) the other 10's I dunno, but I would like to see what everyone has to say. The reason for the 1 comment is a lot of films are given 1's and most imdb users haven't even watched the film, they just give films one to give it a one. I am sure out of the 6 it has a majority of them are from people who have seen it and don't like it, but it has been my experience that most raters haven't watched the film.

Perfect example, Day of the Dead 2: Contagium, look at all the 1's that film received just from Romero fans who found it blasphemous. The film isn't that good, but I bet its low score was just from the fact it was a sequel to a Romero film without Romero being involved.

_____________________
DEADLANDS: The Rising
http://imdb.com/title/tt0861701/

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DjfunkmasterG 17 years ago

I don't think I read your review, or do you post as TGB on Z-N?

_____________________
DEADLANDS: The Rising
http://imdb.com/title/tt0861701/

reply

[–] CrazyJim2004 16 years ago

"Perfect example, Day of the Dead 2: Contagium, look at all the 1's that film received just from Romero fans who found it blasphemous. The film isn't that good, but I bet its low score was just from the fact it was a sequel to a Romero film without Romero being involved."

Have to disagree with you on that one, Gary. Contagium sucked. There are plenty of good sequels that don't have the original filmmakers or cast involved but this is definitely not one of them. It's not blasphemous, it's just boring and unnecessary. Some of those reviews are obviously from angry Romero fans but if you try to connect an inferior product to a beloved one then that will happen. There are movies like the "Dawn" remake and "Return Of The Living Dead" which are clearly intended to appeal to Romero fans. Despite George's absence, these films are still enjoyed by a good portion of his fan base. Why? Because they deliver with an entertaining zombie film, even if they are drastically different from the kind of zombie film that Romero would make.

http://www.myspace.com/crazyjimfilms
Click here to read my scripts!

reply

[–] MayoKim 16 years ago

I voted this movie a one because I found it to be awful. That's all I have to say about it. I don't know why you expect everybody to be a professional movie critic or to even justify a rating. I do music. If someone who has no idea of my field of working tells me he doesn't like my songs I'll respect that. Even if they say it's crap and nothing more this is very good input compared to none if you can put your ego aside for one second.

reply

[–] DjfunkmasterG 16 years ago

thanks for your input... and feedback.

________________
"Thank God we invented the... you know, whatever device." Jeff Megall

reply

[–] TerryOPants 16 years ago

Why "have the guts to leave a review"? 90% os IMDB users are retards, and have neither the will nor inclination to enter into a debate with someone involved with the film. Besides, what more is there to say than "The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford is brilliant." Or "Meet The Spartans" a movie straight out of the Deadlands school of semi-tribute spoof - is *beep* than *beep* ?

Christ, I can understand that, and indeed all of the above could be said for me. Indeed, as was once said in a fairly banal romantic comedy, I only really watch the biblical channels.

So here is my justification for rating this movie one star. It was lousy. The acting was lousy, the plot was lousy, the makeup was particularly lousy and the camera work was even more especially lousy.

I'm tempted into saying this movie is a case for art school students being banned from film-making, and it is, but so is almost all American independent cinema. Art-w**k, as I believe it is called. Sam Johnson once said patriotism is the last vestige of the scoundrel, but clearly he was ignoring large liberal art schools in the East coast of America. You know, you can bleat on all you want about your movie being made by unpaid volunteers, and I don't doubt that, but it doesn't really excuse some of the technical incompetence. In fact, it's a red herring, because I damn well bet that all your volunteers are supremely egotistical, vainglorious *beep* who got a scholarship to the aforementioned art school and can comfortably afford top of the range equipment due to the rather inflated wages that are paid in the US in general. Like politicians, anyone who feels a desire or a calling to get involved in the movie industry is the last person who ought to be allowed to make a movie. Give me, or anyone else an expensive camera, and they could do just as well as any arty art school graduate from Ohio or Delaware.

But don't take it to heart, fella, It's nothing personaI gave one star to No Country For Old Men, and that was made with a budget of at least $1000 more than you had, so you should take pride in that.

reply

[–] DjfunkmasterG 16 years ago

Actually,

You assumptions, are very incorrect. No one on the production was egotistical, or vainglorious. In fact you seem to be the one who is egotistical, coming here with a rant like that making assumptions about a production you know nothing about, however most of what you needed to know about the production is in the commentary and since you chose to ignore that nugget of information, for whatever reasons, you chose instead to come in here and show the entire internet community what a jackass you really are by touting off about American/East Coast art schools and people who have worked on a low budget film.

I myself have visited and worked on bigger Hollywood productions, and that my friend is where ego rides the strongest. I would rather take 300 volunteers and make a $10,000 flick than work with some of the people I have observed on the productions I have had the privilege to be involved with in the past few years.

However, I will not fault or discuss your rating or opinion of the film, I am only here to address your comments about the people who worked on the production in general. Until you have worked with these people or have had the privilege of knowing them I think you should maybe shut the hell up about what you think they may or may not be about. None of us may be the next Scorsese, Romero, Bay, Spielberg, or whoever, but what we are, what we will always be, is dedicated to cinema in any and every form.

Cheers

Gary Ugarek
director

________________
"Thank God we invented the... you know, whatever device." Jeff Megall

reply

[–] Matt9942 16 years ago

I rated it a 1 because it was one of the most retarded pieces of *beep* ever to be put on DVD. You should feel embarrassed that others saw this. I'm not just saying that to be a dick. It was a terrible movie and the only reason people say they liked it was because you made it and they feel like sucking up to you.

reply

[–] DjfunkmasterG 16 years ago

No offense but, Actually you are saying it to be a dick, don't hide that fact, I really don't care. The simple fact you watched it and made an opinion is all that matters. Love it or hate it.

Don't be afraid to call a turd a turd if that is your opinion and don't apologize for it, or make an excuse like you're not trying to be a dick. If you weren't trying to be a dick, you would have said something like... Well i rated it a 1 because I didn't care for it., but you're quote was... "I rated it a 1 because it was one of the most retarded pieces of *beep* ever to be put on DVD"

See the difference?

False modesty is just another way of lying.

Thanks for your input.

________
"This city deserves a better class of criminal, and I am going to give it to them." JOKER

reply

[–] CrazyJim2004 16 years ago

"It was a terrible movie and the only reason people say they liked it was because you made it and they feel like sucking up to you."

Or maybe some people actually congratulate someone on doing something positive instead of tearing him down. Bottom line. Gary wrote the script and whether you think it's a piece of trash or the next great thing or somewhere in the middle, he took the steps to get it financed, he directed it, and he got a distribution deal for it. That takes hard work. If someone has more talent or is more motivated, step up and do the same. Nobody says you have to love the movie or even like it for that matter but there's no reason to be a hater.

I'm looking at the situation as an independent filmmaker myself. I'm just now in the process of trying to get my first full-length feature together within the next year and the bottom line is just from the experiences I've had with previous productions, I know it's not easy. If this man can make this movie, release it, take the criticism, and continue to want to do this and have fun with it then why hate on that? I'm not talking about constructive criticism. It comes with the territory. I'm talking about hating.

I mean, hypothetically, we can all make a better movie than so and so. But how many of us have? How man have even seriously tried? Just some *beep* to think about.

http://www.myspace.com/crazyjimfilms
Click here to read my scripts!

reply

[–] disinter 16 years ago

I've noticed 3 trends on IMDB that this film fits well. First up, everytime an indie and/or no budget film fails they blame it on everything else other than the fact that the movie sucked. They bitch and moan about anti-low budget bias, it couldn't possibly be the acting and the fx and everything else that sucked about the film.

The second thing is that 9 times out of 10 when you see the cast and crew commenting on thier own film, it's a strong indicator that the movie is going to suck.

The third thing is the "what movies have you made?" defense. Like they are supposed to get extra points for simply making the movie.

A potential forth thing is when they go hunting through your posts to see what other movies and actors, etc that you've posted something negative about and say, "See this guy doesn't know what he's talking about because he voted this or that a "1".

If you check my posting history, you will notice 2 things. 1. I really, really hate paris hilton & 2. I rarely give a movie a rating of "1". Although there is no way to prove it, I can assure you I don't rate movies on any sort of bias other than what I honestly think about it.

I am actually extremely annoyed that I wasted time watching this. I feel like I've been lied too. This should have come with a disclaimer that it is a no budget pos because it's so obvious that it is. I went into this with an open mind and actually watched the thing until the end although I wanted badly to stop after 30 minutes. I knew I was going to leave an IMDB rating on it so I wanted to make sure to watch the whole thing so that I didn't short change it in anyway which I did not.

The dialog was totally inane from beginning to the end. It opens up with a quote that the world didn't end like the bible said it would, it ended with a plague and hunger. Well the bible does include plague and hunger as it's demise.

There was also about 5 minutes of dialog trying to convince a kid to get out of a car.

The acting was horrible. Damn it was bad.

There were a few good FX moments but nowhere near enough to consider the FX decent as a whole.

Also the ending was truly idiotic. It just ended. You can check the spoiler below for more detail but it is a spoiler.

Basically it ends with a shot of zombies entering the house (from the outside) where the survivors were living. Then it ends. No resolutions whatsoever. I hope like hell it isn't a set up for a sequel.

Maybe I will make a more indepth list later (since virtually everything is bad) but I just hope for now it answers the OP. I don't expect anyone to substitute their opinion for mine but as a personal observation this movie deserved a "1".

It might take alot of guts to release a sh!tty movie but honestly I think it would take more guts to say, "Guys, this thing isn't good enough to be released".

Tiger: I'm hated on imdb and considered a troll so its no surprise that I dont have much backing

reply

[–] TerryOPants 15 years ago

That, sir, or madam, is exactly how I feel. Exactly.

reply

[–] jhorton2003 15 years ago

I hate to be the one to break it to you guys, but those are all things that come with a budget.

If you don't have the budget to pay union scale, you're going to get uneven work from your cast and crew at best. Sure there's always talented actors and crew that have yet to go union, but to get good ones across the board on a no-budget flick is next to impossible.

That goes for fx, actors, camera, lights, sound, editing.

The real question about this movie is there enough there to justify it's existence. Yes, there is a market and audience for these movies. Also, if it did have a budget would it have made a difference? The answer is of course it would. It still might be lauded as a masterpiece, but it certainly wouldn't get quite as many straight "it sucks" reviews.

reply

[–] CrazyJim2004 15 years ago

"It might take alot of guts to release a sh!tty movie but honestly I think it would take more guts to say, "Guys, this thing isn't good enough to be released"."

I don't see where it takes guts to give up on something that you spent time and money on and had others work very hard on. From my perspective, it seems counterproductive to the fullest. Everybody gonna have a different view but honestly, if the movie sold units and got some awards and he was able to push forward and get some money and a cast/crew to make another film, he did something right somewhere. I think for anyone to make their own movie and be willing to stand behind it and own it regardless of the negative reaction is making positive steps.

I think your opinion of the movie is valid but I just don't agree with the idea of scrapping an entire project because of how it might be received. If anything, you go back and rework it a little bit. Not everyone is gonna view a movie the same way so if you as a filmmaker are happy with it, move forward with it.

http://www.myspace.com/crazyjimfilms
Click here to read my scripts!

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] undeadmachine669 15 years ago

I chose not to vote on this movie since it was clearly a labor of love done by fellow fans of the zombie genre, like myself. But rest assured, I found the movie to be nearly unwatchable. All common technical problems involved in the production of a shoestring budget film were present in spades. The lighting was abysmal, the acting embarrassing, the effects were...not as bad as they should have been but still pretty unconvincing...and the story was poorly paced. The editing was also pretty spotty. But at the end of the day it was a movie made by people just like me...and probably better than I could have done for the budget so I shall remain on the critic side of things where I can safely say your movie was bad and not have to show my own work :)

www.myspace.com/zombieinacaddy

reply

[–] heywoodfloyd 15 years ago

Hey Gary,

you seem pretty critical of other filmmaker's work, such as George Romero, so I don't know where you get off being so defensive about your film be criticized. Why should film viewers bend over backwards to understand you? All they can judge the film by is the finished product, which has a lot of problems. Also, there are limitations of a low budget film. The biggest limitation is the director just being plain lazy and ending up with a sloppy finished product. When you go home and watch your footage and things seem off and don't look right, don't be complacent and shrug your shoulders. Try and get it right.

reply

[–] DjfunkmasterG 15 years ago

I criticized Romero's LAND because quite frankly for the money the film was mediocre. That is pretty much the only film of his I disliked. However, I have been critical of the trailer out there for "of the Dead", but have said if the movie is better than the trailer I will eat crow on it, but when it comes to Land of the Dead.... come on, they spent $18,000,000 and thats the best they could do? Zack's remake of Dawn was a $26,000,000 flick and a lot better film.

However, I don't ever judge harshly Romero's earlier zombie films because I enjoy them quite a bit.

In regards to be being defensive, it was early on based upon the initial reception of Deadlands 1. In retrospect, was I overly defensive? yes, but compared to some of the lower budget zombie flicks out there shot on DV, I was, at the time, the only person taking the genre as serious as possible, while other people making zed films were goofing on it. Also many people didn't even give the film a chance, and instead jumped to immediate conclusions, but whatever.

Water under the bridge now. If you know what i mean.
________
"Is this another "my dick is bigger than your dick" contest?

reply

[–] CrazyJim2004 15 years ago

"I criticized Romero's LAND because quite frankly for the money the film was mediocre. That is pretty much the only film of his I disliked. However, I have been critical of the trailer out there for "of the Dead", but have said if the movie is better than the trailer I will eat crow on it, but when it comes to Land of the Dead.... come on, they spent $18,000,000 and thats the best they could do? Zack's remake of Dawn was a $26,000,000 flick and a lot better film."

While I found "Land" to be disappointing, I don't think it was a budget issue. The production values were on point in my opinion. I thought it was miles ahead of "Diary". But I'm not really judging flicks on budget. Some of the best horror flicks have been done on shoestring budgets. Good film making is good film making. I think some of my favorite filmmakers have done their best work when they were forced to be resourceful and didn't have millions of dollar to fall back on.

http://www.myspace.com/crazyjimfilms
Click here to read my scripts!

reply

[–] DjfunkmasterG 15 years ago

While I found "Land" to be disappointing, I don't think it was a budget issue. The production values were on point in my opinion. I thought it was miles ahead of "Diary". But I'm not really judging flicks on budget. Some of the best horror flicks have been done on shoestring budgets. Good film making is good film making. I think some of my favorite filmmakers have done their best work when they were forced to be resourceful and didn't have millions of dollar to fall back on.

You make an excellent point Jim, and this was the mindset I adopted with Deadlands 2. Be better than the first and on lower money.

I think some of the things I set out to do in Deadlands 1 were just to large a scale for the budget, but I said F it and did it anyway because quite frankly I wanted to stand out from the normal indie zombie crowd.

Deadlands 2 was sort of the same thing in that I wanted it to be bigger than the first, and it is in terms of scope and look, but, it has the calustrophobic feel of Night of the Living Dead, which is what Deadlands 2 sort of is, break it down and it is a version of Night.

Budget can help free up a lot of issues, but I learned quickly with Deadlands 2 to be resourceful with what I was given to work with, we did step out of the box a few times so we could go above and beyond, but in essence we kept it more confined to its budget limitations, even though many early reviews clearly note the flick doesn't look its budget... which is ironic because a lot of people questioned the films real budget when they say the first cut, they also did the same with Deadlands 1 because they couldn't believe we closed a road and stage the traffic jam and all the other stuff on less than $11,000.00

________
"Is this another "my dick is bigger than your dick" contest?

reply

[–] CrazyJim2004 15 years ago

However, I have been critical of the trailer out there for "of the Dead", but have said if the movie is better than the trailer I will eat crow on it.

If you're refeering to the Albert W. Cochran Jr. movie, "Of The Living Dead", I wouldn't be too worried about eating much crow on that one. I actually picked up the DVD at a horror convention, last week, and watched about a third of it the other night and so far, it is pretty bad. It's like the kind of movie I would make with a friend's camcorder in their backyard when I was fourteen. I'm not gonna go too deep with my anaylsis because I still have over an hour to watch but in just a half hour, they have used the same F'n joke no less than four times. They really beat this joke to death. Most of the dialouge seems more like really long-winded improvisation by the actors than actual scripted material. The editing, in particular, is very off-putting as it constantly jumps from cut to cut using some flip frame move that really only should be used in informercials or to cue instant replays for sports events in the 80's. There's one scene where the two leads sit in a car and listen to a radio broadcast that runs about three minutes too long and they must of not shot enough coverage because they recycle the same reaction shot like a dozen times. They proceed to use the same exact schtick twice in an even longer TV broadcast about five minutes later. With your film, you can chalk a lot of the problems up to the budget and your lack of experience but "Of The Living Dead" plays like a Halloween special for one of those sketch comedy shows done by high school kids in a public access studio. They don't seem to be putting much effort into it at all.

Budget can help free up a lot of issues, but I learned quickly with Deadlands 2 to be resourceful with what I was given to work with, we did step out of the box a few times so we could go above and beyond, but in essence we kept it more confined to its budget limitations, even though many early reviews clearly note the flick doesn't look its budget... which is ironic because a lot of people questioned the films real budget when they say the first cut, they also did the same with Deadlands 1 because they couldn't believe we closed a road and stage the traffic jam and all the other stuff on less than $11,000.00

But I think budget will always be an issue no matter how much money you're working with. I don't think any director is ever gonna have as much money or time as he wants or sometimes even needs.

http://www.myspace.com/crazyjimfilms
Click here to read my scripts!

reply

[–] DjfunkmasterG 14 years ago

Hey jim,

by "Of the Dead' i mean Romero's newest now called Survival.

Budget can be an issue, but with Deadlands 2 I didn't make it an issue I just went out and shot what i wanted based on the resources
________
"Is this another "my dick is bigger than your dick" contest?

reply