MovieChat Forums > The Vanguard (2008) Discussion > Terrible movie - AVOID IT!!

Terrible movie - AVOID IT!!


**Spoilers!**
I saw the good review on this movie and was suckered in with the DVD cover and the interesting plot synopsis on the back. Don't make the same mistake!

I won't discuss the entire plot (what little there was) but let me make a few points, that I haven't seen brought up in the many positive reviews of the movie online:

Yes, it was low budget and the special effects were terrible, but that isn't what ruined the movie for me - that award would go to the terrible plot.

Why would a corporation, no matter how big and powerful, ever have enough power and control to get multiple world governments to voluntarily line their citizens up and get a shot which was poison? (The backstory is that the world is running out of resources and, like we do with animals in the wild, the decision is to cull the population. Basically, poison the poor and leave the rich. No one will have a problem with that right?)

Even if they DID they get power AND you get tons of scientists to agree to such a heinous plan AND you had some plan to deal with the millions of bodies AND expected the rich people to just be happy they were on the good list, when the head scientist (Max's mom in the movie) revolts at the evil plan, WHY would her solution be to have the poison injected into the people turn them into monsters instead of killing them? Why does that make anything better? How is that morally better? WTF?

Even if you accept the logic of that scientist, why put the antidote inside your son? Why not tell him that you did that? Why not give him ANYTHING (weapons, knowledge, adult help, a safe house, etc.) that could actually help him survive this apocalypse? How could she possibly know that he wouldn't get munched and die immediately. (When getting bitten by a mob of people and torn apart and eaten, knowing that at least you won't actually turn into a monster yourself is not much comfort.)

How did the company find out about Max, now, five years after the *beep* hit the fan? Why didn't they find and kill him years ago?? Why do they want to eliminate him?? They wanted to kill the population. Now they have tons of monsters roaming around. Why kill the only antidote? Even if you don't plan on saving the monsters, wouldn't you keep him around just in case YOU got bit??

Who the hell is the guy he is waiting for? What does he have to do with anything? Why wait for him for years and then when he shows up, hit him on the head? Why not pause at least long enough to say, hey, what's the news? He could have tracked the girl after a five minute conversation he waited five years to hear. What could he have possibly needed to tell Max? How could he possibly FIND Max??

Once everyone died, why did the zombies finally stop trying to kill him? Why was he their leader? Could they smell the antidote in his blood? They why did they keep trying to kill him just a few hours before that? Does he plan on turning them all back? It definitely seemed like he planned on being their leader, but a zombie leader or their savior and turn them all back? Why did they suddenly know this when one hour before they didn't? Why didn't the director clue me in to whatever he told the zombies??

WTF was up with that final mohawk guy dying and the obvious Jesus pose and the terribly fake blood pouring out of him and the LOOONG scene of him just standing and bleeding before falling? Was that to further emphasize the role of Max as a savior? Did the director plan on cluing the audience in at any point??

These are just a few of the problems I had with this film. The others would be: fair to terrible acting, lost plot lines (what was up with the old guy and his plan to distract the zombies to let them through?), very bad effects, even worse makeup, obviously low budget. I don't have a problem with a small budget in itself - I think some movies actually benefit from it because it forces the movie to put more effort into the story and be more creative. See Slither or Splinter - very different styles of movies and not that they were perfect, but they did a lot more story, acting and effects even without a big budget. This is just a bad movie and terrible story, regardless of the amount of money spent on it. Don't waste your time like I did!!!

reply

I agree with most if not all of your points. I found the movie utterly fascinating to watch like a trainwreck. One bad decision after another.

reply

you could probably write a book about all the glaring inconsistencies in the plot and plain idiotic moments(that scene at the end for example)

i think the director/screenwriter might actually be mentally handicapped.

reply

you might also be retarded, but nobody's judging, right? go watch resident evil, that might me more appealing or maybe shaun of the dead.

reply

Those two movies ARE more appealing! I tried watching this, and couldn't get past the first 10 minutes, and just to let you know I love bad cheesey movies, but not this one!

Michael
http://s1.sfgame.us/index.php?rec=58163

reply

Shaun of the Dead is an amazing movie. This one not so much.

If you love Cheezits and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature.

reply

Agreed :)

reply