Bad Movie - ZMD: Zombies of Mass Destruction (2011) Discussion

It wasnt completely horrible, but i wouldnt watch it again.

reply

Pretty damn bad!

reply

I liked it. Maybe because I didn't pay to see it. Free to watch on NetFlix.

-You're going to hit that, aren't you?
-Like a big rig without brakes.

reply

[–] TheatreNachos 13 years ago

I agree with detroitmarauder22. I can only guess that those who thought it was horrible prefer newer "zombie" films such as '28 Days/Weeks Later' and the 'Dawn of the Dead' remake. I enjoyed those films in their own right, but I think this film is truer to the first zombie canon of films by Romero: Slow zombies, exaggerated gore, infighting between non-infected, etc...If someone doesn't like the original zombie movies, they may not like this one. Surprisingly, I didn't mind the camp either. I thought this just added to what was intended by the filmmaker. Sometimes, films have to be viewed through the filmmaker's eyes (intentions) to be appreciated.

P.S. DM22, not to be a complete douche, but Netflix isn't free.

reply

[–] Boris_Yellnikoff 13 years ago

tbh I laughed my ass of through the entire movie from the hillbillys torturing the poor girl to the gay couple with the mother :D

It just felt so unreal, I hate when zombie movies tries too hard to be realistic, a zombie movie is supposed to be a fun ride into horrorworld.. GUNS BLAZING!

I wish i could tell you more, but [insert government/aliens/terrorists of choice] are listening!

reply

[–] detroitmarauder22 13 years ago

P.S. DM22, not to be a complete douche, but Netflix isn't free.

I didn't mean NetFlix is free, but ZMD was a watch instantly so I didn't have to waste money renting or buying from a store or waste one of the discs that need to be sent to my home.

-You're going to hit that, aren't you?
-Like a big rig without brakes.

reply

[–] TheatreNachos 13 years ago

I knew what you meant. That's how I saw it too. I almost didn't say anything but the a$$hole inside me made me do it. The logical part of me was embarrassed for being so tacky.

reply

[–] groovychick73 13 years ago

I agree with your assessment, TheatreNachos (btw, awesome screen name)... I just saw this movie this past weekend and thought it was reminiscent of early Romero films as well. Even the "social commentary" aspect of this movie (like the mayor being named Hal E. Burton, the whole Iran/Iraq thing), the outbreak being automatically blamed on the terrorists) was similar to that of Romero's movies. All in all, I thought it was fun. I like campy zombie movies as much as I like "serious" ones like The Walking Dead.

reply

[–] TheatreNachos 13 years ago

@groovychick73:

I think Romero is best at making the audience feel as helpless for his characters as his characters are helpless in their situations, if that makes sense. I think this film embodied that perfectly for me. ...Perfect blend of camp, gore, and satire. Just a great addition to the zombie canon.

This was worlds better than Dance of the Dead, which I consider insulting to zombie film lovers. That's an example of trying waaaaayyyy too hard to be the hip, cool, campy film that it obviously isn't.

reply

[–] lgorenc 12 years ago

Thanks. Decided not to watch this. I'm a 28 days/Dawn of the dead 2004 fan, even though I'm as old as the original Romero's NOTLD. ;)

reply

[–] UncleTonoose 9 years ago

Are you Bill Murray?

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Master_X_3_1_1 13 years ago

The worst part was the pacing, there was so little that actually happened in the movie. Basically the 2 gay guys went went to their moms house then the church while Frieda got Tortured, then ran into them at the end... That's it! Perhaps it was a technique to mask the low budget, but they framing was terrible, they never liked to show stuff that was actually happening It really could have benefited from a few suspenseful fight scenes.

"No man is just a number"

reply

[–] AGreenman19 13 years ago

I thought the cinematography had promise verrrry early on, but it quickly dwindled into exactly as you described (and I suspected).

Once I saw the run time of 89 minutes, I knew not much was going to happen, and it was going to be dragged out to reach that movie standard of 90 minutes.

And you're right, they killed most of the scenes that had potential to be scary or suspenseful, but I'm not gonna criticize that too much, since the director's goal clearly wasn't to make a horror movie.

reply

[–] liquidsnake-7 13 years ago

This was a pretty bad movie overall, but there were a few scenes that made it worth the viewing... though I wouldn't watch it again.

reply

[–] theratmonkey 12 years ago

I loved this movie. Sure, it's a bad film, but you can kind of tell it wasn't meant to be something amazing.

My only problem was that nothing really happened. Or to put it better, there should have been more in between.

reply

[–] shadyvsesham 11 years ago

While, this wasnt the BEST zombie film, it def wasnt the worst (Zombie Honeymoon still wins for worst zombie film ever....for me!)

It was just...okay.

How was the script....okay.

How was the pacing....ehh to okay

How was the acting...okay.

Everything was okay to ehh. In the end, it is a decent watch for those zombie fans, but non zombie fans....there are def better zombie movies out there you can discover.

reply

[–] enfilmigult 8 years ago

I found it very obviously cheap, but I liked it. Funny writing and satirical ideas (not just funny but blunt enough to risk alienating people), acting that ranged from okay to really pretty good, and no attempt to save cash by skimping on the gore effects.

I've seen a bazillion movies like this, and more often than not half the comedy is supposed to come from the mere sight of people shooting zombies and looking all badass, but that's the kind of thing that's only funny if you're friends with the cast and crew. This one, though, I appreciated for not being a glorified home movie but something actually intended to be seen by an audience.

reply