MovieChat Forums > Silent Night, Zombie Night (2009) Discussion > Don't bother

Don't bother

posted 12 years ago by jufjo
13 replies | jump to latest

Ok maybe we've been spoiled with the high quality of special and makeup effects in the last couple of years but this movie looks cheap.
Not just the makeup and effects but everything.
Like a student movie made by some friends for a laugh.
Bad dialogue, bad acting, bad makeup, bad story, etc.

I only watched it because it had high ratings here on IMDB, I bet cast, crews and extra's gave it a high rating.
Sadly that doesn't work.
Because viewers who watch it feel like they need to adjust the rating by rating it extra low.

[–] dist_roy 12 years ago

A HUGE +1 on everything.

[–] Pumpkin_Man 12 years ago

Does it have a 'so bad it's good' vibe, or is it just plain bad?

http://www.youtube.com/user/pumpkinman4ever?feature=mhum

[–] dist_roy 12 years ago

It never gets good.

[–] carlphillips408 12 years ago

Terrible storyline.I think this is the zombie movie that you can curl up with your girlfriend & watch.Hence the love story as the woman decides which man she wants to commit herself to.If that was my bitch she would get a damned good bitch slapping.

[–] Strawberry_Typhoon 12 years ago

I have no comment as to the quality of this film. I haven't watched it yet. I just wanted to alert you to the fact that statements like the following:

"I only watched it because it had high ratings here on IMDB, I bet cast, crews and extra's gave it a high rating. "

make you look like a moron. You shouldn't assume such things, based solely on the fact that you have a narrow film spectrum.

"Nothing says "OBEY ME" like a severed head on a fence post."

[–] Undutchable1939 12 years ago

It actually makes sense to assume this as it is rather common on IMDB.
High ratings can make someone curious, wanting to see if it is indeed an unknown gem or a artificially uprated monstrosity.

Regarding my film spectrum sir, I suggest you speak not of things you know nothing about.

[–] Strawberry_Typhoon 12 years ago

It happens, there's no doubting it. But it happens about 90 percent less of the time than people insinuate. People use it as a clutch now, to allude to the fact that nobody could possibly like a film that they don't.

"Nothing says "OBEY ME" like a severed head on a fence post."

[–] msyndergaard 11 years ago

no, it happens frequently. That's why IMDb changed the way the rating system works. They won't tell us exactly how the new formula works. What they did explain is that if a movie gets a high number of similar votes (negative or positive) then the average will actually be more like a curve so that the weight of all the cast members' (or trolls giving negative ratings for say an Uwe Boll film) ratings will have less weight.

[–] StoneGriffin 12 years ago

BAD cinematography. One key to spotting a crap low budget effort is (a) look for a lack of long lenses. Crap filmmakers use wide angle lenses and just walk around close to the actors and try to catch everything. So everything has that 'youtube' look and (b) look for blown out skies. If the skies or bright spots are over exposed so that they look all blown out white, you dont' have a skilled D.P.

Also I'm tired of films with obviously toy plastic guns, mime firing with BAD CGI gun flashes on them. It looks like crap. Watch a real movie for comparison. The reason why REAL movies with budgets use real guns with blanks is that the human action/reaction looks authentic. I never fully appreciated this until I saw the recent PLETHORA of low budget movies where they just have actors 'mime firing' airsoft lightweight toy guns. It looks weird. The guns look too light and the actors can't fake the recoil with their 'acting'. Advice to filmmakers, take the time/find the money to get the permits and armorer and get REAL BLANKS for your actors. The gunfights won't look so laughable.

I don't even address the script or direction. The acting was actually pretty good, but the image was just so bad that I couldn't get into the film like I do with a more professional film.

Dr. Kila Marr was right. Kill the Crystalline Entity.

[–] Aligator_Sam 12 years ago

A lot of the posters on this thread seem like a bunch of stick up their butt film snobs. It's nice you learned a lot in film school and were able to take that knowledge and come post on IMDB. lol

[–] StoneGriffin 12 years ago

Thanks! Yes, I know. But they are better than the boorish dolts who marginalize any criticism with the lame line "If you don't like it, don't watch it" or 'It's just a movie". Those dolts don't realize that they are actively defending bad quality. Most viewers can identify a bad script. Most viewers with no training usually can't identify why a scene or film looks really bad.

Dr. Kila Marr was right. Kill the Crystalline Entity.

[–] Aligator_Sam 12 years ago

I was actually being sarcastic, but now I sound sort of rude.

I guess I watch movies for the story. If I like the story then I like the movie. Honestly, basing a movie on the fact if they used long lenses seems kind of silly. I've seen a whole lot of low budget movies that are pretty good. They can't compete with big budget films nor should they be held up to them either.

Another film I watched recently was called Absentia which I believe was made for very little money. It was on one of those kickstarter type places. It was really good. I highly doubt it had long lenses.

Oliver Stone purposely did Natural Born Killers with a lot of different 'looks' and some of them were crappy looking. On purpose.

I think to really judge a low budget film from a technical stand point is by the sound. You can have a picture quality that's not the best on purpose, but there's nothing artistic about bad sound.

[–] StoneGriffin 12 years ago

I understood you perfectly. My response was not sarcasm nor a joke. Cheers :D

Dr. Kila Marr was right. Kill the Crystalline Entity.