Oh yeah Nightcrawler, well I say!
"-When you have your zombie plague basically wipe out the whole world, it kind of defeats the purpose of the characters' struggle for survival, since it's futile anyway. It may be all well and good to go on some artsy tirade about mankind struggling in the face of futility, but there are better venues for such philosophical jibber-jabber than a movie with zombies in it."
Nah, I like it when a movie skips the canned happy ending. Some times things don't work out.
"-Since it was a horror movie, and modern "horror" movies are really just "gross" movies (especially in this genre), one went expecting to see blood and gore for its own sake. However, the trend in the movie seemed to be "Let's have horrilble things happen to women and children. It's more shocking that way!" The woman being cut in half with the chainsaw. The zombie baby. The zombie little girl. The zombie boyfriend running off and attacking the girl, after he can't catch the heroine's car. The woman in the back of the transit bus being mauled alive by two zombies. It's just me, I know, some weird by-product of my subconscious, but I really, REALLY don't like seeing violence against women, especially to such a gory degree. I'm sure most people are much less bothered by such a thing (in a movie, at least) than I am, though.""
You really better skip "the Exorcist."
"-The big plot hole, of course, was how such a virus could spread so rapidly, world-wide, over night. (It'd have to start somewhere, but would likely be contained to that landmass, at least; the virus seemed to "zombify" within minutes, and zombies aren't getting on airliners.) But, if it built up slowly, you'd lose the "apocolyptic" sense that they were sort of shooting for, but I don't think zombie movies are really the best choice for a emotional drama about facing the end of the world as we know it."
This is a movie about animated corpses eating human flesh! That in itself is a big plot hole. Plus, I'm not really sure that it was a virus at all. Who knows?
And why didn't the zombies chase the dog?
Well maybe if the movie was set in Kore....O.K. I'll stop!
"In a zombie movie, you expect most of the main characters to die. It's tradition. But typically, the woman and (often) the black guy survive. IN this movie, apparently everybody died. I don't know if having an entire movie where everybody dies at the end is "artistic" or just a cheap trick to try to be scary, but whatever. '
It is neither. It is the end of the story. They can't all end the same. That would be boring.
"People talk about when TSHTF...well, that's about as hitting the fan as the **** can get, folks. And you know what? The tricked out AR-15 and all that ammo isn't going to help much. Eventually, you're going to run out of ammo, or your'e going to have to sleep. And even if you do hole up someplace secluded, so what? The zombie plague was, apparently, world wide, with no means of stopping it. It's the end. You're not going to have any children. You're not going to get married. Everyone you've ever really loved is dead, and trying to eat you nonetheless. Civilization is gone. Humanity is done for. The remainder of your life is just you waiting to die, with nothing in the way of accomplishment to pass the time."
Bah, everything is just waiting to die. Get up and fight soldier!
"In the original Dawn of the Dead, it was stated that the Zombies needed to eat to keep them going. If that's the case, then there is hope; the "zombie virus" would eventually burn itself out, like ebola, simply because there'd be more zombies in most places than people for them to eat. And eventually, the existing zombies will rot away in any case. The trick after that (assuming you survive) is making sure the plague doesn't reoccur."
That was the assumption. but in "Day of the Dead" they showed that the zombies desire to eat, but do not need to.
I say the movie is a hoot. This isn't great art folks, it is a rollercoaster shoot-em-up zombie flick with all the trimmings!
GHB