Anthology of Idiocy II

Yes! Back by popular demand, it's another Anthology of Idiocy! [insert great applause here] First up in this edition is a 'review' for the Star Wars Original Trilogy from amazon.co.uk:

For me Star Wars is one of the Worst things ever it is so confusing and Borning and Rubbish. High School musical is 100,000,000 million times better than Star Wars Well. I'm not quite sure where to begin here to be honest with you. So I'll just start at the beginning. I like Star Wars, I'm not it's biggest fan (I'm sorry, but George Lucas cannot write dialogue. Though this original trilogy is way ahead of the prequels in that respect. "Hold me, like you did by the lake on Naboo" for example...) but they are very good entertainment. I can certainly think of worse things. AIDS for example, or Hitler, or war in general. If you are going to criticize one of the most successful film series in history, I would certainly recommend a structured argument based upon it's (many) failings. Not say it's 'confusing and boring'. I'd like to take a closer look at the first complaint. If you find this confusing, then might I suggest sticking to books about dogs losing a red ball. Though you might find the idea of an anthropomorphised dog confusing too... These are effectively children's films. The only way I could think of them becoming confusing is if the DVD skips every other scene and you're on a cocktail of psychoactive drugs. And how are lightsaber duels boring? If you don't find those exciting then I suggest you seek the help of a psychiatrist. And now we reach the highlight of this rant. I'll be honest, I've been looking forward to this. I currently have a smile bigger than the Cheshire Cat's. Though I've never seen it, I can tell you, with the utmost certainty, that High School Musical is the single worst thing to happen to cinema since Twilight. I am aware that Twilight came after, but I don't care. They're both utter shite without equal. These films have no redeeming features whatsoever.

 Here we have this review from our American cousins of Nosferatu: Der Nacht (Nosferatu: The Vampyre, the 1979 film directed by Werner Herzog and starring Klaus Kinski):

THE MOVIE STARTS OUT RATHER CREEPY AND INTERESTING. JUST WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR. IT THEN EVOLVES INTO A CHEESY AND CORNY PIECE OF RUBBISH (Excuse me? How is it cheesy or corny? Please elaborate). THE APPARANT HEROINE AT THE END DECIDES TO LET THE DISGUSTING VAMPIRE INTO HER ROOM TO SUCK HER BLOOD. SO SHE WILL NOW BECOME A VAMPIRE (She doesn't become a vampire. She is just emptied of her blood and killed.) AND THUS TRICK DRACULA INTO FORGETTING IT IS DAWN AND THUS BE DESTROYED (Yes. That seems perfectly reasonable to me. She sacrificed her life to save countless others. What's so wrong about that?). AT ONE POINT IN THE SHOW RATS ARE EVERYWHERE AND PEOPLE ARE DYING OF THE PLAGUE AND WALKING AROUND LIKE ZOMBIES. WHY NOY MAKE IT MORE REALISTIC AND SHOW THE POPULATION ATTEMPTING TO ERADICATE THE RATS. NO, INSTEAD THEY ALLOW THE RATS EVERYWHERE. (This was the 1800s. You couldn't just lay down a few rentokil traps and be done with it you know. It wasn't easy to get rid of rats. Maybe they tried for a while but failed and gave. Or maybe they didn't know rats carried plague. I'm sorry, but this is not a review. It's a random collection of plot points you didn't like for some reason. Now go away.)

I don't mean to go on, but isn't that just the best set you've
ever seen?       Image via Ourobeauros

I like old, silent films. One of my favourites is Das Kabinett des Doktor Caligari (The Cabinet of Doctor Caligari) from 1920. It is a German Expressionist film and regarded as one of the best horror movies of all time. It is also probably the first film to employ the 'twist ending'. And is also arguably one of the earliest cases of the 'unreliable narrator' in cinema. Safe to say then, that this is quite an important release in cinema's early development:

Yuck! This film is aweful! awful! (No, it's absolutely ruddy excellent. Those sets are just wonderful for a start) Why in the world is it still in print? (Because it's an excellent film, who's fantastic sets have helped to keep this film looking so very different and fresh even 90 years after it's first release. The availability of classic films should not be based upon your uninformed opinions of them. Myself and many others do want to see this massively important movie, and should be able to.) Movies like this are out of there their prime (Perhaps, but it is still relevant. Besides, nobody is forcing you to watch it. If you don't like it, don't watch it). The plot is that a mystical man named Calligari uses his zombie (He's not a zombie. He's a somnambulist - a sleepwalker. Pay attention to films you review in future) that tells fortunes to go out on a murder spree and kill certain people. I can't think of anything less tasteless. (You mean more tasteless. Less tasteless would be a double negative, meaning you couldn't think of anything with more taste. And [presuming the double negative was accidental] can't you? What about Holocaust jokes at a bar mitzvah, that would be pretty tasteless. But is that seriously your biggest gripe against this film? That there are murders? Because that's just stupid.)

Thank you for journeying with me through this collection of ridiculous reviews, till next time my pretties!

Apocalypse Now Redux

Col. Kilgore. A surfing, Napalm-smell loving, card-throwing
madman that likes to have Wagner blaring from Hueys.
Such a cliched stereotype...                   Image, marketoracle

Apocalypse Now. In 2002 the finest critics in the world voted it the greatest film of the preceding 25 years for Sight & Sound magazine (the definitive source for such 'Greatest Films' lists). These reviews from Amazon.com, however, are unswayed by these professional reviewers and bravely strike out against this trend. Did I say bravely? I meant badly...:

Judging by this, the original film was salvaged from even more dire material. The former was an insult to both sides who fought in the war (How does it insult both sides? You see very few of your common-or-garden US soldiers. And you don't see any of the Vietnamese). As if a US Colonel would put his men in danger like that. Piffle (I'm afraid you shot down your own argument when you said 'US'. Officers weren't fragged for the good of their health you know. Kudos for you using 'piffle' though). As for Kurtz, the reality was more along the lines of Colonel Norman Schwarzkopf, who according to his autobiography was so appalled by the way a unit he was posted to was run, lined up his men and sacked the incompetent leader in front of them and spent the rest of the war trying to improve matters. He didn't go and sit in the jungle like Kurtz and mumble a lot of existential angst. (Well it isn't meant to be historically accurate in that way. It's based on the novel 'Hearts of Darkness' by Joseph Conrad, updated to the Vietnam War)
'Redux' boasts a truly bizarre scene involving Bunnies. Obviously, the director was making a 'statement' dear to his heart and absurdly irrelevent to the real conflict (The film is about more than just the Vietnam War by the way). Needless to say the film is about American pain with the indigenous population mostly featureless (Well, the indigenous people weren't the focus of the film were they?).
A potentially interesting scene with some French colonials is rendered incomprehensible by rapid exposition and heavy accents (Well they're French aren't they? Why would they sound like they were from California?). The gist of it was that the VC were something of an American Frankenstien monster (Well, they kinda were, weren't they? America has made poor decisions [Vietnam and Iraq for starters] I think you should just accept it. Don't hate anything that suggests America is less than perfect). Despite the French patriarch's flattering description of the VC as intelligent, the film undermines this with some zombified natives willing to lay down their weapons on the whim of an American, regardless of the political issues at stake, because the director wants to make another statement dear to his heart (Actually, they weren't Vietnamese, let alone members of either the NVA or NLF [there was never a group called the Viet Cong. That was made up by the US to make them sound more evil] they were Cambodian). The self righteous disgust of the American in question somewhat undermined by all that carpet bombing. (He was mostly disgusted by Kurtz and the way he portrayed himself as a God. And what carpet bombing? The carpet bombing not depicted in the film? Aside from the Napalm instigated by Colonel Kilgore, there isn't any in the film)

'Apocalypse Now' has been voted into the top 100 best films ever made presumably by people to whom thinking is no doubt an optional extra. (Thinking is very important to Apocalypse Now, what are you talking about? This isn't some Summer Blockbuster you know. Stick to Transformers, eh?)

Be warned, this reviewer isn't any better:

The only thing more ridiculous than Apocalypse Now being on the list of AFI's top 100 movies is that abortion of a film, Citizen Cane Citizen Kane, being number one (Already you're credibility is wavering. An 'abortion' is it? I just wish your mother had had one...). You could sum up the whole movie in an eight-word phrase: a boring, long, pretentious, unoriginal waste of film (Unoriginal? Really? It is long, and I can see why some people might find it boring, but unoriginal?). Francis Ford Coppola should be infinitely ashamed of this disease of a film (Yes, he's definitely going to take your opinion over the likes of: Roger Ebert, Kim Newman and Michael Mann, among others). It is one thing to adapt a book to make a movie, but Apocalypse Now plagiarizes from Heart of Darkness and is still unable to come up with a decent plot. Every plot twist is ripped off directly from Conrad's novel (It doesn't 'plagiarise' it is a valid adaptation. Joseph Conrad is credited for the story for chrissakes, so of course it has the same twists. Moron). Coppola desperately attempts to make the movie his own by filling the movie with nonsense scenes that add nothing to the movie and waste a lot of time ('Add nothing' do they? Thank God the world's leaders gave you ultimate control over what was important and what was not, you've saved us all a lot of time). Can someone explain to me what the scene with the women dancing around then leaving on the helicopter had to do with anything? (It showed that Willard had warmed to his crew and wanted to give them one last bit of fun. Furthermore, this scene and many others were references to the Inferno section of 'The Divine Comedy' [the epic Italian poem by Dante Aligheri, not the Irish band] suggesting Willard and the boat crew's descent into Hell) Or the first scene for that matter? (That was to show how much Willard needed to do this mission, he couldn't adapt to life outside the jungle. The whole scene suggested he was in 'Limbo' furthering the descent into Hell idea.) Furthermore, Coppola continues that try to win "the most unoriginal and uninteresting movie of all time" award by shamelessly exploiting the same war stereotypes seen in EVERY movie ever made about Vietnam (This film was released in 1979 but filming began in 1976/77, it's relatively early as far as the anti-war Vietnam films are concerned. Many of the 'stereotypes' only became stereotypes after the film was released.). The soldiers are smoking dope (The Vietnam film to focus on this most was Platoon, which wasn't released till 1986), the Americans are killing innocent Vietnamese (Well maybe the American troops shouldn't have killed so many innocent Vietnamese then...), and the American commanders are goofy and carefree (and like to surf) (I haven't seen any American commanders like Kilgore in any Vietnam War film I've ever seen. And I've seen most of the major ones. Come to think of it, I can't remember ever seeing a Kilgore-style character in any film. From either before or after this film). The acting of Martin Sheen is unconvincing due to his extremely lack of facial expression (Willard is supposed to be somewhat distanced and lacking in emotion. He wouldn't have worked if he'd been laughing and crying the whole time) and Lawrence Laurence "Larry" Fisherburne is inane (I felt he was the counterpoint to Willard's insular nature). However, the worst offense of this movie, by far and away, was the acting of Marlon Brando (Riiight...). Brando is still doing that stupid Godfather voice. Someone should have told him Don Corlone was dead (Really? The voice of a character who's only in the film for about ten minutes deserves this much hatred does it?). Besides being unintelligible, the shots of Brando's bald head and pantless victims are enough to make me scream "the horror, the horror!" (You seem to be quite scared of naked men. Something you can't admit to yourself there? And how can shots of these things be 'unintelligible'. You could obviously see what was in them...)But the cinematography was really good, though. (Oh praise indeed. Vittorio Storaro's life is now complete [he was the cinematographer by the way]. How can he ever repay you?)

Till next time my loyal fans! And remember, no matter who you are or what you review. If you're shit at reviewing, I'll find you. And I'll mock you.

Banned Book Week

Here at Weeding out the Idiots, we take an unsurprising stance against idiocy in the field of literature. So we'd like to celebrate Banned Book Week with you - a week which celebrates the freedom to read, without idiots censoring books (Unfortunately, they can still write stupid reviews, but you can't have everything.)

 Of course, being useless, we've actually missed Banned Book Week. But at no additional effort, I can post a link for you all - the Internet Archive has a list of free, previously banned books available to download. So why not pop across and read something educational instead of our crap?

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

Wait, there's a homosexual in this book?
Where did I put my matches...?
Image via Wikipedia

The novel One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest was published in 1962. Since then it has become regarded as one of the 20th Century's greatest literary works. It was included in TIME magazine's 100 Best English-Language Novels from 1923 to 2005 and was the basis for the 1975 film of the same name starring Jack Nicholson. Needless to say, not all on Amazon.com agree with the critics:

Well I guess i really can't say anything good about this book, because to be honest I really haven't read this book (Then why, in the name of all that is holy, are you reviewing it you little bastard). The reason why is because for me to be able to read a book it has to grab my attention, and I can't just read a dull book like this one (That's not a valid excuse you know. I will still kick you in your fat arse.). When we read this book in class I knew that I wasn't going to read it, simply because of the fact that it sucked! (How would you know if you didn't read it to the end? You juvenile wanker) This book is too confusing and that also made me not want to read this book (It's not that confusing. I felt it was pretty straightforward, really). Kesey no joke needs some serious help and its a good thing he won't be able to write anymore books (What the fuck? I mean, really, what? The man is dead. Have a little respect. I will fucking end you, you little piss-ant)

I'm sorry. I'm calm again. Maybe this review will calm me down:

If there was ever a more apparent need for a 0 stars rating, this is the time (If there was ever a more apparent need for eugenics, this is the time). The time I took to read this book could have been used for much better things (Getting a brain transplant, perhaps). I could have been reading the newspaper, watching tv, or playing some video games (Please, shut the hell up. You're giving gamers a bad name). Anything would have been better then reading this P.O.S. (Like shooting yourself in the eye. Hey just throwing it out there...). The narrorator (Narrator. I don't think I've ever seen someone spell something that easy, that badly. Congratulations), Bromden, is gay and is constantly talking about how he wants to touch other men, I don't know about you but a book with that crap in it isn't for me (Whoa. Homophobic much? And anyway, he almost certainly isn't homosexual. His desire to touch McMurphy stems from his belief that McMurphy is some kind of Jesus, there to save him and the others from the hospital). Also, the fact that all these people are just staying in this mental hospital when they don't have to is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of (They went there because society didn't want them. They stay because they all believe themselves to be crazy because Nurse Ratched keeps telling them they are. This is all kind of important to the book.). I mean I know this guy was addictted addicted to LSD (He did use it [before it was criminalized], but LSD is non-addictive), but man he must have been really tripping when he wrote this junk (He wrote it whilst working nights at a hospital. He used to talk to the patients who were under the influence of prescribed hallucinogens [the same hallucinogens that he had volunteered to trial for a study into their effects]. Not under their influence, as far as I'm aware). Your You're Cuckoo if you choose to read this book. (Oh ha ha. I see what you did there. You're so witty. Now fuck off and never review anything again.)

That wasn't as calming as I'd hoped to be honest...

Rocky



Cover of Rocky

Cover of Rocky

Personally, I enjoyed the Rocky series. I'm going somewhere with this, and that somewhere is a review of some reviews of Rocky (the first one. Seems the place to start). I mean, it wasn't the greatest film I've ever seen, but I didn't feel I'd wasted my life watching it. I'll admit, I was a little upset when Ben explained that Rocky wasn't actually called Rockward, but I can live with that. So, let's look at some shit. Metaphorically:

Amazon.com:

I dislike all of the Rocky Movies(Please don't be so ambiguous about your opinion). I'm sorry, but they are all mindless (Not really. The story contained some mind, I think), and Sylvester Stalone is annoying, and can't act(Well, he can a little. That's why he was nominated for those awards and shit). One star is giving this movie way too much credit. (Heavens to Betsy)

Amazon.com:

I know many think this was a great movie but it's not for me (So very helpful. I know what not to buy you for Christmas!)

Amazon.com:

Stallones accent doesn't help either (That's not an accent, part of his face was paralysed when he was born. Nice... Want to go kick a guy in a wheelchair next? Bully an elderly dog? You make me sick). Strange enough the sequels were far better. The problem with this film is that it drags too much.

Amazon.com:

This has got to be the worst film I have ever seen in my life (Well, that's your opinion. Of course, to make it relevant as a review you have to actually explain it so it can help other people). I cant believe that there is more that one in the series(Really? You can't believe it? Do you mean you actually find it impossible to believe? Because... You know. They exist). I absolutly hated it (Didn't know that). I have never liked a film with Sylvester Stallone in it (I feel like I'm really getting to know you now). Have you seen his mother (Not in person), You cant tell them apart when there standing next to each other. (Really? I bet I could. And a personal attack on an actor's mother really helps me decide whether I want to buy the film or not.)

Amazon.com:

This movie is just 2 hours of sylvetster stalonne rambling on about something or other(probally homosexuallity (What does that even mean? That's got to be the worst attempt at homophobia I've ever seen. Homophobia, by nature, is the past-time of the stupid. But you, sir, have managed to lower it even further)) and i for one was more impressed with rocky 3 cause it had Mr. T (Mr. T is cool. However, you're not. So I'm not letting you off)

Amazon.com:

This is one of the most overrated movies of all time (Subjectively). Sylvester Stallone is not that good of an actor (You're not that good of a writer), in my opinion. He's not the worst actor ever, but he's definetly not the best (Splendid analysis. I'll draw up an actor talent graph and plonk him in the middle then...). The main reason why I gave this movie 1 star is because the showdown between Rocky and Apollo Creed at the end is very disappointing (I know. I was hoping for a cock fight). I was expecting a big climatic boxing match(Which you got), but I was appalled at just how boring and short it was. Rocky didn't even win the damn World Heavyweight Championship belt from Apollo Creed because the referee stopped the contest too soon (They ran out of time. And the point was Rocky managing to last the distance.). Right before the credits at the very end of the movie, Rocky looks so retarded screaming, "Adrian!" over and over again (Your prose is practically orgasmic). What a lackluster conclusion (What did you want him to do? Win and live in a space mansion?). I've heard people tell me how the climax of this movie gave them goosebumps. Well guess what? I didn't get one single goosebump! (You didn't give me a chance to fucking guess) The ending to this movie sucked! (So do you) Nearly everybody else seems to think that this movie is just the greatest thing they've ever seen, but I don't (You'd probably be better received if you treated us with the intelligence to work that out for ourselves).

A list of extracts from Amazon.com:

I don't know, maybe if I saw the screenplay, it might be seen that none of Rocky's lines has any consonants, which might partly explain Stallone's delivery. (Paralyzed face)

As it is, his range of emotion runs from thoughtful ("Yo, [something unintelligible]") to heartfelt ("Yo, Adrian, [something unintelligible]", long pause, "[Something unintelligible], ya know?"), to angry ("[SOMETHING UNINTELLIGIBLE]!!"). (Paralyzed face)

I'm sure someone will say, "Hey, that's the character, he's just an inarticulate guy." It's just a weak excuse for bad acting. (Paralyzed face)

Seldom could I understand just what rocky was saying, since he seemed to be talking with a mouth full of ham sandwich all the time. (Paralyzed face)

You know, I didn't enjoy Rocky that much, but I feel that it would be easy for people to explain what they disliked about it properly with an understanding of the film...

Maus

Why aren't those mice telling us about the invasion
of Austria. Lazy bastards... Image via sumthinblue

Today I shall be casting my angry eye over Amazon.com reviews for the Pulitzer prize winning Maus. These amateur reviewers will show those professors and such who's boss... or not:

Instead of doing research on the Holocaust,the author has taken bits and pieces of WW2 history and mangled them together in a book that tells a haphazard story (It's actually the true story of his father's experiences during the Holocaust. An in depth knowledge of the Holocaust would be somewhat unnecessary and just ruin the flow of the story).A story that mostly spews out one-sided myths about the Jews and Nazis (Well, this is a effectively a biography of Vladek Spiegelman. So of course it's one sided).The animal carictures were nothing but insensitive and illogical depiction of different nationalities-Nazis portrayed by cats(a species that is lazy,gentle and can get along with mice),Poles portrayed at fat,ugly pigs(which gives people the impression that all Poles are fat and ugly) and Jews portrayed as mice(a species that is cowardly,unhygenic and decietful)-which gives people the impression that all Jews are unhygenic,decietful,cowardly people. (I think you'll find that Spiegelman used different animals to depict each nationality to highlight the stupidity of classifying groups of people by nationality, race or religion. This is from the man himself: "[The animal images were] borrowed from the Germans... Ultimately what the book is about is the commonality of human beings. It's crazy to divide things along nationalistic or racial lines... These metaphors, which are meant to self-destruct in my book - and I think they do self-destruct - still have a residual force that allows them to work as metaphors, and still get people worked up over them.) 

98% of Holocaust facts are missing,replaced with assumptions and myths created by the author (Again, it's not a history book. If you want an objective history of the Holocaust I suggest you look in the history section of your local book shop).There was no mention of how German housewives baked cakes with swahstickas swastikas on them,or how Austria was invaded by the Germans.No mention of the cruel experiments carried out on both people and animals,and no mention of Germany becoming allies with Japan.(Well, no. This is a novel and, as such, has a specific story to tell. Personally, I wouldn't appreciate the book cutting away from the story every two pages to tell me what was happening in the Battle of Britain, say. Whilst very interesting, it has nothing to do with Vladek Spiegelman's tale) Not all the Jews were hung,as the author tries to get you to believe (He doesn't suggest they were all hung. Many were gassed for a start. And if they had all been hung there'd have been no story because the author and subject would be too dead to tell it. That thing betwixt your ears is your brain, please use it).Speigelman-next time try writing an actual book instead of a book that teaches kids myths and assumptions about a certain event in history. (Oh, fuck off. The book only ever describes itself as the story of one man. Why would it go into further detail. This isn't a replacement for history books. But it might just get some children interested enough to read one, which is something to be applauded surely?)

Don't waste your money on this book of assumptions (It's a fucking true story! How is it based on assumptions you mindless oaf?)-get "Schindler's List" for a truthful,accurate documentary on the Holocaust. (No, that's a film based on real-life events, but with many embellishments [rather like Maus come to think of it], not a documentary. Also, Schindler's List is also very narrow in scope, focussing on [unsurprisingly] Oskar Schindler. Go and get a sodding history book, instead of complaining about novels not being all-inclusive.)

Is that not enough for you? Well, alright here's another you ungrateful bastards:

I object to the portrayal of Poles as pigs in this cartoon. It is demeaning and insulting. How would the Jewish author, and Jewish readers, feel if the genocide of Jews during the Holocaust was shown, in a popular comic strip, as Jewish pigs being sent to a giant slaughterhouse? The answer is rather obvious. So why did the author choose pigs to depict Poles? Did he lack the social intelligence of the average 5-year old, or does he harbor malevolence towards Poles? Oh, I apologize for my silly sentiments, because I forgot the obvious answer: The Poles are not deemed a politically-correct victim group, by the liberal elites, so it is perfectly OK to ridicule and demean them, even in widely-used educational material. After all, everyone in the US is equal, but some are more equal than others. (Would you like a milkshake to go with that chip on your shoulder? There are many reasons why pigs were chosen to depict Poles. Art Spiegelman has said that he was referencing famous American cartoon pigs such as Porky the Pig and Petunia Pig, he did not want to insult anyone. There is also the possibility that he is referencing the agricultural background of many Poles. I would suggest that it's worth noting too, that the Germans often called Polish people schwein [pig] just as they called Jews vermin. You also seem to be focussing on the negative aspects of pigs, while they also have many positive features. For example, they are very clean and intelligent animals. Finally, as Art himself points out, why do people complain about his depiction of Poles as pigs, but are okay with Jews being vermin?)

Shaun of the Dead



Image via Wikipedia



I liked Shaun of the Dead. Clearly, I was wrong to laugh. I hope someone eats my spleen. Let's read on:

Amazon.com

To put it simply, this is one of the worst movies ever made (Actually, I don't think that is a simple thing to say. I'd really like you to qualify it). As a comedy, it never made me laugh, and as a horror movie(It wasn't a horror movie. It just had zombies in it. It wasn't meant to actually be scary), it was just like any other stupid zombie flick. I can't understand why so many people love this film(Clearly). It is unbelievably over-stated. This is not worth even reading about it on the back of the cover at the movie store(Well, time is precious). Don't waste your time; it would be better spent taking a dump. (Seriously? The film's over and hour-and-a-half long. If your bowel movements take that long, you might want to see a doctor...)

Amazon.com

I don't know why i'm even wasting time on such a piece of crap(I like it when people summarise their own reviews, saves me time), i guess to set the record straight. First off, if you think that this is or will be better than say the remake of the dawn of the dead, your either retard(Wow, even ignoring the horrible grammar, little offensive there), insane or wanted to like shaun of the dead so much that,COMMA! THERE'S A COMMA HERE! WATCH OUT you had already made up your mind before even watching this film (i too wanted to like this film, being a person that loves zombie films, but also a person that even made one; which didn't turn out to well either(There there)) But i'm still man enough to admit it. I had heard from early on, that this will be the next great zombie movie.(Really? It isn't really a zombie movie though. It's a film with zombies in it) Even a director that put out one of the last good horror movies and a man i greatly respect, Eli Roth "Cabin Fever" loved this film. So when I got a chance to see this film, I was surpised in all respects, it was really bad, I even thought about turning it off.(You think?) I thought at least this film would showcase good fun zombie humor(evil dead movies, braindead aka dead alive) but it would be a insult to even think of them in the same ballpark, even further the same damn sport. I didn't go into the film because there were just to many issues that i had with it(Was it mean to you?). So my friend watch it and determine for yourself(I don't really know you. I don't feel we're friends). All i ask is judge it from your view, not someone else's and you'll see what i'm saying(I did, and I don't know what you're saying). But hell, in the end see the film, just don't buy it first...just rent the damn thing..

Amazon.com

I feel bad for the Brits if this is what they give 5 stars.


Bad Movie in every way! (I'll pass on your racially patronising sympathy to the Queen)

Amazon.com

A completely horrible and boring movie. I guess I'm supposed
to laugh because it's made by brits.(Yup, otherwise we'll kick your asses like we did in Vietnam. Or something) Afterall, if you don't
find their attempts at drawing cheaps laughs (Are you talking about the whole county's film industry? Because you're just patronizing. If I were so racist, I'd call you an American cunt. But I'm not, so I shan't... You're just a cunt) funny it's because
you don't have any humor or culture. (Yes. And vultures will feast on the eyes of your children. We take our shit very seriously.)


Modern PC america at it's worst. Really? What do you even mean? Do you think lynch-mobs of suited Englishmen roam the countryside, tipping their bowler hats to women and hanging those who don't like 'British' humour?