It's one of those stupid but funny films. My kind of movie :D

A perfect picture, from all angles. Brilliant scenario that plunges you into oblivion in face of the characters' fatality. I found myself, every few minutes, wondering about the future of these people, and about the choices they'll need to take. At no moment did I feel their actions unplausable or in any way absurd, the evolution was truly mastered. There was a great attention on details, every book, every piece of music, every shot, had a meaning and a reason to be there. The acting was wonderful, Ulrich Mühe portrayed his role so perfectly (I just found out he died 2 years ago... I think my heart just broke). The image also was superb, so was the sound design. I was so glad noticing this 10 000Hz frequency coming out of the monitors each time it was turned on, a detail always forgot in movies. It's just those little things that make this film so great. Finally, I need to give a big thumb up to Stéphane Moucha and Gabriel Yared for the original music, also very well made.

If the zombie "Bub" looks like this, then it's the original :

http://www.best-horror-movies.com/im...-Bub-small.jpg

Can't say I much liked Day of the Dead, though. Aside from people getting killed by zombies and Bub acting weird, where's the attraction? You already know long before it happens that strained relations between the survivors is what's gonna .. .. oh, that's a spoiler.

^^^

Blasphemy!

Wherever it's from, I've made my point :D It's probably a promo from a few years back is my guess. The film did take about five years to make after all, or something like that.

Funnily enough, I was arguing along similar lines with some mates down the pub only last night. Despite what a lot of them thought, cutting-edge CGI does not a good film make! Or at least not to me anyway.

On the other hand, it does not a bad film make either.

Meaning the rest of us are being dishonest? :rolleyes: You really shouldn't be judging the film before you see it. I personally thought it was great fun, predictability aside. Sometimes that doesn't hurt a film, especially if you have so many other really cool things to look at/ponder.

OT: Night on Earth - Jim Jarmush - the first story was kinda annoying (actually, Winona Ryder is annoying) but the rest is pretty good.

Roman Polanski: Wanted and desired - Interesting look at the Polanski "rape" affair and the reason why he fled the country. Recommended, especially if you're a fan of his work (he's still a perv though).

Primer - got to about 40 minutes, didn't understand a thing that was happening and decided it would be silly to continue watching it as it's unlikely to get any more clear/interesting. I guess I'm just too retarded...:/

No one has mentioned dishonesty, it's just good to hear someone have an alternative view of the film and I was talking about reviews in general in the media and not just here. There has been a lot of talk about the sub par script but the CGI has seemed to gloss over that which is a shame. Take away the CGI and 3D and will it still be as good?

I HAVEN'T seen it and haven't said anything overly negative about it but I see so much adoration for the film that I hope I'm not let down when I see it so someone not liking it makes a refreshing change.

You turned off Primer? That film cost peanuts and is probably the finest Sci Fi film of the last ten years :( It's only around 80 mins long so you were halfway through anyhow!

So what? The way it all plays out is still great stuff. Captain Rhodes is so over the top, and he probably has the best death scene in the whole series.

One of my favorite movies. I agree with you that the first segment is the weakest though.

That's a great movie. I can't believe you couldn't understand it. I mean it does start getting convoluted after a while but that's the whole point.