Army of the Dead (2021) (1 Viewer)

[Detour (1945)]

You should have stopped at the end of your critique of the movie.

Agreed. The rest was uncalled for.

 

[spshultz]

I wanted to like this one more than I did. I felt it was just ok but I certainly didn't hate it either. However, I was frustrated for most of it because of the dead pixels I was seeing throughout the entire movie. They would be there for some scenes and not for others. It was driving me absolutely crazy. It's not my projector because I use other streaming services and have no issues so it's got to either be the movie or Netflix.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I should have known better than to waste 3 1/2 hours of my life (including travel time and trailers) to sit through this shipwreck by one of the most overrated filmmakers of our time. There's more blood-splattering in the opening credits than in the entirety of George Romero's career, rendering everything else pretty much anti-climactic, the characters are uniformly assholes, the performances are so dull it's hard to tell them from the actual zombies, and any sentient six-year-old could see the plot twists coming from ten miles away (not surprising given how much of it was ripped off from the later seasons of "iZombie"). Not to mention more endings than "Lord of the Rings." I can understand the knuckle-draggers going for this slop, but the positive reviews from supposedly responsible critics simply baffle me. Zack Snyder? More like Hack Snyder.

How about the fact that the entire central premise is stolen from Train to Busan Presents: Peninsula?

 

[cadavra]

How about the fact that the entire central premise is stolen from Train to Busan Presents: Peninsula?

I didn't see that, but I'll take your word for it.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Finally watched it, and I have to say: it's a bloated mess. Snyder seems to have taken the maxim "Good artists borrow; great artists steal" to heart, so what we wind up with is a pastiche of Aliens, I Am Legend, Land of the Dead, Peninsula, and more. The most original idea in the film is the zombie tiger, and even its originality is debatable. Overall, it's nihilistic with mostly unlikeable characters, some of which are indistinguishable from others, and winds up being boring. I could reference specific scenes where I was practically screaming at the screen, "rip-off!", but it's not worth the effort. Snyder is not a great artist, but he is a solid visual stylist, and agree with others that he should stick to others' scripts.

 

[Randy Korstick]

So what I'm reading between the lines confirms my belief that Zack Snyder has succumbed to the dreaded PJBRTD: Peter Jackson Bloated running Time Disorder.

The difference is Jackson is a good storyteller and rarely wastes running time and his films are based on long books with lots of story so his films feel rushed sometimes even if they are long. This film is just filled with pointless filler that should have been cut since the storyline is so thin to begin with. This movie could have and should have been cut by 45 minutes and it would have lost nothing storywise.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

The difference is Jackson is a good storyteller and rarely wastes running time and his films are based on long books with lots of story so his films feel rushed sometimes even if they are long. This film is just filled with pointless filler that should have been cut since the storyline is so thin to begin with. This movie could have and should have been cut by 45 minutes and it would have lost nothing storywise.

Agree to disagree on some points. He's certainly a good storyteller, but The Hobbit is 310 pages, contrasted with the complete The Lord of the Rings, which is a series of 3 large novels which can be further broken down into 7 books. There was no need to make The Hobbit a 3 film saga, importing material he had judiciously excised from LOTR and inserting characters not in the original novel. King Kong was an adaptation of a film originally running 100 minutes, which Jackson expanded to 188 minutes, nearly doubling the running time to decidedly lackluster results; I still have yet to sit through the whole film without falling asleep. His early work was lean, largely mean, and well paced. I love Bad Taste, Braindead and Heavenly Creatures; Meet the Feebles is a little extreme for my tastes. Heavenly Creatures and The Frighteners are among my favourites, and I'm looking forward to Get Back. He seems to have found new love of cinema in reconfiguring documentary footage.

Zack Snyder OTOH, has great visual style, but needs to avoid the echo chamber in which he has currently ensconced himself. As I've mentioned previously, Army of the Dead is a pastiche with almost nothing original. That can work if properly executed, but here, it becomes a rather numbing game of "guess which movie I'm ripping off here." The biggest crime committed by Snyder? He made a heist movie boring. I used to think that was impossible. Guess not.

 

[Randy Korstick]

Agree to disagree on some points. He's certainly a good storyteller, but The Hobbit is 310 pages, contrasted with the complete The Lord of the Rings, which is a series of 3 large novels which can be further broken down into 7 books. There was no need to make The Hobbit a 3 film saga, importing material he had judiciously excised from LOTR and inserting characters not in the original novel. King Kong was an adaptation of a film originally running 100 minutes, which Jackson expanded to 188 minutes, nearly doubling the running time to decidedly lackluster results; I still have yet to sit through the whole film without falling asleep. His early work was lean, largely mean, and well paced. I love Bad Taste, Braindead and Heavenly Creatures; Meet the Feebles is a little extreme for my tastes. Heavenly Creatures and The Frighteners are among my favourites, and I'm looking forward to Get Back. He seems to have found new love of cinema in reconfiguring documentary footage.

Zack Snyder OTOH, has great visual style, but needs to avoid the echo chamber in which he has currently ensconced himself. As I've mentioned previously, Army of the Dead is a pastiche with almost nothing original. That can work if properly executed, but here, it becomes a rather numbing game of "guess which movie I'm ripping off here." The biggest crime committed by Snyder? He made a heist movie boring. I used to think that was impossible. Guess not.

Agreed the Hobbit is one book but that isn't what the film trilogy was based on. The film trilogy was meant to tell the story of the hobbit book and bridge the gap between the hobbit and the lotr the book does not do this. This was done by using material from the lotr appendices and the unfinished tales which together equaled another book. So it could have be done as two films but lots of popular trilogies could have be done as two films but the key word is popular. But The Hobbit films were never intended or announced as being based on just that book.

 

[Keith Cobby]

The Hobbit is a wonderful book and would have made a great film. However I have no desire to see the trilogy.

Back to Army, too many of these 'me too' films look like made for streaming fodder, the modern equivalent of straight to video.

 

[SamT]

I wanted to like this one more than I did. I felt it was just ok but I certainly didn't hate it either. However, I was frustrated for most of it because of the dead pixels I was seeing throughout the entire movie. They would be there for some scenes and not for others. It was driving me absolutely crazy. It's not my projector because I use other streaming services and have no issues so it's got to either be the movie or Netflix.

OH MY GOD THAT WAS IN THE MOVIE? I was completly losing my mind. I thought that this expesinve OLED TV I bought just few years ago is dying. You have no idea how depressed I felt that my OLED TV is malfunctioning. I gave this movie 5/10 but if I knew about the dead pixels, I would have removed several stars just for the dead pixels!

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Agreed the Hobbit is one book but that isn't what the film trilogy was based on. The film trilogy was meant to tell the story of the hobbit book and bridge the gap between the hobbit and the lotr the book does not do this. This was done by using material from the lotr appendices and the unfinished tales which together equaled another book. So it could have be done as two films but lots of popular trilogies could have be done as two films but the key word is popular. But The Hobbit films were never intended or announced as being based on just that book.

I'm one of those blackly cynical souls who believes The Hobbit was expanded to three films to make as much money as possible, in the same way that studios adopted the practice of splitting the final book in a series into two parts to maximise profits. Even two films seemed a bit of a stretch in the early going, before Peter Jackson assumed control after Guillermo del Toro left. Commerce cannot be ruled out in these circumstances, as film is a business, not an altruistic medium. Creative freedom can be a wonderful thing, but most times the best art is born out of restraint and limitation.

Bringing this full circle, no restraint was exercised on Zack Snyder in creating Army of the Dead, and it shows. It's bloated, unfunny, and lacks creativity. Tig Notaro and Dave Bautista do a lot with thankless roles, but ultimately, the enterprise is so..... empty.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

One quote I love is “art thrives on limitations”.

For better or worse or sometimes both, traditional studios impose limitations, usually borne out of practicality. Movie theaters have certain capacities and film lengths are kept in check by the need to show the film X number of times a day in order to generate enough revenue to keep the place running. Limiting run times is one of many ways to keep budgets in check. Etc, etc.

Netflix removes those barriers by giving talent more leeway with budgeting and control over runtime. They don’t insist on final cut the way most studios do most of the time.

Sometimes it works out.

But more and more, as I watch these films created for streaming platforms rather than theaters, I’m struck by how not evil they make conventional studios seem. These limitations are not always bad things.

I think Snyder is an amazing visual director with great enthusiasm for his subject matter, but that enthusiasm doesn’t always translate when he isn’t challenged by the limitations and practicality of the format.

 

[Randy Korstick]

I'm one of those blackly cynical souls who believes The Hobbit was expanded to three films to make as much money as possible, in the same way that studios adopted the practice of splitting the final book in a series into two parts to maximise profits. Even two films seemed a bit of a stretch in the early going, before Peter Jackson assumed control after Guillermo del Toro left. Commerce cannot be ruled out in these circumstances, as film is a business, not an altruistic medium. Creative freedom can be a wonderful thing, but most times the best art is born out of restraint and limitation.

Bringing this full circle, no restraint was exercised on Zack Snyder in creating Army of the Dead, and it shows. It's bloated, unfunny, and lacks creativity. Tig Notaro and Dave Bautista do a lot with thankless roles, but ultimately, the enterprise is so..... empty.

The 3rd movie was definitely added for money which is what I meant by popular but it was intended and filmed as 2 movies since there were two books worth of material. When Jackson was wrapping up production on the two films he told the studio that he had extra material and that if they gave him the budget to film another hour he could deliver 3 movies. They quickly green lighted that and it worked it was another successful trilogy. But aren't all sci fi, comic book and fantasy films designed to make money above anything else.

 

[Detour (1945)]

But aren't all sci fi, comic book and fantasy films designed to make money above anything else.

I would say 99.99% of films are made to make money, no matter what their makers try to tell us. Doesn't mean all of them should be made.

THE HOBBIT could have been one really great film. Instead, it's a trilogy of diminishing returns.

 

[Richard Kaufman]

One of the worst screenplays in years. The director must think we are morons.

 

[Robert Crawford]

One of the worst screenplays in years. The director must think we are morons.

For the most part, he might be right.

 

[sleroi]

Just recently got Netflix, thanks to my son's T-Mobile account. I've been catching up on things and decided to watch Army of the dead. Seemed like a fun concept and I was hoping after the justice league drama Snyder decided to make a fun movie. Boy was I wrong.

In the first 5 minutes he sets a heavily armored military convoy on a way too obvious collision course with a guy receiving a BJ while driving (was this written by a 13 year old?). It's obvious what's going to happen but still takes forever. And when it does, the resultant explosion was powerful enough to decimate the front of a large armored truck and send a giant steel box 40 feet in the air? I understand movie physics are different than real world physics but this was just absurd. I really felt like my intelligence was being insulted.

Then the opening credits starts with topless zombie showgirls attacking over a Richard cheese song. Maybe this will be fun after all. Nope. The credits are followed by what seemed like an hour of depression, agony, slow motion melodrama.

I guess the idea of there being a zombie society/hierarchy inside Vegas was kind of a novel concept, but the overall tone was so dour I couldn't enjoy it. And it just drug on and on.

And after it ended there was a second ending that, just like the beginning, was so telegraphed and obvious and still took forever to play out.

And for all of the talk of Snyder being a great visual director, I didn't really find any of the visuals terribly memorable. Sure there were some great, gruesome zombie kills, but that's about all this movie had going for it for me.