REVIEW: Weak Plot, Exhaustive Military Bashing Undercut ‘The Crazies’
by John NolteHollywood’s problems are such right now that the only way they can make any money is through soul-killing popcorn films that everyone sees, no one likes, and fewer of us are buying on DVD. We are simply no longer willing to pay for any film that looks anything close to “serious.” But can you blame us? After a decade-plus of being relentlessly beat over the head with anti-American, anti-troop, anti-Bush, anti-Southern, and anti-anything that isn’t elitist Blue State and all things Meterosexual, if the trailer doesn’t contain a whole lot of explosions or some kind of romcom meet-cute, we just aren’t going to risk being insulted.
One way Hollywood might earn a smidgen of our goodwill back would be to lay off the American military. If these Hollywoodists were just a little flexible and willing to meet us halfway — if they were just willing to treat the American military with half the respect they show for a child-rapist director, there could be a mutual quiet area in this ongoing culture war that would benefit all of us.
After all, how hard would it have been to make “The Crazies‘” evildoers — those who bully, terrorize, and murder the innocent civilians of a small Iowa town, something other than our military? There’s a whole world of bad guys out there but as our guys risk and sacrifice everything to liberate 50 million people they’ve never met in Iraq and Afghanistan, as they do God’s work in Haiti, I’m supposed to sit back and accept them being portrayed as no better than concentration camp Nazis?
The primary job of a filmmaker is to cast and hold on to a storytelling spell, and one of the easiest ways to break that spell is through a lack of verisimilitude that pulls the audience out of the story as they think, “Wait, that would never happen.” And one thing good people are most sure would never happen is that, as an institution, our military would behave like concentration camp Nazis.
For this reason “The Crazies” isn’t just morally illiterate and anti-troop, but other than an intriguing first act and a few well-staged scenes, it’s a lousy piece of film-making. And the fact that it’s a remake and that this attack on our military holds true to George Romero’s 1973 film of the same name (the worst directed movie in history without the name Ed Wood on it) doesn’t matter. At least in Romero’s day troop-bashing wasn’t a tired-as-hell cliche, but more to the point, the American people (as least the good ones) are sick of seeing our best and brightest smeared — especially by the same ungrateful, spoiled millionaires who have benefited most from their sacrifice.
But even without this spell-breaking propagandist attack, “The Crazies” wouldn’t have much going for it.
On a perfect summer day, the idyllic life of small town America is forever broken as a man in some kind of trance interrupts a local baseball game as he makes his way across the field carrying a shotgun. With no other choice, Sheriff David Dutton (Timothy Olyphant) is forced to shoot him. And this is just the beginning. For no explicable reason everyday people start to brutally murder and torture each other. But just as Dutton unravels the mystery, the military puts the entire town on containment and soon it’s hard to tell the difference between those who are “crazied” and those simply fighting back.
The mystery and tension builds quite well through the first act thanks to some truly frightening scenes and a growing sense of paranoid isolation. Unfortunately, this falls apart as the plot becomes just another Gotta Get To Point B story where logic is tossed out the window to service a narrative that gets less compelling by the minute. For example, if the American military and a townful of murderous crazies were hunting you, would you walk or drive down the middle of a road in broad daylight?
For “The Crazies” to make sense it should’ve moved its location from Middle America to the 90210 zip code where a large majority of the population really would be stupidly clueless without access to cell phones and servants. And while I still wouldn’t believe it when our military roughed up The Pampered Elites, the vicarious thrill of it all would override the need to suspend any disbelief.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
136 Comments
For “The Crazies” to make sense it should’ve moved its location from Middle America to the 90210 zip code where a large majority of the population really would be stupidly clueless without access to cell phones and servants. And while I still wouldn’t believe it when our military roughed up The Pampered Elites, the vicarious thrill of it all would override the need to suspend any disbelief.
That cracked me up – more than a little.
More shorthand thinking from the scriptwriter. Trot out the usual suspects – after all, the horror is the point and nobody really cares who perpetrates it. Sad.
Hey John,
Sorry you wasted you time seeing this turd but many thanks for the warning. Bashing our military is right up there with baby killing, in my mind. Both seem to be uniquely Liberal pastimes. The real 'Crazies' are the leftist hollyweird loons who made this piece of excrement. I think I'll pass.
There's a reason that about the only movies worth seeing have the word "Pixar" before the title.
I was looking forward to this. Romero's film is surpisingly watchable, I like Olyphant and heard some good things.
Scorpion and frog story all over again.
I didnt see the original, one of the few Romero movies I missed. He's still an icon in the genre though. the 1979 Dawn of the Dead was one of the best, goriest zombie movies ever made. I have heard the original Crazies was truly bad but the original premise made it a military craft accident spilling the virus…dont know how much troop bashing was in that one.
Thanks for the heads-up, John. More money I won't be spending on the military bashing puke from Hollywood. If I want to watch a zombie movie, I'll stick to the good old Night of the Living Dead.
The U.S. military as a whole and the individual soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coast guardsmen as so superior morally, spiritually, physically, mentally and than the effete, pampered, drug-addled denizens of the Lying Left that the leftists can't help themselves – their hate and envy is palpable and obvious in their "art".
A miltary person doing his or her job – risks EVERYTHING – life and limb.
A punk making a crappy movie risks nearly NOTHING – except embarrassment, an accident or maybe a hangnail.
I choose the miltary side.
I'm saving my zombie/infection plague movie viewing time for World War Z. To be released between now and who knows.
Its not likely the pro German anti war intellectuals had an influence in movie making of the WW1 era
to the extent that it could or at least that I am aware of, not being that knowledgeable of movie lore.
It seems the patriotic bent of the movies during WW2 and after lasted about 15/20 years or to the 60s.
Now we are approaching 50 plus years of anti Military/anti American themed movies with no immediate end in sight, where Hollywood is recycling for the second or third time their anti everything except depravity.
I suppose the "Don't ask Don't tell" todo, well further fuel Hollywoods attempt to diminish our
country in the eyes of the world for another few years or so.
Mr Nolte everything else being equal will you be reviewing the "Crazies 6" or some Oliver Stone
anti American epic plot rerun or is their an end in sight, will it take a major upheaval of some kind to accomplish or just until the 60's generation is hit in the rear with a spade?
I see this movie having great appeal to the Alex Jones crowd – after all, for years they've been insisting that this is exactly who our military are – repressed concentration camp Nazis and sadistic mass murderers just waiting to be let loose on society.
I went because I like Olyphant, and zombie stories — which I had considered one of the last remaining sub-genres safe from stunted post-hippie lefty politics. My bitter lesson: nothing is safe. Nothing.
To call this execrable movie "heavy-handed" is an understatement.
It made me smile.
It's too bad that this remake can't seem to fix the problems of the original. I was looking forward to this new version of The Crazies because I think the best movies to be remade are bad movies with good premises and that description fits Romero's The Crazies perfectly.
The problem both movies seem to have is the assumption that the audience would buy the military as the bad guys in this situation, when, for me watching the original, I was thinking the townsfolk were being selfish jerks for trying to break out of the military perimeter and the soldiers who were trying to save the rest of America by quarantining the town were the good guys.
If played right, the new film could have explored the conflict between individual rights versus the greater common good, i.e.: the small town people who don't want to be imprisoned and who didn't ask for a virus to spread in their town versus the basically good military trying to contain a dangerous virus so it doesn't spread to the rest of the country. Really, the only "bad guys" in a film like this should be the infected "crazies" who are homicidal.
World War Z fell apart because no one can agree on a script.
AMC is doing a series out of the Walking Dead comic though.
[...] Reviews: John Nolte at Big Hollywood Kyle Smith Sonny Bunch at the Weekly Standard Christian Toto Debbie [...]
This is way off topic, but John, was your takeaway of Children of Men also that it was "anti-troop"? Which branch of the military did you serve in when you had the chance, by the by?
I got a movie for you, it's called personal immortality. It's conservatism, baby. I don't need no freaking hollywood. Got my own infinite life, law, beauty, & aesthetics. -thank you very much.
That film was already made, it was called Outbreak.
The moment I saw in the trailer that a 'crazie' was singing a Christian hymn ('all things wise and wonderful') I knew where this film was going. And yup, sure enough, there it was just a few seconds later – decent townsfolk running for their lives as someone screams 'the military are shooting people'. Yup, Hollywood knows the drill – a Christian hymn warns of 'evil American soldiers' like 'Horst Wessel' warns of Nazis.
Well, my interpretation of 'wise and wonderful' means that I am never going to see this film, let alone buy it on DVD.
Ditto. Thank you John.
And what branch of the military he served in matters why?? You do not have to have served to know a movie is anti-military and our soldiers are not blood crazed killers. And yes i did serve 6 years in the US Navy Submarine Force before you ask me
And yes Children of Men did have an anti-military element to it. i.e. the military killing unarmed refugees
John,
I saw one or two trailers for this in the theaters and did not see anything that hinted at the anti-troop message. Still I was put off by something in the trailers that this would not be a good film to see. Thanks for pointing this out.
You know the meme would not be so bad if the attempt was made to make it a high level philisophical take on the inherent dangers of the power of the military. The men and women in the military wield a lot of raw power and I can see the need to explore a situation where that power gets corrupted and misued. A truly enlightened approach would be the good guys and bad guys in the same military. But that is not what is done here and in the other moives. It is nothing more than pure propaganda. The military vote Republican so we must belittle them. They have guns let's call them baby killers. It is sad and tired but intellecctually bankrupt.
Not to mention the corrupters of the military would not be the generals. They would probably be statist politicians bent on power.
The chicken hawk argument never gets old. Mr. Nolte must never talk about the military because he didn't serve. (Maybe he did. I don't know.) Obama never served in the military, therefore he's unfit to act as Commander in Chief, therefore he must resign from the Presidency. So must every member of Congress who never served because they can vote to declare war. Every citizen who didn't serve must also lose the right to vote in elections because they can elect the politicians who send soldiers to war. Just carrying out your argument to it's logical conclusion.
btw I do not agree with Robert Heinlein's idea from that book.
Yeah, Children of Men was really about the complete breakdown of society when mankind is doomed for extinction. Although, if you had actually, you know SEEN it, you would remember that the soldiers pointedly stop shooting when Clive Owen and the baby are revealed.
Remember, it's the terrorist group who kills Owen, not the soldiers.
The point about what branch Mr. Nolte served in is that it's been my experience that the people who scream the loudest for war and/or post hypersensitive denunciations of movies that fail to portray the military in less than propaganda like adulation most likely passed up the chance to serve. I find a distressingly large number of 1960's Vietnam culture warriors who managed to score 4-F's for themselves.
It's actually a good thing you don't agree with Heinlein, there are a distressingly large number of people who do.
Perhaps the Chickenhawk argument should only be confined to pro-war types who still managed to avoid going to Vietnam when they were draft eligible.
It still is a fact that if a movie portrays a military person as anything less than John Wayne, Mr. Nolte screams bloody murder. Then again, if the Crazies had changed its plot to a private company accidentally dumping the virus and bringing in a mercenary Blackwater type security outfit to control the outbreak, Nolte would be screaming "anti-capitalist".
Glad you know what movies i have seen and not seen, but wait what is that on the 4th shelf of my DVD collection, why its a little ol movie called Children of Men. and yes i know the scene you are talking about. They stopped shooting because of the baby, you know the first one they has seen in years. and as soon as the baby was clear they started shooting into the building again.
And you may want to watch who you call terrorists or you may have your liberal creditials pulled. The "terrorists" were fighting for refugee rights. They shot Clive Owens character because he would not give them the baby they wanted to use to bring down the govenment.
And just like you i find a large number of 60's era culture warriors who did not serve a day making staements on life on the military and how evil the military is. So we are even on that score well not really because more of the Hollywood elites who did not serve feel it is alright to make anti-military movies. So until you make a patrol on a sub, dont make a movie telling me how subamriners live or act on a sub i.e. Crimson Tide
You've got it wrong, Don't Ask Don't Tell already diminishes our country in the eyes of world. I mean, you've got a military who is fighting Islamic extremism, and you kick out some of the only Arabic translators you have because of their sexual orientation? Not going into battle with all your resources is sort of foolish, no? Never mind that a formidable army like ISRAEL has gay soliders. Hasn't hurt their effectiveness a whit.
Actually, the terrorists weren't really fighting for refugee rights, their whole schtick was just waging revolution, even though publicly revealing the child would have accomplished their goals. It was a marvelous movie, even if it was substantially more nihilistic than the PD James book.
Well, I had nothing to do with Crimson Tide, and frankly the number of ghostwriters they had working on that script was more of a problem than the message of the film.
I know, we could do a movie about politicians bent on power who decide they can score cheap political points by pretending that a two-bit dictator that their own government used to support in the past now possessed nuclear and chemical weapons and was hellbent on giving them over to a terrorist group that had previously attacked the politicians country. The drama of the movie would occur when it's revealed that the weapons didn't exist, the alliance with the terrorist group was nonexistent, and that the invasion primarily was to give the country a staging area to launch another invasion. I doubt the movie would get made because the premise is so hard to believe…
I've never seen Outbreak. Do the infected people turn into crazy homicidal maniacs?
"Perhaps the Chickenhawk argument should only be confined to pro-war types who still managed to avoid going to Vietnam when they were draft eligible."
Therefore by your logic anyone who didn't serve in the military cannot hold office or vote. Obama should resign immediatly. He didn't serve in the military so he cannot ever order soldiers to war, but he's the commander in chief and he might have to make that choice.
"It's actually a good thing you don't agree with Heinlein, there are a distressingly large number of people who do."
Yes, one of them is you.
The argument for or against gays in the Military is much too complex for this space and the
arguments that would ensue is not of interest to me. I agree with the Military's current policy as you may or may not. I am referring to the how Hollywood handled the outcome of the prop 8 vote. It was considered by the all participants at the time, to the best of my knowledge, as a legitimate way to determine the legality marriage question between same sex adults, put it up to a vote. That is
until everyone vote against it. The gays are still denouncing the outcome as unfair, illegal and damn those Mormons. Strangely silent against Pres. Obama and black churches. The pro gay in Hollywood which is a good portion of the industry reflect at every chance they get how rotten we are as a nation to allow such a travesty and it will probably show up in the movies they make if they do not already.
Gays, for or against is not a concern of mine how the constitution is interpeted is.
P.S. The Israel position on gays is arguable as is the Saudis position on gays. For another time.
Seeing your opinion on Scorsese not too long ago, I'm far more interested what you thought of Shutter Island.
Frankly, I guess the movie when I saw the trailers.
here's a better one… a president, more interested in bedding interns and defiling the oval office, is faced with news of genocide in a backwater 3rd world country. rather than stand up decisively as the leader of the free world and act to save lives when all other countries are refusing to act, he instructs his secretary of state and UN ambassador to delay and stall all organized efforts and calls for action from human rights activists. he further insists that such genocide not actually ever be called genocide, because that would force him to act. he instructs his secretary of state to engage in a months long game of semantics, all while day after day, innocent and defenseless Africans are butchered in bloody tribal warfare, while the leader of the free world pretends that there is no crisis for him to act upon. many months later, as the true scope of the slaughter in this backwater country starts to reach the outside world, this president shrugs his shoulders and declares himself a human rights activist and the first African American president.
i wonder if Hollywood would make a movie about that? didn't thinks so.
Fark gave you a fail tag but your review is not that far off of the mark.
(Spoiler alert) I thought that the military characterized as remote controlled and almost robotic behind their masks and hazmat suits and google style targeting and containment maps was interesting when juxtaposed against the soldier who you see unmasked by the protagonists that once revealed is just a scared kid taking orders but lets Olyphant & co escape. I did NOT enjoy the over the top redneck zombie shootemup, which although is probably meant as an homage to Romero, is inappropriate, offensive, and out of place in this day and age. I enjoyed the film but have thought again about my experience in light of your review. Thank you.
For those who are so worried about Hollywood anti-military messages in films and who presents those messages, I point out Stanley Kubric's 1987 film Full Metal Jacket. This film may be viewed both as an anti-war movie or as a recruiting poster. R. Lee Ermey, the poster sergeant for Marine Drill Instructors made his career based on the dehumanizing and brutal portrayal of Gunny Hartman. Yet while this imagery may serve to turn people away from the military, it is almost universally accepted by members of the military who relate fondly to it.
Movies like The Crazies can have a similar multi-faceted role. While some may view the role of the military in this film with a knee jerk black and white reaction and call the film "anti-military," others (like me) view the film as a commentary on what our military could be capable of if not kept in check by an attentive and questioning society.
As an Army officer and a student of military history, I am comfortable speaking about the wrongs that have been committed by our military. Some of our military's ethical failures have come as the result of individual soldiers losing sight of what is right, and some of the failures have come as the result of policy decisions at the highest levels of the chain of command.
If we write our military a blank check and attempt to quash any and all criticism of it, as it seems Mr. Nolte desires, we open ourselves up to future ethical failures.
Oh for Christ's sake. Virtually every male member of my huge extended Irish-American family is a cop or a soldier.
Some joined out of patriotism. Some joined because it was the family business. Some joined to stay out of prison.
There are as many criminal, deviant scumbags in unifiorm as there are in the housing project up the street. Despite what Ronny Reagan told you, America was not, and is not, Leave it to Beaver.
Spare me this notion that soldiers and first responders are some kind of angelic superheroes. I know better. From real life, not from watching movies or reading comics.
You are talking to people who are completing willing to send people to war but are completely unwilling to fight it themselves.
I'm just plain tired of these re-makes. Even when the original was good fun, they have to mess with it. I loved The Blob in its original manifestation, but they had to turn it into an anti-military screed in the remake of 1988.
Of course not. Your scenario doesn't serve the same tired old narrative Fischer and Hollywood's elites blindly parrot.
…..reading comics. Hmmm that is weird man. I won't even admit I know someone who reads comics above the age of 10.
Is this a parody website?
You know who else thought they were a morally superior military personal? Nidal Malik Hasan
And one thing good people are most sure would never happen is that, as an institution, our military would behave like concentration camp Nazis.
I bet you the Germans thought the same thing of their own Nazi soldiers.
What's wrong, John? Hollywood didn't give you a job? Because you suck? Yeah, life is tough when your a hack.
Proves again that an actor is no good reason to see a movie. Besides you find that politics in Romero´s zombie movies, for example Day of the Dead and Land of the Dead. And the original Crazies, too.
Did the director and writers of The Crazies serve in the military?
There´s a third complaint and that is "lazy".
The logical mistake is this: apparently filmmakers are allowed to say whatever they want about the military even if they have not served either. That test applies only to their critics.
remember when Hollywood made original movies? without hidden political/social agendas? i do. this one brings back some memories from more innocent times…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sA_0cvd1EUM
once upon a time, going to the movies was about escapism and entertainment.
Your whole argument is idiotic. It is OUR military. We are citizens. We don´t have to earn the right to have an opinion. Not when it comes to war, and certainly not when it comes to a damn braindead movie.
But if it is a matter of who served, then obviously the filmmakers haven´t served either. Or is it only when you are transgressive and negative and critical that you don´t have to justify yourself?
Why not make a movie about politicians who score cheap political points voting for a war based on the intelligence that they have, then turn on it at the first sign of trouble and declare it lost, playing politics with our national security and giving encouragement to the forces killing our soldiers. How about that?
By the way, you have no less than seven untruths in your comment. Is that your lucky number?
1. score cheap political points
2. pretending
3. that their own government used to support
4. now possessed nuclear and chemical weapons
5. was hellbent on giving them over
6. the alliance … was nonexistent
7. to give the country a staging area to launch another invasion
Questioning and attentive? It´s a goddamned ZOMBIE movie, not a serious discussion of any ethical failures that may have happened (but usually did not). We have had dozens of movies damning our military in recent years and I cannot remember a single one that shows our soldiers – who are also citizens – risking their lives by NOT shooting civilians. Which also happens, and a lot more often.
I agree; we should have more movies showing Irish-Americans as wannabe nazis.
Excuse me but aren't you Glen Kenny……
What makes you think I care about liberal lies. Sadaam had WMD's. They were the missiles and cannon shells hidden every 500th one in the ammo storages filled with Saren gas. This is not debatable.
An Iraqi intellegence operative was set up as a greeter at the Kuala Lumpur airport by Sadaam's state department. After nine months two of the 19 911 Hijackers arrived by plane and he got into the car with them. The next time we see him he was arrested in Jordan 4 days later trying to get into IRaq. The Iraqi government used diplomatic pressure to get him released. It's in the 911 report, its not debatable and even the MSM have reluctantly reported.
So tell me when exactly were we going to end the constant bombing of Iraq as Sadaam ignored the no fly zones. You libs have a strange notion of peace.
You know Mike I have read articles on military tactics that talk of the problem of soldiers aiming high. It explains that only 30% of soldiers actually fire at the enemy. The idea is that among members of the same species we are not programmed to fight or flight but fight, dominate, submit or flight. A soldier will make a big show aiming too high to hit someone in an attempt to dominate the enemy into submission because we are actually not geared to just kill each other. Its bad for evolution to kill your own.
Now if this is true how can the movies Hollywood shows were soldiers brutally and gleefully shoot pregnant women and innocents without seeming to care be realistic. The problem is the meme behind it. It is meant to dehumanize the military and to ridcule it. Full Metal Jacket is a perfect example. Are you telling me that if a soldier was as bad as the guy in training in that movie that the CO's would push him until he killed himself. I was under the impression people like that got discharged even in a war. The message is clear the army turns men into psychos. Can't movies be made that deal with the mistakes of the military without demonizing them.
Nope the Germans were all good with it.
See back in the 30's the Progressive movement was big on eugenics. It was all the rave with you libs until one of your own (ol' Uncle Adolph) got caught.
Hey guess what political ideology is the Third way where government heavily regulates all industry and takes direct ownership of the major players in industry…………….
Why are you a clown?
There was a an essay recently in The Antioch Review that studied the relationship between Hollywood films and their glorification of military endeavors and the reasons the right wing believes otherwise. Worth a read.
SPOILERS
Okay John, I'll bite: How, exactly, would you have the premise of this movie work WITHOUT the military? Setting aside for a moment the fact that none of the soldiers are shown being "evil," that the ONE soldier who gets a speaking role is a good guy who does the "right" thing, that the only "evil" guys in the story are the pack and that – in the context of the story – the military's containment operation makes a certain grim sense given the threat to the larger population of the country… who else fits into this scenario?
The premise of the film is that an ACCIDENTAL bioweapon release turns a town into contagious lunatics, and a large militarized force swoops in to contain the outbreak by extremem measures. Realistically, who would be in charge of that? If not the Army, the only other logical choice would be a Blackwater-type PMC outfit – which your "Avatar" commentary would lead me to suspect you'd still insist on reading as an attack on the actual military – or a private company, in which I'd be reading about it being "anti-capitalist."
What's wrong Brad. Hasn't anyone given you a job.
Mommie's basement is getting pretty lonely huh!
They might make that one but I think first they need to make a gripping tear jerker about a lonely army staff officer who is ridiculed by his fellow marines for reporting his CO for not mirandizing the enemy on the field of combat.
It will star Sean Penn, Danny Glover with a cameo appearance by Bill Maher and Janeane Garrofalo as themselves at a USO show. It will be another blockbuster to miss.
And from your lousy syntax, incomplete sentences and misspellings, Brad, you surely would know an unemployed 'hack' when you saw one. The sight I'm referring to, of course, is your mirror.
You´re getting something wrong. Once a filmmaker chooses to make a fantasy movie about zombies or blue aliens, it is his own damn problem how not to make the American soldier look bad.
Too bad I took a lot of European history. Most Germans didn't know what was going on. The soldiers were following orders, just like our soldiers have for some atrocities.
Soldiers follow orders. Very rarely in history have ANY soldiers (in large numbers) disobeyed an "atrocious" order. you'll have one or two descenters, but largely, the military (all, not just American) push them into it. It's how they are trained. their superiors will either force them into it by justification or fear.
and LOL at Adolf being a "liberal".
And this is just a review of a movie.
IT IS NOT RELATIVE. Your or my biography has really nothing to do with it. Is it ok to make a movie that portrays the present day US military as conscienceless killers who are ready to massacre civilians – yes or no?
its just a movie
If you have to bring up an entirely different movie to make your point, it´s not much of a point.
MFP, your comment is silly. What branch of the military? Really? You actually asked that? My five-year-old could debate better than you.
Hollywood is crumbling. I've always scoffed at the idea that 'liberalism is a mental illness' but H-wood has definitely followed Einstein's definition of insanity to the letter.
Thanks for this MovieBob. Your description of the new version sounds much more like how I was hoping the movie would handle the military involvement. In the original "The Crazies" I felt like Romero went out of his way to show the soldiers being thugs and bullies so I can see how that movie would be labeled anti-military (I would label it that way myself).
But if the new movie shows the military as being essentially "good" but stuck in an impossible situation, that's how I was hoping the remake would address the issue. Like I said, in a movie like this, the only "bad guys" should be the homicidal crazies. The military might have to take extreme measures, but as you point out, how else are they supposed to contain the virus and save the rest of the country? That's why I was originally disappointed after reading John's review. I was hoping the filmmakers would recognize the impossible situation faced by the military and not seek to demonize them for doing what is necessary in the context of the story.
As a former Marine I feel 100% sure about what I'm about to say here. I didn't see it as an anti-military movie at all. I didn't get any social or political message from it either. I saw it as a story, and only a story. A story about an accident that released an uncontrollable virus, the effects of said virus on the small town and what the goverment might do to control it. The soldiers in the movie were nameless and faceless except for the one who was caught in the barn….who then used his own mind and conscience to make his own decision about letting the people get away. To take the way anything is portrayed in a movie to heart is about the most idiotic thing you can do. If someone believes that our military and goverment is as heartless as portrayed in The Crazies, by default they have to also believe that there is a plane out there flying around America with a biological weapon that creates violent pseudo-zombies.
Sorry MovieBob, but your lack of imagination just isn't my problem.
I really hope they don't ruin that one with politics. Politics is a minor character in the book, and an important one, but if the movie script takes cheap shots, it won't do as well as it has the potential to.
Yeah, it's "completing" cool to only respect those who filmed themselves while in action overseas and got out as fast as possible with questionable injuries and applications for medals, and then, once home, trashed the people they served with, the war they took part in and threw their (actually, someone else's) medals over the White House lawn fence.
What does the acronym "Nazi" stand for exactly? I'm sure I remember the word "Socialist" being in there. And they sure did love their gun control. And eugenics (Margaret Sanger). And health food. And universal health care.
You "took" a lot of European history maybe, but you didn't learn anything at all.
As opposed to the noble folk who object to a war for political reasons and are willing to vilify our soldiers when it serves their purpose?
Anyway, how about it John?
Sadly, no.
It's John's job to find any slight against anything he believes in, real or imagined, and report it back to his fan base here.
For any of you to even compare those of us in uniform to Nazis is so un-American…. And to think I'm sitting here in Iraq… helping to ensure these people have a right to vote in the upcoming elections…. while you all sit in your homes and pass this sort of judgement on me and my fellow service members… Every one of you ought to be ashamed of yourselves..but you aren't…. that's the really sad part…. You all make me want to freaking vomit…
Most people in the US don't know crap about the military. They don't know the difference between a private and a general. The most misinformed are the Hollywood Narcissistic fools and Congress. Almost every movie I see you can find complete inconsistencies with Hollywood bullshit and the real stuff. After all folks its about money and NOTHING else. But we are all at fault. Look who we put in the White House.
I understand what happened here, because I used to review 8-10 movies a week. Sometimes all the relentless left-wing hoopla gets to you, and you take it out on a movie that really doesn't deserve it. This is what I see happening here. First, it's a remake of an existing plotline. Second, even our Founding Fathers were terrified of excessive authority and its potential abuse. Third, when you're targeting a horror movie at a young audience, you prey on their fears or the film is limp. "The Crazies" is an effective film precisely because fear of excessive authority has been built into our heads since this great country was founded. And with good reason.
35% of Obama voters believe that George Bush and the CIA/US Government intentionally crashed planes into the WTC, killing 3000 US citiizens for the express purposes of starting a war with Iraq so that we can control their oil, or that they knew about the attacks in advance and did nothing to stop them. 35% of 69M is about 24.15M. that's 24.15million people. 24.15 million people! so i do think Nolte is right to point out the harmful effects of Hollywood on the pea-sized brain of democrat voters.
No, he was a traitor who betrayed his Oath and Country for an ideology of vicous evil.
Did you even see The Crazies? I saw it before I read the review and was beyond disappointed (but far from surprised) when it turns out that the E-V-I-L military is the culprit and is portrayed as the real villain of the film.
I haven't seen the Romero original but may try to look it up. I went and saw it partly because I like zombie movies and partly because of Radha Mitchell & Timothy Olyphant. And for a zombie movie I'd give it an OK rating. However, I very much agree that it would really be great to see a movie these days that manages to find some kinda bad guys other than the good guys in the US Military. Army-bashing I guess I can understand back in Romero's heyday; but nowadays Hollywood thinks all us folks look on the guys keeping us free as a bunch of crypto-Nazis? It's been said before but I'll say it again: why in the world can't Hollywood give us at least a good, solid movie or two that really gives a shout out to the folks in Afghanistan and Iraq who are keeping us free and preventing another 9/11? But now one good thing about Crazies: Joe Anderson. He took a decent "sidekick" / 2nd string part, and really gave an outstanding performance. Understated in a way, but for my bucks, he took every scene he was in.
Oh, yeah, another favorite Hollywood prejudice.
If BLACK people are singing Christian hyms, it's beautiful, soothing and uplifting. But if you want to make Christianity creepy, have WHITE people singing the hyms. Better yet, make them crazy hillbillies.
You guys are right on. Anyone who's anti military also enjoys sadomasochism and baby killing. And I'm not talking abortion here, I'm talking about full on baby decapitation. Shame on them, and shame on America, allowing these idiots to exist with their opinions that aren't conservative. White power back into the White House!
Oh look, a Moby.
The soldiers were following orders, just like our soldiers have for some atrocities.
Odd, since our soldiers are trained that "I was following orders" is not justifiable.
I get your point, I thought the film was entertaining and I think Timothy Olyphant is a great actor. It is rare to find a film that shows our military in a good light. All of the libs had their panties in a knot because the enemy in From Paris with Love were actual, get this, Terrorists and John Travolta killed them. Oh my how awful! And to all of you trolls that really have no input except bs, snark and personal attacks, ah I dont have time to go into it.
"the ONE soldier who gets a speaking role is a good guy who does the "right" thing"
Yes, because the others are faceless and silent.
The Crazies? I just assumed it was about all the morons who voted for Obummer.
And……is Brad 10 years old?
"if the new movie shows the military as being essentially "good" but stuck in an impossible situation"
But that is not what MovieBob said; at least I didn´t take it that way.
You could show the military as well-meaning but reluctantly forced to do something they never thought they´d have to do. You could set up a conflict between the bureaucracy and the men. You could pit the soldiers and the civilians together against the threat. You could show soldiers putting themselves between the civilians and the threat. You know, "realistically".
Does the movie do anything like that?
"The soldiers in the movie were nameless and faceless .."
That is a choice and a statement right there.
The point is not whether anyone believes it to be literally true – though we know some people do. But if you care about movies or society at large you have to wonder why the choices of filmmakers tend to go in one direction only. At the very least it is lazy and unimaginative. To think that it has no effect at all, when kids spend hundreds of hours every year watching movies and tv, is to be delusional.
You must be logged in to post a comment.