1st real Bad Review - Bloody-disgusting.com

[DjfunkmasterG]

While most filmmakers hide negative reviews I decided and felt the need to show everyone, every review from major horror websites. Good or bad, I want everyone to see every side of the film in the eyes of reviewers across the horror web.

If you have seen the film, you will get the feeling that the reviewer from bloody-disgusting didn't watch the film at all. He has many of the characters mixed up and many of the scenes backwards, which to me feels like he watched it, but paid it no mind during the viewing. I even sent the reviewer an email pointing out the inaccuracies in the review.

So without further ado... watch our teeth get pulled out with no numbing agent or pain killers to swallow. Here is the B-D.com review of DEADLANDS: The Rising

http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/film/1497

UPDATE: Bloody-Disgusting has revised the review to correctly show the correct characters and cast members for the film. The characters of DAVE and BRIAN and his role as defacto producer were incorrect during the initial review. However running time mentions of the zombies first appearances is still incorrect.

[axlish]

I agree to an extent that the running time hurt Deadlands. Cut that puppy down to 50 minutes and you'd have a much better paced film. Hey, don't take offense to this because Land of the Dead could have been cut down to 30.

[Danny]

i think i would write about it like that IF i didnt know tht it was the first of a two or three parter, it did have some problems but since its gonna have a sequel a lot of em can be sorted out, reckon he new about the second one?

[DjfunkmasterG]

If he listened to the commentary he would have known about it. However, i doubt he did. I think he should have at least got the character names correct, that much would have been nice.

I don't mind the review being bad, but bad and inaccurate is another issue altogether.

[Danny]

and he would've known about the whole "thrash metal" bit, which even made my freinds laugh when they saw it t'uther day.:D

[Neil]

What a numpty!

The problem is that a lot of this project belies it's budget and amateur background, so it gets compared to "professional" productions, which obviously just isn't fair!!

[MinionZombie]

Not just saying this, but I most definately side with Neil. That dude reviewing is a complete "numpty" and obviously couldn't give two sh*ts to spend any time paying attention to the review. Damn straight for emailing to straighten things out, I'd personally be all kinds of pissed off - but then again I'm the sorta guy that lumps around like an angry toddler every time my computer goes a bit wiggy or takes too long to do something.

Now, if the guy had reviewed it properly and given a fair review which still ended up being "overall bad", at least they're done a proper job. This guy not only gives it a duff write up, he's done a sh*t job to boot.

Like Neil was saying, Deadlands is a flick that punches above it's weight class in terms of both scope and crew expertise, I have to say it was a ballsy production all round and I was quite surprised by a lot of aspects. I found the pacing to be spot on, and while there are weaknesses, they're forgiveable.

I'd have expected better reviewing from Bloody Disgusting to be honest, I hope the guy prints a new version of the review with assumed/mistaken/outright wrong comments taken out.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Like I said I am not mad about a negative review. just mad that it is an inaccurate negative review. I had a hard time reading it and when i got to the mistakes I was like ok... do I take this as criticism or just blow it off as someone whom didn't pay attention to the film.


I sent them a polite email, thanking them for the review but added the inaccuracies to the email. Hopefully they will correct the review.

This gets better and better. I sent them a polite email asking for a revision on the review.

"Hi Ryan,
>
> First let me say thanks for reviewing the film.
> Even though you seemed to dislike it I still wanted
> to thank you for taking your time to review it. You
> are also our 1st bad review out of all the top
> horror sites, so congrats.
>
> I just wanted to point out a few things... Errors
> in the review.
>
> Dave Cooperman is not a producer, nor was he a
> main character. The person you are thinking about is
> Brian Wright. Dave is the white T-shirt wearing
> character who escaped the traffic jam and headed to
> the shelter.
>
> Running time errors. You mention the film goes 30
> minutes with no zombie appearance actually the first
> zombies show up at the 21 minute and change mark,
> from that point the film shifts gears into a zombie
> film.
>
> While I admit the beginning is slow there was a
> point to that. It was supposed to be everyday life
> for two 30 something people that turned into a
> nightmare for an entire city. Now while DEADLANDS:
> The Rising doesn't have the style and pinoche of El
> Mariachi, I feel you were overly harsh on many
> aspects of the film which are the movies greatest
> set pieces.
>
> You claimed the make-up was poor, now while not
> outstanding compared to higherbudgeted films, the
> make-up FX were above average considering the
> make-up department worked off a budget of $650.00.
> At no time are any zombie eating gore scenes shot in
> slow motion in the film either. All flesh tearing
> and eating was shot and played back at Normal speed
> (24 Fps). The only gore showed in slow mo was the
> pan across the flesh bits of the leftover cop the
> zombies chomped on.
>
> Normally I wouldn't usually go this indepth about
> inaccuracies in your review, but a lot of people who
> told me the review was online said "Did he even
> watch the movie?" After reading it I could see why
> they would ask that of me, but I know you watched it
> as you pointed out things not in the trailers.
>
> Anyway, again thanks for taking the time to review
> it. Sorry you were disappointed in the film.
> However, you can't please everyone.
>
> Thanks
> Gary"

I also sent a similar email to the editor of B-D. Now this is where it gets good... The DUMBass review writes to me and makes an uncalled for comment, buyt the funny part is I don't think the email was meant for me, but his editor.

Yeah, here's the email Mr. Ugarek sent me today
(below). I couldn't help but notice that yours was a
little more concise than mine. I can understand if he
writes you (the editor) about inaccuracies in a
review, but to write me personally to complain about
my review seemed kind of unprofessional. Maybe it's
just me. Oh well.

Dave Cooperman was listed first on IMDB, so I just
assumed he was one of the two main leads (along with
Ugarek). But I guess he's some dude with a bit part
who happens to have been listed first on IMDB. Bad
research on my part.

Yeah, so the zombies appeared 22 minutes into his
movie, instead of 30. It felt like 3 hours, so I was
just giving him the benefit of the doubt and I rounded
to 30 minutes. Big deal. It doesn't stop his movie
from totally licking my balls.

So here's a revised review. Hope I didn't cause any
problems.

Ryan"

What a dumbass....Not too mention he attached the revised review, and guess what? It is still inaccurate in regards to characters.

Then of course my final response

"First off Ryan,

I never complained about your review. You are one arrogant SOB you know that. I wrote to you, thanking you for taking your time to review the film and then pointed out what a few people emailed me. I also gave you the benefit of the doubt in that you actually watched the film. Yet I never complained other than to say you were inaccurate on characters and story time line. So where do you get off saying I ****ing complained.... Thatnks for proving that B-D and it's reviewers are a complete waste of time to use as a source for comments.

Ryan, do you know anything about the credit system used in films, especially low budget films. Obviously you don't. Dave Cooperman is listed first because his Resume extends further than any other single cast member. Whether or not he is in the film the whole time or 30% of the time, the cast member with a longer background in acting roles will get top billing in a low budget feature. Now that you mention using IMDB as your source you have actually proved to me you know jack **** about cinema and also proved you didn't watch the film because Not only on IMDB, but in the opening credits Brian Wright is listed as my producer. So obviously you didn't pay attention.

Also don't talk to me about professionalism. I am not the one whom responded by saying a film licked my balls. I wrote you and Brad, you know why i wrote you Ryan... You wrote the ****ing review jackass. Of course I am going to write to you when there are inaccuracies, major inaccuracies that clearly point out your incompetency as a film reviewer and in no way is that unprofessional. However what is unprofessional is your demeanor and character, especially when the filmmaker you slammed thanked you for taking your time in watching the film. I could have been a complete dick about it, but I am not, now with you recent comments you pissed me off, and since you want to be a cockstain about the entire situation, in which you brought on yourself and B-D, by writing a review with incorrect information. I wrote Brad as well as he is the editor of the website and just wanted to keep him in the loop. In my line of work you keep communication open on both ends this way no one is out of the loop. Maybe you would learn that if you weren't suck a jerk off who thinks he is all that and a bag of chips, when you arean't even the crumbs left in the bag.

Brad, although I appreciate B-D taking the time to review the film, and appreciate the info and heart put into B-D's keeping the public informed on the horror front I have to say some of your staff are complete assholes. I am betting this will just get shrugged off with a laugh however, I stll felt obligated to CC you on this email as this reviewers behavior reflects your entire institution. Since Ryan wants to be a dick in his reply comments pointing out his INACCURACIES and retort to childish teenage comments I shall resort to the same and post this entire email and any responses on the DEADLANDS official website by week's end. Including the original review with it's inaccuracies along with the revised version.

I don't mind getting a bad review, you can't please everyone, and I never set out to please everyone. However, when a precious little "I am the coolest reviewer in the world of horror fanboy" decides to be a complete dick about it... then I will make an issue of it.

Well I have wasted enough time in this reply, hopefully B-D will smarten up and actually get reviewers who can handle criticism of their reviews, maybe had he done his ****ing homework he wouldn't have his ass handed to him by filmmaker whose film licked his balls...

BTW Ryan, if it licked your balls I hope you at least got an orgasm out of it, god knows the last thing I would want is the stink of my film cruddin' up your testicles for your next grand and positive review of a Tobe Hooper/Uwe Boll movie.

Gary Ugarek
Deadlands Director

[MinionZombie]

lol, geez, what a dick.

Went back to B-D and cast my own vote for the movie. I see they haven't updated or ammended the review on the site. The guy seems like a complete "numpty" as Neil said earlier, hehe. Only numpties take offense at the completely in-jest aspect ratio PSA at the beginning. Now, I know about ratios, but I wasn't offended - because (seemingly) unlike senoir-poor-reviewer I've seen time and again people completely stumped by ratios.

Back at uni we had a widescreen TV and I was the only person in the house who understood ratios and which setting to use on the TV, and it's not like the other guys were technically dumbfounded, not at all, yet they still couldn't see the difference between regular 4:3 and Pan & Scan 4:3. *yeesh*

[Danny]

damn that guy said that, what a dick indeed, that sounds like a 12 year old, people act high and mighty and then u turn into pre teen mode were they think there king of the world.

my point is this, one i think i pointed out in a magazine article once i think, anyway my point is critics are payed to do just that criticise movies, if you want an honest review get the public to review it on horror movies.ca or something then at least you get an honest answer, i myself said i didnt like everything about the film but the sheer scope and proffesionality on a budget almost half that of clerks was "dead" impressive, so as long as you can be proud that other people respect what youve made then the next time some upstart who writes internet reviews cus he couldnt get a job reviewing movies for a paper let alone a mazine, *sniffs* **** em'

when theyve made a movie ,let alone one thats better, then they can bitch.

[capncnut]

It's good that you're not taking it to heart. The guy is obviously a serious asshole!

[DjfunkmasterG]

I only took one review to heart and that was someone who bought the film, posted on the forum at Dread-Central and said it sucked. Nothing else, just that it sucked.

When I asked him to elaborate on what he did or didnot like about the film his response was... It sucks what more do you need to know. So I continued to debate him for 10 pages in the DEADLANDS thread until he pointed out exactly what was wrong and he then proceeded to talk about stuff not even in the film. So, like the guy from B-D, another one who probably didn't watch it and just made a comment.

I don't mind criticism, it helps me as a filmmaker. However, if you give me criticism make sure you know what you're critcizing... because nothing pisses me off more than ill knowledged critics.

[MinionZombie]

Constructive criticism is good, but like you said, people who just say "that sucks" are annoying and a waste of space, it's a statement that barely counts as an opinion it's so scattergun. If he kept refusing he'd clearly not even bothered to watch it properly and just skipped through no doubt.

[Bloodtype-Ed]

Wow, as someone who writes reviews this is incredibly poor on his part. He's unprofessional, totally out of touch, and just seems like he wants to review whatever big name horror flicks that B-D gets.

His review (inaccuracies aside) shows that he doesn't watch a lot of low budget films. Plain and simple, DeadLands is a masterpiece compared to a lot of the stuff I've had the displeasure of sitting through from the indy scene. I

[Danny]

well said. id take indie over big budget anyway, you can telll a lot of sweat and tears was put in a film were you can here someone curse when the guns start firing at the bottles:D

[capncnut]

well said. id take indie over big budget anyway, you can telll a lot of sweat and tears was put in a film were you can here someone curse when the guns start firing at the bottles:D

I play in the same park, independent movies destroy the mainstream!

[Fulcifan91]

Wow, Gary, next time I need to write an angry e-mail, Ill get you to do the draft!

I'm not a big fan of B-D's site anyways, some of the reviews on there jsut seem really un-professional, and i think it is most evident in this case.

Also, I totally understand that you are not mad about the negativity of teh review, rather the illegitimacy of it. I mean, TGB gave it a bad review, but it was exremly well written, and obvious that he analyzed tideiously.

[DjfunkmasterG]

TGB's review wasn't completely bad as he it did have some good points. He gave it a 4 out of 10. However, this knucklehead just gave off a vibe like he didn't watch the film.

Eh to each his own.


Happy turkey day everyone. Gobble gobble. :lol: :moon:

[Fulcifan91]

Isn't that tomorrow?

[coma]

You're 1st email was total class. the comment in your 2nd about Ewe Boll was so funny I dribbled some pee in my shorts:D

People who say "It just sucked that's it" to the actual artist are almost always no talent, no work wanna be tards. Anyone can be a critic. If you watch a movie and type, you can be too.

I like Lo budget films. They have tons of charm.

[DeadCentral]

Sorry I just caught this ..been working my butt off on another new site... any who...ignore this F***ker guys... I mean hell if I wanted advertising I'll go to B-D, if I want horror reviews I go to sites that bring you news rather than run a million & one pop up adds on their site...... DreadCentral.com, and such..this guy who reviewed this film is a knob, and B-D has sunk below the levels of credability ...they're a web billboard...not a horror site.
Keep doing what your doin Gary, success is the best revenge.

[N2NOther]

What a numpty!

The problem is that a lot of this project belies it's budget and amateur background, so it gets compared to "professional" productions, which obviously just isn't fair!!

No, but it shouldn't get a pass just because it's low budget either. Sorry and DJ knows this, but I found the movie to be terrible. Terrible writing, directing, editing, pacing, score, cinematography, everything.

I didn't care about a single character, it felt like a bunch of ideas thrown together, the "climax" was anti-climatic to a stupifying extreme.

It seems to me that people are giving this movie a pass because it's an extremely low-bidget indy...Sorry but that should NEVER be good enough. There are good low budget films and there are bad ones. Deadlands falls squarely in the latter.

My suggestion for DJ and the others...Make short films, get REALLY good at that, and THEN kick out another feature.


I only took one review to heart and that was someone who bought the film, posted on the forum at Dread-Central and said it sucked. Nothing else, just that it sucked.

When I asked him to elaborate on what he did or didnot like about the film his response was... It sucks what more do you need to know. So I continued to debate him for 10 pages in the DEADLANDS thread until he pointed out exactly what was wrong and he then proceeded to talk about stuff not even in the film. So, like the guy from B-D, another one who probably didn't watch it and just made a comment.

I don't mind criticism, it helps me as a filmmaker. However, if you give me criticism make sure you know what you're critcizing... because nothing pisses me off more than ill knowledged critics.

Uhm that was me and here's my initial review...


First off I would like the thank Gary for getting the DVD out so quickly...As soon as I got it, I popped it in...

And so much for the positive...I appreciate the effort put into this but man, it was REALLY bad...The script, the acting, the editing, the sound, the score all of it just bad...

Not one character worth rooting for, not a single chilling moment, nothing. I was honestly bored to tears and the actual movie is barely 60 minutes long...The side-story has the most awkward ending, hell the movie itself has an awkward ending...

I'm not super lenient with low-budget films because there are SO many examples of great ones over the history of the horror film...Sure these guys put a lot of effort into it, but when the finished product is this bland and dull, well, it hardly seems worth it...

I wanted to like it, **** I paid $15 for it, but ultimately I didn't...At all...

The ONLY possible plus is the FX were decent...I know how tough that is and for something like this it's probably touger, none of them are standouts, but they did well with what they had...

I actually feel bad saying this but I would only give this movie a 1/10...Take that as you will.

Anyone with the desire to actually check for truth can see that I did post a lot more than "it sucks" and that this thread was 2 pages, not 10...

It seems as though you have a REALLY hard time with anyone that doesn't pat you on the back for making a low budget film...Sure you made it, but that means nothing really other than you made it. Some people will like it, some people won't. Some people will commend you for it, others won't. You need to grasp the fact.

Do these small inaccuracies change the overall opinion of the film? In your email you point out WHY your film is slow in the beginning when it shouldn't matter. A good film doesn't need that explanation. Look at Psycho. "Nothing" happens for the first 3rd of the film yet it's compelling. Not because of it's budget, but because it's filmmaker and it's script.

The zombie FX look bad to this guy so you explain that you spent $650? Maybe to him it looks like you spent $650. It should look like you spent more than you did.

I don't have a problem with you personally, so please don't take it that way. But I really think you have an issue with anyone that doesn't like your film. Which is going to get you nowhere if you persue this as a career.

[N2NOther]

I only took one review to heart and that was someone who bought the film, posted on the forum at Dread-Central and said it sucked. Nothing else, just that it sucked.

When I asked him to elaborate on what he did or didnot like about the film his response was... It sucks what more do you need to know. So I continued to debate him for 10 pages in the DEADLANDS thread until he pointed out exactly what was wrong and he then proceeded to talk about stuff not even in the film. So, like the guy from B-D, another one who probably didn't watch it and just made a comment.



And here's my next post after your response:



Sorry you hated it...

You are actually the first whom didn't like it. Can't please everyone I guess. Actually the movie is 64 minutes long from start to finish.

However, please elaborate about your gripes

You say the script, story, acting effects. Please point out your issues I am very curious to hear what ya have to say.

Bear with me, I don't remember any of the characters' names...

The script was THIN...Padded out with pointless moments like them talking about his divorce (I realize that it's an attempt at character development, but it didn't develop his character at all, SHOW don't TELL is a good rule of thumb)...Moments where they stop and discuss what route to take...Not needed...It didn't add anything to the film but more time, and could have easily been omitted without any lapses in logic.

Not a single moment stands out other than the traffic jam, but not because it was a good scene, but because I was impressed that you got a road to be shut down for your film.

No characters worth rooting for...

The dog disappearing from one shot to the next...The dog went back inside and shut himself into a room? I know that's not what happened but it was sloppy.

The end of the side-story with the guy from the traffic jam at the shelter...He walks out of the room, grabs a fire extinguisher and leaves? Why did we follow him? There was no resolution at all.

The end of the film was anti-climactic as well...

The score was intrusive intead of enhancing the on screen mood and action...You shouldn't be as aware of it as I was not as something that takes away from what's on screen...It's pretty lifeless.

The acting felt like it was a bunch of friends hanging out, making a movie, so they didn't sell the characters...The wife did the best with what she had, but it wasn't much.

A scene that really sticks out in my mind, for the wrong reasons, is when you see the main guy (your producer) say he's going to set up the targets and we see him walk the entire distance, place the targets and walk all the way back...There is no reason for this...It adds nothing and takes away from the movie...We should have just seen them load the guns and start shooting...The audience will fill in little things like how the targets got there...

This are just my thoughts on it, take them as you will...
Don't get bent at the other guy for exaggerating and adding 9 minutes before the zombies show up if you're going to just make things up that DIDN'T happen. Especially when people can always provide proof.

[DjfunkmasterG]

No, but it shouldn't get a pass just because it's low budget either. Sorry and DJ knows this, but I found the movie to be terrible. Terrible writing, directing, editing, pacing, score, cinematography, everything.

I didn't care about a single character, it felt like a bunch of ideas thrown together, the "climax" was anti-climatic to a stupifying extreme.

It seems to me that people are giving this movie a pass because it's an extremely low-bidget indy...Sorry but that should NEVER be good enough. There are good low budget films and there are bad ones. Deadlands falls squarely in the latter.

My suggestion for DJ and the others...Make short films, get REALLY good at that, and THEN kick out another feature.



Uhm that was me and here's my initial review...



Anyone with the desire to actually check for truth can see that I did post a lot more than "it sucks" and that this thread was 2 pages, not 10...

It seems as though you have a REALLY hard time with anyone that doesn't pat you on the back for making a low budget film...Sure you made it, but that means nothing really other than you made it. Some people will like it, some people won't. Some people will commend you for it, others won't. You need to grasp the fact.

Do these small inaccuracies change the overall opinion of the film? In your email you point out WHY your film is slow in the beginning when it shouldn't matter. A good film doesn't need that explanation. Look at Psycho. "Nothing" happens for the first 3rd of the film yet it's compelling. Not because of it's budget, but because it's filmmaker and it's script.

The zombie FX look bad to this guy so you explain that you spent $650? Maybe to him it looks like you spent $650. It should look like you spent more than you did.

I don't have a problem with you personally, so please don't take it that way. But I really think you have an issue with anyone that doesn't like your film. Which is going to get you nowhere if you persue this as a career.

I am glad you came all the way over to HPotD just to justify a half assed review written by someone on B-D. I don't care if people like the film or not, but when you write a completely incorrect review, with wrong character names, and producers etc etc... How am I supposed to take that seriously?

In your eyes and B-D's you are the ones whom have a huge distaste for the film. 13 other online websites have wrote very positive reviews. so 2 out of 13 means nothing to me. However, to say the Cinematography sucked in DEADLANDS is way off base. I watched your film and your DP work was horrid. I actually purchased and used cranes, effectively and proactively. How many lowbudget Zed films do that, less than 1%.

As far as Make-Up FX. I have far more believeable FX than most other lowbudget films. However, it is your opine and I will accept the fact that you and B-D don't like it... However, when you post a review stating something you need to be specific in your dislike. You never clarified in your original post what you disliked about the film and I had to ask you for continued clarification.

However, I am still curious as to why you are following me over to HPotD to further bad mouth my film. Do you have some complex about it? I can speak freely about Opinions from reviewers about my film here as this is a dedicated forum for DEADLANDS, however make no mistake... I don't have an issue with a bad review... Bad poorly written incomptent reviews I have a problem with. People who aren't specific beyond this sucked that sucked etc etc have no weight with me. And, especially reviews where they list incorrect characters and producers when the jackass whom reviewed had the F-in DVD right in front of him.

So if you're finished stick around and enjoy the community. If you came to be an ass... wrong forum and community to do it in slick.


No, but it shouldn't get a pass just because it's low budget either. Sorry and DJ knows this, but I found the movie to be terrible. Terrible writing, directing, editing, pacing, score, cinematography, everything.

I didn't care about a single character, it felt like a bunch of ideas thrown together, the "climax" was anti-climatic to a stupifying extreme.

It seems to me that people are giving this movie a pass because it's an extremely low-bidget indy...Sorry but that should NEVER be good enough. There are good low budget films and there are bad ones. Deadlands falls squarely in the latter.

My suggestion for DJ and the others...Make short films, get REALLY good at that, and THEN kick out another feature.


Indie films have to be given a level of passage because filmmakers don't have the ability or the resources to accomplish certain goals. Anytime you have a budget less than $50K you have to be given leeway. Lets not forget though I accomplished what most filmmakers haven't done on the amount I spent either. I closed a road, alid out a 100+ car traffic jam, and pulled off a pretty decent sequence of a zombie attack and that sequence only cost me $2000 to shoot. Most of it to provide food, drinks and neccesary equipment to accomplish the sequence.

The problem with your look on films is you need 2 hours to tell a story in 60 minutes. I gave the audience what they needed in a short amount of time. I didn't pad running time to do something that could be done in 2 minutes.

The climax was supposed to be anti-climatic because a sequel was in the works. Did you need me to put TO BE CONTINUED just to help you figure that much out, or didn't you watch the end credits where it says DEADLANDS 2: The New World coming 2009

One question are you the same guy whom reviewed for B-D? Because your initial replies hints that you seem to be the reviewer.

[N2NOther]

I am glad you came all the way over to HPotD just to justify a half assed review written by someone on B-D. I don't care if people like the film or not, but when you write a completely incorrect review, with wrong character names, and producers etc etc... How am I supposed to take that seriously?

I didn't come here to justify the review...Get over yourself. I came here to check out the forums and saw this thread. I would have stayed out of it completely had I not seen your comment about my post at Dread-Central and the lies about prodding a response out of me for 10 pages.


In your eyes and B-D's you are the ones whom have a huge distaste for the film. 13 other online websites have wrote very positive reviews. so 2 out of 13 means nothing to me.

When you start a thread about one and mention another I'd say "2 means nothing to you" is what most people would call a lie.



However, to say the Cinematography sucked in DEADLANDS is way off base. I watched your film and your DP work was horrid. I actually purchased and used cranes, effectively and proactively. How many lowbudget Zed films do that, less than 1%.

Ok, so you had equipment...This means you had good cinematogrpahy? Are you serious? It doesn't mean **** if you can't use it.

I'm glad you watched my short film....I agree that some of the DP work is pretty rough and I hope to improve upon that with each film I make.


As far as Make-Up FX. I have far more believeable FX than most other lowbudget films. However, it is your opine and I will accept the fact that you and B-D don't like it... However, when you post a review stating something you need to be specific in your dislike. You never clarified in your original post what you disliked about the film and I had to ask you for continued clarification.

I tend to not go too deep into what I liked or disliked for the sake of avoiding spoilers but you did ask me to clarify and I did so imediately, not even close to what you are stating here.


However, I am still curious as to why you are following me over to HPotD to further bad mouth my film. Do you have some complex about it? I can speak freely about Opinions from reviewers about my film here as this is a dedicated forum for DEADLANDS, however make no mistake... I don't have an issue with a bad review... Bad poorly written incomptent reviews I have a problem with. People who aren't specific beyond this sucked that sucked etc etc have no weight with me. And, especially reviews where they list incorrect characters and producers when the jackass whom reviewed had the F-in DVD right in front of him.

Again, get over yourself...I didn't follow you over here to bad mouth your film. I had no intentions of signing up just yet and was planning on lurking a bit longer but seeing as how you mentioned me in a lie, I figured I'd sign up and fix it. No one knows who I am, so that's not the issue. The issue is you defending your film in such a childish way. People aren't going to like your film. And I guarantee when it gets a wider release a lot more people are going to not like it. Will the positive outweigh the negative? That remains to be seen.


So if you're finished stick around and enjoy the community. If you came to be an ass... wrong forum and community to do it in slick.

How is it being an ass to disagree exactly?


Indie films have to be given a level of passage because filmmakers don't have the ability or the resources to accomplish certain goals. Anytime you have a budget less than $50K you have to be given leeway. Lets not forget though I accomplished what most filmmakers haven't done on the amount I spent either. I closed a road, alid out a 100+ car traffic jam, and pulled off a pretty decent sequence of a zombie attack and that sequence only cost me $2000 to shoot. Most of it to provide food, drinks and neccesary equipment to accomplish the sequence.

Yeah and? Your movie is still bad though. Sorry, but once El Mariachi existed, the bar for what can be accomplished on an amazingly low budget was raised. And with DV cams becoming more affordable the bar is raised even more.


The problem with your look on films is you need 2 hours to tell a story in 60 minutes.

What? Did you read my review? I complain about the length because it's too long and not enough story to sustain it.


I gave the audience what they needed in a short amount of time. I didn't pad running time to do something that could be done in 2 minutes.

You didn't? So seeing a guy stand up, walk over to place targets and walk all the way back wasn't padding the running time? Anyone with even a modicum of understanding would have just had them load the guns and shoot the targets...****, I wouldn't have even had them load the guns. A child could figure out that they loaded the guns and placed the targets there.


The climax was supposed to be anti-climatic because a sequel was in the works. Did you need me to put TO BE CONTINUED just to help you figure that much out, or didn't you watch the end credits where it says DEADLANDS 2: The New World coming 2009

No I didn't watch the end credits...I'm lucky I made it through the whole film. But your film shouldn't be dependednt on a "sequel". It should contain it's story to have a satisfying conclusion. The film still needs to exist with an arc in itself. What if you never made or make the sequel? Then the first and only films hangs limp.

Again, sorry you're so offended by the bad reviews/negative opinions but you better get used to it.

And no, I'm not the same reviewer...His name is Ryan, mine is Sean...Which you would know if you watched the film and read the BD review thuroughly.

[HLS]

I can not really judge the movie for I have not seen it yet but if you hate the movie there are better ways to state your negative opinion without being out of line or rude.
Good or bad, I do not think I could say an unkind word about this movie once I do see it. The reason for that I have a huge respect for those people that step out and make these low budget movies. DJ put a lot of love and hard work into his project and deserves a little more respect.
I do not intend to sound mean, thats not my intention. it is just my opinion.

Peace :D :o :kiss:

[Danny]

so when he says "defending" he just came to this site ,reigstered and proceded to btich and flame, damn man, poffesional:rolleyes:

if you didnt like the movie then let it go your supposed to be a movie critic people wont agree with you all the time becuase everyones views are different, you did get names and facts wrong and thats the sot of thing you just dont do when you write reviews proffesionaly you got an email from gary sayng that and yet youve come here just to argue like a 12 year old, have you no self respect?, come on man do your job right review movies, if people dont agree thats that you dont follow em round the net and bitch back at them for gods sake.




No I didn't watch the end credits...I'm lucky I made it through the whole film. But your film shouldn't be dependednt on a "sequel". It should contain it's story to have a satisfying conclusion. The film still needs to exist with an arc in itself. What if you never made or make the sequel? Then the first and only films hangs limp.


not flaming here but that aint true, there are hundreds of films off the top of my head that leave open endings for a sequel, unless peter jackson wanted the lord of the rings to have an "unsatisfying conclusion" that is.

[N2NOther]

I can not really judge the movie for I have not seen it yet but if you hate the movie there are better ways to state your negative opinion without being out of line or rude.
Good or bad, I do not think I could say an unkind word about this movie once I do see it. The reason for that I have a huge respect for those people that step out and make these low budget movies. DJ put a lot of love and hard work into his project and deserves a little more respect.
I do not intend to sound mean, thats not my intention. it is just my opinion.

Peace :D :o :kiss:

I have respect for the filmmaker as well...If the movie turns out to be good. And nothing I've said was rude.


so when he says "defending" he just came to this site ,reigstered and proceded to btich and flame, damn man, poffesional:rolleyes:

Who's bitching? I stated my case, which contradicts what he said I did.


if you didnt like the movie then let it go your supposed to be a movie critic people wont agree with you all the time becuase everyones views are different, you did get names and facts wrong and thats the sot of thing you just dont do when you write reviews proffesionaly you got an email from gary sayng that and yet youve come here just to argue like a 12 year old, have you no self respect?, come on man do your job right review movies, if people dont agree thats that you dont follow em round the net and bitch back at them for gods sake.

It REALLY helps when you read the posts you're commenting on...I'm not the reviewer this thread is about. I'm just a guy that forked over $15 for the movie because I was excited to see it, didn't like it and said so.


not flaming here but that aint true, there are hundreds of films off the top of my head that leave open endings for a sequel, unless peter jackson wanted the lord of the rings to have an "unsatisfying conclusion" that is.

Huh? There is still a climax to the film...The battle where Borimir dies. But Lord of the Rings is an exception because they funded all 3 movies at the same time....Look at Star Wars...It has a CLEAR ending but still allows for more films to follow. Deadlands felt unfinished and dull. Sorry if this seems harsh but it's the way I felt about the film. I couldn't care less if 100 people like it, as I said, my intent wasn't to come here and trash the film. I stumbled onto this site looking for something else and saw this thread.

[Danny]

fair enough then, and the bitching thing was the emails, which ,c'mon you gotta admit that one.

as for the ending i did feel a little cheated like i said when i posted a review here but i allready knew there was a sequel in the works so that kinda made up for it, though that was my biggest gripe with the film, still the zombies were a lot better than some i have seen no matter what the budget and speaking as an amatuer film maker myself i think gary should be proud of what he accomplished, he got a movie out there, which is mre than many can say ,it may not do well ,it may become a favourite of many in years to come, the movie going public is a very fickle group so as allways you just gotta wait and see.

[N2NOther]

fair enough then, and the bitching thing was the emails, which ,c'mon you gotta admit that one.

I had nothing to do with emails though. You're confusing 2 different people.


as for the ending i did feel a little cheated like i said when i posted a review here but i allready knew there was a sequel in the works so that kinda made up for it, though that was my biggest gripe with the film, still the zombies were a lot better than some i have seen no matter what the budget and speaking as an amatuer film maker myself i think gary should be proud of what he accomplished, he got a movie out there, which is mre than many can say ,it may not do well ,it may become a favourite of many in years to come, the movie going public is a very fickle group so as allways you just gotta wait and see.

I agree that he should be proud that he had a goal and accomplished it. I offered my advice as to what can help him the next time around...Make some shorts first, THEN take on the feature. It will realy help him work out the kinks and help him learn to tighten up the story. It's only my advice, but anyone that puts something out for judgment then they should expect that not everyone is going to like it for a variety of reasons.

[MinionZombie]

If you came here just to complain and come back time and again about this single issue, then you're not welcome. We're a constructive community.

If you came here to actually be a part of the forums, then go about your business, but for cryin' out loud leave this issue be, let it lie already.

[radiokill]

I had nothing to do with emails though. You're confusing 2 different people.



I agree that he should be proud that he had a goal and accomplished it. I offered my advice as to what can help him the next time around...Make some shorts first, THEN take on the feature. It will realy help him work out the kinks and help him learn to tighten up the story. It's only my advice, but anyone that puts something out for judgment then they should expect that not everyone is going to like it for a variety of reasons.

yeah, but after somebody spends 7 - 15 grand on something that they want to make to have something to be proud of and excercise their creativity and share something with the world, whose goal is not to make money but to act on passion....It's really harsh and lame to just say this sucks that sucks and that sucks cut and dry, in harsh way that is not constructive. it's gonna provoke anger and everyone knows that. and then to come here and i try to save face by defending your statements to the only people you know of that regularly interact w/ him on friendly terms, you're just being a b*tch. You really owe the man an apology.

[LouCipherr]

Wow, I've been gone for a few weeks and look what happens. :lol:

I agree with Dj - I have no problems sucking up bad reviews. Sh*t happens, not everyone is going to like the film and we certainly didn't expect everyone who watched it to like it. Personally, I felt more people would dislike it than like it - and much to my surprise, I was totally incorrect.

The problem we have here is, a reviewer on B-D who was either not paying attention to the movie when he watched it, or, he was so disinterested or turned off by the movie he didn't pay attention to what was going on and wrote a half-assed review. Either way, it's really no big deal. His review shows his compentancy as a reviewer, and I think that's all that needs to be said on the subject. The simple fact that he got over half of the facts wrong in his review should let the review and his ability to do said reviews stand clear.

It's all good, and it doesn't bother me one bit. His abilities as a reviewer are crystal clear. When I see someone who gets over half of the facts wrong on a movie, I just chalk it up to "this guy doesn't know jack sh*t and didn't even pay attention to the movie" and I move on, totally discrediting the review.

Allow me to reiterate for those who come here just to start trouble: I DO NOT discredit a review because it's BAD - I discredit reviews that show that the reviewer obviously had no interest to begin with or is just totally clueless.

LC

[MinionZombie]

Well said Lou, well said.

While Deadlands has its problems, there is nothing that can't be improved upon in future - especially with Deadlands 2.

Personally, I found the feat of what you guys set out there to achieve was impressive, it was a ballsy move. There is refinement and finesse in areas to be found in due course ... but then again, if someone who is (or at least appears to be) completely jaded is tasked with reviewing it, then it's best left tossed aside.

A bad review can be taken, but a bad review which is bad for the additional reason of being inaccurate and ill-considered doesn't deserve to be paid any measure of attention, well, okay a little bit of attention for some jolly good bitch slapping fun. :sneaky::p

That mistake-laden review was the Pan & Scan of film write-ups. :lol::evil:

[Danny]

Wow, I've been gone for a few weeks and look what happens. :lol:

I agree with Dj - I have no problems sucking up bad reviews. Sh*t happens, not everyone is going to like the film and we certainly didn't expect everyone who watched it to like it. Personally, I felt more people would dislike it than like it - and much to my surprise, I was totally incorrect.

The problem we have here is, a reviewer on B-D who was either not paying attention to the movie when he watched it, or, he was so disinterested or turned off by the movie he didn't pay attention to what was going on and wrote a half-assed review. Either way, it's really no big deal. His review shows his compentancy as a reviewer, and I think that's all that needs to be said on the subject. The simple fact that he got over half of the facts wrong in his review should let the review and his ability to do said reviews stand clear.

It's all good, and it doesn't bother me one bit. His abilities as a reviewer are crystal clear. When I see someone who gets over half of the facts wrong on a movie, I just chalk it up to "this guy doesn't know jack sh*t and didn't even pay attention to the movie" and I move on, totally discrediting the review.

Allow me to reiterate for those who come here just to start trouble: I DO NOT discredit a review because it's BAD - I discredit reviews that show that the reviewer obviously had no interest to begin with or is just totally clueless.

LC

thats about all you need to say to end any argument right thar':D

[N2NOther]

If you came here just to complain and come back time and again about this single issue, then you're not welcome. We're a constructive community.

If you came here to actually be a part of the forums, then go about your business, but for cryin' out loud leave this issue be, let it lie already.

I'm sorry...I didn't read the rule that said there was a limit to how many times an issue can be discussed negatively...

Again, here's the thing, one last time...I came here to lurk, read the inaccurate comment, and felt it was only fair that one or the parties represent themselves on the issue since it was completely misleading. I then chose to defend my position after I was questioned. As long as it continues I should be allowed to respond...If the issue is dropped then I will drop it was well.

I have, since joining, posted in a few other threads. There's not enough time in my day to really have a go at this forum yet. Sorry.


yeah, but after somebody spends 7 - 15 grand on something that they want to make to have something to be proud of and excercise their creativity and share something with the world, whose goal is not to make money but to act on passion....It's really harsh and lame to just say this sucks that sucks and that sucks cut and dry, in harsh way that is not constructive. it's gonna provoke anger and everyone knows that. and then to come here and i try to save face by defending your statements to the only people you know of that regularly interact w/ him on friendly terms, you're just being a b*tch. You really owe the man an apology.

I owe him an apology for stating clearly what I didn't like about the movie? Are you kidding? I NEVER said "this sucks and that sucks" in a harsh way. But I also am not going to say something positive about something I don't see much positive about. The thing I did see as a positive was the FX make-up and I said so. You interact with him as friends or on friendly terms. I interact with him as a consumer of his product. I would venture to guess that NO ONE here is 100% sunshine and smiles 24/7 when it comes to movies. I'd even bet that more than the fair share of you complain and criticize films here. So that's ok because the filmmaker isn't a member?

Ok.

It was never my intention to disrupt the forums but to clafiry a post that was misleading and false. With that I hope to be done.

[HLS]

If you came here just to complain and come back time and again about this single issue, then you're not welcome. We're a constructive community.

If you came here to actually be a part of the forums, then go about your business, but for cryin' out loud leave this issue be, let it lie already.


I agree. It is pointless and annoying.

[radiokill]

Originally Posted by Didn't See It Coming
First off I would like the thank Gary for getting the DVD out so quickly...As soon as I got it, I popped it in...

And so much for the positive...I appreciate the effort put into this but man, it was REALLY bad...The script, the acting, the editing, the sound, the score all of it just bad...

Not one character worth rooting for, not a single chilling moment, nothing. I was honestly bored to tears and the actual movie is barely 60 minutes long...The side-story has the most awkward ending, hell the movie itself has an awkward ending...

I'm not super lenient with low-budget films because there are SO many examples of great ones over the history of the horror film...Sure these guys put a lot of effort into it, but when the finished product is this bland and dull, well, it hardly seems worth it...

I wanted to like it, **** I paid $15 for it, but ultimately I didn't...At all...

The ONLY possible plus is the FX were decent...I know how tough that is and for something like this it's probably touger, none of them are standouts, but they did well with what they had...

I actually feel bad saying this but I would only give this movie a 1/10...Take that as you will.

Giving the "I can't believe how terrible this is" reaction to an average joe who spent as much money making something as an an automobile costs is quite harsh. You called his first name and thanked him for the speedy delivery, so you expected him to read it, and then you continue with your "You won't belive how bad this is" rant. So, yeah, that was harsh.


So that's ok because the filmmaker isn't a member?

if it's not under similar circumstances to this, then yeah!

[Danny]

I'm sorry...I didn't read the rule that said there was a limit to how many times an issue can be discussed negatively...




which is why that friggin "why people dont like land of the dead" threads up to like 30 something pages now:bored:

[radiokill]

which is why that friggin "why people dont like land of the dead" threads up to like 30 something pages now:bored:

:lol:

[LouCipherr]

It was never my intention to disrupt the forums but to clafiry a post that was misleading and false. With that I hope to be done.

What's truly misleading is the B-D's reviewer and how he reviewed the film. He was wrong on more facts than he was correct. Dj just pointed to the article and stated that although he didn't mind a bad review (and I certainly don't either, as stated in my post above), this guy at B-D's review can't be taken seriously due to the inaccuracies of the facts in his review.

So what, exactly, did you need to clarify? The fact that Dj exaggerated 10 pages instead of two in his one post?

C'mon, regardless of your opinion of the movie, the review at B-D was so far off base how could it possibly be taken seriously? Hell, it wasn't even US that complained about it - it was people we knew in the movie and people involved that read it and said "WTF? Did this guy even WATCH the movie?" What did you expect Dj to do? Just sit back and say "whatever..." If the facts were ACCURATE, then I'm sure that's the stance Dj would've taken, however, that was not the case at all.

Feel free to post all you want, but the bottom line is, that guy reviewed our film half-assed and got called out on it and then acted like a child even though Dj's initial response was very polite, even thanking him for taking the time to review the movie and saying we appreciated the fact they took that time to review it.

If you don't like the movie, then that's perfectly fine and none of us would have a problem with that, but you seem to be defending someone who had NO CLUE WHATSOEVER about the film but surely didn't mind trashing it. When any filmmaker sees something like that, of course they're going to call them out on it - and Dj did - and very politely at first. It escalated because of the childish and immature behaviour and response from the bozo at B-D that did the review.

Look, if you hate the movie, great. Say so, tell us why in a constructive , non-demeaning way so we know where the faults lie from your perspective, then sell it to someone else on ebay (or throw it in the trashcan) and let it be. There's no reason to drag this sh*t out for 3 pages trying to defend your position. You don't like it, that's ok, and none of us would give you any grief whatsoever if you posted a bad review - but to continue to drag it out like this? :shakes his head: to each his own I guess.


The bottom line is this:

BD's review was so inaccurate it cannot be taken seriously.

You didn't care for the movie either, which is fine, and bad reviews we do not mind. What we do mind is inaccuracies in the review. Dj posts every review - good or bad, right here on HPotD. We're strong enough to take even the harshest review because we know damn well not everyone is going to like it... but get the fu*king facts right if you're going to do a review. (that is directed at BD, not you, N2NOther)



The more I think about this, the more it makes me laugh. How would ya'll love it if I posted a review of Land of the Dead and said "man, it's a shame all the main characters bit the dust at the end" - don't you think I should be expecting some kinda backlash for an idiotic statement/review like that considering that's not even what happened in the movie? "Wow, Riley was a great sidekick, and Big Daddy was the best human character in the film!"

[N2NOther]

What's truly misleading is the B-D's reviewer and how he reviewed the film. He was wrong on more facts than he was correct. Dj just pointed to the article and stated that although he didn't mind a bad review (and I certainly don't either, as stated in my post above), this guy at B-D's review can't be taken seriously due to the inaccuracies of the facts in his review.

So what, exactly, did you need to clarify? The fact that Dj exaggerated 10 pages instead of two in his one post?

And that all I said was that the movie sucked and that should be good enough repeatedly until he pried my gripes out of me...I'm not that way at all, and seeing as how so many people like the movie, it's only fair that they see the other side of the coin.


C'mon, regardless of your opinion of the movie, the review at B-D was so far off base how could it possibly be taken seriously? Hell, it wasn't even US that complained about it - it was people we knew in the movie and people involved that read it and said "WTF? Did this guy even WATCH the movie?" What did you expect Dj to do? Just sit back and say "whatever..." If the facts were ACCURATE, then I'm sure that's the stance Dj would've taken, however, that was not the case at all.

I read the review today and it doesn't seem ALL that inaccurate save for the time it takes for Zombies to show up...And exaggeration of 9 minutes as if that is going to mean much in the grand scheme. Everything else seems pretty spot on GIVE OR TAKE...Actually it reveals a bit too much for my taste, even though I've already seen the film


Feel free to post all you want, but the bottom line is, that guy reviewed our film half-assed and got called out on it and then acted like a child even though Dj's initial response was very polite, even thanking him for taking the time to review the movie and saying we appreciated the fact they took that time to review it.

I'm not sure what the problem is when it concerns me. The only thing I share with the reviewer as far as I know is our opinion of the film.


If you don't like the movie, then that's perfectly fine and none of us would have a problem with that, but you seem to be defending someone who had NO CLUE WHATSOEVER about the film but surely didn't mind trashing it. When any filmmaker sees something like that, of course they're going to call them out on it - and Dj did - and very politely at first. It escalated because of the childish and immature behaviour and response from the bozo at B-D that did the review.

Wait. I must have missed a lot...Or one of us did. I'm not defending that guy other than the fact that he's entitled to his opinion. Whether you like how he worded it or not. Did he post here or are you refering to the email response?


Look, if you hate the movie, great. Say so, tell us why in a constructive , non-demeaning way so we know where the faults lie from your perspective, then sell it to someone else on ebay (or throw it in the trashcan) and let it be.

I did say why. But, everyone voices their opinion in a way that suits them. I never said that everyone involved wasn't talented or insulted anyone involved with the film at all. And I still haven't.


There's no reason to drag this sh*t out for 3 pages trying to defend your position. You don't like it, that's ok, and none of us would give you any grief whatsoever if you posted a bad review - but to continue to drag it out like this? :shakes his head: to each his own I guess.

It's only continuing for 3 pages because people keep commenting on it. A conversation will only last as long as it's geing engaged.



The bottom line is this:

BD's review was so inaccurate it cannot be taken seriously.

You didn't care for the movie either, which is fine, and bad reviews we do not mind. What we do mind is inaccuracies in the review. Dj posts every review - good or bad, right here on HPotD. We're strong enough to take even the harshest review because we know damn well not everyone is going to like it... but get the fu*king facts right if you're going to do a review. (that is directed at BD, not you, N2NOther)

Again, I'm not sure how much of the review is inaccurate at this point. From what I understand, it was changed?


The more I think about this, the more it makes me laugh. How would ya'll love it if I posted a review of Land of the Dead and said "man, it's a shame all the main characters bit the dust at the end" - don't you think I should be expecting some kinda backlash for an idiotic statement/review like that considering that's not even what happened in the movie? "Wow, Riley was a great sidekick, and Big Daddy was the best human character in the film!"

There is nothing in the review that is even remotely like that. At all. Let's try and be realistic here.


Giving the "I can't believe how terrible this is" reaction to an average joe who spent as much money making something as an an automobile costs is quite harsh. You called his first name and thanked him for the speedy delivery, so you expected him to read it, and then you continue with your "You won't belive how bad this is" rant. So, yeah, that was harsh.

Sorry but that wasn't even remotely harsh. I thanked him because I delt with him when I purchased his film and he sent out quickly. In case he was reading it and to let other people know that if they order it, it will get there fast. But what I said, while not positive, wasn't a rant.

A harsh rant would have been "God this movie is a piece of **** and all those involved should die in a fire" etc. Now, I can't presume to predict what people will find offensive unless it's universally so, but no, it certainly wasn't harsh. But, truth be told, you think it's harsh. Judging from the Gary's response, I don't think he did.


if it's not under similar circumstances to this, then yeah!

Sorry I don't do double standards. That's ridiculous.

[DjfunkmasterG]

I read the review today and it doesn't seem ALL that inaccurate save for the time it takes for Zombies to show up...And exaggeration of 9 minutes as if that is going to mean much in the grand scheme. Everything else seems pretty spot on GIVE OR TAKE...Actually it reveals a bit too much for my taste, even though I've already seen the film



That review was very inaccurate. In that he had Brian listed as Dave, and Dave Cooperman as a producer, not too mention many other details that were very inaccurate. The original review is posted in this thread.

Only after pissing and moaning about the blatant incompetence of the reviewer did they finally correct the issues.

[MinionZombie]

Agreed, I was quite taken aback about how off that review was, I thought to myself - was this guy even awake when he was running this DVD through?

And 9 minutes is a pretty long time, you don't round up from 22 minutes to half an hour, you round down to 20 minutes. :rolleyes: If you're writing a review, I would have thought the first thing you'd (and I'm meaning whoever in general) wanna do is make sure your facts are correct. It's not the odd mistake, it's a swathe of assumptions, harsh criticism, over-expectation and outright mistakes.

[N2NOther]

That review was very inaccurate. In that he had Brian listed as Dave, and Dave Cooperman as a producer, not too mention many other details that were very inaccurate. The original review is posted in this thread.

I looked through the thread and didn't see the original review. No biggie. I completely understand wanting to clarify certain factual things a review may have gotten wrong such as cast and crew. Other than that it seems, seems that you are making excuses for your film. Personally I would never do that. A film is a film. If some people find it successful then so be it. If not, so be it. If other people are ok with saying "well he had no money" then that's fine. I'm just not built that way.


Only after pissing and moaning about the blatant incompetence of the reviewer did they finally correct the issues.

Well sometimes it takes pissing and moaning for justice to be served. He fixed it and all is right with the world. Ok maybe not the world, but this particular issue.

ONE last thing. Something was mentioned about not listening to the commentary. That shouldn't be necessary either. I'm just saying.


Agreed, I was quite taken aback about how off that review was, I thought to myself - was this guy even awake when he was running this DVD through?

And 9 minutes is a pretty long time, you don't round up from 22 minutes to half an hour, you round down to 20 minutes. :rolleyes:

Ok. Fair enough. But seeing as how there are no chapters on the DVD and there is an introduction. plus other things the first zombies don't actually attack until around the 26 minute mark so I can see where he might have said that. But you do see the zombies walking around a few minutes before that.


If you're writing a review, I would have thought the first thing you'd (and I'm meaning whoever in general) wanna do is make sure your facts are correct. It's not the odd mistake, it's a swathe of assumptions, harsh criticism, over-expectation and outright mistakes.

But the criticism is harsh. It's the nature of the beast. These people don't review films to give nice criticisms. They donate X amount of their time to watching a movie and as I said, I'm sure everyone here has given their fair share of "harsh" criticisms to a movie they flat out hated. It sucks to know that someone hated something you worked your ass off for but such is filmmaking.

Before this goes into another back and forth...I've said what I needed to and I sincerely wish you the best of luck on your next film...I am being 100% sincere when I say that you should make some shorts and really learn to do that well before taking on another feature.

[TwoGunBob]

Well, I thought I was Gary's harshest critic, I guess I'm wrong afterall. Guess this means I can show my face at the Ugarek family reunion and BBQ after all. I'll chime in that I only caught the revised BD review but overall I found it lazy more than anything. I don't really write a lot of reviews as they take me awhile but I'll be damned if I'll be hitting the Black Crow or playing a Gameboy while I'm trying to critically watch a film I'm going to write about. I also check my basic facts so I know what I'm talking about. I just can't get over how lazy the review is. I don't really read BD much but is that typical of their reviews?
I thought my review was pretty scathing but even handed. Most people know I have a 'history' with Gary and the BD review is what I would have wrote if I was trying to be a prick towards Gary because we had a past.
Overall, I'm not impressed with the review. I give Deadlands: The Rising a 4 out of 10 but I give the Bloody Disgusting review a .5 out of 10.

[Fulcifan91]

Yeah, I always appereciated your review TGB, you really went into detail about everything that you didnt like, and even some stuff that you did like. There is definatly a big difference between your review, and BD's review, and it's the effort put into it.

[N2NOther]

I'm an active member on the BD forums and I find most of their reviews to be a big old pile of "meh". I've yet to find a single reviewer that I find to be right on all the time.

But a review doesn't have to be in detail for it to be good. A good review should make a statement, and back it up. A few specifics here and there are helpful, but not necessary.

[Bloodtype-Ed]

I haven't been here for a few weeks, since I popped in and noticed that Gary had posted the review I did on his film.

Here's a few things that popped in mind while reading over this thread....

When Gary send me Deadlands, he sent a pretty nice press kit along with the film. If Gary sent the gentleman over at B-D this as well and he made all of the mistakes he did.....that's simply him being lazy. There was more than enough info in there to supply ANYONE with enough information to write and informed review as well as them to share their thoughts on the film itself.

Also, I don't see where the criticism comes from the guy that was bitching at Gary here on this board about the cinematography. It's excellent in Deadlands, and that easily sets it apart from most independents shot on video.

So in other words, it sounds like people are bitching just to bitch.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Welcome Blootype Ed...

Have a look around HPotD stay a while and put your feet up. It is a home away from home.

[Bloodtype-Ed]

Welcome Blootype Ed...

Have a look around HPotD stay a while and put your feet up. It is a home away from home.


Thanks G, I was here before Land of the Dead came about......this place became a wasteland afterwards though. Looks like I'm BACK!!!!!

[DjfunkmasterG]

HPotD a wasteland? Hmmm, i never noticed. I have been lurking and posting for many years, but glad you're back all the same.

[N2NOther]

So in other words, it sounds like people are bitching just to bitch.

OR, they didn't like the movie...But blanket statements are cool too.

[Danny]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/khazrak/deadhorse.gif

[MinionZombie]

Agreed.

Before this issue takes off again I want an end to it right now. It's been done twice already, so I do NOT expect to see it start again.

Everyone clear? Good.

[N2NOther]

Agreed.

Before this issue takes of again I want an end to it right now. It's been done twice already, so I do NOT expect to see it start again.

Everyone clear? Good.

Holy crap...Sorry but if someone is going to speculate on why others are "bitching" about this movie, then I, as one of the ones "bitching" is going to clarify...I've said it before, if this subject keeps being spoken about then I have every right to speak about it....I don't see you saying all the positives should be dropped...If you want this topic dropped maybe you should lock the thread or show me the rule that states there's a limit to how many times one can state their opinion on a single matter. For Christ's sake...You people make a bigger deal of it than it really is...

[Danny]

seriously drop it, you said you didnt like it and why, thats it.
you keep posting these little put downs and remarks again and again, we get the point you didnt like the movie, if thats true why do you keep posting about it sucking in the deadlands section?

and before you say "but im allowed my own view", this is my view, drop it man you have nothing to prove its only an internet forum, though this forum prefers to remain constructive to its members it is okay to bitch but there is a limit.

[N2NOther]

seriously drop it, you said you didnt like it and why, thats it.

And people keep chiming in saying why other people didn't like it...So unless the topic is dropped I'm not going to drop it...What part of this is hard to grasp...If I get in trouble for voicing my opinion then so be it, but I'm certainly not going to stop saying what I feel is right because you and others don't want negative remarks...


you keep posting these little put downs and remarks again and again, we get the point you didnt like the movie, if thats true why do you keep posting about it sucking in the deadlands section?

I get the point, you don't like me saying I don't like the movie so why do you keep posting about it?

Holy ****, seriously read the thread. Look when I post something and see what it's in response to. THAT'S why I keep posting here. And again, tell me where it's written that I can only say what I have to say about once?


and before you say "but im allowed my own view", this is my view, drop it man you have nothing to prove its only an internet forum, though this forum prefers to remain constructive to its members it is okay to bitch but there is a limit.

I don't see there being a limit to the masturbatory converstaion taking place in the Timeline thread but whatevs.

I don't have something to prove. I want to prove that people CAN legitimately dislike a film. If someone likes the film, fine, I won't take that away from them, but when someone asks (everyone that's seen the movie) what can be improved for next time or makes generalizations as to why people didn't like the movie I'm going to speak my mind. It's really that simple.

If I went into every Deadland thread and said something then I could see your point. But since I've done it in a total of 2 threads and with good reason and justification, then your point is really nothing more than you not wanting anything negative to be said about a film that you're either fond of or you're fond of the filmmaker and has nothing to do with anything more than that.

[Neil]

N2NOther - People are starting to get tired of you seemingly just popping up here to bang heads with people. You've said your piece (repeatedly), now give us a break please...

[N2NOther]

N2NOther - People are starting to get tired of you seemingly just popping up here to bang heads with people. You've said your piece (repeatedly), now give us a break please...

I'll gladly give you all a break...once people stop generalizing and asking questions directed at those who saw the movie. Is me repeating this getting tiresome? Not to me...I can repeat this all day until it finally sinks in.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Thread CLOSED!