zombies vs strippers. it has zombies, and it has strippers. what more could you want? you might be thinking that that question is rhetorical, but pretty much no. let me tell you about some of the things you could want.
- a script: other than the painful attempts at clever one-liners, there was little sign that there was an actual script associated with this film.
- THE ROCK: but then, i want to see the rock in pretty much every movie. it is a pretty far-fetched notion for this film because the rock is probably pretty expensive, and this film was clearly lacking...
- a budget: if they had doubled their budget to $2000, they could have afforded to hire *professional* hobos to play the zombies or real strippers to play the strippers. or with careful negotiating, both of those things.
- better communication between actors and the director: it seemed to me that the director could have done a better job of communicating to all the actors the kind of movie that they were making. if everybody had been on board with the fact that they were making a crappy straight-to-video movie, then they could have made a really great crappy straight-to-video movie. it worked for zombie strippers, and it could have worked here if no one had taken their roles seriously. in particular, i thought most of the zombies took their roles a bit too literally
i do not know what i was expecting, really. i knew it was going to be schlock, so i should not be surprised that it turned out to be schlock.
zombies vs strippers gets one zombie or one stripper, but not both.
No comments:
Post a Comment