What are the rules of the sickness in The Crazies?
No, seriously, I’m asking. Because the movie doesn’t make it clear at all, and on more than one occasion seems to break what we’ve been led to think are the rules of the sickness. By the end of the movie we’ve reached a point where this amorphous sickness seems to strike only as the plot demands, and only in ways that serve the screenwriters. And that’s just one of the many problems with this movie.
The Crazies seemed ripe for remake; after all, the George Romero original isn’t one of his best and that’s what we should be remaking – films with room for improvement. But Breck Eisner’s version manages to be less interesting and less thoughtful than the original, jettisoning any psychological aspects that Romero explored in favor of cheap, stupid jump scares accompanied by cacophonous shrieks on the soundtrack. In fact I couldn’t tell you what this version of The Crazies is about in any deeper sense than telling you the points of the plot; there seems to be little to no subtext to what’s going on, and the craziness is a MacGuffin at best, instead of a true metaphor for… well, for anything. The film explores a touch of Tea Bagger paranoia, but then undercuts that by having the hunting/gun loving guys be just as bad as the faceless military.
The movie at least opens quickly, but maybe that’s a bad thing as well. Eisner (and the slack script by Scott Kosar and Ray Wright) doesn’t spend much time setting up the sleepy town of Ogden Marsh; while that means we get right to the action it also means that the idea of a small town of regular folks going homicidally nuts carries almost no weight. We don’t get to know any of these people, and so their turn to craziness is just there to give our heroes a problem to overcome. I don’t know that I would be so bothered by this if the plight of our heroes – a band of survivors led by Sheriff David (Timothy Olyphant), his pregnant doctor wife Judy (Radha Mitchell), deputy Russ (Joe Anderson) and some girl who has about three lines in the film that aren’t just screams or sobs (Danielle Panabaker) – was interesting in any way. They just wander from site to site, situation to situation, without a larger, clear plan or even much by way of interpersonal dynamics. Walk into situation/be attacked by crazies and/or the military/rinse and repeat. And repeat. And repeat.
And that wouldn’t be so bad if Eisner were a horror director. Here we have a movie where normal people are turned into raving, blood spurting murderous lunatics who will stop at nothing to inflict damage on others. And they use weapons! And set up traps! But instead of finding unique and varied kills, Eisner just has people getting knocked off in the least interesting ways imaginable. There’s one interesting kill, and that’s just not enough to carry a movie that’s predicated on mayhem. Combine that with Eisner’s lazy reliance on cheap, shitty jump scares and you get a movie that’s got nothing to offer anybody who doesn’t have hyperekplexia.
But there’s still more wrong with the film. The Crazies is an endless series of missed opportunities, especially when it comes to craziness. There’s a great idea that the film almost engages – what’s the difference between a sick crazy person and someone driven to the edge by the situation at hand – but the script deftly moves the hell away from that. It also sidesteps any interpersonal friction that isn’t craziness-caused; Romero’s interest in all of his films was the way people bounced off of each other in the extreme situations he would conjure and The Crazies was no different. So why doesn’t this film seem interested in this aspect of a crisis situation? Again and again the moments where the film felt like it was going to engage this – especially a scene with rednecks hunting their fellow townsfolk – melt away into nothingness. These rednecks end up just being infected, and it has nothing to do with deeper, scarier normal human urges.
Speaking of infection, allow me to revisit my biggest complaint about The Crazies: the nebulous nature of the infection. One of the great things about zombie films is the set of rules that George Romero established: the dead rise; those bitten by the undead become the undead; the undead can only be killed by destroying the brain. These are the basic rules that every burgeoning horror hound knows, and these rules give shape to the world of zombie movies. The stakes are known, the dangers are obvious. Romero throws some wrenches into the rules on occasion, but that’s only possible because the basic rules are so well-established – and they’re well established as early as Night of the Living Dead.
In The Crazies there are no rules. The sickness comes from a polluted water supply, and at the beginning the vector of infection is plotted according to who gets the town water in their pipes first. So far, so good. But then everything goes out the window. Eisner has the cops incarcerate a crazy, which I thought so that we could see the cycle of the disease and understand it, but he seems to have no interest in being consistent. For some people the sickness begins with a semi-comatose state… but not for others. And especially not for others who are important to the plot. For some people the sickness utterly overcomes their thinking and reasoning… but not for others. And especially not for others whose continued consciousness is dramatically appropriate, if not logically appropriate. And there’s even a captured army guy – Commander Exposition! – who tells us that the incubation period of the illness is 48 hours. And we seem to see that people with the illness die after a certain amount of time. But neither of those things are consistent in any way with what we actually see in the film, and the incubation time appears to be not 48 hours but ‘However long Eisner/Kosar/Wright want it to be.’
That’s really frustrating because it means the movie is basically formless. Add to that the fact that the method of infection isn’t even fully clear – has it gone airborne at a certain point or not? Romero at least allowed us into the military operation to get a basic understanding of the parameters of the sickness (is infection even the right word? I don’t even know if this shit is communicable or if just drinking bottled water would have been enough to save the folks of Ogden Marsh) – and you end up with a movie that just trundles along doing what it wants, not anything that makes sense or works in a larger picture. At one point I was trying to look for clues to see if Sheriff David was sick, and then I realized it simply didn’t matter, as everything was so ill-defined that Eisner could make him sick or not on a whim, without needing any sort of set up. That goes for the military as well – the movie establishes an all-seeing, godlike satellite watching Ogden Marsh that can pick out our heroes at any time… except when the plot needs it to not do so. Most frustrating is that Sheriff David even mentions that the military can find them on any road at any time, and so of course they keep just walking down the middle of every possible road.
For some folks Timothy Olyphant just works. I’m not one of those folks. He seems to be stuck in one growling gear, and I never can find any nuance within him. He feels just as on edge at the beginning of the movie, before a single crazy has arrived, as he does at the end. I get his basic appeal, especially in today’s girlieboy leading man landscape, but he always feels like he belongs in direct to cable movies to me. The rest of the cast isn’t much better; Radha Mitchell is just there for the whole film, screaming a lot and little else. Danielle Panabaker has possibly the most thankless role in modern cinema, short of playing a corpse.
The only actor who walks out of the film having done anything memorable is Joe Anderson; Anderson’s career to date hasn’t been the best – he was Maxwell in the fairly terrible Across the Universe and the German guy whose leg gets cut off in The Ruins, but he brings something intriguing to Deputy Russ. There’s a quiet, laconic quality to the character in the early half of the movie and Anderson ups the intensity as time goes on. In a better movie the upped intensity would have been ambiguous – is Deputy Russ a crazy or has he just reacted to this situation by becoming violent? – but The Crazies doesn’t have the brains for that. Which is too bad, since I think Anderson could have played that.
I wanted to like this film. It’s competently made, putting it heads and shoulders above its main opening weekend competition,
Cop Out, but it’s got little else happening. Eisner proves himself a guy who can shoot a scene but who has no vision for anything beyond basic composition. There’s no point to
The Crazies – it’s not much scarier than having someone startling you by clanging pots and pans together, it’s not inventive as a horror film and it has nothing on its mind when it comes to the crazies themselves or how people deal with it all. The film’s greatest triumph is that even in the face of so many faults it manages to be not terrible.
5.5 out of 10
40 comments
devin not a fan of Olyphant….shocking.
I wanted more menace and mayhem. I thought the movie would be ripe with it. guess not.
What is a teabagger? I mean, Im afraid of scrotums being dipped in my mouth as the next guy, but I don't think I understand it's meaning in this context
I normally see eye to eye with Devin on movies but "Olyphant a girlieboy leading man"; Devin, seriously, WHAT…THE…FUCK. I don't know what's been going on with you the last few months but if anyone lacking nuance in their forms of expression, you've no further to look than yourself. Here's hoping you get past whatever is going on right now.
Ryan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement
#4: Do you people even read these articles? He didn't call him a girlieboy leading man, he said that he understands his appeal since he's NOT one of those actors. Jesus you people are morons.
This movie is better than Avatar
#4 – i dont think devin is calling olyphant a girlieboy leading man – hes just saying that he understands olyphants appeal amidst endless waves of girlieboy leading men. that said, i think olyphant is great and tends to be the best thing in whatever hes in (perfect getaway, diehard 4, etc). i was hoping this would be good, but i guess ill wait for netflix. nice review devin.
That's the last time Breck Eisner leaves Devin off the set visit invitation list.
How the fuck can you orgasm over Wolfman and then EVER complain about shitty jump scares?
Someone startling me by clanging pots and pans together is pretty damned startling!
saw this movie saturday, solid movie, bit of a slowburner but solid all around.
shame that devin didn't like it, but his taste is different than mine.
i'd give it a solid 8 out of 10, all things considered.
and tim o has a lifetime pass for his part in deadwood, he is awesome and deserves to be in big things.
Olyphant is way too lean for Faraci too like.
I hope you feel better soon, Devin. You'll find whatever it is you're looking for someday. Maybe.
while this film isn't great it is a hundred times better then that piece of shit friday the 13th remake.
If you want the real Crazies, go watch the original. We'll be fine with this interpretation.
If you see eye to eye with Devin, then youre a moron. I heard good things about this movie, from multiple sources and Devin not liking it, solidifies the fact that I will see this in the theater. I'm tired of this douche reviewing movies based on his pre-determined notions, which are usually based on the director or actors, or if it remakes a beloved favorite.
I'll stick to the real critics, Devin, you stick to World of Warcraft.
Devin, I think you really nailed when you said that this movie isn't about anything. That would also be my complaint about virtually every horror movie I've seen in the last twenty years. Yeah, you can make the audience jump by throwing a cat across the screen, but will anyone remember your movie next month? Romero has plenty of flaws as a film-maker, but I don't think anyone would say that his movies aren't about something. If you ask someone what a movie is about, they will usually start describing the plot to you. But if you ask them that question about a truly great movie, plot won't come into the conversation for a while. Citizen Kane is not about a reporter trying to figure out a man's last words. Laurence of Arabia is not about war. Chinatown is not about a detective trying to solve a case. And that is why those movies are considered classics. They are about something.
I don't understand telling someone their review was good when you yourself haven't seen the movie. I mean, how do you know? It's one thing if you're just complimenting the author on HOW it was written, but as far as you know, as far as your tastes are concerned, it could be waaaaaaaay off the mark. That said, I thought the movie was OK, and I thought they could have done more with certain things and less with others. I think there were a good 5 times or so where a character is jusssssst about to get killed before another character shoots the Crazy from off-screen. Also, I think the satellite was there more as a storytelling device for US so that we'd have information that the main characters couldn't possibly have and that it wasn't seriously tracking every single move of these 2 people for the entire film.
I just came out of the theater, pissed off and out $12 poorer. This review is freaking SPOT on. The Crazies is a terrible, predictable movie. It's so goddamn generic, parroting all the horror movie tropes, right down to the shitty jump scares. I don't like Olyphant either. He's one of the most wooden Hollywood actors since freaking Ben Affleck.
If the critics hated The Wolfman, why oh why aren't they ripping this movie to shreds????? The 71% on RottenTomatoes is what is fucking CRAZY.
Shame, was hoping this was one of the rare remakes that didn't punch itself in the nuts with it's own retard strength.
Devin's reviews have become so subjective that the only person they're useful for is Devin. All reviews are subjective by nature but a good critic should at least be able to step back from their initial reaction and consider whether the movie is actually good or bad, and not just whether it amused them on a dull Tuesday morning. The terrible Friday 13th remake gets 8/10 and lots of praise because Devin likes Jason movies. The muddled Survival of the Dead gets 8/10 because Devin likes Romero. The idiotic Punisher: War Zone gets 8/10 because Devin likes goofy kills. Mindless shit like GI Joe gets 8/10 for being mindless shit. 2012, one of the dumbest movies in recent memory, gets 7.5/10 because it's "well-made trash". Where genre films are concerned, Devin doesn't seem to be reviewing the movie itself, but reviewing his mood afterwards, which is no different to what Harry Knowles does.
Devin,your review is exactly how I felt when I finished watching this crap.The convuluted plot and bloodless action are only 2 of the many problems with this movie.Do not see this movie and save your money for something better.
I liked it quite a bit. Then again, I think the original is of the most incompetent, boring pieces of crap ever made and a criminal waste of good film. This was a good movie, a solid thriller. Devin's got his head squarely up his ass on this one. It's really not surprising. He gave that abortion of a "Friday the 13th" remake a good rating and that is one of the biggest pieces of shit ever made. It's not like they had a lot to work with, the "Friday" flicks have always been Z-grade shit, but seriously, the new one took shit to a whole new level of stink. Devin's slipped into the same realm as Harry Knowles and his reviews are becoming about as trustworthy. "The Crazies" is a remake that actually justifies it's existence by being about 50 times better than the crapass original. Sorry, Devin, Romero has always been a shitty filmmaker. He's cranked out a couple of classics, but he can't write for shit and almost all of his early films are embarrassingly bad.
Life's tough when you're a cocksucker. Please feel free to sign back up so I can ban you again. Also please feel free to troll the comments so I can delete your posts there as well.
drawn out, inevitable, almost obvious scares always beat jump scares.. as far as putting tension into the story.. i.e. the original dawn of the dead, when the dead finally realize the secret hiding room through the false wall, and the slow progress to the safe room, thats shit pants scary and truly builds the zombies as relentless (same with the silly buddhist monk that did the same thing earlier).. this movie seems to avoid this and displays these zombies as firecrackers that will die soon, going for the pointless violence for shock only.. blah easy film-making..
I, for one, thought this was a massive improvement on the original – I'm glad to see some people that agree on here. I'm a big Romero fan, but Eisner was operating on a scale and budget that was more appropriate for the story being told. Romero did the best with what he had, but in the end, it was a mildly diverting, but not entirely successful film (it certainly pales in comparison to the confined terror of Night of the Living Dead). The new version is exciting and genuinely nerve-wracking in spots, and despite lacking substance, it is an exciting picture.
After all the praise heaped on The Wolfman here – a film I went to see based on Devin's review, and absolutely loathed – I will probably ignore any future horror-themed reviews on this site.
Lane Meyer just got his ass spanked…and he liked it.
The movie was good. The Wolfman wasn't. Devin doesn't like good movies. End of story.
This movie clicked with me for some reason. It felt like the live action version of a Left 4 Dead campaign. I liked the way the film built up and although predictable at times I still had a lot of fun. I agree that Joe Anderson had a standout performance here and was hoping for the same thing Devin mentioned. Is he infected or going crazy because of the situation? But I love Chopping Mall so who the hell knows…
I dont think Olyphant is any great shakes, the one gear gripe is apt, but the "girlieboy" description mystifies me. In terms of the roles he takes and his general appearance and attitude he's not wimpish or image concerned at all. When I think of posturing, prettyboy actors I think of Jared Leto or Josh Hartnett, not Olyphant.
#7: Lots of movies are better than Avatar. In fact, most.
#32: Yeah, sure they are. I'm sure the screenplay you wrote and the film you made are 10 times better than Avatar. I'm not talking about the script either, i'm talking about the actual chops behind the camera. I'm talking about the tech aspect of getting the film actuallt shot and shown….yeah, Avatar sucks. You don't like it? fine, but don't make yourself look like a brainless ass by saying it's not a well made film. Devin's ass ain't worth kissing that much.
I think the issue here is it seems Devin is comparing it to zombie films, but this isn't a zombie film. It's about a virus that makes people insane and as a fact there are many different levels of insanity as well as many different subtle nuances. Ever been to a psych ward at a hospital? Some patients are screamers, some are real quiet and some by all accounts seem absolutely normal till someone hums a tv jingle and then the patient tries to gouge your eyes out with a spoon. Craziness in the real world differs from person to person so it stands to fact that a person infected with Trixie would act a different kind of crazy than the other infected person next to them. the end result is the howling, snarling beast of a person after prolonged exposure.
Speaking of crazy, is it me or is there an almost bi polar nature to Devin's reviews (Hated Transformers 2, Enjoyed 2012. We could argue all day at the levels of shittiness, but shit is shit at the end of the day.) Hated the Dark Knight, But liked Punisher War Zone….
Dude, check your water….
Bummer. Thought something was off when the crazies looked like zombies. So now I guess that The Brood remake is gonna suck as well.
Devin, let me start off by saying this site of yours is infinitely better at the moment than AICN. Your reviews are a damn site more coherent for the most part than the drivel that passes for reviews there. That said, lately you have been sliding somewhat toward Knowlesish territory. I saw this yesterday and my take is that its a solid film – it's flaws are no worse than the flaws of horrors that are considered greats. Plenty of jump scares and loud noise effects in the very best of 'em so it's hardly a valid comment as to why it's no good – just a comment on why YOU yourself didn't like it, which is something else entirely. I agree the virus had little consistency but to be fair, that in itself is quite realistic – virus's don't always behave exactly the same way in everybody they infect, and to be fair the need for dramatic effect gets distorted in better films than this so again, that isn't a great critique of it being a bad movie, just one of it being a movie you didn't like personally. Olyphant is a great leading man and how you find him one-note is beyond me, but hey thats personal preference so I'll let you have that one although if you're telling me he's the same note movie for movie in Deadwood, A Perfect Getaway, The Crazies, Scream 2, well then we're never going to be on the same page. He's got range, and chops, and is a damn site better actor than guys getting bigger movies than he dloes currently. For my money, the problems of the film didn't outweigh the effect it had on me, which was that I had a great time watching a horror/thriller for 2 hours, and so to me thats a sign of it being a solid, enjoyable and recommendable film. I'm sorry it didn't come down on that side of the scale for you too. Great, fun, dumb horror flick. Certainly better than 90% of the other horror flicks being made right now and one things for sure – Romero fan though I may be, this remake is the better film of the two.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
devin didn't hate the film, it just wasn't a great film.. is the number rating throwing you all off or what? the last paragraph pretty much sums up most of his reviews so the # at the bottom should just be tossed, IMO.. would generate a hell of a lot less rants and more thorough reads.. too many tards comparing your ratings # with other genres of film. Be more confident in your writing!
How does this pretentious, fat piece of shit get to watch and review movies for a living? Fuck you Devin.
Why does every critic go into a horror movie and want fucking Shakespearean interplay? Seriously, dude. It's a fucking horror movie.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.