Same Old Love I must admit that the film did not cause any disgust.
First of all, the synopsis is not entirely correct. No zombie apocalypse is shown there. There, everything seems to be twisted. The essence of the picture is that the dead young man does not realize that he is a homosexual, which is one of the fundamental points of the picture. Or rather, it's like he's being forced to think about it, and the guy, well, he's just trying to go with the flow. The fact that it is dead is just a necessary element for the ending.
Secondly, despite the diligent involvement of the director in, shall we say, vile scenes, the film turned out not to be disgusting. I don't know what Michael Simon was aiming for, but I think he missed a little bit. The film does not initially hint that the main character is a dead person. I mean, it's just presented as fact. There are the living and there are the living dead. And they all coexist somehow. Even when the main character meets a guy, the confusion of a living man passes very quickly. Dead and dead. Who doesn't happen to you?
In short, the director himself, I think, tried more to show the comical relationship between the living and the dead gays. But what is strange is that these are not “progressed” (if you don’t mind such a turn) homosexuals, but rather people who have not yet fully gotten along with their inner world. And if the hell to remove all this unnecessary zombie theme, you could create quite a good drama about finding yourself in a contradictory and fast-changing world. Moreover, the guys are not completely sure that they are gay and just probe the ground for possible relationships.
Yes, after all, given that one of them is a dead man, it would be possible to create a tearful love drama about men from two different social strata. A drama about love that has no place in the ordinary world or in the post-apocalyptic. There were a lot of things to do.
But the director made some yogurt, and mixing the ingredients somehow ineptly, but rather carelessly. Sweeping everything in a short meter and giving it the form of a fable, he made a hack, which, by the way, has good potential. But it is not the fate of this film to turn from a caterpillar into a butterfly. And actors aren't that bad either. Sometimes, after all, in more expensive paintings, they play out of hand bad, and then the money was barely collected for twenty minutes with the credits and how it came out. You can even watch it once.
But twenty minutes, of course, should bring the director in the plus, otherwise I would not be able to look at his throwing, well, at least eighty minutes, or even all two hours. Moreover, creators who actively exploit homosexual themes like to stretch their crafts on such a voluminous timekeeping.
I'll say it again. You can see the painting. Twenty minutes, this is not so much, especially since the attempt is interesting to place accents at the director, of course, was.
6 out of 10