3 attempted reimagings... 2 miserable fails.There was Night of the Living Dead 3D, Night of the Living Dead (Memesis) but I can't really count that one......Then there is this. Utter nonsense! I was actually looking forward to seeing this movie. No, my hopes were not up high at all. I am a realist. I have watched some terrible movies. The trailer definitely fools you into thinking you are in for a jolly good time or one heck of a ride. What you are in for is a snoozefest with your head bobbing up and down consistently once you get to the core of the film... Sigh, such a wasted opportunity. Yeah, I get it. They want to make it their own. Give it a new spin. This movie is random...How random you ask? Random in every aspect. Just watch the movie and see for yourself... Or better yet DON'T. Everyone has their own taste. This definitely is not mine. Watch at your own risk. If you can't do a decent reimaging or remake leave the franchise ALONE!
45 Reviews
Don't go near this movie!!!
bender25528 June 2013
I don't usually write reviews but felt compelled to after viewing this piece of trash.It was rather reminiscent of a home movie made by drama students,not that they are all bad but this was amateur film-making at its highest. The acting was bad,horror effects when there was horror were appalling.I expect the makers were trying to make money off the living dead franchise.For horror movie buffs there is nothing here to like and much better b-grade horror movies.I want my 90 minutes back that I wasted. If I could recommend a good zombie movie besides the current blockbuster it would be 1985's "Return of the Living Dead". I found it laughable that 15-18 hrs a day was involved in making this movie and I don't think this would make it to cinema but even straight to DVD would be too good for it,maybe it should be showed in the early hours of the morning when its only viewed by a small part of the population.
Does the rating system go to zero?
jhciswatching11 May 2013
In a nutshell: Community Theatre does a zombie play and then decides to film it. I must start off by saying I love bad movies. But this - I just couldn't even like it. I get it that the filmmakers tried paying homage to Romero throughout: with the funky camera angles, too close close-ups and claustrophobic, under-lit interior shots - but all-in-all, fail miserably in paying respect to the Master. Also, if the acting were any better, there might be a bit of redemption. Unfortunately, the locals that comprise the cast just don't pull it off. Run from this film. Run fast and run hard. Run just as you would from a flesh-eating horde.
Night of the living Dead ?....
dadatuuexx2 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Sorry,here,s the spoiler..More like "Night of the living Dead-Beats " !. I see ALL zombie films,from ALL over this planet,good ,and bad,and have been doing so for over 40 years now,and LOVE the subject.However ,i was not so let down when i saw that it was a micro-budget movie,moreover ,that it was lame ,boring ,and quite shoddy!.Watch that last one ,with Jeffery Combs,or the one in 3-d ,w/ ole Sig,at least THEY had zombies that REALLY wanted to eat flesh,not creep around breaking stuff,wilding ,but true flesh eating,human hating desires,not wear my hoodie,and bang on peoples doors in the middle of the nite,till i get my nuts shot off ! i mean,it was an hour and twenty before i really saw much good zombie stuff.Lame story,shoddy acting ,bad effects,poor script ,i could go on,but its pointless......like this movie ! .
A rip off
kickboxking8 June 2013
Cheap production value, cheap sound quality, and cheesy dialogue make this film one to avoid at all costs, just when the British film Industry has at last made its mark in the world of film and cinema along comes this load of old tosh that drags it back 20 years why oh why oh why, oh I know why, to make a few quid, if you want to know what it feels like to be mugged buy this DVD and you'll realise! it shouldn't even be allowed to carry the title Night Of the Living Dead George A Romero must be livid his highly original work getting used as and excuse to sell this rubbish!!I have to make this review at least 10 lines OK it looks like it's been filmed on a phone, the characters in the film are very flimsy and the actors playing them must have been chosen in a raffle of some sort, or responded to an ad in the local paper, I didn't care what happened to the characters I just wish they would all get killed so I wouldn't have to hurt my eyes anymore watching this rubbish, I have seen a lot of films not all of them good be warned this is the first time I've been moved to write a review, be afraid be very afraid.
Undeserving of its 'Night of
' title.
BA_Harrison2 November 2013
Welsh writer/director James Plumb sure has balls to name his film after George Romero's classic zombie movie, but sadly he doesn't quite have the talent to do the title justice: his writing skills aren't all that bad, the film's familial drama being reasonably effective thanks to believable dialogue bolstered by surprisingly convincing performances, but his project as a whole suffers from a lack of decent zombie action, poorly judged camera placement, weak editing, and one or two scenes crippled by a severe lack of logic from the characters.
After a false start ala Hitchcock's Psycho (which actually provides the best moment in the film), the plot centres on a family trapped in their rural home by a plague of zombies, and as tension mounts and their number slowly dwindles, the characters begin to reveal their flaws and secrets, and relationships break down. This interaction of characters works fairly well, but the film's flaws are too numerous and impossible to ignore (individually, some of the following may sound like petty niggles, but together they really serve to irritate) Firstly, Terry Victor as Gerald sports eyebrows so bushy that zombies would be hard pushed to get close enough to bite him (and as it happens, they don't). Also rather frustrating is the fact that no attempt has been made to fortify the house—hell, they don't even lock the back door after going outside! Furthermore, the family seem a little slow on the uptake, not realising that the 'crazies' are in fact the dead brought back to life (a headline in the newspaper shop in the first scene states that The Dead Live—haven't they been following the news?).
Then there's the technical issues: the overuse of canted angles, which looks like Plumb forgot to lock-off his tripod properly, and inappropriate low POV shots, as if the the camera was left on the ground still running between takes, all of which give the film an air of amateurishness.
But it's back to Gerald for my biggest complaint: when faced with a gang of machete wielding chavs, the bushy-browed fool stops his car (instead of ploughing straight through them) and pays for his stupid mistake with his life. It's dumb beyond belief.
While not nearly as bad as many of the other reviews make out (I reserve my '1/10's for completely unwatchable dross that actually makes my eyes hurt), the film is certainly undeserving of its 'Night of ' title.
After a false start ala Hitchcock's Psycho (which actually provides the best moment in the film), the plot centres on a family trapped in their rural home by a plague of zombies, and as tension mounts and their number slowly dwindles, the characters begin to reveal their flaws and secrets, and relationships break down. This interaction of characters works fairly well, but the film's flaws are too numerous and impossible to ignore (individually, some of the following may sound like petty niggles, but together they really serve to irritate) Firstly, Terry Victor as Gerald sports eyebrows so bushy that zombies would be hard pushed to get close enough to bite him (and as it happens, they don't). Also rather frustrating is the fact that no attempt has been made to fortify the house—hell, they don't even lock the back door after going outside! Furthermore, the family seem a little slow on the uptake, not realising that the 'crazies' are in fact the dead brought back to life (a headline in the newspaper shop in the first scene states that The Dead Live—haven't they been following the news?).
Then there's the technical issues: the overuse of canted angles, which looks like Plumb forgot to lock-off his tripod properly, and inappropriate low POV shots, as if the the camera was left on the ground still running between takes, all of which give the film an air of amateurishness.
But it's back to Gerald for my biggest complaint: when faced with a gang of machete wielding chavs, the bushy-browed fool stops his car (instead of ploughing straight through them) and pays for his stupid mistake with his life. It's dumb beyond belief.
While not nearly as bad as many of the other reviews make out (I reserve my '1/10's for completely unwatchable dross that actually makes my eyes hurt), the film is certainly undeserving of its 'Night of ' title.
Goodnight to the living dead
bowmanblue20 July 2014
Don't you just hate those reviews that say blunt things like 'This film is rubbish!'
I try to give a little more information than that, but, I have to say, that that is the crux of my review. For those ten people out there who don't know, the title of 'Night of the Living Dead' comes from the sixties zombie film, made by George Romero film and sporting the same name. The original sixties version is largely considered to be the 'start' of the modern take on the undead. This film, ie. The 2012 version where the film-makers have stuck the word 'Resurrection' on the end has NOTHING to do with the original or the official sequels spawned from it.
It is a 'homage' to George Romero's classic. Therefore it takes the best bits and tries to give them a 'fresh' new spin. And it fails.
Saying it's made on a 'shoestring budget,' would be an overstatement. I doubt they had a budget at all. The actors (and I use that term loosely) seem to be straight out of the amateur dramatics society and the camera is mainly hand-held all the way through, making it seem like your old home video footage of your holiday to Spain when you were a child.
One plus point: the gore is reasonable in the few places it's used, plus there's quite a shocking moment early on that I doubt many will see coming.
However, a couple of nice touches do not make a movie. The rest is just awful.
Don't be lulled into thinking it'll be good just because the film-makers stole a classic's title. It's just a poor attempt at cashing in on the name. If you like British zombie movies then stick to the 28 Days Later pair, or Shaun of the Dead if you want your gore with some light-hearted moments in it.
http://thewrongtreemoviereviews.blogspot.co.uk/
I try to give a little more information than that, but, I have to say, that that is the crux of my review. For those ten people out there who don't know, the title of 'Night of the Living Dead' comes from the sixties zombie film, made by George Romero film and sporting the same name. The original sixties version is largely considered to be the 'start' of the modern take on the undead. This film, ie. The 2012 version where the film-makers have stuck the word 'Resurrection' on the end has NOTHING to do with the original or the official sequels spawned from it.
It is a 'homage' to George Romero's classic. Therefore it takes the best bits and tries to give them a 'fresh' new spin. And it fails.
Saying it's made on a 'shoestring budget,' would be an overstatement. I doubt they had a budget at all. The actors (and I use that term loosely) seem to be straight out of the amateur dramatics society and the camera is mainly hand-held all the way through, making it seem like your old home video footage of your holiday to Spain when you were a child.
One plus point: the gore is reasonable in the few places it's used, plus there's quite a shocking moment early on that I doubt many will see coming.
However, a couple of nice touches do not make a movie. The rest is just awful.
Don't be lulled into thinking it'll be good just because the film-makers stole a classic's title. It's just a poor attempt at cashing in on the name. If you like British zombie movies then stick to the 28 Days Later pair, or Shaun of the Dead if you want your gore with some light-hearted moments in it.
http://thewrongtreemoviereviews.blogspot.co.uk/
Night of the Living Dead... wait, what? Seriously?
paul_haakonsen19 May 2013
Well first of all, I don't really understand how this movie could even be allowed to carry the title "Night of the Living Dead", as it was a weak movie in comparison to Romero's timeless classic.
And how the movie have managed to score such a low rating, doesn't really come as a surprise, because this movie was nothing overly impressive. When I first heard about the movie I was thrilled, and had my hopes up. Why? Well, because of the title "Night of the Living Dead: Resurrection", it does have some big shoes to fill out, but it failed horribly to do so.
The story was simple and easy to follow, but it was rather pointless and didn't really peak at any point, and it didn't really throw any bones to the audience - in overall, a very uninspiring movie experience.
For a zombie movie, then there were surprisingly few zombies in the movie. And those that were there, weren't particularly scary, threatening or zombie-like. Apparently when you die, your eyes become shrouded by horribly fake contact lenses. That was just hilarious. The contact lenses they had opted to put into the eyes of some of the zombies wasn't even remotely anything near those milked-over eyes of the deceased - it was party contact lenses at best.
The acting in the movie was nothing spectacular, and it was clear that it was a low budget semi-amateurish movie, because it was like watching inadequately trained stage thespians trying to take their talent to the big screen.
Effects-wise and gore-wise, then "Night of the Living Dead: Resurrection" is nothing spectacular or particularly impressive. It didn't really make much use of either special effects or gore. So for all us gore-hounds, then our depraved cravings is better satisfied elsewhere.
However, for a low budget movie, then "Night of the Living Dead: Resurrection" isn't amongst the worst of low budget movies. There are far more questionable and ridiculous zombie movies out there. Just don't get your hopes up for this movie - as I did - you'll crash and burn fast and hard on this one.
I am giving this movie a 4 out of 10 rating because it was a good-hearted attempt at making a zombie movie on an amateurish level. The movie did have some good points here and there as well, but it just had set itself too far up by brandishing the "Night of the Living" title. Perhaps the movie should just have been named "Resurrection" or something else without the "Night of the Living Dead" title.
And how the movie have managed to score such a low rating, doesn't really come as a surprise, because this movie was nothing overly impressive. When I first heard about the movie I was thrilled, and had my hopes up. Why? Well, because of the title "Night of the Living Dead: Resurrection", it does have some big shoes to fill out, but it failed horribly to do so.
The story was simple and easy to follow, but it was rather pointless and didn't really peak at any point, and it didn't really throw any bones to the audience - in overall, a very uninspiring movie experience.
For a zombie movie, then there were surprisingly few zombies in the movie. And those that were there, weren't particularly scary, threatening or zombie-like. Apparently when you die, your eyes become shrouded by horribly fake contact lenses. That was just hilarious. The contact lenses they had opted to put into the eyes of some of the zombies wasn't even remotely anything near those milked-over eyes of the deceased - it was party contact lenses at best.
The acting in the movie was nothing spectacular, and it was clear that it was a low budget semi-amateurish movie, because it was like watching inadequately trained stage thespians trying to take their talent to the big screen.
Effects-wise and gore-wise, then "Night of the Living Dead: Resurrection" is nothing spectacular or particularly impressive. It didn't really make much use of either special effects or gore. So for all us gore-hounds, then our depraved cravings is better satisfied elsewhere.
However, for a low budget movie, then "Night of the Living Dead: Resurrection" isn't amongst the worst of low budget movies. There are far more questionable and ridiculous zombie movies out there. Just don't get your hopes up for this movie - as I did - you'll crash and burn fast and hard on this one.
I am giving this movie a 4 out of 10 rating because it was a good-hearted attempt at making a zombie movie on an amateurish level. The movie did have some good points here and there as well, but it just had set itself too far up by brandishing the "Night of the Living" title. Perhaps the movie should just have been named "Resurrection" or something else without the "Night of the Living Dead" title.
if I could give it zero stars I would do it in a heart beat!
hannahmjones2490112 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
this movie sucked!! Seriously... who would walk away from their car in the middle of the night and start banging on the door of some random house during an apocalypse? No one! And just shoot the freaking kid! he is taking up the space in your bathroom. Grr... this movie made me so mad that I had it on fast forward and I still had to turn it off in the first hour because I couldn't take the stupidity. This movie sucks. I rented it from red-box but still... I want my money back!! Haha... don't waste your money! EXTREMELYYY low budget and absolutely retarded... I'm almost positive a ten year old could've made a better film then this!!their "special effects" look like they took a handful of ketchup and smeared it on the "zombies" faces ha ha!!
Was unable to finish due to lack of disinterest!
jhutter75 June 2013
So many thoughts are flying through my head watching this movie, most notably how a film could be produced so poorly and approved for release. Perhaps that is the logic these days...Design a flashy cover, capitalize on a popular film title (i.e. Night of the Living Dead), and not give a damn about the quality/production of the film. I invested $20 on this movie somehow knowing in the back of my mind, that this would be a total and complete failure...and to my very surprise, IT WAS! Zombie film after zombie film, they all continue to outdo one another in terms of creating the most unrealistic, boring, waste of time. I simply cannot waste any more of my time or energy into this film, but on a final note if you want a classic zombie film, look no further than Tom Savini's Night of the Living Dead.
Zombie fail.
navarrolisandra14 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Where to start... 1) Very little zombie action, which is a terrible crime. 2) Very poor story line. Sometimes nothing was happening and it was hard to stay awake , and others time too much was happening and it was hard to understand (though most of the time nothing good was happening. 3) The actors were not convincing at all, and if anything made the movie worse... (Which I was surprised that was even possible!) 4) George A. Romero would be very displeased. (honestly how can you pay tribute to such a classic movie with such distasteful content) All in all, there was absolutely nothing good/positive I could possibly say about this movie. DO NOT waste your time. It's just that BAD. You would be better off watching night of living dead 3D.
Seen worse!
alisontomo22 August 2021
This films not that bad. I don't normally put up reviews but felt I needed to with this film seeing that it had a lot of low ratings. I didn't go into it with much expectation. What drew me to it was the fact it was set in West Wales. I'm Welsh, so can relate to the actors. To me it felt like what a zombie apocalypse would be like if it actually happened.
A homage to the original film
arrongum7 May 2013
Night Of The Living Dead: Resurrection. The film wasn't without it flaws but it works nicely enough as a homage to the original film.
I felt a little under whelm by it. I wanted more from it. There were times I found the characters interesting and others not so. There was some lovely camera work and direction but there was also some lighting issues. It wasn't anything I not seen before from a genre that been done a lot by independence film makers. You still get everything you would want from a zombie film but with the market so wide the film really needed to push it self a bit more. Despite the film being a bit dark in places to see what was going on it still added a nice feel to the over all the film. The zombies were often seen in the shadows which really added to the film.
The film overall is stills miles better than Night of the Living Dead 3D. NOTLD: Resurrection is one of those films you have to take for what it is. It miles better than a lot of low budget films but I would have likes to have seen something much more from it. You have to give credit to the markers of the film for what they did on a low budget and the respect they had for the original source material.
Hopefully if they do make another they can fix the flaws as I truly believe the film had potential to be something great. Just this time around it just miss the mark. Overall nice try.
I felt a little under whelm by it. I wanted more from it. There were times I found the characters interesting and others not so. There was some lovely camera work and direction but there was also some lighting issues. It wasn't anything I not seen before from a genre that been done a lot by independence film makers. You still get everything you would want from a zombie film but with the market so wide the film really needed to push it self a bit more. Despite the film being a bit dark in places to see what was going on it still added a nice feel to the over all the film. The zombies were often seen in the shadows which really added to the film.
The film overall is stills miles better than Night of the Living Dead 3D. NOTLD: Resurrection is one of those films you have to take for what it is. It miles better than a lot of low budget films but I would have likes to have seen something much more from it. You have to give credit to the markers of the film for what they did on a low budget and the respect they had for the original source material.
Hopefully if they do make another they can fix the flaws as I truly believe the film had potential to be something great. Just this time around it just miss the mark. Overall nice try.
Utter rubbish
mcurrell2529 December 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Found this in poundland and god am going back tomorrow to get my pound back this film is crap we've ended up using it as a mug coaster...Weather they had a low budget or not they shouldn't be allowed to make another again this has got to be the worse film ever the acting was crap the zombies weren't scary the only thing that did scare me was the fat guys eyebrows a would tell you a lot more bout this film but av just wasted over a hour of my life watching this utter crap and be warned the fat guys eyebrow will get you....please don't waste over a hour of your life honestly you will thank me...I have never made a review before but this really bad film got my goat and felt like I had to warn others
Don't Expect an Actual Remake
Michael_Elliott12 June 2013
Night of the Living Dead: Resurrection (2012)
* 1/2 (out of 4)
Ultra low-budget film about some family members trying to survive inside their home while there are zombie attacks going on outside. This film was shot in Wales, which is one reason why it stands apart from countless other rips of the George A. Romero classic. Those expecting or wanted a direct remake are going to be disappointed because this is yet another case where the title is simply being used to gain some attention and push some added sales or rentals. I guess you can't blame them for using the title since there's no question that it's going to get the attention they need. With that said, I really didn't find this to be as horrible as many others did. Yes, the low-budget certainly doesn't do any favors for the film but then again, should this be an excuse since Romero was able to do so much with so little? I think there are a couple good things going on here and that includes the first big twist that happens in the story. I'm going to avoid spoiling this for those who do decide to watch the film but the rug is pulled out from the viewer and it caught me off guard. The second thing I liked about the picture is the fact that they did try to do something new instead of just giving us stuff we've seen countless times before. I'm sure a direct remake would have been much easier but the filmmakers went for something different. That "new" thing doesn't always work for a couple reasons. One is that these characters keep getting bitten because they do incredibly stupid things, which just get annoying after a while. Another issue is that the family issues that get so much attention just aren't all that memorable or good enough for you to care about them. There's also a moral debate on if zombies or humans are more evil but I'll leave that up to you. The performances aren't all that bad, there are some good gore effects and the pacing really isn't as bad as one might expect. Still, this film is only going to be for those who must see every zombie film out there.
* 1/2 (out of 4)
Ultra low-budget film about some family members trying to survive inside their home while there are zombie attacks going on outside. This film was shot in Wales, which is one reason why it stands apart from countless other rips of the George A. Romero classic. Those expecting or wanted a direct remake are going to be disappointed because this is yet another case where the title is simply being used to gain some attention and push some added sales or rentals. I guess you can't blame them for using the title since there's no question that it's going to get the attention they need. With that said, I really didn't find this to be as horrible as many others did. Yes, the low-budget certainly doesn't do any favors for the film but then again, should this be an excuse since Romero was able to do so much with so little? I think there are a couple good things going on here and that includes the first big twist that happens in the story. I'm going to avoid spoiling this for those who do decide to watch the film but the rug is pulled out from the viewer and it caught me off guard. The second thing I liked about the picture is the fact that they did try to do something new instead of just giving us stuff we've seen countless times before. I'm sure a direct remake would have been much easier but the filmmakers went for something different. That "new" thing doesn't always work for a couple reasons. One is that these characters keep getting bitten because they do incredibly stupid things, which just get annoying after a while. Another issue is that the family issues that get so much attention just aren't all that memorable or good enough for you to care about them. There's also a moral debate on if zombies or humans are more evil but I'll leave that up to you. The performances aren't all that bad, there are some good gore effects and the pacing really isn't as bad as one might expect. Still, this film is only going to be for those who must see every zombie film out there.
Night of the boring
ArchieIsCool1 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Once again I did not check up on this movie and totally regret it! The film style is awful low budget and messy. It starts slow with a guy driving along and then he tries to get petrol from cars meets some zombies who are slow and not too scary and then he comes to a house knocks on the door and then looks through the letterbox, oh dear he is then shot in the face by the head of the family a quite large chap with Dennis Healy eyebrows which I must say you can't take your eyes off the whole of the movie.
We then meet the family 'Dennis' the dad, mum who at first thought your too young to be his wife, two daughters one is preggers her husband, a son and grandad. Grandad is in bed unwell and the teenage son looks a bit ill too (I wonder why). The son then becomes unwell and mum takes him to the bathroom where oh dear he dies and then she won't accept it but when he wakes up as a zombie they have to lock him in the bathroom.
Eventually grandad turns too and gets locked in the bedroom the family don't know what to do so good old dad says he will go out for help big mistake as he comes across a gang of youths who kill him by driving over him again and again. Back at home pregnant daughter gets bit by her brother and then gives birth which we don't see or the baby which is wrapped in a towel, she then bites her husband who turns which leaves mum and younger daughter, oh grandad bites the mum and both he and son escape. The ending is mum and daughter saved by a truck of soldiers the end.
Bad acting by all and zombie action rubbish not worth a view.
We then meet the family 'Dennis' the dad, mum who at first thought your too young to be his wife, two daughters one is preggers her husband, a son and grandad. Grandad is in bed unwell and the teenage son looks a bit ill too (I wonder why). The son then becomes unwell and mum takes him to the bathroom where oh dear he dies and then she won't accept it but when he wakes up as a zombie they have to lock him in the bathroom.
Eventually grandad turns too and gets locked in the bedroom the family don't know what to do so good old dad says he will go out for help big mistake as he comes across a gang of youths who kill him by driving over him again and again. Back at home pregnant daughter gets bit by her brother and then gives birth which we don't see or the baby which is wrapped in a towel, she then bites her husband who turns which leaves mum and younger daughter, oh grandad bites the mum and both he and son escape. The ending is mum and daughter saved by a truck of soldiers the end.
Bad acting by all and zombie action rubbish not worth a view.
Night of the worst Movie
mpndkp3 April 2020
Warning: Spoilers
I dont even know where to start, I'll just give random thoughts and points to this garbage of a movie.
Um, starts off to fast in my opinion(no back story).
I fast forward through a lot of this movie, I just had that sense it would suck and there would be a lot of draggy parts. The realism of the movie was just not there, I mean I know its fiction but try to pretend if it really happen what would peolpe do! On the first day theres already kid gangs going around terrorizing people, I would be home crying hiding under my bed. I guess all the zombies from the city where trying to find the one house in the country, I mean that dirt road had a lot of them. Family members where dying left and right and the sister wants to make out with her sisters husband,that seemed real. A gang of kids see the old man and his eyebrows in the car and instead of helping they decided to run over his legs 40 times(best part of the movie) but why was blood coming out of his mouth after they ran over his legs and why did he die like in 5 minutes. And the gang and zombies go to the same house to terrorize the family, but the gang seems so nonchalant about the whole thing like I'm going to brake in and then vandalize the house but know there r zombies in the house and then be surprised when he see the zombies and then let's them eat his guts(so real) I cant with this movie, theres no real emotions! And then at the end, the rebels find the 2 survivors and blames them for killing the kid gang, like what? Dont you see all the zombies and dead people around and you harass a mother and daughter about killing the kids! But you shoot the mother in the head and take the daughter to the rape van(very ethical fellows!) I'm making no sense here just random thoughts! Just watch the movie, it's one of the stupidest things you will see!! I fast forward a lot
RABID GRANNIES BIT MY BABY
nogodnomasters28 April 2018
Warning: Spoilers
****EARLY PLOT SPOILER**** (about 10 minutes into film)
The film opens like it is going to be a barn buster. It incorporates some Brit humor. Ben (Sule Rimi) is introduced. The film spends some time building his character. Indeed, he appears to know how to survive a zombie infestation. However, this film isn't about him, but rather a dysfunctional rural family with their own dirty little secrets. Grandpa is ill. On top of their problems, there are blue-eyed zombies and gangs of hoodlums that come late into the film.
I was bored for much of the film. The action was slow for too much of the film, and wasn't that great when it was happening. The actors were not convincing as they delivered poorly written lines.
They should have spent less time at the farm house and developed a decent subplot with the hoodlums, then bring them together. This would have been better than listening to Grandpa prate on about the end times.
Parental Guide: F-bomb, urination. No sex or nudity.
The film opens like it is going to be a barn buster. It incorporates some Brit humor. Ben (Sule Rimi) is introduced. The film spends some time building his character. Indeed, he appears to know how to survive a zombie infestation. However, this film isn't about him, but rather a dysfunctional rural family with their own dirty little secrets. Grandpa is ill. On top of their problems, there are blue-eyed zombies and gangs of hoodlums that come late into the film.
I was bored for much of the film. The action was slow for too much of the film, and wasn't that great when it was happening. The actors were not convincing as they delivered poorly written lines.
They should have spent less time at the farm house and developed a decent subplot with the hoodlums, then bring them together. This would have been better than listening to Grandpa prate on about the end times.
Parental Guide: F-bomb, urination. No sex or nudity.
Just Plain Awful! But not even in a campy way. An utterly stupid movie!!!
jb-345451 May 2020
I'm generally up for a good zombie movie. The original NOTLD and the '90s remake were both great. Somehow, I'd never heard of this edition. I noticed it while flipping stations, it was near the end, but I thought I'd check it out to see if it's something I'd want to watch in full. It's not!
Normally, I wouldn't judge a movie based upon about 20 minutes of viewing; however, I am making an exception. I'm pretty sure some middle school students hastily threw this movie together late on a Sunday night to get credit on Monday for a project they had weeks to do. There is no way that a professional filmmaker made this movie. I think it was attempting to be suspenseful and intense, but it was just weirdly slow for no reason, nonsensical, and non-linear.
This film isn't even watchable from a campy perspective. It's just plain boring and idiotic. Everybody involved in this catastrophe should punch him or herself in the face. Utter, utter garbage!!! I can't even begin to imagine wanting to watch the whole movie, and I'm generally pretty open-minded about what I watch.
Normally, I wouldn't judge a movie based upon about 20 minutes of viewing; however, I am making an exception. I'm pretty sure some middle school students hastily threw this movie together late on a Sunday night to get credit on Monday for a project they had weeks to do. There is no way that a professional filmmaker made this movie. I think it was attempting to be suspenseful and intense, but it was just weirdly slow for no reason, nonsensical, and non-linear.
This film isn't even watchable from a campy perspective. It's just plain boring and idiotic. Everybody involved in this catastrophe should punch him or herself in the face. Utter, utter garbage!!! I can't even begin to imagine wanting to watch the whole movie, and I'm generally pretty open-minded about what I watch.
Really? Possible spoiler ahead?
aj_schepis3 May 2014
Warning: Spoilers
When I first heard there was to be a British remake of NoTLD I thought "yay" and "maybe not a good idea". After sitting and watching this "movie" I thought I'd been turned into a zombie because it drained the life out of me and all of my intelligence. The main characters from the original and the 1990 remake make a whopping what 10 min appearance at the start. Something happens and they are gone and another "storyline" unfolds with a different character set which made it worse and spiraled down the drain from there. This one should be avoided at all costs the acting was sub par and the story line was weak and character development was little to none. Nuff' said.
Not even call a movie
mtoons19 October 2013
This sequence of pictures deserve 0.02 KB of swf file to this world, not worth any physical storage. The very non experienced herd of pictures and sounds gathering-i'm not use the word "movie" for this worse than garbage sh*t, is do nothing to any kind of media production. Not worth even a clip. Can't help to think that the production came out of Movie Maker which even some 5 years old boy/girl can give more inspirations.
I see full of disharmony in every single second. The way of camera angel usages, timings, amateur technics of making movie, ridiculous actings, non sense plots ... it's all go well with unsystematic outcome.
Try it yourself and see if it gives value to your ever worst nightmare to what extension.
I see full of disharmony in every single second. The way of camera angel usages, timings, amateur technics of making movie, ridiculous actings, non sense plots ... it's all go well with unsystematic outcome.
Try it yourself and see if it gives value to your ever worst nightmare to what extension.
A crap remake
jacobjohntaylor127 May 2016
The original Night of the living dead from 1968 is a great movie. The remake from 1990 of Night of the living dead is a great movie. 2008 remake which is not that good is better this crap. The story line is awful. The ending is awful. There are some good actors in this movie. And they were wasting there time. It is not scary at all. Just over the top with blood and dead bodies. See the Night of the living dead (1968) sequel Dawn of the dead (1978). That is a great movie. Even the 2004 remake of Dawn of the dead is better then this crap. The fellow to Dawn of the dead (1978) Day of the dead (1985) is also a great movie. Do not see this movie is a waste of time and money. I like some remakes but this one is a money grab.
Not bad for what you get...
smiling_happily_guy20023 April 2020
To tell you the truth, it wasn't bad. Remember, this is a zombie flick, so if you are expecting gone with the wind then you the viewer are flawed.
This short film has solid effects that aren't too gory but essential. It actually has character development in a short time. No wasted storyline and it gets the story across.
Again, it's a zombie flick that gives the audience that exact field. It's time-frame only reflects a half day and it is full of different perspectives. So it's a good film that does it's job.
This short film has solid effects that aren't too gory but essential. It actually has character development in a short time. No wasted storyline and it gets the story across.
Again, it's a zombie flick that gives the audience that exact field. It's time-frame only reflects a half day and it is full of different perspectives. So it's a good film that does it's job.
Well, the charms of them ham factor/s
bcr4322 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Resurrection of a zombie-to-be crass-awesomeness, checking into the first victim's 55th second of the first two minutes.
Really guff it is, to have more than one moment of lighting make night look like day, not to interject with the fluctuating shelf-life of a bitten and infected human before fledging into a zombie. Forgive the but; having some connected YA's caught unawares by a zombie apocalypse bags all the slasher credibility. And yeah, shotguns. A splattering and worthwhile hit whether by a right or wrong choice. Always. Ever since Ar**face.
When you have dead signals and likewise get to check on what's trending on twitter, then some things really aren't really that hard to sell.
Eventually, the family involved, the axis of the plot, has to keep off both a vigilante and a hound of living-dead-guys. Starting right from among themselves.
My, I almost busted a gut trying to stomach a kangaroo court ( and some bloody guts). What a shame this is a first on viewing a pr*ck eating zombie. Original sh*t that.
Really guff it is, to have more than one moment of lighting make night look like day, not to interject with the fluctuating shelf-life of a bitten and infected human before fledging into a zombie. Forgive the but; having some connected YA's caught unawares by a zombie apocalypse bags all the slasher credibility. And yeah, shotguns. A splattering and worthwhile hit whether by a right or wrong choice. Always. Ever since Ar**face.
When you have dead signals and likewise get to check on what's trending on twitter, then some things really aren't really that hard to sell.
Eventually, the family involved, the axis of the plot, has to keep off both a vigilante and a hound of living-dead-guys. Starting right from among themselves.
My, I almost busted a gut trying to stomach a kangaroo court ( and some bloody guts). What a shame this is a first on viewing a pr*ck eating zombie. Original sh*t that.
"Dead Resurrection!"
gattonero9754 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
A disturbing and disappointing zombie film. But then again it was low-budget film-making. And I give them a B+ for effort.
It takes Romero's original storyline but changes it quite a bit. It has the zombies as heroes in way because the remaining humans have a far more terrifying threat than the just the zombies to deal with, it has psychotic hoodlums who are using the zombie apocalypse to torture and kill innocent people just for the fun of it! This storyline was I believe handle and done much better in the Zombie Diaries films done earlier in 2006 & 2011. Still, not a bad effort.
The actors in this film were very amateurish. But the music score was 'dead' on! (no pun intended) This could have been a great film had it had more money budget and better acting.
What was frustrating was that these people who were holding up in this so-call cottage, did not bother to board up the windows or doors at all! And all they had for weapons was one lousy shotgun!? there was one scene where they talk about going in the basement or maybe even the attic, but that was squashed with the 'brilliant' idea of the main old guy saying he's going for help all by himself in the middle of the night with no weapon because he gave it to his zombie bitten/infected son-in-law!? WTF?! And what's more frustrating was the anticipation of a zombie baby scene and all they do is tease you with it and it never manifests! Damn!
Still, I can't help but like a film that has a bit cameo homage to Romero's original. It's at the beginning of the film when we meet the "Ben" (Sule Rimi)character who when talking on his cell phone to someone named "Barbara" (get it?) his signal drops and he tosses the phone on the car seat. We then see for a brief second that the picture/icon for 'Barbara' is none other then one of the original movie posters of actress Kyra Schon as Karen Cooper, the trowel-wielding zombie kid in George Romero's original "Night of the Living Dead" which she portrayed back in 1968! Now how cool is that? Plus, the ironic twist they have for 'Ben' our doomed hero in this film, is priceless. I don't want to ruin too much, you just have to see it once if you are a true zombie film fan.
It takes Romero's original storyline but changes it quite a bit. It has the zombies as heroes in way because the remaining humans have a far more terrifying threat than the just the zombies to deal with, it has psychotic hoodlums who are using the zombie apocalypse to torture and kill innocent people just for the fun of it! This storyline was I believe handle and done much better in the Zombie Diaries films done earlier in 2006 & 2011. Still, not a bad effort.
The actors in this film were very amateurish. But the music score was 'dead' on! (no pun intended) This could have been a great film had it had more money budget and better acting.
What was frustrating was that these people who were holding up in this so-call cottage, did not bother to board up the windows or doors at all! And all they had for weapons was one lousy shotgun!? there was one scene where they talk about going in the basement or maybe even the attic, but that was squashed with the 'brilliant' idea of the main old guy saying he's going for help all by himself in the middle of the night with no weapon because he gave it to his zombie bitten/infected son-in-law!? WTF?! And what's more frustrating was the anticipation of a zombie baby scene and all they do is tease you with it and it never manifests! Damn!
Still, I can't help but like a film that has a bit cameo homage to Romero's original. It's at the beginning of the film when we meet the "Ben" (Sule Rimi)character who when talking on his cell phone to someone named "Barbara" (get it?) his signal drops and he tosses the phone on the car seat. We then see for a brief second that the picture/icon for 'Barbara' is none other then one of the original movie posters of actress Kyra Schon as Karen Cooper, the trowel-wielding zombie kid in George Romero's original "Night of the Living Dead" which she portrayed back in 1968! Now how cool is that? Plus, the ironic twist they have for 'Ben' our doomed hero in this film, is priceless. I don't want to ruin too much, you just have to see it once if you are a true zombie film fan.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
