nickboldrini
Like many films in the genre, this has a good idea for a new addition to the genre, but over stretches it with padding. As a short his would have been a good idea - a zombies view of the apocalypse - but it adds too much so the originality is overwhelmed by the sub standard, standard fare.
BA_Harrison
Made for £45, my arse! This film's laundry bill alone would have amounted to more than that (fake blood doesn't come out of clothes by itself, you know), let alone all the other costs that are unavoidably incurred during the film-making process, no matter how cheap the production: catering, administration, travel, make-up supplies etc.Sadly, Colin's clever '£45' marketing ploy turns out to be the most effective thing about the whole film. Despite a valiant attempt to try something different with the whole living-dead schtick, and for seriously less dosh than most low-budget horrors, most of the time the film proves to be a less than scintillating experience, the basic idea being far more suitable to a 10 minute short than a 97 minute feature.Watching recently turned corpse Colin (Alastair Kirton) slowly dragging his feet around South London for an hour and a half, pausing to contemplate road signs or traffic lights on the way, is pretty dreary stuff. Director Marc Price occasionally picks up the pace, such as when Colin stumbles upon a house siege or a group of survivors take action against the undead (resulting in a unsettling scene where those wounded during the battle are cruelly dispatched before they can become zombies), but for the majority of the time, this is dead boring.
wilderblue2005
This is not the best zombie movie by a long shot, but it is highly original and shot on the supposed budget it was, it is a fascinating piece of film making. The story throws you in at the deep end and comes full circle to give you more insight into Colin's demise and is definitely the best thing about this movie.We follow Colin's transformation and take in other pieces of his and the city's story as we go. The madness and the carnage all come together with lashings of blood and gore and little humorous pieces (leg snapping goodness and the spine removal) which make this simply a little gem. You follow Colin along, even feeling sympathy for his plight as his story fleshes out, but are kept wondering, what next? Not everything makes sense ... robbing a zombie for his shoes seems HIGHLY unlikely. Having a house party for zombies with you as the buffet food is not a sensible plan when the only weapons available are a concrete block, an umbrella and some saucepans ... such things distract from a decent sense of realism.The camera work and lighting, as you will read, is not great, but hey, you work with what you have and you improvise, and much of this has worked out fine.All in all, a great statement to other aspiring film makers that such things can be done on a miniscule budget
ChrisJ2106
After reading reviews on here for this movie I got quite hyped up to watch it. I was lucky enough to record it on television and save myself a good £8. The movie cost £40 to make apparently, but it looks like it was made on £5. I honestly cannot work out what cost £40! There is no lighting in the movie and most of it is darkness. The camera shakes throughout the movie, which yes helped to make Cloverfield good, but it did not work here.I am a huge zombie movie fan and this was more of an insult. The main character get ill before he turns, yet you see another infected person who is infected for what I can guess to be about 2 days, showing no signs of sickness and she just turns. Continuity?????Granted that this movie was an independent movie, it is nothing more then a movie you would make as a joke with your friends. The acting is terrible, including when one of the actresses smirks whilst saying that there is a zombie in her bathroom and the main character almost laughs. It really is a horrible movie. Good try but nothing I'd pay to see. Do NOT buy this movie. You will regret it.
AD
