webscrawlerblog.wordpress.com
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.
bowmanblue
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/
hannahmjones24901
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!!
bender255
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.
AD
