IMDb > Dead & Rotting (2002) (V) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Dead & Rotting
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Dead & Rotting (V) More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]
Index 35 reviews in total 

9 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

Rochon and the rotting

Author: Dr. Gore (drgore@hotmail.com) from Los Angeles, California
30 April 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

*SPOILER ALERT* *SPOILER ALERT*

I bought this video. The video box cover looked cheap and cheesy but I saw that Debbie Rochon was in it and decided to give it a whirl. Rochon is an angry witch. Some fools mess with her family and she wants revenge. So she decides to seduce the fools and get pregnant. Her ghoulish offspring will wreck havoc on the imbeciles. Much seducing and ghoul action follows.

"Dead and Rotting" is pretty bad. If Debbie Rochon wasn't in it, I would have shut the movie off at the midway mark. The first time we see her, she's topless in a bathtub. For the rest of the movie, she stays clothed even though she is regularly seducing men and having sex. This is shameful. When making a movie about a horny, vengeful witch, you should at least have the courtesy of showing one sex scene. Every "sex" scene in "Dead and Rotting" is post coitus. *Sigh* No more Rochon for us.

So if there's no Rochon action, what else is there? No surprise, there's nothing else. Ghouls bumble around and attack the guys. The gore is pathetic and the scares are non-existent. Only die hard Rochon fans need to see this one. Everyone else can avoid.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Not bad for what it is

5/10
Author: dasneakerpimp from Canada
18 September 2005

I saw this movie on a compilation collection called "A night to dismember" that I purchased from Wal-Mart. I picked it up because it had "The Bonesetter", a film made by local schlock filmmaker, Brett Kelly, and I thought it would be good for a laugh and it was. All of the films were no budget productions and by that I mean anywhere from 500 to maybe 10,000 dollars. I bet a lot of people think that they could do something pretty good with 10,000 dollars and I say: Try. Put your money where your mouth is. A lot of "reviewers", and by that I mean people who go on the net and whine about things, say this movie is horrible. They say bad acting, bad camera work, bad lighting. You have no idea what you're talking about. Have any of you actually seen bad acting? I mean, truly horrible acting . Imagine the rejects from American Idol but instead of singing they are acting. For what this movie was, a couple of guys with an idea, a camera, and few thousand dollars, it was pretty damn good. the acting wasn't bad, not great but not bad either. The story wasn't bad either. The lighting did shift from time to time but it was marginal. I've seen movies that looked like they cost at least a few million that were a lot worse than this. And what's with all these people knocking digital projects? Ever heard of Robert Rodriguez? He said he'd never use film again. Micheal Mann? Collateral was digital and that was a damn good movie. 28 days later was shot with the Canon XL1S and that was pretty successful. So give credit where credit is due. I think David Barton did a good job and I would definitely like to see what he could do with an actual budget.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

DEAD AND ROTTING boasts Debbie Rochon in a pretty lengthy role, which, speaking as a fan of hers, is always a good thing!!!

6/10
Author: gravecrawler from United States
29 July 2006

I didn't find DEAD AND ROTTING to be as bad as others who have commented. Being into low-budget b-movies, I have seen the best and the worst. I have been a fan of Charles Band since TRANCERS, and I also have been a fan of Full Moon since the first SUBSPECIES. It is very discouraging that Full Moon seems to have faded from existence, having not released a film since 2002. I am hopeful that they will rise from the ashes like the phoenix one day. Although DEAD AND ROTTING may not be great, it is by far NOT the worst. The worst, of course, being Australia's 1982? movie ENDPLAY, about the guy in a wheelchair and his brother. Now THERE'S a movie that deserves reviews like the ones these people gave. Furthermore, DEAD AND ROTTING boasts Debbie Rochon in a pretty lengthy role, which, speaking as a fan of hers, can never be bad and could TOTALLY redeem any movie, except, of course, ENDPLAY.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Do you know what happens when you're dead and rotting?

6/10
Author: lastliberal from United States
24 July 2008

Movie starts off really strange with the witch's son eating cat food. Three local rednecks decided to pick on him with disastrous consequences.

The craggy old witch gets into a tub of witches brew and out comes Debbie Rochon. Oh man, that alone is worth the price of admission.

She proceeds to seduce the three boys. We are cheated out seeing that. Only our imaginations at being bedded by Debbie are at work.

Mission accomplished, it's time for magic to work. Payback time! The ghouls are ready. One by one, they will get their just desserts. One has to say that two rolls with Debbie might just be worth what she has in store.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Is there really a witch living in the woods!?

5/10
Author: Michael O'Keefe from Muskogee OK
6 November 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

You may think that DEAD & ROTTING is a stinker...surprise. For a very, very low budget flick, its not so bad. Thanks to Debbie Rochon for tweaking interest. A trio of rednecks pay a couple of looking for trouble youths to torment Abigail(Barbara Katz-Norrod)and her deep backwoods son Pox(Christopher Suciu). Is it rumor or fact that Abigail is the wicked witch living in the woods. When Pox is murdered, the wrath of Abigail is dealt. The three drinking buddies become victims of a curse...dead and rotting. My favorite scene is watching a naked Katz-Norrod sinking into an antique bath tub to rise up as her younger self(Rochon). Also in the cast: Stephen O'Mahoney, Tom Hoover, Trent Haaga and Jeff Dylan Graham. DEAD & ROTTING runs about 72 minutes and is written and directed by David P. Barton. Straight to video is not necessarily a curse.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

SPOOKY FILM-- SOLID & ORIGINAL VERY LOW BUDGET FLICK

8/10
Author: film gal from Ohio
27 April 2002

DEAD AND ROTTING is a very low-budget but it rises above that budget. It has a great SPOOKY atmosphere and wait until you see the bizarro birthing scene with the young witch. It's not exactly a HORROR film, but it has some pretty creepy scenes. I'm not saying it compares in every way to a $50 million 13 GHOSTS (2002) but you can definately appreciate the work behind it and see that the film makers were attempting something beyond normal "B" movies. This was probably made for the soda budget of "13 GHOSTS" (2002).

The lead performances are pretty solid, particularly Debbie Rochon's (TERRA FIRMER, WITCHOUSE 3). Good make-up effects. I would have liked a little more gore but the effects still work well. The sound and music are very well done. The video box art looks kinda cheesy but don't let that fool you. The thing on the box isn't even in the movie but a lot of cooler stuff is.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Dead Yet Watching

6/10
Author: barnthebarn from Oxford, England
3 September 2008

Original and entertaining joint venture between Full Moon and Tempe. I'm not a fan of the raw Tempe style but this is among the better Tempe films - all of which were joints with the far superior Full Moon.

Well acted, written and directed with script highlights including the 'dead & rotting chant'. When the local Witch (obviously no cliché here as she is an old 'hag') becomes a young, nubile Debbie Rochon the film takes a new direction with Rochon sizzling her way through the naughty boys aiming for a spectacular revenge. Fairly tame overall this is a light hearted and humorous foray in to fantasy Witchcraft. DVD (Tempe Special Edition) has a number of special features including one of (oh so many) J.R. Bookwalter Cine-Camera produced short films (oh so terrible) which is a 'spoof' of TV series 'Hill Street Blues' as well as a making of and a few trailers (for films you should probably avoid) and interviews. Debbie Roch-On...

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

this movie is GREAT

9/10
Author: stromboe1 from United States
28 September 2006

i rented this movie with some other one with my friends, and the other one sucked but dead and rotting i thought was awesome. It was really gross and the story was surprisingly well written. I thought it had a proper ending, and a pretty good beginning I like how the guys get sloppy seconds on the witch (and sloppy 3rds yuck) and she shoots out some bloody hair stuff and puts it on the bones to make the monsters. Although the monsters look like crap i don't think the bad special effects take away from the movie. Also the stoner's were very funny. I know this movie looks like it was made for 5 dollars but i really enjoyed it and if your high or just have a good sense of humor you will probably enjoy this movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Huh...what a pleasant surprise.

5/10
Author: xfile1971 from Northbrook, IL, USA
24 May 2003

The fact that so many people seem to hate this movie only strengthens my theory that a majority of horror fans want only two things. The first is lots and lots of blood, violence and gore. Some people have a real bloodlust. The other thing they are looking for is plenty of hot naked chicks.

In my humble opinion, I think Nathan Shumate did an insightful review of this film on the Cold Fusion website. The budget limitations of "Dead & Rotting" have virtually no effect on its final appearance. Even with more money, I think that whatever David Barton came up with would have appeared quite similar to what this one looked like.

The pleasant surprise was the high level of acting. I always thought there was some unwritten law that you had to cast wooden and completely untalented college kids in low budget horror movies. That's not the case here. Barbara Katz-Norrod did a stunning job as the witch and I don't think that Debbie Rochon has ever been better in her whole career. All three male leads also appeared to be quite at ease in front of the camera.

That's not to say there aren't problems. I don't want to give anything away, but "Dead & Rotting" went into a freefall for the last fifteen minutes or so. I was tremendously disappointed at how conventional and predictable the ending was. The movie had seemed a lot fresher before it fell back on horror movie cliches to resolve the main conflict.

As an overall movie, "Dead & Rotting" is rather entertaining and I would go so far as to call it a hidden gem as far as low budget horror goes. General Movie Rating: 5/10 Low Budget Horror Rating: 8/10

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

A quarky, original story and a fun movie.

9/10
Author: asteric5
15 May 2002

Definately a horror film. Read any books of compiled horror stories and you'll have to agree. It may not meet the criteria of a "Scream" or "Jason X" but story film is definately horror. It mixes a lot of strange stuff and dark comedy together to create something that I thought was totally original and entertaining. Not very gory but it does deliver several good gross-outs. One not seen since "The Shining". You'll know it when you see it. The cast does a decent job acting like backwood yokels and the young witch actress is beautiful and does a great job making her character very sexy. The maggots did an exceptional job acting like... well, maggots.

I like the ghouls in the film because they are the wacked out kids of the three male leads and this crazy witch. The witch has sex with the three male leads earlier in the story and then plants their human egg sacks (that drop out of her and onto the floor) inside of pumpkins. She plants these in the ground and by daybreak they've become these human-sized ghouls that go on to pursue the lead men. They're pretty cool looking make-up designs and kinda humorous at points but I just thought that was a reflection of the ghoul's fathers who are also kinda goofy. If Gomer Pyle had a ghoul son this is what you'd expect.

Overall, I thought it was a good original story with some cool effects and some truly funny parts. Don't rent this if you're expecting high-brow horror (if that even exists) or the typical "studio" horror films but if you wanna have some mindless fun for 72 minutes then check it out.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings External reviews
Parents Guide Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history