IMDb > Corpses (2004) (V) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
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
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Corpses (V) More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]
Index 22 reviews in total 

9 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Where Death Is Just the Beginning

Author: Claudio Carvalho from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
22 October 2007

The undertaker Fred (Robert Donovan) is bankrupted and misses his former wife Helen (Belinda Bonini). She has left him and is going to marry Captain Winston (Jeff Fahey), whose daughter Rhonda (Tiffany Shepis) is the girlfriend of Fred's assistant Jerry Gordon (Stephen Williams). Fred has accidentally developed an embalming formula that brings the dead back to life and he is able to control the zombies because they need a dose every hour to stay alive, otherwise they die. When Fred receives an eviction letter from the bank that intends to build a mall in the location of his funeral home with the agreement of Helen, he decides to use his zombies to steal money, pay the bank, achieve power and get Helen back. However, when Jerry accidentally drops the fluid of his formula, he loses the control of the situation in his mortuary and the dead seek revenge against him.

"Corpses" is a cult-movie absolutely underrated in IMDb. The gore comedy follows the style of Peter Jackson's "Braindead", with lots of black humor and blood. There are excellent lines along the story, and I loved the character of Rhonda Winston, responsible for some of the most hilarious moments, like for example, when she says to Helen that thinking does not suit with her obnoxious stepmother. This B-movie is a great entertainment and I really liked it a lot. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Dr. Morte" ("Dr. Death")

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Kanefsky Never Lets Me Down

Author: danthewrestlingmanorigin from United States
22 November 2006

Rolfe Kanefsky never lets me down. The man knows how to make a fun, good time, B-Horror Party movie. Tiffany Shepis is arguably the most talented scream queen working today. She's beautiful, funny, and a genuinely talented actress, that doesn't take herself to seriously and isn't afraid to look less then glamorous in a movie like this. Corpses is not for everyone, it has purposely campy acting and humor, so if you don't like this type of film, don't bother. All in all I had a good time with this, it wasn't as good as Kanefsky's The Hazing, but if you liked that, you should like this. There were some decent death scenes for a low budget film, and in one of the all time hilarious B movie moments Jeff Fahey of Lawnmower Man fame channels Bruce Campbell and Dirty Harry in an absolutely drop dead hilarious zombie killing rampage. My only slight gripe is the film started off a little slow , and I don't want to sound like a pervert, but tiffany didn't get naked. Corpses has been unfairly blasted on here, and as long as you like campy humor, some creative kills', and a sprinkling of T and A, you will enjoy Corpses. Just remember it's very campy, and silly at times.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Just a fun B-movie

Author: DrDoLittle99 from United States
29 December 2006

OK, so I am a Jeff Fahey fan. Sure it's not his best movie and maybe ranks in the bottom 2%, but it was fun to watch. A little, or should i say brief, T&A here and there. Lorielle New made a reasonable hooker. Tiffany Shepis should of had some soft core added in, the movie already had the MPAA Rating for it. I enjoyed the arms being torn off here and there, but why, they either dropped them or just carries the around for props. The most solid character was the ex-wife/wicked stepmother/hot girlfriend (Melinda Bonini) that many of us can relate to. I had read comments about the glow-in-the-dark serum but, hey, what else would would you use to re-animate a corpse? Yes, the zombies were really bad. When did zombies start running? Hmm, running zombies. Will they catch on? That could make for some interesting action in the future given a good plot. I rated this movie on humor alone.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Undertaker & Re-Animator

Author: Coventry from the Draconian Swamp of Unholy Souls
20 June 2007

"Corpses" is a totally retarded but enthusiast and engaging video-horror that aims for fans of comedy horror and brainless splatter. It's a terrible film, really, but quite entertaining if you leave your thinking capabilities at the door. The nearly bankrupt mortician of a small community accidentally invented a new embalming fluid that brings the corpses on his table back to life. Instead of making his discovery public and win a Nobel Price, he uses the invention to raise an army of docile zombies to settle the score with his obnoxious ex-wife, who ran off to live with the local sheriff and continuously tries to close down the mortuary. It's up to the undertaker's geeky assistant (who uses a ridiculous moped as transport) and his rebellious girlfriend to prevent more undead people from walking the streets again. The best thing I can say about "Corpses" is that's an adequately produced homage to cheesy 80's splatter; Stuart Gordon's legendary film "Re-Animator" in particular. The characters are walking talking stereotypes, the gory make-up effects are immensely over-the-top and the dialogs are deliberately incompetent. Gore, humor, stupidity, more gore and a little bit of gratuitous sleaze… Sometimes, that's all a undemanding horror fan requires to be satisfied.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

A Lot of Fun! C'mon guys, let's rate it for what it is...!

Author: lathe-of-heaven from Sunny Southern California, USA
20 July 2012

I felt that I should write a brief review after seeing all the crappy ones about this film. Look, this isn't SUPPOSED to be Shakespeare, okay...? An argument that I use CONSTANTLY is compared to all the voluminous drivel out there I honestly feel that this movie was done well, within the confines of it's budget and subject matter.

First off, this kind of film is really hard to pull off; obviously 'REANIMATOR' is the absolute reigning master of this genre, hands down! Now this one is not nearly as clever, but in a toned down kind of way you DO get some pretty good humour throughout and some great lines, really! So, for the kind of movie that this OBVIOUSLY is, I feel that it was done very well and the director was able to bring out above average performances, even from the zombies, and from all involved. I LOVED Fahey's deadpan lines; GREAT stuff!!!

Was the above review useful to you?

14 out of 27 people found the following review useful:

This movie is so bad it boggles the mind

Author: cherub96 from Germany
2 March 2005

This movie is a cautionary tale against taking IMDb scores at face value. At 6.2, I thought this movie couldn't be bad, now could it? Only later did I discover that rating came from 13 votes, which would probably be the actors in the movie, mostly. So what's there to say about the movie? Really bad acting, cheesy movie, crappy camera work, stupid story.... Need I go on? Frankly, this movie does not have any redeeming features. It is something I would expect from a dyslexic with a camcorder.

Bottomline: This movie is really, really bad, and should be avoided at all cost.

Was the above review useful to you?

Cheap Re-Animator knockoff.

Author: DigitalRevenantX7 from Australia
10 August 2015

Fred, a down-on-his-luck mortician, is trying to make an improved embalming fluid when he accidentally invents a serum that, when injected into a corpse, revives it for an hour. He decides to use his new power to raise an army of the dead & help him save his business from being foreclosed thanks to his evil ex-wife Helen, who is now married to the local chief of police. But at the same time, the chief's daughter, Rhonda, is having a relationship with Fred's assistant Jerry, who is unaware of Fred's activities. As zombies begin flooding the town, the young lovers find themselves in the midst of a small war.

Corpses is an ultra-cheap knockoff of the 1985 classic RE-ANIMATOR, made a good nineteen years after & having a similar plot. Both films feature a protagonist – Re-Animator had a brilliant medical student, while Corpses has a mortician – who invents a serum that can raise the dead. But unlike Re-Animator's serum, which was so powerful that it can keep the dead undead indefinitely & can even revive severed body parts, here it is only capable of reanimation for up to an hour. This is probably an attempt to create some difficulties for the narrative.

The film might have a decent story & plenty of cheerful dark humour (my favourite kind of humour), but the execution is decidedly average. The actors give it their best shot, although Jeff Fahey, who has starred in a LOT of cheap films over the years, makes a slightly mediocre hero, despite delivering a decent performance (as usual). The zombies' rampage is funny but in a dumb way & has nothing new to add to the zombie mythology – there is nothing here that will get zombie fans raving – but the film does have enough black humour to keep undead fans watching. The film is somewhat defeated by an opaque ending that doesn't make sense.

Was the above review useful to you?

What is a B rated film?

Author: jacman2008
18 December 2012

There's not much to add that others haven't. I just want you to remember that Roger and Ebert (film critics from the 1980s and 1990s) never even bothered reviewing what is known as a "B rated film". Why so serious? Is it bad? Dude, a B rated film is supposed to is supposed to be intentionally BAD, and worse.

I hope you can see what typically draws in it's true target audience, in any event. I suspect the true audience are ages 9 and up...the kids who need little to amuse them; the ones who are still running scared today from the man with the iron claw for a hand. Horror can be insanely funny in the hands of a good film maker, and ingenious when such talent like Tiffany Shepis graces one of these babies. Ms. Shepis truly understands what makes B rated horrors become cult classics.

Once again, this film is BAD, and even worse than that. It is supposed to be. This is a B rated film.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

"I *meant* to make a bad movie! You just don't get it!" Riiiiight.

Author: Matt Kracht ( from New York
26 April 2011

I thought I'd take a chance on this movie, since it sounded like a ripoff of Re-Animator, and, hey, if it's ripping off movies I like, then maybe I'll like this, too. Unfortunately, that was *not* the case, and I must severely caution others who might be drawn in, like I was. I could only stand to watch about five minutes of this movie, so I can only critique those first few minutes (and, wow, were they BAD).

First off, the director lingers way too long on useless shots. The first scene is that of a framing shot, Quint High School. OK, fine. Then the camera zooms in to the name of the high school, which you could already see before: Quint High School. Uh, yeah. I got that already. And the shot just lingers and lingers and... ah, finally, we move on to the next scene, except now it's another zoom of "SCIENCE LAB" which lingers almost as long. Holy crap! Is the director afraid that he doesn't make each of these shots last a full minute that we won't be able to read his stupid signs? Maybe we're supposed to be drunk, high, and stupid... because I think the entire cast and crew probably were. The acting was so horrible, the incidental music so insipid, and the directing so incompetent, I couldn't even last much longer than those first few scenes.

Some people will claim that this movie was meant to be bad or that it was done "tongue in cheek". No. There's no excuse for ineptitude of this magnitude. Either you can act or you can't. Either you can direct or you can't. Hiding behind an excuse of "You just don't get it! I was *trying* to do a bad job, for the laughs!" is total crap. Re-Animator was a legitimately good movie, because the people making it had talent. They knew how to frame shots, had comic timing, and knew how to walk the fine line between comic overacting and simply acting poorly. The people who made this movie? They had no clue.

I hope that everyone involved in this movie is blacklisted and never works in film again.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Decent Zombie Flick Not That bad

Author: ganewla from United States
25 February 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I thought some of the parts like zombies talking being able to act as humans do and such was kinda retarded and the end of the movie was pretty generic with the dude and girl being one of them i think so and it was a kinda lame but OK i saw it coming ending the movie itself lacked in visuals and the story line was kinda lame but it was executed pretty well given that you can tell that it was..very..low budget , but just because its low budget doesn't mean it sucks aka..Undead (2004) this was a great movie very low budget for a zombie movie but great while this is no Ramero flick or anything it still wont hurt you to give this movie a chance because you mite be surprised.

Was the above review useful to you?

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

Add another review

Related Links

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