IMDb > The Quick and the Undead (2006) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
The Quick and the Undead
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
The Quick and the Undead More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 5:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [Next]
Index 46 reviews in total 

46 out of 68 people found the following review useful:

One of the Worst movies I have ever seen.

Author: dmason79 from United Kingdom
29 October 2006

Looking at the ratings you would assume this is a classic, but yet again its just another example of poor independent film makers trying to drum up interest in their movie. They aren't even being smart about it 10/10 in the votes? I guess that to buck the curve and offset all the 1/10's it will get. Is this better than any decent zombie movie? No.

Acting, corny and rubbish.

Sound effects, cheap and nasty, if it wasn't for where the actors looked you wouldn't know where it was coming from.

Cinematography. These people act like they have borrowed their dads camera right after watching the matrix. Less is more, but more from this team is absolutely pap.

Zombies are rubbish as well. I don't doubt most of these people will never be heard from again, and it will be for good reason. I hope zombies eat their eyes as this was 90 minutes of pap that I wont get back.

And falsifying ratings just makes it a million times worse.

One reviewer said it was one of the best horror movies he has seen in the last 30 years? I can only assume that his recent cornea transplant was a success then.

Watch the trailer as thats a warning as to how bad this film is.

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

I thought it was an above average movie.

Author: Rzinkain from United States
6 October 2007

I have watched several low budget, independent films. After watching Quick and the Undead I will have to say this was one of the better zombie films that I have seen. The acting of most of the characters was above average and the cinematography was very good. The story line was overall pretty good. There were both highs and lows in the story, some of which could have been improved. One thing in independent movies that really bothers me is the condition of the actors clothing and the background. In this movie as well as others, a lot of the zombies and main characters clothing was just in too good of a condition to be believable. Dirty it up a bit! Go to yard sales and used clothing stores to outfit your actors. Also make the props dirty and used looking. There is nothing more unbelievable as someone in a post apocalyptic world with new boots, goggles, tennis shoes, hats and other props that look as if they just came out of the box. The backgrounds needs to be in a more unkept manner. This movie had what appeared freshly cut lawns and exteriors of buildings that looked well kept. Dirty it up a little to make it more believable. I liked the fight scenes and the dialogue was above average. I would tell others to watch this movie and plan on watching others by this director/writer.

Was the above review useful to you?

20 out of 30 people found the following review useful:

zombie fan film

Author: videoport from New England
24 October 2006

Technically it looks like a million, well at least $750M Cast, FX, Script are strictly fan film quality. For hard core zombie fans only, some great ideas here, don't be too picky and you might enjoy. Too bad really, a bit more self discipline and this baby could have actually been worth a million or two. If these folks are lucky enough to have the dough to try again one hopes they will spend a lot more time planning, casting, setting up stunts, finding more talented FX, and really going for an all out bang up script. If you got the money, have the patience to spend it well. Loved the way zombies moved at varying speeds, depending on the freshness of the corpse, loved the bounty hunter concept, the bounty hunters on bikes could have been stepped up to Mad Max levels of energy, the Western flavor and the gun play was super cool, see "Down In The Valley" for some real fine and fun gun play ideas.

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

Finally! A movie that actually negates itself!

Author: PDNickz from Los Angeles
5 February 2007

The Quick and the Undead is, finally, the first movie to actually render its own storyline null and void. It is, essentially, one gigantic plot hole.

Aside from that, the acting was quite bad, character motivations nonexistent or unbelievable and there wasn't a single character worth hanging our hat on. The most interesting cast member (who had great potential to be a dark horse protagonist) got snuffed halfway through the proceedings.

What the Quick and the Undead DOES serve as is an excellent example of how to do good color-timing. It looked excellent, when you take into account budget considerations.

Unfortunately, it plays out like a guy got his hands on a hundred grand and watched a few westerns (most notably The Good, The Bad and The Ugly) and then just threw a bunch of elements haphazardly into a movie... "you know, they have movies where characters do THIS! Does it fit here? No, but who cares! They do it in other movies so I should do it here!"

Maybe a good view for burgeoning cinematographers and colorists (first-year film-schoolers). Otherwise, a must-miss.

Was the above review useful to you?

20 out of 33 people found the following review useful:

I liked this film.

Author: ravenblack258 from United States
30 October 2006

I took my nephew to see this film as part of the Texas Frightmare Weekend event in Grapevine, Tx. with great trepidation. There are very few "blood and guts" zombie type films that I enjoy. This one I liked. My nephew's was one of the early positive postings for this film as he loved the feature. We ordered the film today off the net and we were perusing the IMDb when we saw a few of the negative comments regarding this film, so here is my comment! First of all this film was photographed well for a horror "Blair Witch" crappy camera handiwork...please! The actors were, I thought, great for a low budget film...and believe me when I tell you that my nephew rents many of these other B-movies that have actors with no acting skills at all in them. I liked the lead bad guy and, uniquely enough for this type film, thought that there was genuine depth to his portrayal. I also liked the Clint Eastwood character and thought he was played well. The Eastwood persona was fun to watch. No, this film is not "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" and I don't think it was meant to be, I took it as a zombie film meant to entertain while parodying some elements of the Italian western films of the old days. It was actually fun to watch this one and I'll it watch again when we get the DVD. I cannot say this for some of the other crap that my nephew brings home!

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

*****good movie*******

Author: bonesandbruisess from United States
27 December 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I think being Nott and Glenns first movie, not having much dough this movie was good. Considering the low budget horror flicks made these days and the deceiving creative box covers this movie had no hidden punches. Anyone who watches "b" movies can tell this story was thought thru and not some overnight script. Honestly the acting wasn't that bad, I mean I did't see Brad Pitts name on the credits and I wasn't expecting him. Everyone has to start somewhere. I thought the music and filming was good, at least they cared about there production and tried not to cut any corners. I think they will get better and I have turned off a whole lot of "b" movies inside 5 min's.This wasn't bad at all. Good job guys. Oh by the way, I didn't sleep with the star......


Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Not that bad.

Author: ZombieRanger from United States
1 July 2009

Having viewed some truly awful zombie movies, I thought the rating on "Quick" pretty much summed up what I was going to get. After a watch though, I actually kind of liked this movie. Post Apocalyptic zombie-hunting cowboys fighting over bags of severed fingers with plans to infect new towns for job security. I thought the second half lagged a bit, but then I listened to the commentary and found out that they lost their secondary actor 1/3 of the way through production and had to rewrite and ad-lib the remainder of the film completely on the fly. We are treated to cow-bikers, zombie chumming, and good old-fashioned western vengeance. It does have issues with pacing, and some of the effects are lackluster, but I had fun with it, and at least it wasn't just a dozen people arguing with each other locked in a basement like so many other of its' ilk.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Apocalyptic Zombie Western....

Author: face_of_terror from Azerbaijan
6 December 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The plot of the movie is pretty simple : a viral outbreak turned the population into flesh-eating zombies. Those who left became "hunters".

Well, first of all, this IS NOT the worst zombie movie there is. Among the worst are "Zombiez" and the infamous "Zombie Lake".

In fact i think, the idea for "Quick and the Undead" was very good, just executed poorly. Considering the budget they had to work with, this movie looks very good. I wasn't bored at all while watching it. Special Effects were solid, although they did use CGI once (fat zombie getting shot in the head), but everything else (gore, guts) was rather good. Acting is awful however. Our main guy looks like young Clint Eastwood, other "actors" are not even worth mentioning. As far as the plot goes, they didn't work enough on the development of the story.

Bad : acting, low-budget. Good : special effects, idea for the movie.

Overall, this flick deserves 4/10 from me. It's not as bad as people say. Imagine a ZOMBIE WESTERN, then watch this movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

not horrible,but beware fake reviews. (little little spoiler)

Author: jamima69z from United States
30 October 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

obviously,lots of ppl involved in the film are trying to pump up the ratings for a movie that is really not all that good.

the film,as far as production values go,is not bad at all,especially considering the budget constraints. and the acting,not too bad either.(i kind of liked the clint eastwood thing,altho the actor didn't have much to work with) but holy crap people,what about a little character development? something resembling a more complete plot? and don't even get me started on what the hell the director was thinking with some of the ways the characters were developed. in one scene the villain is so upset by one of his henchmen having gone missing he looks ready to cry. later he mentions he's been up to some stuff that has infected/killed hundreds or possibly thousands,all to make some money. oh yeah,and the hero of the film hears about this plan to infect innocent civilians for profit and says "what a good idea....just not my style" and smiles!?!?! great idea for a film,great technical work (even the music was done well) but as far as a story and characters,not so hot at all.

it's one thing to see a movie that just stinks,but to see a movie like this that could have really been something different....what a damn shame.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Surprisingly Entertaining

Author: EllenRipley112 from The Great NorthEast
7 March 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

In my current quest to seek out and view every zombie movie ever made, when I saw this on the shelf at Blockbuster, free rental coupon in hand, I figured, what the hey? Guess what? I was pleasantly surprised. And NO, I had NOTHING to do with the making of this film! I never even HEARD of it before I saw it in the store! OK, so it's obviously an indie flick, and it rips off from just about every other zombie and/or western ever made. But I was intrigued by a future populated with zombies, and the remaining survivors resorting to living like the old West, complete with hats and six-shooters. Only problem I had was the plot twist--at first, I thought, Ingenious! But then, I'm like, OK, this is supposed to be the post-apocalyptic future, where zombies take over (ala "Land of the Dead"). So if they're running out of zombies, why aren't things getting back to some semblance of normal?? The acting WAS kinda shallow as well--I kept looking at the hero as a poor-man's Hugh Jackman (leather, scruffy, smokes a stogie, tough guy with a heart of gold, that kinda thing). And the bad guy (Blythe) reminded me of a young Dennis Hopper. But for a free rental, it wasn't that awful. A pretty good plot, a few clever camera tricks, half-way decent zombie gore (without going overboard)--not bad for a free rental.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 5:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot synopsis Ratings External reviews
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history