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

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

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Refreshingly Original

8/10
Author: spamd42 from Denmark
3 July 2008

This is a cult zombie movie done Western style. If you don't like zombie movies you are most likely going to hate this.

If you on the other hand love George A. Romero's epic movies: Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead and Day of the Dead you may enjoy this.

The movies had no budget, so naturally everything is done as cheap as possible. In my opinion zombie movies are supposed to be made this way.

The lead actor, Clint Glenn, does a very good job heavily inspired by Clint Eastwood in the classic spaghetti Western the Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

The Western-style approach is refreshingly original to the zombie genre.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Yeah. Spoilers. Beware.

4/10
Author: The_Wagon from United States
11 February 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Down at the Movie Gallery, I saw a flick I just had to see. It looked like a fun low-budget horror/action/western that I could get into. Yeah, I knew it would suck, but I rented it anyway hoping for laughs. Only a few laughs were to be found. This was an extremely stupid movie. It begins with a bounty hunter, our protagonist, who is possibly the weakest main character in the history of film. He looks/acts like he could take on Chuck Norris, but he can't. His dialogue sucks too. Anyway, he goes into a village, shoots some zombies. You could tell they tried to make this longer by putting in these boring scenes where he takes 3-5 minutes to reload or watch some zombies. At least the zombies look cool. So anyway, some people get shot, some zombies die, and in the end, everyone is dead except our main character, who should have died at the beginning when he was shot down by four people.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

Could Have Been Better, But For The Money.......

6/10
Author: Johnboy1221 from Texas
10 December 2006

Although this film is really being trashed badly, it's not that bad. I rented it just to see for myself. I don't know what the viewers were expecting from a low-budget film like this, but after renting and viewing it, I'm also going to buy it.

For the amount of money spent on The Quick And The Dead, it could have been much, much worse. The acting is above average, the story interesting, and the photography exceptional. In addition, the effects were quite remarkable for a low-budget film. Mr. Glenn has lots of charisma and is perfectly cast. The others serve their roles well, also. Let's keep in mind that these actors worked without any pay on this film, just for the fun of it. I wish I'd been available, I'd have done the same thing.

Director Nott and star Glenn put their hearts and souls into this, and they deserve some credit for it (and no, I had nothing to do with the production).

I hope that they make enough money from this to finance more such films.

By the way, if you rent this, check out the commentary feature. It gives a lot of insight into how it got made, and what these guys went through in making their first film.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

Very Good Zombie B-Movie

4/10
Author: Horrorible_Horror_Films from Outer Mongolia
15 November 2006

This is a entertaingly bad b-movie. Actually it really is much better quality than a lot of b movies. It had a consistent script, decent direction, cinematogrpahy, and I have seen worse acting. The zombies were great, clearly these were Romero zombies, and was really a interesting zombie story. Obviously not Oscar material, and if your not into zombie movies, or b-movies you probably wont enjoy this, but if you are you'll like this movie.

The main clint eastwood knockoff western character guy is pretty good, although they never really clearly explain how he can heal himself from gunshots and zombie bites. But if he has more than a line of dialogue that where his bad acting is really evident.

It was a good ending to, at least I thought so. Romero should be flattered if he ever saw this.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

The Good, The Bad, And The Undead

10/10
Author: exchronos (exchronos@att.net) from Canton, Ohio
28 February 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

You've probably read a lot of bad reviews of this movie, and so did I. Yet you can't really appreciate this film until you've watched it, and even then it takes somebody who really understands it to really appreciate its cinematic value. Clint Glenn pulls off possibly the toughest act any action actor could attempt, and that is the blending of Clint Eastwood's Man With No Name character with that of Kurt Russell's cult iconic Snake Plissken character from "Escape From New York". Never before has the two styles of both iconic cinema loner legends come to a blend of cinematic brilliance and perfection. Imagine a zombie film shot like a Sergio Leone western yet with post-apocalyptic grit of John Carpenter's "Escape" movies. You no longer have to imagine because that film is "The Quick And The Undead". Clint Glenn's character also embodies a trait that few horror icons have had in the past-the immunity to infection that lead Vincent Price to be the last man on Earth, that made Charlton Heston the Omega Man, and finally got Will Smith killed in a movie...and about time! Although one must admit that the character relations could've been a bit more flushed out, as in the hero's past relations to the villain and the lady on the villain's team, and a better explanation on the DVD cover that the outbreak did not happen 85 years ago in the old west, but that the story happens 85 years into our future-which one can realize by comprehending the opening title sequence which effectively carries back story exposition which most people probably didn't pay attention to. Now another big whopper of surprise-the story brings the conflict back to being man versus man as opposed to the now repetitive man versus zombie meaningless action bonanza of mindless gore. In the tradition of the original "Dead" trilogy, man is still the ultimate evil while the zombies are the plot device to real human drama. As in the Dollars Trilogy (Man With No Name Trilogy for those who don't know its other name) the power and corruption of human society by greed plays a pivotal part in the story and its surprising and satisfying ending. If you don't like to think while watching a zombie film, if you become as brain dead as the zombies portrayed on the screen, then this may not be the best film for you to watch...just keep watching the endless modernized remakes of the original "Night Of The Living Dead" that big movie studios keep cranking out year after year after year. Yet if you want a film that's mentally engaging, shot in a superb homage style of great filmmakers of better film days past, and are ready to take a zombie hunting journey with a lone hero created by his surroundings only to master what surrounds him...then this is a zombie film for you, and is vastly the best independent zombie film since George A. Romero's original independent film masterpiece "Night Of The Living Dead".

Sincerely, Exchronos

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Can't believe anyone liked this...

1/10
Author: JoeB131 from United States
1 August 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

New rule. Nobody is allowed to make any more Zombie movies unless they actually come up with an original idea.

Sadly, this movie doesn't. They have the premise that Bounty hunters go out and kill Zombies and prove it by cutting off their fingers. Well, problems with that. Most people have ten fingers, why not just collect ten bounties for one Zombie? Why not just kill a regular person and pass that off as a Zombie finger?

Not to mention the utter silliness of hunting zombies with a bolt action rifle.

I sometimes think films like this are resume fillers for makeup and FX guys. "Hey, this is what I did with ten dollars and some recylced bottles deposit. Imagine what I could do if you gave me a BUDGET!" Do you think anyone goes to drama school or cinema school to star in a Zombie movie? "I went to the School of the Arts. Check me out as the "Tunnel Zombie" in "Quick and the Undead" Method Acting!" His mother must be so proud.

These had to be the wimpiest Zombies ever, as a whole crowd of them apparently couldn't push down a wooden door or even break a glass window. No, they had to wait for the bounty hunter to open the door for them...

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Thank Nott for this genius compilation of nonsense

3/10
Author: gtha-2 from United States
29 December 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie was awful, especially considering the work that must have gone into its production. Though it's not as bad as Ax 'Em, it is quite awful. Take into account the obvious rip-offs from Gladiator and Raiders of the Lost Ark, and what do you get? This smorgasbord of awful make-up and wooden acting.

The movie starts as most zombie movies nowadays do. A montage of interesting jump-cuts and a radio broadcast of the outbreak at hand. We see our hero (Ryn, quite possibly the worst 'zombie hunter' in modern era; counted about four or five times where he either scratched his head with the barrel of his pistol or looked down the barrel while blowing) cutting off fingers of zombies. We later learn that these fingers are collected for bounties.

Well, Ryn seems to be a rebel in his ways of dispensing of zombies; going so far as to purchase chum *gasp* from his French buddy Hans (who isn't really French, speaks with an odd Middle-Eastern accent). As Ryn uses the chum to collect a plentiful bounty from Lost Hills, all hell breaks loose.

And cue the awfulness of the movie. The zombies are put together quite poorly. I've seen comments praising their make-up, but it was quite amateur in my opinion. Obvious Halloween adhesives were used to make the zombies' faces and there were points at which one girl looked as if she were donning a clown mask instead of a freshly peeled face. Oy Vey.

To sum the next sixty minutes up in a few lines: Ryn is back stabbed by Hans (who made a deal with some other zombie hunters, Blythe being the ringleader), gives him a second chance, gets back stabbed again by Hans, then shoots Hans and gets to Union City where he finds Blythe is poisoning the cities for profit.

That's it really in regards to plot. When Ryn reaches Union City all the baddies are gathered around in a house that evidently is so massive it takes Ryn hours to reach the top floor. People die, Ryn lives, and the movie ends with one of those cynical "is he going to kill himself?" scenes.

*END SPOILERS* I'm going to have to blame most of this mess on Nott. The direction was awful. EVERY character featured a scowl other than Hans, who was easily the best 'actor' in this group of MacBeth rejects. When they reach Union City, a hoard of zombies attacks the crew and the zombies were obviously given no tips or ideas about how to walk as if your appendages were rotten. One woman is swaying as if she's swimming in mid-air on a Sunday stroll.

Some movies are awful. This movie is one of them simply on the grounds of how logic seemed to be abandoned in order to keep a story flowing. Works occasionally, but in this regard (where the story was already in shambles), it doesn't.

Avoid it unless you want a decent laugh.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Have you ever wanted to lose two hours of your life?

1/10
Author: reinkopf from United States
19 October 2007

I watched this movie a couple months ago when it first showed up on the shelves of Blockbuster. It is officially the only movie that I've wanted to undo watching. Let me start off by saying that I like "B" Movies. I consider "Ice Pirates" One of the best comedies EVER. I'll also note that I'm a writer and that I've met the director/writer of this cinematic marvel.

Evaluating the acting: If I was going to pick a bright spot I'd have to point out that Dion Day had an admirable acting debut with his role in this. For those who don't know, Dion is a boxer not an actor so we'll forgive him his lame death sequence. Why doesn't he fire the shotgun he's holding once? Budget? To highlight the bad acting would take pages so I'll stick to The egotistical lead, Ryn Baskin. Ryn (Which seems like a name chosen from a comic book because it sounded cool) has maximum face time in this movie, probably because he was a producer. His looks are completely fine, but his delivery evokes memories of SNL ripping on soap-operas. I suppose he could only do so much with what was written for him, but part of the blame is definitely his.

Special Effects: Not my specialty, but for a low-budget flick I suppose the makeup and gun play was acceptable. It didn't bother me, but it also didn't impress.

Writing/Directing: Oscar for best screenplay is not something I can foresee Gerald Nott ever winning. Not only is the plot rudimentary, but the dialog is flat and stilted. I understand stylized hokee-ness, but this was just bad writing. The thing that bothered me most was the theft. Nott stole scenes, shots, and Viggo's facial hair from a slew of other movies. The scene where Russel Crow is walking through the wheat field in Gladiator, Entire sequences from The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, that sort of thing just doesn't cut it with me. I'll choose not to comment on the shooting because I don't know what it takes to establish a good shot etc...

Conclusion: Don't rent this movie, don't even pirate it. It's far too bad to waste any time on. The good reviews may be entirely bogus, after meeting Gerry It seems more then likely that he is posting them himself.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

A shill hyped waste of time

1/10
Author: moviefanman3 from United States
20 December 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Unreal !!!!!!!!. After reading the initial reviews posted by alleged reviewers ,I was shocked to find that almost all of the initial reviews, 38 , all rated this film a 10. Upon comparison with other great films, these reviewers felt that the Quick and the Undead is a better film than,The 6th Sense(8.2), Saving Private Ryan(8.4), Lord of the Rings( 8.7),Godfather(9.5), Gladiator(8.1) and Dawn of the Dead ( 7.8) to name a few. Hopefully these shills utilize their next discounted lasik procedure, that they hear of, because it is completely obvious that these reviews have been falsified.

I was led to believe that this film featured a unique concept in the genre of Zombie film making. Sadly upon watching the Quick and the Undead , It is obvious that these reviews were generated by people who either were involved in the production, or have a vested interest in the films marketability / financial success. Nothing cements this in my mind more than hearing that a portion of this film was shot in Texas, were, coincidentally allot of the early posting praising the film are from. The Zombie film / Horror B movie culture on a whole is a forgiving group, but this film is sadly beyond any redemption. The characters are recycled,and the plot poor.The film quality was not bad enough to be labeled camcorder,and at least they used a film quality camera . The acting is horrible, the star trying unsuccessfully to come off as a Clint Eastwood wanna be clone. Christ on a Bike !!!!!! Even the lead actor's name is Clint. He was just terrible. The only resemblance to Clint Eastwood, is that the lead is using the "wood" from Eastwood's name in his style of acting. The Zombie makeup was above Halloween party quality , but not applied completely to the full undead cast members. Allot of zombies were not made up on their hands. The plot was so hokey that it had me hoping for a power outage, a blemish on the DVD disk, or that the zombies would turn their attention on the director. Maybe the film has worth to some viewers, but not for my hard earned dollar. Luckily I used my free rental coupon to check out this DVD. Maybe this film will be rescued by Nott entertainment ( aptly named) releasing a special collectors DVD, which will tie up loose flaws, and deliver the promised goods??? Some how , I think NOTT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lets just hope that their next release , The Flesh Keeper is truly a "keeper" of a film ..and not a 5th generation recycled version of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Fingers crossed here folks...but only if you care.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

worst zombie movie ever

1/10
Author: makusu_max from DC, USA
19 March 2011

the most voted review has 52 views and 29 people liked it, meaning the remaining votes who didn't must be the failed people who made the movie.

I've never seen so much stupidity in such a compact manner. First seen, the guy puts a crate..in the TRUNK OF A BIKE? what the.. was that? he put the crate in the floor! and the whole acting is just horrible..as mentioned before. the blonde..guy..girl..whatever it was, was the only good actor..actress?

anyway, BOWL OF FAIL! 0/10

boring, waste of time.

advice for people behind the movie.. if you are going to play with guns, know how to use them.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 3 of 5: [Prev][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