Children of the Living Dead (Video 2001) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
100 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
You have to see this to believe it
exocrine19 September 2004
This film is the most hideous thing you can imagine. To give you an example of how bad this is, one of the reasons given why the dead are coming back to life is that the zombie king (?) was forced to cross dress as a child.

Yes, forget radiation, disease or nanotech, this time it's transvestitism that brings the dead out of their graves.

There is a scene where a car goes over a cliff. The FX brings to mind that old TV show where marionettes pilot a spaceship. The actors (?) say their line "No ahhh" while they die. This scene pretty well sums up the film.

This is a horrible, horrible film. There are not enough bad adjectives to describe it. You should see it simply because it is so horrible.
28 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Take it from me....
moses-1115 January 2002
I was even IN this movie (as an uncredited extra) and I knew at the time it was going to be bad. What I didn't realize was how bad bad could be.

I know one of the cameramen and he knew better how bad it was going to be but after seeing the stunning editing job they did, he too was amazed at the appalling disjointed quality of this film. I hesitate to use the word 'film' even. And don't use the word 'professionalism' either, as jelly was spilt on at least one roll of film and things had to be reshot. Why did they bother?
16 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Oh Tom...
hacness14 April 2008
I ONLY watched this movie because I have always liked Tom Savini and wanted to see what he was up to. He was OK in his previous cheesy acting roles, like Dusk till Dawn and some Romero films like DOTD and Martin. Obviously his talent lies in special FX and not in acting, but I give the guy a little credit for acting too, just because he's Tom Savini. But why Tom... why?!?!?! I am shocked that he would have been associated with a movie as bad as this... I can't imagine it was for the money. Anyway, this movie is rubbish and I don't know what Tom was thinking when he signed on. I will never get that hour and a half of my life back.
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Clearly this director had never seen a horror flick before
mademoiselle_end2 December 2002
Warning: Spoilers
The film advertises loud and clear "with tom savini" (from Dawn of the Dead) who's only in the movie for the first 14 minutes...

it's a film where evil zombies fight back. Full of too many uncalled for camera movements (feels like the cameraman learned all about the trade watching MTV.. it moves all the time for no reason) and there are lots of extreme close-ups of mouths and even stomachs! For some reason in the opening scenes, a weird blue filter was used outside for no reason.. everyone looked blue?!

So the premise of the films says that zombies don't take to children (what the f***?) why not? It opens with people shooting zombies. no explanation given why there are zombies though. Then it moves on to 14 years later where all the zombies have been killed and people seem to have forgotten all about the fact there ever were some walking the earth...

so 14 years later, kids we don't know are now the stars of the film. they do a stupid party on a grave and then die because a zombie stepped on the road ! The end of them.

At some point some grave robbers vandalize some 5 coffins that are just left there by themselves alone at night in a cemetery after the funeral. yeah sure like anyone would just leave their loved ones to vandals! and then a zombie who believe he's a vampire or something bites a corpse and brings it back to life.. sure whatever! oh and did i mention BAD ACTORS?!!

So the movie starts AGAIN, still with BAD actors!!! We're now 30 minutes INTO the film with a TON of new characters, half of them useless, with the stupidest dialogue ever. I didn't know they were still making such awful b-rated movies these days. it was made in 2001 but really has a 1986 feel to it. every character is shallow, talks too much and has no reason whatsoever to do what he or she does. it's hilarious!! wow! i wish some people could be here watching this with me cause such bad movies have to be shared!!

This time though it's all about ONE super villain zombie. he is truly evil. he can even think and he plans his attacks. sure.. doesn't that defeat the purpose of a zombie? i guess this time we can call the living dead monsters and not zombies since they are not the dumb dead we're used too.

In the end the movie shows that the director clearly had never seen a horror movie before. He repeated all the mistakes everybody makes. The plot is so thin it's non believable. And as always the girl at the end has to lock herself up while all the MALES shoot the zombies. Right i forgot that girls can't shoot!

Whatever that was so bad.. 1.7/10 :
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
One of the great "Bad" Movies of All Time
TC Smoot12 February 2003
From Children of the Living Dead, I have obtained more hours of enjoyment than watching any other movie. I can watch this film numerous times, laugh at how hilariously bad it is and still find something new each time. For instance, when we get a brief glimpse inside the construction site building, why is there gang graffiti on the walls? Or, if you watch the very beginning when Savini and the sheriff are walking towards the house, you can see something from the sheriff's belt make a big shine reflection on the house. Thank you, John Russo and all your cronies for pumping out good quality garbage like this. The bad dubbing, the horrible acting, the horrible script....Oh, and that brings up the end credits. I love how in the end credits, that there is a separate credit for "Abbott Hayes is an original character by" and then they give the screen writer's name. I guess the writer was afraid that people would think that someone else came up with the idea of the great zombie villain Abbott Hayes, or maybe they were afraid that someone would rip him off and that he would become as big as Jason or Freddy Kreugar. Oh, a fun drinking game to play is to take a drink for every time you see someone with the last name "Hinzman" in the end credits. You'll die of alcohol poisoning by the time they stop rolling.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Blasphemy to the phrase "Living Dead"
coolkycouple200411 August 2004
Tom Savini is a very gifted make-up artist. He is creative, twisted, and a legend in the make-up/SFX world.

How this translates into him being an actor, sliding across car hoods, doing flips, and shooting zombies still mystifies me.

To be honest though, it wouldn't matter who starred in this mess..it would still be a sloppy, amateur cheesefest trying to capitalize on the words Living Dead.

As a huge fan of Savini, I was sooooo let down by this movie that I cant even begin to express my hatred for it. It does everything wrong, ugly, and with no Savini style. Please stay BEHIND the camera Tom....please.

Avoid this like the plague. 1 out of 10
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Children of the Living Dead
Scarecrow-8814 April 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Lame-brained zombie film, with film-making duties by various participants of "Night of the Living Dead". This particular flick concerns teenagers who died in a vehicle crash over a cliff thanks to a zombie, Abbott Hayes(A Barrett Worland), who wasn't killed in a small town extermination. Hayes resurrects their corpses by biting them, and as a group they pursue live human victims as a major car dealership development is underway. The film centers of the blossoming relationship between Matthew Michaels(Damien Luvara), whose father is the head honcho behind the dealership, and Laurie Danesi(Jamie McCoy),the small town waitress. Sheriff Randolph(Marty Schiff)is in cahoots with the developers in pulling up the caskets and headstones from a cemetery burying the loved ones in a mass grave to save money. Abbott Hayes will lead his zombie troops on a raid on the diner as Michael, Laurie & Randolph hole up awaiting help from the development workers.

I think many might wish to check this one out for the opening fifteen or so minutes where make-up effects legend Tom Savini goes bad ass as a survivalist town deputy who takes out zombies singlehanded. The opening of the film resembles the close of "Night of the Living Dead" as townspeople work as an organized hunting party eradicating the walking dead with guns and rifles. Once Abbott Hayes is introduced(..first looking like a corpse, and when the film moves fourteen years later, resembles a monstrous ghoul)the film sours immediately. The screenplay is uninvolving never remaining focused with the film becoming an uneven and tedious exercise where boredom sets in like gangrene rotting away the viewer's patience..well, that's what this film felt like to me, gangrene rotting away my patience. I kept hoping that something would come from this film, but when you have dialogue this putrid with a cast equally as painful, there's no hope at all. I am not sure this will even work for the most enthusiastic zombie fan. The final showdown at the end has workers, with plenty of weapons and ammunition toiling with the zombies in hand-to-hand combat! While the fighting occurs, Abbott Hayes is shown delighting as the carnage ensues. Hayes seems to be merely in the film to wickedly grin as his minions attack pea-brained human clowns. What a travesty. Actor Bill Hinzman tries to put some energy into the photography, but that shot in the arm can do little to inject life into a film where quality whithers minute to minute. This film would've done better to follow Savini throughout the film wasting zombies rather than focus on a car dealership development and the dull relations of a would-be couple.

Savini and some minor moments of zombie gore lift this to 2 stars instead of 1.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I wish I could douche my eyes
Mike_Rotch26 January 2007
I have suffered through some horrible horror movies through the years; The Alien Dead, Blood Diner, Lawnmower Man...just to name a few. I actually walked out of the theater on the Lawnmower Man, but I digress. I would have walked out of this abomination too, except I was AT home as this turd was a direct to DVD release. It got sooo bad about 45 minutes through I put my player on 4x speed just so I could skip over the mind-numbingly bad acting and dialogue. Abbot Hayes, the leader of the prancing dead. All this bastard does in the film is lurk in the shadows, prance, and grin/mug maniacally at the camera. He is a precedent setter though, the first queer zombie on film, oh wait Michael Jackson, never mind.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Children of the Living Dead: Almost as bad as they say
Platypuschow20 November 2017
Children Of The Living Dead at time of writing currently has an outstandingly low 2.3 rating on IMDb. It's rare to see something that low but there is a story behind this weak zombie film.

Children Of The Living Dead was setup to be the next great zombie film, the stars were aligned as the cast and crew was packed full of legends within the industry and the film had a modest half a million dollar budget.

Sadly it wasn't meant to be. Nepotism ran rampant, friends and family were brought in instead of genuine talent and were given offensively high salaries. Morale was non-existent, arguments and creative issues were a daily occurrence and the end result was a terrible film that many have publicly slammed despite their part in it.

Tom Savini especially has been vocal, claiming it should have been something special but descended into something he regrets.

It has a real Romero feel to it and our antagonist is actually quite good. Sadly with weak looking zombies, terrible acting/writing and a conflicted tone the film is destined to be infamous for all the wrong reasons.

The Good:

Tom Savini

The Bad:

Gunplay is laughable

Shoddily made

Tone shifts

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

There is nothing to fear but fear itself.....and zombies
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Redefining the word 'Bad'
The Terminator4 January 2002
I wrote a very long review before but for some reason only my summary was up, so here goes at a second attempt. Being the dead fan I am (I have a dead trilogy website) I couldn't resist seeing this movie, even knowing that it would be pretty bad in comparison to Romero's movies. Quite simply, I was blown away. Never before (and I mean this) have I seen such a dire plot, such awful acting and such diabolical camera work. This film isn't even one of those 'So bad it's good' events, failing on every possible level. Cue 90 minutes of unbelievably bad dubbing, atrocious story lines and god-awful filming techniques. It is so hard to express how bad this film is. The film jumps forward 14 years, then 1 year and so on yet has no continuity. We do not know what is going on as each time segment has no relation to the previous one. It is criminal that this film was ever made, and the cheek of John Russo (who I would take great pleasure in torturing) to call this the 'long awaited sequel'. How can people possibly believe that this is good? Surely someone on set would have realised that they were making one of the worst films in history (and that's no lie either).

To be honest, I would go so far as to pay people not to watch this, in the vain hope that all copies would be pulled from shelves and the negatives be burnt. I can't even give this an IMDB rating of one as it simply does not deserve that kind of credibility. Atrocious.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Better than it should be
kannibalcorpsegrinder4 April 2015
After years of disappearances around town, the local sheriff finds them all tied to a local legend about a ravenous zombie intent on waging war on humanity and forces the town's survivors to fight off his undead hordes.

This here actually wasn't that bad. One of the better elements is the fact that it features a main zombie who has a distinct personality and a sense of intelligence which is a nice change of pace from most zombie films, staying in the shadows while setting out a game plan and knows when to sneak up on victims. This gives it more than a typical zombie film in his behavior, and along with the rather impressive make-up work on the zombies with lots of wounds that get bloodier and more disgusting, and with their rotting, dead look and glaring fangs create some pretty imposing features and makes for an overall effective amount of zombie mayhem. Another big factor here is the action within this one as this features a rather enjoyable amount of action within this. The fact that the film starts off with a big action scene of them trying to knock off hordes of zombies rampaging through the countryside is a big plus, leading to a lot of close-calls and big action as the odds are stacked towards them enough to make them seem like a threat. Other great sequences include the great barnyard encounter as well as the big swarm encounters through town that occur in the later half which really makes for an entertaining time. Along with some fun suspense scenes of the zombies attacking the townspeople in a series of surprise attacks as well as plenty of great bloodshed are the film's good points, while this one here doesn't have too many flaws to it. The fact that it does have some really blatant obviousness in its cheapness is something to get over. The gore and wounds are hardly realistic, especially the finale bloodbath though there are plenty of obvious examples before that and allow for some pretty big examples. Aside from the low-budget, another flaw in here is that the film has a bit of a problem with pacing here, especially in the middle section. This is due to a confusing habit of changing around years, jumping around to different years at various points along the way by seemingly injecting a new scene into the film almost every time it changes scenes. It's not clear why this is done and it's purpose is a puzzling one since it could've easily done so without changing around the years around to make this as confusing as it is. While some out there will decry the new treatment afforded to the zombies' behavior and actions, it's not enough to hold it back like the rest of the film's flaws.

Rated R: Graphic Violence and Graphic Language.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Campy, so bad it was good
ragweedfarmer28 May 2008
This movie was so goofy it was quite entertaining. Most of the acting was terrible, with some of the actors obviously trying not to laugh. Tom Savini was terrific for the first part of the movie, but...well I won't spoil it for you. I would definitely like to see him get larger roles.

The movie starts out with a bunch of zombies roaming a field with the local yahoos shooting at them. The action leads to a barn where the hero of the movie discovers more zombies and shoots all of them except the head zombie. The movie then shifts to 14 years later when we learn that the head zombie is Abbot Hays, who was executed as a murderer, but the body disappeared. A crooked car dealer buys out the cemetery and starts digging up the graves to put in a new dealership. Hey, none of the locals complained about that? The movie cannot seem to decide whether Abbot Haze is the hero or the villain. Is he protecting the cemetery or just causing mayhem? It makes the sheriff into a heal and then a hero in the end. It makes the crooked car dealer's heal side kick into a hero at the end too.

Yeah, people are saying how bad this movie is, but that was what made it fun to watch, but if you want to be scared out of your wits this won't do it for you.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
not a zombie movie!!!!!!!!!! (or shouldn't be)
TBLAZER120 May 2005
OK this is not a zombie movie, how could it. in all the Romero films the zombies are driving by flesh, the main zombie like has super human strength and knowledge. i really want to know how this is a zombie film, the only up side to the film was Savini. but he was killed in the beginning, he was kicking so much but! as i recall the zombie slashed him with his claws or what ever they were. the up side about the film was the start and the (almost) end. the fighting was good i guess, the gore was OK. the most ass nine thing i saw in the film was the vary end, forgiving the fact that the good people of that town killed every zombie but the main one(in witch could laf), he just walked away ! zombies will do anything to get flesh, even march into a army of rednecks with guns.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An insult to VCR/DVD players worldwide...
planb224 February 2004
A good doorstop, fireplace kindling, target-practice fodder...perhaps, but a watchable movie...NO! Straight out of a high-school filmmaking class at best, this amateurish junk made me want to sue the director & writer for the 50 cents I wasted renting it. Read the worst review here and call it an understatement....Beware of this one.
18 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This movie is a hidden treause(read on before judgement)
ChromeFloam24 December 2002
This movie was an absolute blast. Gather round and I shall regale you with is story of how I came upon this gem of a movie. I went to my local blockbuster with my two chums and was looking at the movie Dog Soldiers. I said "We should rent this it looks either half decent or so bad it's funny." One of the employees said "No, this movie was sort of interesting if you want a really crappy movie follow me". So off we went to the vhs section of Blockbuster. He hauled out children of the living dead. He summed it up the best "You will laugh your ass off. This movie is the most terrible thing in the store. The acting is garbage, the special effects are sad, and the ending doesn't make even romotely ANY sense whatsoever...But I'll leave you to discover it for yourself." So we thanked him and off he went. We had to wait for my friends mom to rent the movie so we left it at the front desk and went across the street to get snacks for the movie. When we came back like 5 minutes later instead of the usual "hello" Blockbuster employees give you the guy was like "It was that bad you're back already?". This movie is absolutely the worst thing to be dedicated to film. The previews are a riot in themselves. I'd have to say one of my favorite parts is probably when tom savini is aiming a sniper rifle at a car and he says "Surprise" but his lips don't move That's what happens when you dubb nearly the entire movie. The acting is is like High quality porn(and that's not saying much), the special effects are retard-quality, and the story is just abso-f**k-inglutely insane. And just wait 'til the last giant battle at the diner.(tom savini plays someone else..he's the guy hucking dynamite from his car. He shaved his beard and only my friend noticed). To call this movie crap would be a compliment. But I will call it crap becuase it will encourage these movie makers to continue to produce these finely tuned laughing stocks. If it were a little less boring in the middle it would be flawless. And the big kicker here is that everything is tinted light blue. After watching the movie we checked the back of the box and "OH MY GOD IT'S MADE IN 2001!!". It looks like they used paper towel for film...this movie is a disgrace. This movie sucks, so invite over your most sarcastic friends and have a gay old time. 0.0001/10-Final Score
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
You cannot comprehend how bad this film is.
tcdarkness16 October 2001
There is not a single facet of this film that is good, or even decent.

I had low expectations for this film, but this sunk even lower than I could have thought. It looked like the thing was shot on a camcorder. There was all of one lens used in the entire film, which gave it that nice camcorder feel. You can see the same background depth in every shot because of this. Usually you won't notice the background revealed to you in a film, but you will if there is no change at all over every single shot.

The lighting wasn't dramatic at all and it looked more like a home film than even my flick. It didn't even try to be scary... well it did, but it was so overtly done that it made you laugh more than quiver. They relied on the sunlight too much in the film and didn't attempt to compliment it with outside lighting at all. Then at night the cemetery and house settings are so obviously artificially lit, and you can even see the lights even though it's supposed to be out in the country.

The plot makes no sense at all. Karen Wolf made no attempt to explain why the hades the lead zombie abducted these kids and kept them alive. They are just sitting there when found as if just watching TV. She obviously never even attended a funeral in her life or would know that they bury people right after the funeral, not hours later. And then some grave robbers show up--somehow they knew the caskets would still be out of the ground--and one gets killed, the other is obviously miscast as an old man.

Similarly, the dialogue form the characters is mostly all small talk and you could cut half of it and never even notice. The characterization isn't there except for two characters who contrast from the rest of the others, but the acitng manages to botch up that distinguishing.

The sound is horrid. It's like they recorded on location and added the dialogue later. The lips often never move, but people are talking. If the lips are moving, they aren't moving at the same speed as the voice. The voices don't fit the facial expressions or have any real emotion to them. The zombies make groaning noises in the same way... some have their mouths open, some don't. And it's very obvious. The dialogue doesn't seem to come form any channel, and I wonder if it was recorded in monotone and from equal distance from the microphone for every character. I'm almost sure of it.

The direction was equally bad. There were close-ups where more distant shots could be used because the close-ups seemed forced and weak for the dialogue given. Then there are long shots that need to be drastically magnified to close-ups in order to give it more dramatic feeling. The way that we see the lead zombie as a zombie for the first time is like this. It's a full body shot and we can see all of this area surrounding him, and the guy doesn't seem scary at all, even though his make-up implies we are to think that way about him.

The photography complimented the direction in its ineptitude. The opening shots are tinted blue for some unknown reason--and it's very blatant and unfitting of the time of day of the shot. A yellow, orange or red tint would have looked better, especially for illuminating the zombies' faces in the sunlight. The blue tint better have been some homage to Dawn of the Dead's blue-faced zombies, but I doubt it. Even if it was, it is bad filmmaking. There should have been darker, less focal depth lenses used to make the lighting more dramatic in many, many, many scenes indoors. You would never know it is supposed to be a horror film in this regard in a whole lot of shots.

The editing and pacing of the scenes was bland. We get a little bit of drama with the music for one actual scene when the main character is scoping out his house, but the scene just up and ends abruptly, leaving the viewer to wonder "was that it?!" There's a shot where the lead zombie bites into the neck of a guy in one shot up-close, then it cuts to another shot for some unknown reason and the guy's neck is still immaculate. And when the lead character talks to his love interest while ordering coffee, she fills up his cup, then takes it away, refills, wipes the bottom of the saucer and refills his cup again... BEFORE HE EVEN TAKES A SIP!

The acting looks like they put an ad in the paper and accepted all non-SAG-eligible actors for parts without even giving them a screen test. Except for Tom Savini, of course, who even can't overcome bad script and direction to make his character seem cool, just a one-liner-spewing, macho idiot. It speaks volumes that they hired Bill Hinezman's daughter (?) for one of the more prominent zombie parts; it backs my theory up.

Like I've put in here several times, you usually don't notice when things are done correctly (ie: you don't go "that shot had great lighting!"), but you sure as heck notice when they go awry in a film, and they go awry in every scene and almost every shot. If they made a manual for showing how NOT to make a film, they would say "watch Children of the Living Dead."
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
worst movie ever made
nvillesanti25 May 2007
There is only one word to describe this film, BAD. Indeed the worst film ever made, I don't know why Tom Savini ended up taking part in such a terrible film. I am a fan of George Romero films and when I saw this movie I just wanted to cry. The movie photography is terrible, the dialog is stupid as it can be, the story is boring, and the action… what action? This movie should be banned from all the video stores and never be mentioned again, the director must never make a movie ever again please. For the producer and director… film-making is definitely not for you. Don't ever try this again. If you see this movie in the video store go to the clerk and tell him to burn the movie.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Introducing the one and only Intelli-zombie...
devinecomic7 July 2005
I must admit that the zombie is far from my favourite horror monster scary-thing image. But in an attempt to find the ultimate in scary films, old and new, I will watch anything to develop my ideas and get my fix.

With hindsight, I needn't have watched this one. Pointless and grossly non-developed plot, wooden characters (whether zombie-fied or not), extremely budget sets, inconsistent action from one scene (even one shot) to the next, no entertainment value (this wasn't even laughable), and definitely no horror. Not a squeak!

In truth, the credits to this film were arguably the best part. If they had been at the beginning, there may well have been a good opening to the film. All that would be needed thereafter is to change absolutely everything from then on. No, hold on, there was one good thing... the mask of the intelli-zombie, yes the living AND thinking dead... was almost quite effective. Almost. In fact, I am having trouble dissuading myself that it is this same mask that was used again, some years later, in Jeepers Creepers.

Essentially, this film is a no-watcher... and I struggle to believe that it was ever worth watching. Or making.

I rated a "2"
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Undead Laugh Fest at First, Then Boredom
nightshade_4463726 December 2005
This film is absolutely terrible! I have a great affection for zombie films, but this one was a real stinker, it's only real value is as an example of terrible writing and acting. The plot isn't clearly thought or carried out,and the actors are rather wooden. I think the best part of the whole film is actually the five minutes or so at the beginning of the film, where Tom Savini does a small role and is then quickly killed by the main zombie.It's really unclear here just how Abbot came to be a zombie and why it takes so long for his zombie army to unite for the final battle at the end of the film. I was able to laugh my way through half the film, but after a while losing track of the drifting storyline and tiring of it's lack of quick momentum I grew bored of even that.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Second-worst Zombiemovie I've ever seen.
only_myschly25 February 2007
The worst? Zombie Planet. I could watch about 20 minutes before I fast forwarded and just saw bits and pieces, ending up in a total 25 minutes. This movie I watched for about 30 minutes, fast forwarded, hoping there'd be a light at the end of the tunnel. But there wasn't. There was nothing good about this movie. I mean they couldn't even manage having good zombie-shooting, which is one of the easiest things to do!

My patience really, REALLY ran thin when they had some guy shooting a zombie and then another one would come, from what I saw, thin air and bite his neck.

It was just so worthless, that all who were involved in the movie (who didn't do it ONLY because they desperately needed the money) should go to prison. No joke.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I'm Glad Someone Liked This Movie . . .
tomjeffrey20018 August 2009
. . . because that means it wasn't a total waste of celluloid.

I am a great fan of bad movies. In fact, I believe that many "bad" movies are not really bad, but just misunderstood, as I've tried to explain in my reviews of other much maligned movies such as "Robot Monster" and "Night of the Living Dead 3D." But this one, in my opinion, is not enjoyably bad, not laughably bad. Just plain bad.

The opening scenes with Tom Savini are passable. But when Abbott Hayes makes his appearance, things go downhill really fast. In fact, it quickly got to the point where I could no longer watch this movie. I felt that I had already wasted too much of my life on this piece of trash and could not afford to waste any more.

All the negative comments that have been made about this movie by previous reviewers are true. It is total garbage. For the few who enjoyed it, I say more power to you. But as for me, I wish I had read the reviews before investing a half hour of my life that I will never get back.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
If you are one of those people that question things in life, read this...
Cherry_go_round26 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
You must have fantastic taste in films, much a la moi... (using my "fellow Abbott Hayes lover" friend's account) I think they create the terror of being ambushed by a flesh eating zombie very...erm..."well." However, despite the fantastic quality of this film-the lighting, abbot Hayes' golf shoes, and of course the acting- I'm am ashamed to say that I have a few queries about this section of the story (when we first meet the senior and aged Abbot Hayes; he creeps across the road and causes 6 teenagers to drive off a cliff-tragic).

Firstly, notice how the car is going at about 20 miles an hour. However, when we see that fantastic side shot of the car, it must be travelling a wild 5 miles an hour, and..................WAIT!!! It appears that the car is actually driving off the cliff! Is the driver suicidal? Was he driving under the influence??? We shall never know...

Also, if you ever came face to face (well, through a cracked car windscreen at least)with a flesh eating zombie (heaven forbid) what would you do? Would you scream "Oh *beep* Abbot Hayes!" all in turn with the rest of the occupants of your vehicle and carelessly drive over a conveniently placed cliff? NO!! You would slam your foot on the pedal, rev up the engine, and squash the damn thing!! At least that way you could get away from the creature sporting golf shoes and drive as fast as your 60s retro Volkswagen van would take you!! I suddenly feel so relived after getting that off my chest...

If you are one of those people however who finds badly made films entertaining, I guarantee that you will not be any more satisfied than with this film. The lighting is rubbish, dimly lit, in fact to hell with that: its non-existent! The actors are completely unheard of (exc. Tom Savini, though I must admit that I never heard of him) their speech being dubbed in. Sheer comedy at its best!!! Watch this film...

This film really is a classic slapstick comedy:::::::: Rock on Children Of The Living Dead!
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Dire
Woodyanders31 May 2012
Warning: Spoilers
A gaggle of zombies led by rapist and serial killer Abbot Hayes (A. Barrett Worland sporting laughable make-up) terrorize a small town. Man, does this stupendously schlocky stinkeroonie strike out something rotten in almost every possible way: flat (non)direction by Tor Ramsey, draggy pacing, shoddy zombie make-up, zero tension or creepy atmosphere, lousy acting from a lame no-name cast, poorly staged zombie attack set pieces, a plodding narrative, ham-fisted attempts at humor, plain cinematography by S. Willian Hinzman, painfully obvious post-production looping, ghastly tin-eared dialogue ("Die you freaks from hell!"), annoying characters, a generic hum'n'shiver score by Alan Howarth, slapdash editing, a pitiful main undead villain who projects not a jot of scary menace, a terrible script by Karen L. Wolf, a hilariously inept climactic battle between the zombies and a bunch of gung-ho construction workers, and even a groan-inducing "it ain't over yet!" sequel set-up ending. Tom Savini's regrettably brief vigorous turn as rough'n'tumble survivalist par excellence Deputy Hughs provides the sole bright spot in this otherwise seriously dim clunker. A total wash-out.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
great googly-moogly
redhunter10 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I am at a loss where to begin. Usually when I watch a "hack and slash" movie, the "hack" isn't the director and the "slashing" doesn't come from the editing dept. Most people seem to preface their reviews for this movie with, "the first ten minutes with Savini were good, but....". What movie were you watching? Just because Savini is cool, doesn't mean the first ten minutes didn't suck. (hey, we've all had to make a buck washing dishes and waiting tables, right?)Again, editing wreaked havoc on the fire-arm action, (innapropriate number of rounds, empty guns still fire etc.) giving me one of my favorite parts in the movie. When Savini fires his pistol in the barn, there is the sound of it firing, but Savini hits the clip release and drops the clip nearly to the ground before the camera cuts away. His character wastes ammo for no reason, blows up his car with all of his supplies in it when he could've just shot the two or three zombies, he puts a zombie's body in the car before rolling it down the hill (he already wasted that one, what was the point?), and when the car rolls down the hill, there is now TWO bodies inside! A deputy shows up to check out an area. It's broad daylight, but he gets out of his car and walks about ten feet and looks around. Nope, nothing going on here. Then they kill Savini and the movie actually gets worse. So we're stuck with Abbott whatever and his Wal-mart rubber gloves, the hilarious car-over-the-cliff scene, a 'story' ripped-off from "Poltergeist", cemeteries that leave bodies above ground over-night even though they've been tampered with before, and NO "CHILDREN OF THE LIVING DEAD". In the world of laughably awful zombie movies there is, "Zombie '90", "House of the Dead", and this mouse pellet somewhere in between. As comedies go, I give it five out of five.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed