The Quick and the Undead (2006) User Reviews

Why pick such a bad approach for a movie of this sort?

[Boba_Fett1138 · 4/10 · 18 July 2009]

Well, here we have a zombie movie that perhaps isn't even being much of a zombie movie. The entire movie is set in a zombie-plagued near future but yet the movie does very little with this concept. Instead it focuses on a zombie hunter who is trying to get revenge and his money back from a group of other bounty hunters. What good is money anyway when almost the entire world has gone to hell and towns are mostly desolate. And why pay money to people for killing zombies in the first place. As if people would not go on to kill this dangerous threatening monsters when they are not getting paid.

Needless to say that the story for "The Quick and the Undead" is far from a tight one. It of course also isn't being filled with the most logical and interesting moments, characters or dialog.

Still it's not a completely horrible movie. It certainly ain't as bad as some people try to make you believe it is. It's a rather good looking one, or rather said the movie at least doesn't have a cheap look over it. It's effects may be a bit overused but nevertheless they are quite good looking, as are the make-up effects as well.

Still the movie was not what I hoped of it. Its title might suggest that the movie is set in the wild, wild west, during the days of the cowboys but its title is just a misleading one, no doubt picked to cash in on it. I fell for it, expecting this movie to be a combination of a western and a gory zombie-horror-flick.

For the fans of the zombie movies this movie will mostly be a disappointment to watch. It of course adds nothing new to the genre but it also doesn't has enough of the genre itself in it to be considered a good one to watch.

Not totally unwatchable but also far from a recommendable one.

4/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Finally! A movie that actually negates itself!

[PDNickz · 4/10 · 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.

Apocalyptic Zombie Western....

[face_of_terror · 4/10 · 6 December 2006]

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.

I thought it was an above average movie.

[Rzinkain · 5/10 · 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.

One of the Worst movies I have ever seen.

[dmason79 · 1/10 · 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.

zombie fan film

[videoport · 5/10 · 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.

Not that bad.

[ZombieRanger · 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.

crappy movie with bad acting and terrible effects

[pogo747 · 2/10 · 29 October 2006]

One look at the rating ought to tell you this movie was voted on by shills, in an attempt to artificially boost this film's ratings.

This film brings nothing new to the zombie genre. In fact, it is laughably bad (in acting and cinematography) and derivative in its plot. The make-up looks horrible and the zombies look even worse when shot. Lines are stiffly delivered and badly timed, with the exception of the female bounty hunter, who is the only good actor in this mess of a film. The worst offenders are the Italian guy (Hans), Ryn the protagonist, and the lead bad guy. I've seen better delivery from pizza truck with a flat tire.

This is a self-proclaimed "zombie western", but about the only thing that makes this a "zombie western" is the fact that people wear cowboy hats and the lead actor's real name is Clint. The protagonist isn't cool and mysterious like a traditional Eastwood hero, and as an anti-hero, he doesn't have the wise-cracking attitude to pull it off either.

Don't be fooled by the fake glowing reviews. This is just another B-grade zombie movie that's competently made for the budget it had (it does have some decent lighting), but it reeks of low-budget, first-time directing and bad acting. There are a LOT OF REALLY stupid scenes that make this look really amateurish.

Do "Nott" Waste Your Time on This

[opulentus7 · 1/10 · 30 October 2006]

Produced by Nott Entertainment, this movie is "nott" very good at all. I sat through the first 15 minutes of the film before judging that the acting is bad, the casting is bad and camera work is bad. As I hear that there is a download of this film floating around on the internet, it is "nott" even worth the bandwidth.

Up until the time I wrote this review, the average vote for this movie was an 8.5, which prompted me to view it and there was an average high majority of 10's for it, obviously voted on by liars and shills. This movie is "nott" for everyone. Or parents, if you want to punish your kids with this awful film, have them sit through this one for Halloween.

Nott Entertainment

[StevePaget · 2/10 · 1 November 2006]

The trailer for this film promised a new twist on the zombie genre: setting it in the Old West. Except it's not the real Old West, of course. It's some sort of Future West, in a world where some apocalypse has, as apocalypses are known to do, killed people and subsequently turned them into zombies. It's zombie virus time again, folks, and you know what that means? Get bitten and become one of them.

So, into this dusty and dead-filled world comes a hero. He's a bounty-hunter, getting paid for taking care of zombies. It's not exactly clear who is providing the funds, but it seems a little cottage industry of zombie-hunting has emerged. But, as the trailer tells us, there's a problem. They are running out of zombies. The only way to keep on earning is to infect new towns and cities with the virus.

I think that's not a bad idea for a film. But unfortunately it takes a lot more than a good idea and a crowd of people pawing at windows to make a good zombie film. What we actually get is a Clint Eastwood clone (the actor's even called Clint, for crying out loud) and his "hilarious" sidekick, trying to bag zombies while trailing some still-living bad guys to get some big reward. The whole subplot about infecting other towns is only mentioned in passing, over half-way through the film. Instead, there's a lot of western movie clichés, poor zombie make-up and some world-class bad acting. Really bad. The sort that wouldn't even make it onto Hollyoaks. Both hero and villain chomp on cigars, quips are thrown, people get bitten. As the movie lurches to a conclusion, the only thing worth wondering is whether it's going to end with the cliché of the hero being the only man alive, having killed the one he loves, or the cliché of him turning into a zombie in the final frame. (It's the first one, by the way) This film was written and directed by Gerald Nott. It's the only thing he has done and, hopefully, it will be his last. At the start of the film there is a caption that reads "Nott Entertainment". At least they got one thing right.

Very Good Zombie B-Movie

[Horrorible_Horror_Films · 4/10 · 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.

Goth Cowboy, what more can I ask for?

[scarletshadows-1 · 8/10 · 23 May 2008]

I went into watching this film expecting a throw away storyline. I was quite surprised by how much I actually enjoyed it. The moment I saw the Goth Cowboy costume I was on my way to being impressed.

I adored the camera work, and the make-up. The way each zombie had its' own individual look impressed me greatly. The storyline was interesting, fairly realistic and had its' own quirky sense of humour. It reminded me of 'Evil Dead 2' at times.

This is not a film for those who swoon for 'Resident Evil', and have never seen 'Night of the Living Dead'. It does not deliver senseless, dragging action. The humour is too subtle for fans of outright spoofs, such as 'Shaun of the Dead'.

This is definitely going on my list of films to acquire, who can go past a goth cowboy hunting zombies? If that is not comic genius, I don't know what is.

All this film really needed to be a cult classic, is Bruce Campbell.

disclaimer. this is not a fake review. I am not related to, or endorsed by any of the films creators. Conspiracy theories can be put to rest. As amusing as wasting time writing fake reviews on the Internet Movie Database may be.

I liked this film.

[ravenblack258 · 7/10 · 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 film...no "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!

Yeah. Spoilers. Beware.

[The_Wagon · 4/10 · 11 February 2007]

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.

Thank Nott for this genius compilation of nonsense

[gtha-2 · 3/10 · 29 December 2006]

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.

Can't believe anyone liked this...

[JoeB131 · 1/10 · 1 August 2007]

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...

Wow, You need to read this review

[DVDruler · 1/10 · 8 December 2006]

Wow, I was told this would be a B movie worth watching. I feel that I was misled after seeing this preview event. The plot is a twisted make of several films at best. Even the title is a take on another film if you can give the movie that much credit. I am sorry to say that I was taken to the cleaners. I wouldn't waste your time on this one. This movie appears to be a bunch of wannabes who got together and made a poor idea of a movie on a weekend with a borrowed camera. Being in the entertainment business, I can judge a decent film and this one deserves to be shelved or discarded. My advice, stick to a classic like the 1979 Dawn of the Dead. On a scale of 1 to 10 even a 1 is being nice to producers because this movie BLOWS. (Below Limit Of What Sucks) The producers need to stay with their daytime jobs. If you do view the movie please be honest in your posting, this one seems to have been hyped up and inflated by a few. There are a few who have seen this for what it is and posted correctly. Sorry, but, I have to say this is one to be skipped.

Not Awful

[Elijah_Chandler · 5/10 · 27 April 2009]

There are a lot of really really bad zombie movies out there. In fact, in a recent study, the UCLA School of Theater, Film, and Television found that for every Romero zombie film there are approximately 112 horrible knock offs (I made that up, I have no idea what the actual ratio is). To be honest and blunt, The Quick and the Undead is a Romero knock off. Accept that. It's full of zombie clichés, sub par writing, and the atypical way-the-hell-over the top gory makeup you've come to expect from a low budget feature such as this. What makes this movie tolerable? What sets it apart from its brethren films (like Dead and Deader)? A great idea. In fact, I'll go so far as to call it a fantastic idea. Nearly every zombie flick out there tries to deal with the issue of identifying the zombie uprising, figuring out what caused it, then surviving for the next 45 minutes until the credits mercifully roll. However, in this film we don't care about how it happened or why, we only know that it DID happen and the world as we know it was changed irrevocably. This movie attempts to tell the story of what happens after the fall of man, when homo sapien is replaced by homo mortus and the few surviving humans must try to piece together a life in which they are no longer at the top of the food chain. Like I said, FANTASTIC IDEA. THe premise alone makes this film tolerable. It's not great, and it has plenty of groan inducing moments (as well as a copious amount of WTF?! causing dialogue) but if you give this movie a chance I think you'll find it to be adequate for your week night diversion needs. Just ignore the bad Clint Eastwood impression...

A shill hyped waste of time

[moviefanman3 · 1/10 · 20 December 2006]

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.

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

[reinkopf · 1/10 · 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.

They Didn't

[ka2006 · 1/10 · 3 January 2008]

This movie baffled me. I could not get a grip on it. Thought I might be missing something. Glad to see that most of you agree with me. This isn't always the case (see my recent review of RE: Extinction).

To expound upon the faults of this film any further would be a glorious waste of time...so I will...

They're dressed like cowboys, but it's modern times, right? No? I don't get it??? When I picked up the box, I thought: ZOMBIE WESTERN! COOL! That's how it was presented. Haven't seen that yet. Hope they did a good job.

They DIDN'T! They tried to create an iconic character that would spawn a series. They didn't.

They tried to make an Aussie indie zombie flick on the caliber (and perhaps riding on the coat tails) of the very well done "UNDEAD". They didn't.

Okay, maybe they just wanted to make a confusing, disjointed, mess of film salad that might ultimately be edited into something watchable. They DIDN'T! This is the new number 2 on my list of Worst Zombie Movies Ever. There are really just the two so far, "DAY OF THE DEAD: CONTAGIUM" being the first (not to be confused with "DAY OF THE DEAD", which is one of my favorite zombie movies of all time). If you're gonna make a zombie movie (and I'm not a zombie movie maker, I'm just a connoisseur) make a good one. Flight of the Living Dead is a good example of decent recent zombie filmaking. FYI.

If you're really forgiving, you might think, well, didn't they at least throw in something to make us feel like we didn't want our money back? Guess what...THEY DIDN'T!

Refreshingly Original

[spamd42 · 8/10 · 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.

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

[bonesandbruisess · 6/10 · 27 December 2006]

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......

MM

Zombie fan movie that zombie fans need "nott" see!

[The_Void · 3/10 · 31 January 2008]

The production company for this film calls itself 'Nott Entertainment', and that is a surprisingly apt name. This very is very 'Nott' entertaining from start to finish, which is a shame because a mix of zombie movie and western could have been interesting. Every time a low budget zombie movie is released, it will tend to be "for the fans by the fans". I do actually consider myself a fan of zombie movies, but too many more like this one and I'll be re-evaluating my opinion! The film seems to be a rip-off of the half-decent Aussie zombie flick 'Undead', expect instead of just having the lead in a cowboy hat; everyone is wearing one; but this doesn't make a lot of sense because the film is apparently set in modern times. The credits sequence at the start of the movie fools us into believing that we're going to be in for an atmospheric film, but when the movie starts properly; it soon becomes apparent what we're actually in for. Naturally, there's a fair amount of gore and it is actually fairly well done, though the good things I have to say about the film pretty much end there. There's a twist half way through which might have been interesting if the rest of the film was. Overall, this is just another zombie movie in a world with far too many zombie movies. I don't recommend it.

Worst Movie Ever

[mickmok · 1/10 · 1 November 2007]

Firstly, I am a huge fan of crap films. B grade is always good for a laugh. Unfortunately this film is just plain bad. I dressed up as a Zombie for a party and my make up looked better than the ones in this film. Especially the big guy at the beginning, it just looked like a kid had drawn on his face with crayons.

The acting is so bad I need not comment on why. The effect are also extremely amateurish, with obvious blood tubes firing a straight jet of blood out the back of zombies heads when they get shot.

It also seems many people commenting on this movie are trying to boost the rating. Nobody without their finger in the pie would rate this film above a 5/10. Frankly it is disgraceful that people who worked on this film are boosting their own ratings.

I suggest everyone avoid this movie, it isn't worth wasting the 90 minutes of your life.

Absolutely awful.