FuzzyTagz
If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.
andismyth
Watched this last night and what a pleasant surprise it was. Yeah the budget is low, but in a nod to the walking dead the filmmaker has chosen to focus on what the effects of living in the outbreak do to a person.Instead of spending money of loads of crap make up effect(like the 6th extinction) they have concentrated on the characters and a better story than some other films in the genre.Like the main character who is a meek and mild slacker who then goes on a downward spiral. And it's not just the zombies that get the brunt of his change in personality.Well worth a watch
seans_life
I am upset I paid to see this even if it was a cheap rental but let me say that after Charlie kills the harmless old people the group meets along the way because he finds out that they are not going to his planned destination and will tell the others not to go where he wants them to go well from this point on this movie shows it had the possibilities of being a decent film. I guess with a bigger budget, better actors and actresses and some tweaking of the script well maybe just maybe this could have been a good movie. With all that said pick it up as an extra free rental you sometimes get at movie rental places but really I say download it. The ending was decent. The last 30 minutes of the film are worth watching which is 33% of the film so I will be generous and give this film a 3/10.
westsideschl
Cheap: 1. No subtitles; really poor audio level control; poor enunciation at times by actors. 2. Another cheap production by "Ruthless Pictures" and "Head Trauma Productions" - the names should give you a "heads up". 3. How's this for an imaginative start. Smelling a gallon of milk to see if it's sour then pouring it on some cereal (close up of cereal box included in the editing), then eating the cereal. That scene alone foretells the rest of the movie. 4. Really cheap props. The viral outbreak consists of some little red circles over a map of a few cities shown on the tele. Followed later in the movie by a dead person with fake blood. Other than that - nothing. 5. 90% of the movie consists of a several people sitting and talking; walking and talking. Location sets/scenes consist of a room and a couple of farms. A couple of other people appear - whoopee! End of movie.
frank witting
I recently saw this film on Wisconsin Public Television's "Directors' Cut" program, preceded by a Q & A with the filmmakers. "Dead Weight" is a romance film, interwoven with a post-apocalyptic suspense film, shot in a relatively short period of time, for a very modest budget.It follows a survivor, Charlie, as he makes his way to Wausau WI, where he hopes to meet up with his girlfriend Samantha. Along the way, the narrative cuts between his surviving in the present, and flashbacks to his relationship with Samantha.A note before my review: When I consider a film's quality, I do not grade low-budget indie films with more leniency than large studio films. The tools of filmmaking have advanced to the point where professional quality can be achieved on an indie level. Indie films do not have to hold themselves accountable to "least objectionable programing" standards and therefore can be more intellectually or thematically daring in their storytelling, and therefor have an advantage over big-budget films.Review: "Dead Weight" is a film that left me saying: "almost".There are sublime moments in this film - moments where Acting, Writing, and Cinematography come together with beautiful results. That the filmmakers were able to do this on such a short film shoot and low budget is a testament to them.However... for every one of these moments, there was a moment where quality in cinematography, acting, and writing was lacking, unfortunately to the point where it took me out of the story.Additionally, much of the character development and important plot points either felt very forced, or the tension that should have been present was non-existent. Much of this forced narrative is in regards Charlie's decent into madness. When Charlie murders the friendly couple his group meets, he does so for the simple fact they say Wausau is overrun with dead. Is this double-murder unexpected? Yes. Is it also without any context, and thereby feels gratuitous and pointless? Again, yes.There are many such moments like this that will leave you puzzled, and not because you're looking for deeper meaning. When the group is raiding a farmhouse, they hear a noise from upstairs and because of the unknown danger, they decide to leave. So what do they do? Casually stroll down the driveway, but not before having a rather vocal conversation outside in plain sight. Not something you should do if you think there might be armed homeowners who will kill anyone who's on their land. Or shortly thereafter, Charlie goes on a rant that the group is running low on water. Meanwhile, behind the group is a pond.It's these moments, and many others, that hamstring what could potentially be a very good movie. As I said, it has it's moments where it transcends its budget, and is absolutely beautiful. Some of the interactions between Charlie and Samantha are wonderfully well done. It's just a shame the filmmakers didn't give themselves more time and more money to realize their full creative potential, and do the script justice.
