filippaberry84 I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Aiden Melton The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

George Clarke Exit Humanity was something of a surprise zombie flick that I did not expect to watch after I popped it in my player.With the current swarm of independent zombie films flooding the market, and yes, some of them being my own, I was really pleased to see that Exit Humanity had something else going for it that brought a fresh look to things, and played the undead as second fiddle to the real story.Beautifully shot and wonderfully made, Exit Humanity is at times slow burning, aided by some great animated sequences and superb performances that deliver a zombie flick that delivers something different, and entertains for its duration.Well worth the watch!

ericrnolan "Exit Humanity" (2011) might not have been as great as I'd hoped. (The trailer made it look amazing.) But it was still a good and creative independent zombie film; I'd give it an 8 out of 10.It's a genre-buster that posits a zombie epidemic just after the Civil War, but that isn't a gimmick. There's a complete absence of camp that makes this a "straight horror movie" and a hell of a lot more fun. It's got a great script, beautiful locations, two great leads, and a couple of great "that guy" actors in supporting roles — the incredibly underrated Bill Mosely (Otis Driftwood in "House of 1000 Corpses") and the also-underrated Stephen McHattie.The directing is very spotty, the pacing is way off, and the "book chapter" structure makes this feel less like a movie and more like a series of well-made webisodes. (I'm starting to understand why many movies adhere to that "three-act" structure that critics refer to.) The limited budget also shows — there's a dearth off special effects and some of the zombies look remarkably like actors in white facepaint. (Is this a kabuki zombie epidemic?)One of the things that surprised me about this movie is how terrific Brian Cox' voice is. He narrates the entire tale retrospectively as an older version of the main protagonist. I can't believe I never noticed this before. I think he's better than Morgan Freeman or David Prowse. Check him out in the trailer.All in all, this was a good movie. I'd recommend it to any zombie horror fan.http://ericrobertnolan.wordpress.com/

McQualude Six years after the American Civil War a former soldier, Edward Young, tries to survive the zombie apocalypse as told by his diary and sketches; narrated by one of his descendants. The film begins in 1865 when dead soldiers stand up and attack the living. Armed with muzzle loaders and cavalry swords the war ravaged population is quickly decimated. The first third of the movie is very good. The scenes with Young (played by Mark Gibson) alone or with his horse are well acted and well written. Once Young meets other survivors the script often feels rushed and sometimes a bit cheesy, actress Dee Wallace' lines especially so. There are a few other issues: The scenery doesn't look much like Tennessee; which of course it isn't as it was filmed in Ontario. Young's repeating rifle is a few decades early for the setting but I can live with it. Normally I would criticize a zombie film for trying to explain the cause because explanations usually seem dumb but here it is handled very well and I have no complaint. Despite some obvious flaws it was a sincere effort and it kept my attention.

ritera1 For all its drawbacks, it had some worthwhile elements, too.Films often suffer for lack of money. And it showed in this. It's not the fault of the Director. He can only work with what he has. But the movie suffered as I didn't latch into the scope (big or small) of the zombie outbreak. Everything was remote and small. I would have preferred a scene in a town. At least one.I'm not going to belabor the story. Zombies in the old west. I'm a sucker for zombie movies as I think it's an interesting metaphor for society and is a variation on a disease threat. A walking disease.I did like the structure of having these long vignettes. They would dwell on pacing but then latch into something different. Lose wife and look for kid. Find kid and then have goal of burying his ashes at the waterfall. Find motivation helping the new friend. Going back and rescuing the girl. Going over 80 minutes was ambitious for this sort of movie and it somewhat paid off.The pain of the lead was initially interesting but ended-up being way overused in the end (i.e. the screaming in anger). But a good amount of human moments that did pay off.A good collection of older B actors.But I don't really think there was an epilogue. The scroll had that the zombies were walking in present day but they never took care of tying that together.The book aspect of telling the story was interesting.And the animation worked, even though it was likely a cost-cutting measure.