AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

Steineded How sad is this?

Lightdeossk Captivating movie !

SanEat A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

trashgang Munsters out there already know that I am not into zombie flicks, some are good but mostly it's zombie after human again and again. Here we have the same, zombies keep attacking, and it's the new breed of zombies, the fast ones, although they cripple they are fast. But for me there isn't much in Severed. Especially on the end when they ran into another bunch of survivors. You could see the love between the son and the activist coming miles away, but would you fall in love the day after your boyfriend was killed, the slut! It isn't even gory, oh yeah, the blood splatters allover the screen but off camera. The only gory parts are the parts when the zombies rip open some humans and eat their intestines. But it's better done years ago, you know, the living dead trilogy. And by using the same affect on the camera as in 28 days/weeks later doesn't help the movie too. But still I gave it a 4 the editing. If you are into zombies this is for you, otherwise don't bother.

Theo Robertson I'd never heard of this movie before seeing it on the Zone horror channel until last night and I'm not actually surprised . It's Z grade rubbish and the only thing I'm surprised about is that some people actually enjoyed it CONTAINS SPOILERS FOR 28 DAYS LATER Some people have claimed that it rips off 28 DAYS LATER but that is slightly unfair because Alex Garland used John Wyndham's DAY OF THE TRIFFIDS for his screenplay . A man waking up in hospital , finding the world changed , meeting a female survivor , meeting up with more survivors who are flashing their house lights in the distance , escaping London , being captured by a renegade army unit who want to use the women as sex slaves where after the hero releases the monsters who attack the bad guys thereby allowing the goodies to escape all happened in the 1951 post apocalyptic novel . Garland used the exact same script structure and plot turns and the producers of SEVERED have done the same . It's not legally or technically plagiarism , though you could accuse someone of urinating all over Wyndham's grave with this screenplay . In fact triffids everywhere will be up in branches after seeing SEVERED due to its lack of quality The main problem apart from the painful lack of originality is that the director has not got a clue what he is doing and if he doesn't know what he's doing how are the audience ? Perhaps with the shaky camera work etc he thought he might be emulating Danny Boyle but Boyle will almost certainly be getting an Oscar nomination for SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE while the director here will merely be slumming for the rest of his career . Each and every shot is basically a medium close up on a face even during the action sequences and if the director didn't bother making a half decent movie then I won't bother learning what his name was

BloodTheTelepathicDog When a lumberjack hacks down a tree that has been injected with an experimental growth hormone, some of the hormone gets inside an open wound and turns the merry lumberjack into a flesh-eating zombie. If you can buy that absurd premise then this zombie flick is for you. If you can't - which I had a hard time accepting it myself - then this is still a rather well-made zombie movie.JR Bourne plays a scientist who has injected the serum into a number of trees but apparently they don't label them since a lumberjack who receives his paycheck from the same company downs the tree and mutates into a zombie. When production at the site is halted, due to the zombies and not by the handful of tree-huggers on site, led by Sarah Lind, the company's President (Jerry Wasserman) sends his son Tyler out to investigate. When he arrives on site, he finds the mill deserted and ransacked but then gets attacked by zombies lurking about in the surrounding forest. He is saved by a group of survivors led by head lumberjack Julian Christopher and activist Lind. With the forest quarantined - how they quarantined a forest in under 24 hours is beyond me - they are forced to remain on site and battle the zombies.VIOLENCE: $$$$ (Plenty of violence and gore in this movie. Since the zombies are at a sawmill, the lumberjacks have chainsaws and axes at their disposal. There isn't one major character - albeit the spineless scientist played by JR Bourne - who doesn't cave in a zombies skull in this flick. Blood splatters on everybody and the zombies also get to rip into their fair amount of flesh. Not for the squeamish).NUDITY: None STORY: $$$ (The story is rather clichéd with your typical zombie film stock characters. JR Bourne plays the sniveling scientist, we also have the fatherly Ken Foree type character looking after everyone and the budding romance between the president's son and the cold-blooded activist. As the zombie attacks take their toll on the survivors, the activists and lumberjacks become friends - getting to know one another in this sci-fi turmoil).ACTING: $$$ (The acting is quite good highlighted by JR Bourne and Julian Christopher. Bourne, who has played brash assholes in Ginger Snaps Back and Thirteen Ghosts, does a great job as the cowardly scientist. Sarah Lind was effectively cold as the save-the-trees activist and Kyle Cassie hams it up quite well as a survivalist who enjoys squaring off with the zombies).

lost-in-limbo Bahumbug. After the initial set-up I was thinking that it looked liked it was going to be competent and hopefully amusing low-budget Indie horror effort. My perception changed when the jerky, in-your-face camera work came to the party. Why do that! There's better ways to get the adrenaline pumping. It was like the person behind the camera was having a mental fit, and it did become aggravating and hard to make-out what was happening. And the story just couldn't escape its formulaic staples and messy structure, despite a surprisingly effective conclusion that I didn't see coming. Still I was left unsatisfied. To bad that it sets up one vanilla flavoured, over-used cliché after another and then it drags on. Then when you thought it couldn't get anymore the same, they chuck in another sub-plot that is just as worthless and poorly drawn up. Even the clunky script leaves a lot to be desired about the token characters and their rash reactions. Pretty much the premise goes onto steal ideas from other horror movies. It wants to be serious, but the over-the-top nature of its erratic mayhem and many unintentionally laughable sequences destroy that aspect. The film has a slick look with beautiful location choices, and Carl Bessai's tight direction is dry, but it's undone by the overall execution where it succumbs to repetition and static build-ups. It seemed to want to rely on some extreme blood splashing about, and having everything move so fast. But the shocks are weak, and the suspense is never there. I thought there were some fine-tuned performances amongst the slack-jaw ones though. Nothing great, but adequate. The music surprised because it was one of the few things that clicked with its eerie chimes in a nicely arranged harmonious score.