Ensofter Overrated and overhyped

Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

Nigel P I was sufficiently entertained by 'Zombie Massacre 2: Reich of the Dead' to seek out its prequel. With this debut, the filmography isn't quite as bleak and gritty, but the characters are better defined – i.e.: there ARE some actual characters in this, not just cliché-spouting action men as there are in ZM2. Most of the acting here is fine, some isn't. So – much like the other film, this is a bit of a mixed bag.Zombies by their very nature are limited threats. They eat you, you turn into one of them. So wisely – or unwisely, depending on your point of view – the narrative here concentrates mostly on the human crew, a team of mercenaries contracted by the authorities to cover up an outbreak of the living dead, for which the Government (represented by General Carter played by Carl Wharton) is responsible. The remainders take time to make an impression, but after the arrival of a hillbilly and his (suspiciously young) girlfriend, the entourage prove to be pretty well-defined, especially 'Mad Dog' Mackellen (Mike Mitchell).The Freddie Krueger-esque zombies themselves are more human than the full mask creatures from 'ZM2', which is probably budget necessitated, and there are plenty of them here. Luca Boni has a flair for these kind of pictures and succeeds mainly in the bleakness of the situation. He's directed several other films in this genre, one of which appears to be another sequel to this, entitled 'Eaters: Rise of the Dead.' Sadly, a couple of the more anticipated deaths toward the end of the film actually take place off-camera. Worst offender is that of General Carter, whose death the viewer has been anticipating throughout the film and we don't see it! There's also a spot of unwelcome and unnecessary moral philosophising from the remaining heroes – but other than that, I really enjoyed this. There are some very enjoyable twists and turns along the way of the thinly-spread plot that keeps the audience on its toes. It isn't flawless, but I would certainly look forward to any possible Zombie Apocalypse 3.As a coda: there is a bizarre end scene that comes from nowhere but provides a satisfying topless bloodbath towards throughout the end credits. It proves if nothing else that, although the threat featured throughout this picture may have been curtailed, there are still plenty more of the living dead 'out there.'

firepixi23 I only give this movie a 3 because Tara Cardinal is in it. The filmseems to have been edited by a person who's editing experience is based entirely in the porn industry. The overly tight shots, not showing the locations in the shots. Randomly showing characters who weren't even speaking and/or relevant at that moment. Horribly horribly cut fight scenes.Oh, and I can't forget to mention the awful color correction or lack there of. I feel horrible for the actors. Putting in so much work for such an awful product is sad. Depressing really.I'd really like to see what the movie would look like if post had been done properly.

johndoe-103-135394 The movie started out slow. I could never tell who was the true villain and who was not. Half the time I had no idea whose side I was rooting for. and as it got to the ending Ithanks God my player has a timerI I realized There was going to appear one winner however after waisting a tone of time for the plot to thicken or even change The movie left me high and dry. It was Corny and I ain't used that word in 40 years. AAn absoluye waiste of time. And for what, For the robots to win in the end>> or were they the enemy; The winners appeared to be the one in the pool but suddenly appeared a reawakening of the zombies. Which msde any hero you may have formed dissenegrate.Truly the most horrible movie I have ever spend a few hours on.Had I bothered to read a review as my own I woulnt have ever watched 5 minutes of this movie. I always had a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach; what a letdown;I suppose the economy is hitting the movie industry very hard. I felt aorry for all the actors given such amateurish spots where they could have made the greatest movie on earth had someone simply tried a little harder.The longest 15 minutes of fame ever Maybe 15 seconds TOPS

rushknight General production quality?Originality: 2 out of 10, mostly for the awesome American accents.Acting: 3 out of 10, what's with the awesome American accents?Setting: 0 out of 10. Wait, we're not even in America? But the accents!?Filming: 5 out of 10. Overall production value was relatively high. They actually wasted money on this!Special effects: 4 out of 10. Mostly CGI. The crap directors think they can get away with..Makeup: 7 out of 10. Best part of the film by far.Action: 3 out of 10. Pretty slow action. Entertainment value: 4 out of 10. Overall not the most terrible thing I ever watched.--------------------------Characters?4 out of 10 for the two old mercenaries. Good or bad, they got into their parts.2 out of 10 for the main hero. Dull as sandstone.1 out of 10 for the bad guy. Just.. completely out of place. 0 out of 10 for the sword-bearing-anime-spin-off-wet-dream. This just screams fetish. It was almost insulting (Commander, sniper, bombs expert and.. ninja?).1 out of 10 for the professor's "doe-tah" (in non-American accents, it's pronounced as "daughter").5 out of 10 for the hick. Ya gotta have at least one hick! (best American accent) 1 out of 10 for the hick's mute girlfriend. Lame.. and mute. (no accent)8 out of 10 for the dog. Best actor by far.-------------------- Overall score.. 3.2