If it's so bad then why did i give it an average score?.... Hmmmmm!. The acting is just terrible and i am pretty sure i have seen more convincing performances on TV adverts. The script makes Eastenders look half way impressive (Impossible feat i know) and as for the special effects. Well, they wouldn't look out of place on Red Dwarf. Still, i had such a laugh watching this film that i can forgive just how awful it is. It's one of them very rare 1 or 10 star rated films depending on your mood kind've like sandsharks. Anyways, i did enjoy it (for all the wrong reasons) and it's full of just about every zombie cliché out there ripped from everything from the original Dead trilogy to 28 days/months later (The stalking zombie was a highlight <3 ). The reason it gets 5 stars is because as i said it's soooooo bad but so funny that it deserves 10 stars, but also so bad that it deserves nil. Much love to the director/writer we need more garbage like this. If for nothing else but to make us realise just how good Romero's original trilogy is. Clearly the reviewers that gave such steller reviews were cast/crew/friends etc. Still, it has to be said that it was a fun hour and half just picking out how bad everything was. As for the score..... Rarely do i notice a score in films, but this stood out like a sore thumb. A film for the true masochist :D
