User Reviews

I'm surprised by the number of people who call themselves zombie fans who are completely ignorant of everything prior to the 2000s. I can only assume that these are younger fans who've never seen the first wave of modern zombie movies, popular in the late 1960s through the 1970s. They were generally low budget, with slow pacing, and, yes, slow zombies. The zombies in Romero's films were never very dangerous in small numbers, but it was the inevitable sense of doom -- knowing that, at any time, you could be surrounded and killed -- that made these movies horror. Zombies were more about social criticism and symbolism than going for cheap gore effects (though they were also quite gory, for their time). Eventually, zombies began to lose this literary quality (and what some might call pretentiousness), to become a symbol of the most extreme gore, while still atmospheric and retaining the traditionally slow pacing. Starting around the 1990s, zombie movies were streamlined once again, becoming little more than cheap, gory action movies. Then, in the 2000s, the zombies began running, which a lot of purists consider the final insult. While I greatly prefer the pretentious, symbolism-laden zombies of yore, I'm not such a purist that I'll turn my nose up at modern, running zombies. What a lot of purists are resisting isn't the fact that it's unrealistic (we're talking about zombies here, which are inherently unrealistic), but the streamlining of the genre.

This movie, with its slow zombies and slow pacing, is a return to the older style, championed by Romero. The zombie plague is never explained, again a stylistic element from Romero's movies. In fact, it's not terribly important what caused it. The meat of the movie here is in the characters, the symbolism, and the social criticism. Like most of Romero's movies, the social criticism isn't particularly subtle. Early on, a white character remarks to a black character, "I thought you were going to kill me." The black guy replies, "I thought you were going to abandon me." Yeah, not so subtle. But that's the nature of the zombie movie.

I was really primed to enjoy this movie, given that it plays right into everything that I like about zombie movies, but a lot of the potential was ultimately wasted. A lot of the racial tensions, imperialism, and colonialism that could have been explored was given only a rather cursory examination. Scenes that could have been powerful and pushed the movie into really tense situations were resolved with the most anti-climactic results imaginable. Others have elucidated on this, with varying degrees of spoilers. While disappointing, it's still not enough to take away more than a few points, in my opinion.

The ending, too, is flawed, though I'm sure it resonates with many people. Personally, in a zombie movie that's supposed to be an homage to the works of Romero, I'm looking for a nihilistic downer of an ending, not something that reinforces hope. Hope is for uplifting dramas angling for Academy Awards, not for zombie movies. Zombie movies are about the inevitability of death, our inability to accept that, and the false hope that barring yourself in your house gives you: no matter how well you reinforce that door, the zombies are still going to get in and kill you. Hope doesn't belong in a zombie movie, in my opinion.

I didn't think that the acting, while it comes under criticism by others, was bad. Sure, sometimes it's stuck at B movie levels, but it was never distracting. The special effects were quite nice, and I thought they did a good job on the gore effects. Overall, the directing and writing were also good, though they occasionally faltered, as noted.

In the end, the slow pacing, slow zombies, and lack of all-out, gut-wrenching gore might make this movie a bit unpalatable for modern audiences, but, for those purists out there who still remember a time when zombies didn't run, it's a nice treat. It's flawed, but it's still quite enjoyable.

One might think that a movie like The Dead is destined to be eclipsed by the behind-the-scenes turmoil that took place during production. I'm not talking about Hollywood tabloid drama or anything scandalous like that; the folks behind this one truly suffered for their art. The tumultuous filming conditions - on location in Burkina Faso and Ghana, West Africa - resulted in hardships that made production nearly impossible.

In addition to the majority of the crew becoming violently ill at various points and being robbed at gunpoint and taken advantage of by locals under the perception that they were rich, lead actor Rob Freeman contracted malaria and nearly died as a result. And while coming away from all of that with a completed film makes for one hell of a triumphant story, the true selling point is the movie itself.

The viewer is immediately immersed in rich desert landscape, but the scenery is quickly tarnished by a zombie lumbering on a broken leg. We meet flight engineer Lieutenant Brian Murphy (Rob Freeman), the sole survivor of a military plane crash. While Africa is plagued by war, there is an even greater threat to man: the walking dead. Murphy, invigorated by the thought of returning home to his family in America, must defend himself from the hordes of zombies that inhabit the continent - and, perhaps, beyond.

Along the way, Murphy runs into Daniel Dembele (Prince David Oseia). The local sergeant is on a similar quest: he is searching for his son, who fled their village when it was attacked by zombies. Despite cultural differences, the two band together in a desperate attempt at survival.

A stand-in location could never replace the poetically desolate backdrops of West Africa. It feels real - because it is - adding an immeasurable amount to the production value. It doesn't hurt that it was shot on 35mm either. Not only does the film utilize the beautiful, remote landscapes of the continent, but also their locals. Many natives, most of whom had never even seen a camera before, stepped in front of one to portray the living dead. Out of context, it's quite sad, but their emaciated frames, some missing extremities, work perfectly for zombies.

While the vast yet sparse locations bring to mind imagery from Lucio Fulci's Zombie, The Dead is a driven more by its character's journey rather than just zombie kills. That's not to say that the gore isn't there; the kills, both human and undead, are well done with excellent make-up effects and CGI that's anything but overbearing. The Dead is the movie you wish George A. Romero made after Day of the Dead. It even has a semblance of Romero's signature social commentary.

As good as it is, The Dead is not perfect. The middle act drags a bit, weighed down by the increasingly formulaic scenes: the excursion is threatened by zombies who are killed off just in the nick of time. The relentless, nomadic ghouls are everywhere; I don't think the film ever goes five minutes without at least showing one in passing. The constant surveillance serves as fine reminder of the imposing threat, but it also leads to repetitive sequences that border on tedious.

For a film that lies largely on a single character, Freeman's acting is rather flat. Despite the critical despair of the situation, he merely comes off as agitated rather than frantic. The dialogue is light, which may have helped or hurt the performance, depending on his acting chops - which we never really see. Murphy's bond with Dembele could have been stronger as well.

The script also missed a few good moments. Most notably, Murphy is given a baby by a local, freshly bitten woman. This, essentially handing him a ticking time bomb, could have lead to some interesting situations, but instead he just passes it off to some refugees in the following scene.

Despite a few missteps, it's still quite impressive that The Dead is the debut feature from Howard J. Ford and Jonathan Ford, who co-wrote and co-directed. The brothers have reportedly been conceiving this film for some 20 years now while spending most of their careers doing commercials. Giving it that time to marinate seemed to help.

If you're a traditional zombie movie fan who has had enough of the overbearing, modern fare, be sure to seek out The Dead. As if having the cast and crew risk their lives to complete the production wasn't reason enough to give it a shot, the end result manages to feel both conventional and fresh.

Whilst some elements of this film were fantastic and ,dare i say it, original they were ultimately submerged by the flick's numerous flaws. I see some other reviews have praised the acting, well, they are half right. The secondary male lead is perfectly serviceable, but the main guy is terrible. Hell, he'd struggle to play himself on a reality TV show. Stilted,cheesy and rubbish. Also there was a (presumably unintentional) subtext of 'White American to the rescue!' which i found pretty damn offensive. The plot was filled with holes, characters acted illogically and the incidents along the journey got repetitive rather quickly. Its a shame really, because there are some moments of beauty in the film, and some effective scenes.For instance, the scene where he is handed the baby is quite powerful, but any goodwill is spent when the film writes the dilemma out.

Beautifully shot on location in the wilds of Africa, The Dead tells of the only white survivor of the last post-zompocalypse evacuation from the continent, after his plane crashes off the coast.

Rob Freeman is Lt Brian Murphy, a military engineer, who finds himself stranded in the wilderness, constantly dodging the slow, ambling, Romero-style zombies.

Eventually he teams up with Sgt Daniel Dembele (Prince David Ose), an AWOL local soldier trying to find his missing son.

Beyond the road movie/journey premise of the story, The Dead brings nothing new to the genre and every time it looks as though something interesting might happen it gets thrown away in the next scene.

Two howling - spoilerific - examples spring to mind: at one point Lt Murphy is handed a baby by a dying woman and you think: "oh my God, how's he going to cope in a world overrun with zombies, with a newborn to care for as well?" The next scene he's meeting some refugees in a lorry and handing the baby off to them.

Then a little later, Murphy's asleep in a tree (a course of action maybe he should have considered earlier in the film, given what happens to him and Dembele at one point when they make camp) and his gun slips out of his hand to the ground. And there's a zombie walking past! Obviously zombies can't climb trees, but what exciting thing is going to happen? Cut to next scene, it's morning, the zombie's wandered off long ago and Murphy climbs down and picks up his gun.

The only moment in the film that got any reaction from the audience at FrightFest 2010 was, quite early on, when Murphy drives his rusty old car over the head of a zombie causing it to pop like an overripe zit. That was met with much applauding and howls of laughter.

I'm easily satisfied by straight-forward zombie films, I'm not expecting great innovations every time, but The Dead is just dull, with its few shocks well telegraphed ahead of time.

It also suffered from strange jumps in editing that sometimes compacted sequences you thought should have been longer and at other times drawing out moments that could have been dismissed in a single beat.

You couldn't help but feel a bit sorry for directors Howard and Jon Ford, who told the audience beforehand how they'd put 20 years into the film and risked life and limb filming in such a dangerous area.

I just can't see this movie attracting even a cult following.

I waited a long time to see this movie. And ultimately, was so disappointed.

On paper, I'm sure the script looked good. You have two military men struggling to survive a zombie outbreak in Africa. That right there could have been a great plot. But it quickly degrades into nothing. The script was too weak.

The pacing was way too slow to the point of boring the audience. And the suspense was so repetitive, every scene was the same. Main character stops, zombies walk slowly. After awhile, you just didn't care.

Lots of shots of authentic scenery, which was okay, but it doesn't make a movie. If your script is weak and you have no real action, all the pretty scenes in the world aren't going to fix it.

The film suffers from not enough main characters, not enough good dialogue. Zero humor, there's just nothing funny in it at all. You can have a serious horror film, but even the most serious ones put in a little bit of dark humor. Mostly no plot, or a very paper thin one. (tiny spoilers) And an ending that looks like it was tacked on because they didn't know what else to do. Big clue: End it with the radio. That apocalyptic ending of just knowing it's everywhere, just end it right there with the sounds of the dead banging to get in. Would have been powerful. Not the tacked on sappy weirdness. Bad script writing.

Sadly, it's not really a memorable film. It's just as empty as the African desert.

Some people have been writing good reviews about this movie. All I can say is they must have been watching something else entirely because I don't agree with much of what anyone had to say about this movie.

One thing I do agree with is the backdrop. The African scenery is wild and beautiful which is in stark contrast to the horror theme of the film. This is perhaps what makes the movie less than it could have been though. The atmosphere doesn't meet the genre at all - the calm tranquility of the wilderness doesn't put you on edge like a horror movie should and the repeated "Sudden" attacks that break up this calmness are less than exciting.

Driving through the African plains reminded me of an episode of Top Gear which was nostalgic but I don't think the intention of this movie was to make people smile.

The film makers ignored logic completely - the pair arrive at an airport late in the afternoon and after failing to make radio contact with anyone they move on into the wild in the dark.

The only thing the film makers did right in this movie was the filming itself. The camera work is great and is only topped by the scenery but what's good about the movie ends there.

The make up is poor - I've seen Zombie Walks in my home city that put more effort into their costumes than these guys did. The Special effects were passable in some cases - the wounds and bullet hits were done well but it seemed like the Zombies had super sharp teeth in super powerful jaws as none of them struggled at all to break through peoples flesh and bones and even their clothing as well. The blood often looked comical. The acting - OMG the acting. My local theatre group has more talent than this movie provided. That Prince Osiea fellow wasn't too bad but Freeman was appalling every time and I felt the need to cringe every time he opened his mouth. The Zombies - WORST ZOMBIES EVER! Some of them were smiling! It was just ridiculous. The Zombies in Shawn of the Dead were better

A valid attempt by film makers Howard J. Ford and Jonathan Ford who both write and direct this latest instalment of another zombie flick. The bonus to The Dead is they do make a valid effort to actually make this movie different. The biggest change is the scenery being set in war-torn Africa. The world is already dark, dreary and devoid of people so dropping a zombie outbreak into the mix creates a genuinely different experience. A single word is not even spoken I don't believe in the first half hour or more of the film which sets the pace for being downright creepy. The problem is that somewhere when the first word is spoken the film falls apart. The characters, mostly the two leads who are essentially the only major roles in the film, are completely empty with no depth whatsoever. The film focuses solely on the zombie outbreak but you have to have characters that actually mean something to you. On a positive note there has been some great feedback from zombie aficionados that actually loved this. The film is gory and the special effects solid. I just wish there had been more story, or a story at all for that matter. Sub par delivery of a very promising premise. 6/10

...obviously "The Dead" didn't set any worlds on fire, nor did it attract all that much of an audience, at least judging by its relative dearth of attention here on the IMDb. I'm not surprised. Written, directed, shot and edited by a Brit brother team of no great renown, "The Dead" suffers from a fairly mundane script with the debatable highlights of a unique setting (at least for zombie movies--and I may be overlooking an Italian gut-muncher or two), some old-school production values (practical fx instead of CGI), and a lead who had a bit part in "Saving Private Ryan." That ain't a lot, but it helps lift "The Dead" just a tad over its lesser brethren.

As mentioned, it's the script that keeps this one from being memorable. You've seen and heard all of this before, and usually in better films with more interesting characters in more interesting situations. "The Dead" sports a few too many tedious sequences of traipsing the wilds for its own good, and not enough genuine storytelling. You see this sort of thing all the time in amateur films on YouTube; it's irritating in a full-length motion picture. The Ford Brothers have some talent, but they need to refine and polish it. I won't write them off on the basis of this one misfire, but they definitely need to step up their game.

Genre viewing only, and the cheaper the better.

I saw this movie on sale in a shop, thought it intriguing but didn't buy it because I had other DVD purchases to make that day, but I decided to watch it on a well known film-watching site sometime later. I wish I hadn't bothered. It seems puzzling that quite a lot of people actually LIKE this movie on the message board!

I'm glad raters have so far given this 5.8 though (currently) which is a true reflection of how bad this film really is. I watched this film literally last night with some friends and we all have patience with zombie films, as that's our favourite horror sub-genre. But this was sadly one of the worst zombie movies I've ever seen. And I've seen a lot! Even Zombie Lake was better than this and that's saying something!

The movie started off well and mysteriously, but things went badly after the plane crash. I think it was a major mistake to not give the hero Murphy any fellow survivors to travel with and talk to for a quarter of the film.

And even when he meets the African soldier NEITHER of them asks the obvious question 'WHO ARE YOU?'. So we don't even know their names until 3/4 of the way through. This bothered me as you obviously need to know your travelling partner's name in order to warn them quickly of impending attacks. 'Hey random white guy watch out a zombie's going to attack you' obviously takes too long and won't work! Not only that but the film had a really tedious plot pattern of - drive along, stop for some reason, zombies attack, escape, drive along, stop for some reason, zombies attack, escape, repeat 10 more times - for most of the movie. There was NO tension in any of the attacks as you could see them coming each time.

It's the sort of film you can do something else whilst it's on and just look up occasionally. It severely tests the patience and doesn't entertain AT ALL. Slow zombie movies (SZM - as in the zombies move slowly not the pacing) are so old-school and passé. Don't get me wrong I like classics 'SZM', but 'FZM' (fast zombie movies) are were it's at nowadays I'm afraid. There's no threat, no menace, characters only die through stupidity, tiredness, lack of ammo, being crept up on or overwhelming odds. Fast zombie films like 28 Days Later really up the horror of zombie attacks because you literally have to run for your life. This film you can just dodge them easily with minimal effort. The only 'slow zombie movies' which work are Shaun of the Dead and Zombie Flesh Eaters and the original Night of the Living Dead (of course), and that's only because of the skill of their talented directors in building tension and menace. The Ford Brothers just don't cut it sadly.

In the end I actually felt guilty for urging us all to watch this for the novelty of an African-set Zombie film as it was so long and tedious and none of us deserved to have to go through the boredom of having to watch it. 1h45 felt like 3hrs. Indeed, one of my friends even started wrapping Christmas presents halfway through it was going that badly!

If you're planning on watching this film then don't bother. Watch an entertaining zombie film like Shaun of the Dead, Zombieland, (REC), Dead Snow, 28 Weeks Later, Dawn of the Dead (the remake) or Zombie Flesh Eaters. DO NOT WATCH THIS FOR ENTERTAINMENT. You'll be disappointed. When the only positives I could come up with for this film are novelty value (and thus my 1 point score) and realistic CGI blood splatters you know this movie should just return to the grave - and stay there!

The reality is this movie is awful. HOW it reached 5 stars is beyond me. Was this considered good eight years ago???

Redundant slow-motion, unnecessary effects to create a dramatic moment. Basic and boring lighting. Special effects done to the max.

Talk about blaxploitation, white guy becomes a savior in Africa? The villagers literally touched him like he was Jesus himself, despite their own people already being heroes, for whatever reason, the white guy gets the praise from total strangers. That made no sense.

Africa was used for the sake of it's setting. Then brought in a white savior. Why did the Ford brothers think that story was okay?

And hey, even saves a baby. Isn't he just so great?

This movie is weak and anyone who likes it (and I love zombie movies, that's why I sat through this garbage) loves the same offensive story. Awful.

OK first off this review contains spoilers so just a heads up. this is defiantly an above average zombie movie with some beautiful views.. filmed in amazing locations. some things I like in this movie and some things i hated.

at the very start of the film I immediately noticed it was taking horror seriously instead of just making a quirky dumb zombie film the first scenes were dramatic and filled with dread. when the protagonist decides not the shoot the first zombie in the desert to save ammo I thought that was realistic. I liked how the two main characters got along together and chose to try to survive instead of yelling at each other the whole movie like two dumb children. some movies make characters hate each other just for some stupid dramatic moments but usually it's just annoying.

The zombies themselves are old school classic slow moving original dawn of the dead style. Not my favorite type of zombie ..even though I believe the slow moving zombie to be more realistic .. fast moving zombie's are defiantly more exciting and get the blood flowing quicker. I mean if you use slow zombie's you have to always use artificial situations to heighten the tension like when the main character had to climb the mountains.. before he did he was in a narrow ravine to give him less space to move ...with fast zombies you don't need any camera tricks or special situations to increase the tension ..when you see a fast zombie you gotta get the F--- out of their and fast..much more exciting.

over all the gore was well placed and not over the top.and the zombies looked decent. the acting was also passable for a zombie flick.

their were a couple of WTF moments in the movie though. of course when the main protagonist was given a baby that was a moment of tension that could have been a classic Sofie's choice moment ..instead it was crap . he should have had to choose to shoot the child and save himself or try to survive with it.. instead a miracle truck came by to save the day...and why didn't he just go with the truck? IDK.

another thing is when he went Rambo at the end and started chopping zombies like no tomorrow. WTF? after that long trip how he have that much energy to do that?. oh one more thing at the very end when the zombies are breaking into the American military base ...when did American armies have such weak ass bases where a slow freak weak zombie can break into a military base that supposed be able to take on tank rounds?? yeah yeah I sure their were hundreds of zombies trying to break in but some modern military bases are designed to survive a nuke attack and they can't hold off zombies ?? LOL OK. I guess we really are that broke.

anyway compared to most zombie movies this was slightly better then average and decent acting and nice vistas ..give it a try you might like it.

P.S. sorry for being so long and bad grammar this was my first review on here.

i had known about this movie for many months, but never taken the plunge and watched it until now, and i can honestly say i,m glad i did. the story may not move at a fast pace, but it's interesting enough to hold the attention

it has a lot in common with Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead, especially in regards to how slow the zombies move. no cgi was used for the zombies, but the gore effects were still pretty good

it may not be nonstop action from start to finish, but the zombies are always a present threat, with our 2 main protagonists always having to keep moving in order to stay ahead of them

its also nice to see a zombie movie set somewhere other than America or Britain for a change, namely in Ghana and Burkina Faso

as for the story, an American military engineer attempts to escape the dead by finding a working plane after his original flight crashed, leaving him stranded. he joins forces with an African soldier who deserted his post in order to look for his son, and together they make their way through the countryside, dodging the dead as they go.

if you like your zombie movies fast paced, then you probably won't enjoy this as it can be slow at times, but the story alone is enough to keep you watching