Reviews

For a forgettably titled offering I was quickly gripped.

The story offers much initial intrigue and the presentation is well done. The 60's vibrancy, contrast and innocence (at first) is a lot of fun.

The swift addition of a seemingly simple sidekick felt off. Why confide in and recruit an unhinged, simple minded hillbilly? To enable a complete genre shift from Sci-Fi into laboured romance, that's why.

The sense of urgency was all over the place; at times my interest was almost lost and then the final act, crammed into less than 2 episodes. The 'climax' of which was laughable. (You had 3 years to be in a certain place, on a certain day, at a certain time).

I was also at times confused. Perhaps I'd tuned out and missed some detail or perhaps because our "hero" makes endless head-scratching decisions.

Gaping plot-holes and contrived happenings are to be expected in a time travel story and here's no different. Perhaps I'd be more forgiving if this sacrifice was the cost of good pacing but it clearly was not.

Though a broader overall story, there are a million relatively easy ways to save JFK. After all, you reset the 60's to it's original timeline whenever you leave and retun. You can therefore reset the 'present/future' timeline by simply stepping into and out of the 60's....

As Basil Exposition said ... "Try not to think about these things too much and have fun..."

If you can do that, then you will get a lot from this Series. It comes in a compact package at just 8 episodes, so on that basis alone, it's well worth a sitting.

Finally, I add that I have not read the book.

As a Romero fanboy of nearly 40 years, I feel somewhat qualified to critique all things zombie. Of course, about 75% of all things zombie aren't even worth your 90 minutes but on occasion, a little gem appears.

This movie was obviously made with heart and it shows. Sure, check your brain at the door, it's wacky but there are some truly impressive scenes, both comedically and in terms of gore, tension and absurdity.

Going in with the lowest of expectations, I found the opening scenes to be suprisingly engaging, wierd and funny. The first act as a whole is pretty great. It does feel a big saggy in places and I could list a whole bunch of gripes (shut the door behind you in a zombie outbreak) but overall, it's a blast.

No spolers here, the story isn't really worth dissection but I loved the beginning and end the most.

Definitely worth a midnight viewing. Great job by all involved.

I lived in Ibiza for 10 years, I love zombies and I love Matt King ... so it took some doing on the part of the filmmakers to make me hate this movie.

King is obviously there for a pay-check and a week in Ibiza, while the rest of the cast do their best in-betweeners impression.

Aside from a bit of stock footage and a scene in a San Antonio nightclub, we don't really get to see much of the White Isle itself, leading me to think more than half of this garbage was shot elsewhere having spent all the budget on booze during the Ibiza shoot.

Endless scenes of cringeworthy dialogue, a totally baffling story-line (if you can call it that), strained performances, bad special effects and a run time that feels like hours.

This is hard to watch - there is nothing to recommend it. Perhaps a half decent short could have been made as there is some level of basic competence in parts.

I watched for free on Prime and I want my money back. 2/10 - 1/2 for effort, 1/2 for Matt King and 1 for letting me see a few of my old local hangouts.

Wow! Wyrmwood: Road of the Dead is a glorious achievement for which I send out my thanks and congratulations to all involved. Not only does it deliver 98 minutes of pure, wicked entertainment but manages to do so with uncommon pace, humour, style and energy.

With deft cinematics, competent CGI, solid acting and buckets of gore it has a stand-out quality that's rare and hard to bottle - especially on a modest budget. There are after all few genres that can boast such a catalogue of pure stinkers as can 'the zombie flick.' The storyline isn't necessarily one to explore too deeply but that doesn't really matter. This movie revels in its' own nonsensical journey. Bizarre characters and zombies are hurled at us non-stop, with a side-order of break-neck road chaos and a good few laughs - this viewer was left sated.

Somewhat in the spirit of such splatterfests as Feast (2005) or The Rage (2007), Wyrmwood doesn't take itself seriously but it's abundantly clear that the film making process was. Serious talent is on display here and I for one will be keeping an eye on the Roache-Turners to see what's next.

**geek alert**

As a working photographer myself I must mention the pleasing and somewhat unconventional style of cinematography - particularly the use of wide-angle. I thought the grading, editing and post production generally to be superb. I was surprised and overjoyed to later discover via IMDb that this was in fact shot using the Canon 5D (presumably Mk III). Amazing results. I had presumed this was shot on Reds.

I finished this movie about an hour ago and already I can't wait to see Wyrmwood 2! Great stuff! 7/10

Post-op transsexual, the recent victim of a stroke, meets psychopathic, sweaty, militant lesbian (who's B.O. you can fair smell dripping from the celluloid).

"The Heat" is a hard film to watch. A convoluted, lazy, clichéd plot peppered with one-dimensional stereotypes; including the leads. Especially gruelling at nearly 2 laugh-less hours.

This was my first experience of McCarthy and I will seek to make it my last. There is simply nothing likable (nor believable) about her permanently enraged, shambling, offensive, aggressive walking-pile-of-laundry act. Not that she can be blamed alone for this mess.

Bullock dials in her 'dippy but hot' shtick. Why not, after all, it's served her well all these years but this time it was as uncomfortable to watch as Sandy seemed to find it to act. Perhaps the work she's had done limits her facial range, or she simply hated being there, either way, a strangely robotic performance.

Each illogical, nonsensical scene plays like a separate, loosely contrived sketch through which our hapless/enraged duo swerve and crash. Many barrels of jokes were scraped in the making of this movie yet somehow without finding a laugh. An onslaught of bargain basement gags help the poor script shine to the extent where only a morbid curiosity got me to the end. I wondered, a short way in, could this get any worse? If this film succeeds in any way, it's that it starts weak and somehow manages to build on its' awfulness to the very last cringe-worthy moment.

3/10 (extra 2 points for Sandy in shorts)

Since watching (on Betamax!) the original 'Dawn', I've been a fan of all things Romero for most of my life.

Spearheaded by Zack Snyder's re-imagining of 'Dawn', it was with giddy excitement I dared to dream of (dead) things to come, surfing the crest of a resurgent 'zombie wave'. I therefore forgave his somewhat inconsiderate handling of the matter. Sprinting dead and more CGI than Avatar was never likely to satisfy a Romero fan-boy. Notwithstanding, I was first in the queue on opening night for Dawn, Land - and - Diary (of the Dead).

Today, the last glimmer of that hope was finally extinguished by the man himself, by Romero, his 'Dead' franchise and specifically 'Survival of the Dead'. This sorry fact, the only shock provided by George A Romero since Day of the Dead.

I will admit, my review reads more like a rant. Forgive me, but it is the sheer scale of incomprehensibility behind 'Survival' that has me in a flap. Though awash with CGI the film is quite competent in technical terms and gore-count, even accomplished in some of it's cinematography but the aesthetic cannot distract from the absurd, nonsensical storyline. Add to this a cast of unbelievable (and often plain pointless) characters and your left with a cold turkey I struggled to enjoy on any level.

It seems Romero has forsaken all that made his early 'Dead' films great instead adopting a lazy, unsatisfying 'rinse-and-repeat' formula. Just about every scene has its badly scripted dialogue interrupted by an errant lurching/lunging zombie bursting into frame. Somehow this happens with zero shock value throughout as various characters kill various zombies in various comedic and silly ways.

As the characters set about their feuding and shooting and talking, we never feel any element of compassion, threat, dread, shock, nor fear as the characters themselves seem so indifferent and, at best, two-dimensional.

There are too many flaws here to list. I'm too sad to write any more. If you love Romero's early work, watch this at your own peril.

'...of the Dead', is officially dead. RIP.

Watching this film is like eating steak and custard. I like steak, I like custard, but when you put 'em together, eeewww. It ain't so tasty.

I'm taking the time to write these comments as this is for sure one of the oddest flicks I've seen, but in no way is it a lazy piece. From the opening credits, the production value is noticeable and clever processing effects actually make this look mainstream. It's not until we get into the hardcore molestation of zombie by human and visa versa that things (for me I stress) go awry and I began asking - 'who is this movie for?' If there is such a person, I'm not sure I'd like to meet them.

There's a nice atmospheric feel to the production with a particular grainy 16mm effect I liked. The actors are all clearly professionals and the lighting/direction/gore is all executed well (considering budget); but I couldn't help wishing that the two subjects had been handled in separate works by the same director. I reckon he could make a good looking budget zombie flick and certainly a quality bit of porn; but I guess perhaps I'm missing the point here.

I like my zombies, I love my porn, but (for me) never the twain should meet. Applaudible effort though.

P.S. My advice, don't put your ghoulies in a ghouls' mouth, it'll end in tears.

Credit to this movie is the fact I'm moved to comment at all. As a hardened horror fan I am seldom moved to do so by todays' safe, formulaic, cookie-cut offerings.

I began watching 28 Weeks with modest expectations. The first of this soon-to-be-trilogy excited me primarily as it marked a shift in British output; it didn't have Hugh Grant (aaargh) in it; it was a horror; it was made on a budget. As a movie though, it left me feeling a little under-fed.

28 Weeks however is a rawer, meatier dish.

Not since the first 11 minutes of Dawn (2004) has an opening segment grabbed my attention and stirred my senses. Sadly, Dawn 2004 quickly put me back to sleep for the remainder, but 28 Weeks faired much better.

The first half of this movie is extremely bold and genuinely jarring in parts (how rare is that!). The second half markedly is less so. No spoilers here, but suffice it to say this is almost certainly part 2 of 3. In that context, the less breakneck mid and concluding sections are forgivable, even right and understandable.

Not wishing to steal from others observations, but I read a review on here discussing this movie being less character-driven. I wondered how that could be, but having now seen it, I'd say that is not only true, but the core strength of 28 Weeks. It is the virus, the horror of reality, the infected, the breakdown of systems, the American response and ultimately hope for the future that drives this story.

Much more than a question of 'how will this character survive?'. The question begs more of 'can this virus ever be stopped?'.

From an aesthetic perspective, I was certainly no fan of the high shutter speed, shaky-cam approach to action scenes so prevalent in 28 Days; and unfortunately it's back in force.

Used sparingly, this effect does work - giving the viewer a more frantic, discombobulating, brutal sense of the infected, but once again, I found it overused. Perhaps this is now a 'signature effect' for the franchise; but I'd like to see less of it, and at times be given a half a chance to compute what I'm seeing.

Many say that the best gore is that made-up by the viewers own imagination, implied gore if you will (as in the infamous 'Reservoir Dogs ear'). For me, part of my enjoyment of horror has always been real FX, real gore, Savini style.

It's fair to say 28 Weeks has both. The high-speed shaky-cam quick-cut stuff I'm sure left me thinking I'd seen things I hadn't, but also there was a good portion of honest-to-goodness shock FX. More of the latter and less of the former would be nice for 28/3.

Fine acting throughout, especially memorable was young Imogen Poots.

Odd name, truly memorable face. Not for a long time have I seen an actress/actor say so much with just expression. From Casualty to (the excellent) V for Vendetta and then this; she's rightly doing rather well for herself.

To conclude, I'm now quite a fan of this franchise where before I was a little indifferent. There _will_ be another instalment, and I look forward to it! I hope it retains and builds on the punch of this movie, and with luck, punch hard consistently throughout. Nothing short of a truly shocking climax to this series would do.

Watch this movie. Lights out, late at night, volume up. It's a rare beast - - - horror with frights.

P.S. Great soundtrack too! 7 / 10

It's not 1986 anymore. Mr Romero has a different audience to please since Day of the Dead. He must now satisfy those whippersnappers who enjoyed Dawn of the Dead (2004) as well as the old zombie-geeks like myself who much prefer Dawn of the Dead (1978).

As an ageing Romero fan, I grew up with his early instalments, Night, Dawn, and Day. If this is the case for you too, then you were surely in the front of the queue on opening night for Land.

I was, with my 22 year old girlfriend.

A couple of hours later... She thought it was excellent. She was more vocal about it than I. I was a little discombobulated.

I was stuck somewhere between mild disappointment and great joy. Joy at the fact that it certainly wasn't a bad movie - thank god for that; and disappointment as it would seem my expectations had been unrealistically great.

It is only over some weeks that it's come to make sense. It would be impossible to please me and my geekish requirements and at the same time put and keep those younger bums (hence the 15-cert) on seats.

The slow and often action-less sequences of Romero's earlier work is tolerated, in fact, welcomed by me and my likes; but with today's MTV generation and their goldfish-like attention spans it must be shiny, loud, fast and fairly simple.

There is little true, real, old-fashioned horror these days, it's "action horror" the audience of today want.

This line is a fine one to walk and with Land, Romero does it well. The film has plenty of action, a good dollop of gore, a sprinkling of comedy, simple enough characters and for us old boys, a little of the social commentary we expect of Romero.

The notion of intelligent, learning dead folk - the premise of the movie - is handled well. It isn't taken too far. Romero invented the rules of the genre so whatever he does with it, he can't be knocked. I hope that this will re-launch interest in the original three films, and I hope Romero will continue the saga.

It's quite a miracle - being as hard to please as I am - but I have to say George hit the target with Land. I can recommend it as popcorn fodder for just about anyone, and for us Romero purists, if you haven't seen it (?!) go ahead - it's safe to proceed.