Reviews

...Connor McGregor ruined it. Or at least the fictitious wannabe blowup doll of a "tough guy" he played did. Personally, I lean more toward it being him than the character. I wouldn't have minded someone playing a true psychotic, or even another hokey bad guy, but Connor McGregor's walk, his pooched out arms, and the completely cave-man mouth-full of him is simply terrible. Seriously...I would have ranked this a full 2-3 stars higher had this character not been written the way it was and casted as such.

Beyond that, I rather enjoyed the movie. It paid a heady due to the original 1989 Swayzee flick without completely repeating it, even though it followed the story near identically. Jake Gyllenhall (sp?) was perfect for the role, although his character didn't have the same intellectual bent as the original. That didn't make a difference though. We learn just enough about his character to understand his history and his desire for change, as well as peace of mind.

All in all, same story, different town. Only this town had one really bad actor. Oh...and there were no monster trucks.

As with most movies I take chances on, I read the reviews and compare them to the numerical score. I'm a horror junkie, and with horror, there is such a wide swath of opinions that it can be difficult to know what you're getting prior to watching. Typically, anything rated under a 4.0 I pass on. Anything over 4.0 I'll consider it. In this case, I wish I hadn't considered it.

"Hands Of Hell" was really quite terrible. The good news is that it's nowhere near the worst movie I've watched. It is, however, circling the drain with a rapid swirl. The first red flag for me was the director, producer & writer also playing the lead. I'm 50 years old and have seen thousands & thousands of movies n' films, some of which were written & directed by the lead actor. I can count on one hand the number of movies that match this description which were what I would call "good" or "enjoyable." It just doesn't seem to work. And lemme tell ya... either does this one.

First and foremost, let me mention content, as it is something I look for when reading reviews.

Violence/Gore: there are a handful of kills in the movie, but there is ZERO gore, and very little blood. I noticed in the reviews that were in the 8.0-10 range the writers made sure to state that there is plenty of violence and loads of gore. It's obvious these folks know that viewers are looking for blood and gore but it's a shame they outright lie about the contents. The way the blood is used is also terrible. Every kill that occurs, blood instantly sprays back on the killer, no matter what the angle of attack is. So please note...VERY LITTLE VIOLENCE & NO GORE.

Nudity & Secual Situations.

There is no nudity to speak of. There are a couple of scenes where men remove shirts but there is no female nudity of any kind. That said, there are multiple scenes with women in bathing suits (bikinis to be exact). There are also a few scenes that portray a man & a woman BEGINNING to get intimate. Again, there is no female nudity- only bathing suits- nor is there anything more than men without shirts.

Drug/Alcohol Use: There are a couple of scenes that involve marijuana, but they pass very quickly. There are a handful of cigarettes smoked as well of a few beers and some wine, but nothing big.

Profanity/Frightening Scenes: Very little. There are a few curse words here and there but they are tame. Frightening? Hardly.

With regards to the film itself, the acting was pretty terrible. Like I noted above, however, it was not the worst of its kind, but it was pretty bad. None of the actors had any training in film acting and the delivery was really bad. It didn't help that the script was equally as terrible. It felt to me as if the writers attempted writing dialog as it would come out of the mouths of those speaking in normal conversation, but rehearsed. Awful delivery, wooden interactions, & no chemistry.

Directing and cinematography drove me nuts. Re: cinematography, I don't know what the heck they were trying to do, or if it was just my connection, but it felt like the camera was continually shifting between a modified slow my motion lwhich made it really difficult to watch.

Production: The production was among the the better aspects of the film, as the sets were existing buildings that were easily transformed in to viable buildings.

All in all, this is not worth the watch. Typically, I don't write Ill of films without vali reason, but I really don't appreciate reviewers who work on the film, or were affiliated with it in some way,, who then write and craft blatant lies about films and their content for the sole purpose of getting views.

That occurred with thuis.

If I didn't have to write a full 600 vharacters I wouldn't, but the gist of this movie is that it's just a good flick! "You know that annoying reviewer who calls everything "the fell-good movie of the year." Well, I don't know if it's that level but it was really fun watch, and better than I expected..

Production wise, this film is top notch.. the special effects were stellar and the sound was absolutely insane! This is one of those films that cries to be watched loud if you can handle it.

The actors were all fine. It was nice to see Orlando abloom again and David Harbor is amusing this vor.

I'll make this short, but felt compelled to leave a note so that folks at least understand what they're getting in to with this one.

Typically, when one thinks about a "zombie flick," there are thoughts of decomposing dead people walking around trying to eat regular people. While "Follow The Dead" is technically about zombies, it is only from a peripheral basis that zombies are involved. To be more concise, THIS IS NOT A ZOMBIE FLICK, rather a dramatic comedy that uses zombies as the foil.

Thematically, the film is about human relationships and values. There are angles that reach in to climate change, political control, and social morality as well, but those are breached within the confines of the script and not major studies. Many conversations of the previously mentioned themes run through the film, but one thing you will NOT see is zombies attacking people. Well, that is not entirely true. I think there are two or three examples of zombie bites, but there is almost no blood and there is certainly NO GORE. If that's what you're looking for, look elsewhere.

I mention all of the above not because the film is bad, but because it looked like a good zombie flick and turned out to be an ok dramedy. In that context, the film was fine.

So...to reiterate, THIS IS NOT A STANDARD ZOMBIE MOVIE. There is almost no blood, there is no gore, and only a couple instances of violence. In retrospect, the film was rather enjoyable. I just kept waiting for the blood to flow and it never did. That said, the characters were all likable, so watching their transition and growth was appreciated.

Overall, the film was well made. It looks and sounds professional, the script was adequate, the actors were fine for the most part...no big complaints.

Guide:

• some profanity but not overbearing. Would probably fall in the PG-13 range.

• no nudity or sexual situations
• no drugs other than 3 seconds of a guy smoking what is inferred as being a joint.

• no gore and very little violence. Blood is seen two or three times but it looks like not much more than scraped knee kind of things.

There is nothing that reasons why someone around 11 or 12 years old couldn't watch this.

Ok so...

Rated: 6 stars Expected: 10 stars

I've been a Matt Rife fan since he first busted on the scene. As a comic, he felt fresh, current, and connected to current trends and influences. I'm sure it's because of his connection with TikTok, but he has tipped me off my rocker for a long time. Unfortunately, his newest Netflix special, Natural Selection, just didn't do it for me. There were certainly some zingers and few really good bits, but as a full product, it missed the mark.

As his show opens and he steps on stage, there is certainly an excitement for what the next 65 minutes or so could hold. Matt does his intros, and voila...he's off and running. He even managed to work a quick bit on domestic violence into the first 2 minutes, which seems to have set a firestorm off in the media. This off-color bit is part of the reason I like Rife- he is not afraid to walk the fine line, or even cross it. Personally, I don't think anything is off limits in comedy: body shaming, abortion, holocaust, disabled, culture & ethnicities...you name it, and I'm ok with it. But for whatever reason, his rather tame insinuation has gotten the panties bunched for a chunk of the interweb media and social scenes. Not bad for the introductory two minutes of an act. Sadly, this was about the last of the fun for the duration of the show, but for a few bits.

So what made this act different than other Matt Rife appearances? In my opinion, it felt much more forced. I can't put my finger on it, but it wasn't as loose as usual. His bits took longer to reach their pinnacle, and the payoff seemed "less funny." In other words, the bits were longer and not as funny. What makes Matt Rife funny is his ability to quickly connect us to what he's talking about- which is usually something current- and get out. No looooong buildup and no holds barred.

I dunno...maybe it's just me, but he just wasn't as funny as he normally is.

I simply did not appreciate what was being chased here. First, I detest reality shows in general, so when I figured out what was happening, it was a double-sided turn off...which is exactly what I did after episode 6. I gave it the ole school yard try, but labored over each episode I watched until making my decision to turn it off. Others have given synopsis about the details of how the "show" lays out, so I'll give some content comments instead. Notice there was no "second."

-THERE IS NO GORE IN THIS! Ok...in all honesty, when the first episode came on, there were a couple glimpses of blood, so I thought we might be in good shape, but there is very little either violence or gore after the opening of the series. Sadly, Tsuki's screaming permeated the show, which was violence to my ears.

• no bad language, no drugs, NO NUDITY.

If you were looking for a new zombie idea to quench your thirst, this is NOT for you. If you love kawai, kitch, and Kardashian, give it a whirl.

Just finished NH10, and while it definitely was one of the better Indian action/revenge films of recent years, many of the reviewers have given their opinions from what I assume to be a non-American viewpoint. I hope to clarify a few things in this "review," from an American/western perspective.

First and foremost, sooo many reviewers state that this is a blatant rip off of other revenge films (eg Eden Lake, Martyrs, etc...). That is patently false. While they follow the same basic structural plot style, they are completely different films. Any revenge style film will follow said structure, as it is a GENRE FILM for crying out loud. That is what allows for the film to be seen as a revenge thriller. So yeah...too many people whining about that aspect. I'm not sure what people expect...a brand new RE-invention of a genre every time a genre film is made?

Second...many reviewers commented on the sheer brutality and gore of this film and consider it "hyper-violent." They also point to an 'A rating,' which I'm guessing is an Indian thing. However, from an American/western perspective, this film is extremely tame. There is no gore of any kind, and only even approx 5-6 instances of any visible blood. Comparatively, this film is much, much, MUCH less bloody than the films it was compared to. That said, there is some violence, but it is very tame compared to what Western audiences or Western horror fans are accustomed to. The one exception MIGHT be the killing of a young couple. The killing itself is violent, but we don't see much more than people being kicked and hit. The idea of the killing (ie honor killing) might lend itself to a greater intensity, but from a purely visual perspective, it is very tame, depending on where you live.

Overall, if this film was made in America, it could be rated PG-13 but for the intensity in two or three instances. There is no profanity (at least none in the English subtitles), no nudity, and no drug use other than tobacco.

Finally, my guess is that the IMDB rating is slightly inflated. Not much, but a little. The current rating is 7.2 (which is quite high), but my guess is that it likely falls in the 6-ish range (give or take a little). After reading the reviews, it is obvious that the high numbers (9's and 10's), of which there are many, are due to Indian viewers. That's not to say it's not a decent film, as compared to other Indian films of similar genre this is indeed a top notch film. Compared to similar genre films internationally, it is tame and even a little dull for the first 1/3 of the film.

These comments are so folks who live outside India get a different perspective on contents. The technical side of the film is good, especially the acting, but I found it necessary to post some "reviews of the reviews" as it pertains to content. If you appreciate it, gimme a thumbs up!

DISCLAIMER: My intent was not to slam either this film or Indian films in general, as I liked the movie and watch a good deal of Indian cinema. Only to shed perspective over content.

The low rating is not indicative of the films contained in this "collection of tidbits," rather the collection in itself. I wast exactly sure what this was about, so I hit play and kept my fingers crossed. I realized very quickly that it was exactly as it read...a collection of pieces of movies spliced together and promoted as some of the "goriest moments from Full Moon's catalog." Many of the films they chose (eg several of the Sub-Species films) are good movies, but watching bits and pieces of films is not what I'm in to. Especially since I had seen all of the movies featured. They don't even identify which films the scenes are culled from.

Some might like this kind of thing, but to me it's useless.

I will preface this brief review with a couple of facts. One, I LOVE horror films, especially creature features, and let's face it...there just are not enough good creature features made anymore. Two, I truly enjoy independent film and cinema. While budgets always place constraints on projects, a good script and good team can produce an excellent, enjoyable film without the help of Hollywood or a large purse.

Now about "Craving":

• the acting is terrible. It's one thing to have "wooden actors..." you know...the ones that are a bit stiff, but the folks in this movie (the ENTIRE cast) are amateurs at best. Stagnate, posed, lifeless lines & deliveries...timed and contrived screams...unconvincing in every way.

• the script is actually not the worst I've followed. In actuality, had this been a big budget movie (eg better actors, better sets, better FX, bigger budget), I might have enjoyed it. But the acting was so terrible that even had the script been adapted from a Pulitzer Prize winning book, it wouldn't have mattered.

• the special fx were not good. I can often overlook this, as we all know that fx are among the most costly part of a film, but these were pretty cheesy. Most kills are offscreen, followed up with immediate pan to whatever pile of substance they're using for blood. It should be noted that film makers did indeed TRY to make it gory (toward the end) but like most other aspects of this movie, this fell flat.

-very slow. Very very slow. Very very very slow. Tediously slow...I mean like fall-asleep-in-the-middle-of-the-movie. The first nearly 2/3 of the movie is nothing but listening to unemotional dialog .

Really wanted to like this, as it gets harder and harder to find good horro films. Sadly this is not one of them, even though all the reviews rave about it - seems like these folks maybe got screener passes. I would not recommend a single aspect of this movie.

>>> minimal gore >>> some fun violence and guns >>> no nudity >>> some profanity. But not heavy.

Fake reviews really irk me. I used to love IMDB, as I could turn to it for accurate reviews and ratings. Now, it's filled with fake reviews and inflated ratings.

After reading the reviews for this, I gave it chance, and lemme tell you...TWICE during the movie I had to pause it and reread reviews, as I thought I must have read reviews for the wrong movie. Sadly, that was not the case...they were just fake reviews.

This movie is terrible.

It is horrible.

It is atrocious.

It is awful.

If you don't fall asleep in the first 45 minutes, please know that it does not change for the second 45 minutes.

...the acting, the sound & foley, the script, the special fx, the cinematography, and the directing. Beyond that, it was great.

Seriously though...I had hoped for more, as low IMDB scores are not always indicative of my not enjoying a film, but in this case I found the low score to be a reflection of the movie. As for the highly positive reviews that sing its high praises, I just don't believe them accurate; even though viewers like their own things, the high scores which describe specific aspects of the movie as excellent are simply rubbish.

The minute the first scene opened it was evident how low budget and independent the movie would be. Again...that doesn't always equate to a bad movie, but the combination of poor sound and horrendously bad acting is often a giveaway of what to expect, and in the case of "Last Thanksgiving," it opens bad and only goes downhill after that.

I really enjoy the cannibal sub-genre of horror, but there aren't many decent ones made anymore so I often give them a chance when I see them pop up. Sadly, this one is really bad. Honestly, while there is a story there- and a story that could make a good film- every facet of the movie was poor. The acting is probably the worst facet, as there wasn't a single actor who could be described as competent in their role. This isn't an issue of "wooden acting," as is so often the case when reviewers criticize it, but just BAD acting. Each actor is just atrocious and unconvincing in his/her respective role...as in, it is painfully obvious they are TRYING to play a role. Line delivery is awful, reaction to occurrences is terrible (especially pain), and body language is benign. Quite honestly, there's nothing more to add...the acting is just bad.

Regarding special fx, they too are bad. Admittedly, i'm a gorehound, but I can often look past bad practical fx if most other aspects of a film are on par (especially the acting), largely because the cost of producing realistic fx is prohibitive, but in this case it is just another failure. I agree with another reviewer who compared the blood to chunky chocolate. The brownish gray goo that is supposed to pass as gore is really hokie, as if someone forgot what color movie blood should be. The producers knew what they wanted but simply failed at doing it.

Every other facet of the movie is on par with what I've described...simply bad, which is a drag. I get that movie budgets for independent filmmakers can be virtually non-existent, but there is no excuse for bad acting. There are loads of people out there who can play convincing roles, and in most movies that suffer from this type of thing there is often at least one or two actors who rise above the mediocrity and "save" the project, but when EVERYBODY is bad, it never allows a movie to get off the ground. I admit that I'm often more tolerant of bad movies, as many microbudget independent horror films suffer from one challenge or another, but I always appreciate a good try, which usually allows me to find at least something redeeming to discuss. That is NOT the case with "Last Thanksgiving." The only reason I did not give it a '1' is that it was not filmed on A DTV camcorder, so at least it had the look of a "real movie." With that, I can say very succinctly that I do not recommend anything about this movie. It's simply not worth even a single watch.

For the gorehounds hoping for something bloody that makes up for poor acting, don't bother. There are very few bloody scenes and virtually no gore. The couple of scenes that are meant to be gory aren't worth it either, due to the gooey chocolate mentioned above.

No nudity. A fair amount of bad language.

The sole reason for this review is to make the distinction between a horror/comedy, such as Tucker & Dale vs Evil, and this movie...a rom-com with zombies and just one or two bloody scenes.

I really dig some of the zombie spoofs out there, but what I enjoy about them is the blood, guts, and carnage that comes with a zombie movie, but with a comical bent, opposed to the stereo-typical genre example such as Night Of the Living Dead. 'Deb' really missed the mark for me, as I had hoped to see another Tucker & Dale type. What I got was a Drew Berrymore-like rom-com, mixed with one or two scenes of blood & guts.

So yeh. As a rom-com, it's fine, but calling it a horror/comedy it stretching it for me. If you want a blood and guts zombedy, this movie is not for you. Just wanted to make sure that distinction was clear.

This is a cookie cutter flick, taken from the pages of pre-written movies that allow a writer to insert characters, scenery, and a plot, then VOILA!!! Instant flick. In this case, the script tries to capture existent challenges in 21st century life by following the relationship of a black woman and a white man. Being that it's Jonah Hill (ie a comedic actor), the writing exploits Uber cringe situations from start to finish. When I say cringe, I mean CRINGE! The kind of cringe that makes the viewer embarrassed to be a part of; the kind of cringe that leads one to furl her/his nose, cock her/his head back with swift motion; the kind of cringe that makes all the hair on one's arm dance to the heavens.

Now...if you can strip away all the cringe...all the themes...all the advert racism used to "get the theme across," it is actually a cute flick. Well...leave some of the cringe, 'cause some of it is funny.

I won't rehash the (simplistic) plot, as the synopsis above tells you everything you need to know about the flick. What I will say is that if you strip it to its core, the movie is just a cute, kinda funny cringe fest that relies on some cultural tropes on its way to being a rom-com. Remember when I said "cookie cutter?" It's exactly that. No new ground to cover, nothing you haven't seen, and themes that have been done to death. BUT...it's at least mildly entertaining. Sure...this is not a film for the masses, rather those who like self-deprecating humor mixed with rom-com, all under the guise of what it's like to exist in a racially sensitive world.

Look...win an Academy Award, it will not. Break boundaries in race relations, it won't. But for a 90ish minute MOVIE that doesn't take itself too seriously (beyond some of thematic elements), it hits the mark it was shooting for.

I've read the reviews, and while some folks "got it," many did not. So...for those of you expecting to see a "legit" horror film, check yourself before you wreck yo...er...the movie. It is painfully obvious that the writer and director's intent for this flick was to follow in the grand tradition of making a rad, fun, culty, schlocky b-flick with just enough "wrongness" to make it right. In many ways, this has "cult classic" written all over it. For the future, that is.

Everything about this flick SCREAMS "cheesy b-flick" and they hit the mark. The constant clichés, the intentionally awkward dialog, the over-the-top EVERYTHING...it just succeeds at being bad, so well!

Surprisingly, for a b-flick, it was pretty well made. I mean, don't expect Oscar caliber, but as b-flicks are made, the money was spent in the right place...the effects (which were practical fx for the most part).

Really, the reviews needed one that let folks know that this is not a movie to be taken as a serious film. It must be taken in the grain it was meant for. With that, just get your popcorn, don't judge the flick like you would judge a "serious" film, and enjoy.

Coupla notes on content:

• I don't recall seeing any nudity beyond one scene that is relatively close to the beginning. It's not lengthy, but it's there and it's mildly graphic.

• Enough profanity to make a sailor blush. Most of it is beautifully scripted in to some completely over-the-top scenes and dialog.

• While there is some good blood and gore, I wouldn't call it a gorefest, and most of the "action" is saved for the second half of the film. Nonetheless, if you don't like blood (in rather copious amounts and in some pretty gross ways) then this is not for you.

• I don't recall any drug use, but all these people were nuts by the end, so they didn't need it!

Absolutely 100% pure cheese...which I enjoyed. The film is divided into chapters, ranging in length from barely 5 minutes to approx 20 minutes. In recent years I've developed a liking for shorts especially when in the hands of competent and creative writers and directors. In this case, I'm not sure that either the writers or the directors are competent, but it's over-the-top in all aspects, specifically (and intentionally) the acting, which worked. If you're looking for true horror shorts, this is NOT for you, as with the exception of lots of blood and a bit of gore, there is nothing remotely horrific about it. In all honesty, I was hoping for more legit horror, but since I enjoy (some) spoof horror, it was still worth the watch.

The first chapter was definitely the most solid of the first half of the shorts, loaded with clichés, and just the right amount cheese.

At the end of the day, potential viewers must absolutely not take this collection of odd & disjointed shorts seriously...like, AT ALL. Not even a little bit. I usually check out reviews prior to watching flicks, and it's obvious that a couple of reviewers just missed the mark on what the collection was supposed to be, obviously taking the whole thing way more seriously than either the writers and/or directors did.

There is absolutely nothing ground breaking about this collection, nor will it be something many (if any) people would watch a second time, but for folks who like blood with their cheese, this might be worth a watch. It's a quick 75 minutes, so there's not much to lose.

On the whole, I suppose I enjoyed the film. I love Korean action movies, as they aren't afraid to push the bar when it comes to blood, gore, and sequences we've never seen before. At 2 hours 10 minutes, this is no quick watch, however. I won't rehash the synopsis as many reviews do, but make a couple of comments on the film in its entirety.

• First and absolutely foremost is the direction and photography. The film was shot similarly to Hardcore Henry, but what I call one step removed. HH was shot first person POV. "Carter" (the film) is filmed like 1/2 step ahead of Carter the character; sometimes it looks like the POV is Carter's, other times the view is gyroscoping around him, while other times still the view is moving in sync with him but as if 3 feet in front of him. I didn't mind the multi-angular approach, but it made the entire film one big dizzying mess of discombobulatory explosions. Considering that I personally despise "reality films," first person films, or found footage pieces, I nearly gave up on Carter. With the sheer volume of action the film attempts to capture, this type of photography is a challenge to experience in a short film, let alone one one the length of Carter. It didn't help the POV (wherever it was) was shaky. Seriously...whoever edited this film should be given both an Academy Award and a massive kick upside the head & threatened w/ death if ever done again. I absolutely understand that part of this is the age old trick of covering up some faults and not being able to critically view some of the stunts and gore. If the film hadn't been shot like this, it EASILY would be rated at a 7 or 8 in my book.

• while a good deal of the high impact action and killings are done with CGI (which at times is not very good), the massive volume of stunts is incredible. Some of the sequences used were mind boggling, showing stunts the likes of which I've never encountered in movies. Not just the stunts, but the sequences! The helicopter scenes, though CGI (at least for many of them) were quite exhilarating and had hewies doing things I'd never seen. Truly some remarkable stuff.

• the fx were hit and miss. With the amount of killing there was bound to be a few stinkers, and while some of the practical fx were good, as well as some of the CGI stuff, I would say at least 1/2 of the CGI was not very convincing. Definitely not the worst I've seen, but could have been better. But...I suppose they did what the budget allowed for.

• Joo Won did a fantastic job as Carter. Reading that he packed on as much muscle weight as he did made it even more impressive.

• Did I mention the action sequences? Badass. On top of them being plentiful, there was also some nice scenery to look at, especially the mountain shots.

• My biggest gripe is merely that the writer/director tried to do too much. Not just with the story, but with the sequences. While the budget was not huge, I'm wondering if cutting down on the film's length and repurposing the money toward better fx and sequencing would have been a better idea. There were definitely some lulls in the film during were there because the writer added a new scene or idea that was simply not needed for the story to be both complete and enjoyable.

Overall, if you can stomach a shaky multi-angled first-and-a-half person film, then you will have overcome one of the largest shortcomings.

Definitely has a lot of graphic violence as well as a bit of brief nudity. Language is mostly tame.

Turning on Netflix today, I noticed this new addition, and as a lover of all things zombie & gore it was a natural viewing choice for me.

While there are certainly some plot holes, and some fairly implausible situations, without thinking too hard about such things makes this quite an enjoyable watch. As with most of my reviews, I won't comment on the plot, as the summary takes care of that. What I will comment on is the film itself. Short and sweet.

A Spanish film (ie from Spain), the production value is pretty top notch. The acting was good, the camera work was technically well above average (and professional), and fabulous scenery in some lesser known areas of Spain - beautiful panoramas, lush green forests, and an overall treat for the eyes.

Re: content Just like any zombie movie, there is a ton of bloodshed delivered via gunshots to the head. There are several bloody "bites" throughout the film, as well as severed limbs and death, literally everywhere. What the film is NOT, is gory. While I love zombie movies with excessive gore, this was not one of them. Lesser "experienced" viewers might consider some scenes to be gory, but if you're watching this solely for the gore, it likely won't measure up. That said, there was just enough to keep things interesting without being gratuitously nasty - a little bit of a bummer, but not so much that made viewing less enjoyable.

Lots of profanity, in Spanish, some issues re: racial equality, and no nudity.

One aspect that some might overlook is that there is a red thread of dark comedy from start to finish. All examples are very subtle and mostly tongue in cheek, not to mention "dead pan." I LOVED this aspect, even as a non-Spanish speaker. The writing in combination with the acting made me laugh out loud a couple of times. I truly appreciated this aspect of subtlety.

All in all, it's a fun watch! Nothing ground breaking or terribly new for the genre, but adventure, horror, and zombie fans should get a good kick out of it. By the end of the film I was shocked at how quickly 1 hour & 40 minutes went. That's always a good sign to me.

Definitely worth a watch, especially if you're a fan of the genres I mentioned above!

I read the reviews prior to watching this short flick and between them and overall rating >5, I thought I was in for a fun 60 minutes. Suffice it to say, I was wrong. If you look at my history, I have watched thousands of movies, written hundreds of reviews, and rated countless films. Most of the time I can find at least one small facet of a film, no matter how unenjoyable, that prevents me from rating it a '1.' That was not the case here.

This was terrible. The acting was bad, the special effects were non-existent (and by that, I truly mean non-existent...as in, they were not needed, as there was nothing even remotely catalogued as blood in the film, except when some folks vomited). There is no real scenery, as they used existing stores and buildings; there was no music other than some pre-packaged Halloween sounds; costumes? What costumes?

After watching, I re-read the reviews and not a single one (except the one "poor" review) held any truth about the film. I don't even mean subjective opinions, but the things people mentioned in reviews didn't even happen in the film. In other words, the majority of reviews are fake.

Truly a first for me. A movie without a single shred of positive opinion from me. And I consider myself a rather forgiving viewer. This was the first film I've rated a 1. Don't say you weren't warned.

I'm not sure why the rating comes under 6.0. I thought this was well made and was a tremendous nod to its predecessor, Dead Set. As noted in other reviews, the first 5 episodes are similar to DS, but not identical. I think many viewers were caught off guard that this was intentional. The content in RealityZ is much more straightforward horror without any comedy or tropes that were present in DS. Personally, I preferred the approach as it opened the door for a more raw telling of the story, and provided a nice pivot in to latter episodes (ie after episode 5).

If you like zombies, it's a decent show...far better than some out there. Give it a shot.

Not unlike other TV Zombie series, though it is well made and the story telling device is interesting. There's not much to add that hasn't been said, but for me, the choice to use SO MUCH camera work from the view of someone who is running, led to a substantial downgrade in my rating. I like the technique when it is used sparingly, or for situations that call for increased intensity, but to use it in EVERY scene involving a chase (in a FREAKING ZOMBIE MOVIE) was just dizzying.

...in the freakin' HISTORY of shows! Gay sex, lesbian sex, cosplay sex, drummer sex, and some more "___ sex" that you'll see!

If everything after the credits is a "10" then credits are an "11" for sure! This show needs to be seen by everybody who has ever had a sexual urge. Yeh...I'm talking to you, guy in the back😉

And PS...props for covering Peaches a cappella. "F¥<K the Pain Away" is a classic.

This isn't so much a review as it is a comment. For some reason, I missed this when it came out. Not quite sure how, as I'm nearly 50 and have a film & cinema freak since I was a kid. So...having never seen this, and finally cueing it up in 2021, it still holds up! Don't get me wrong here...it's obviously dated with respect to some of the special fx, as well as the details in production, but the story, acting, and theme fully hold up. AND...these vampires don't sparkle when the sun hits them. Plus...come on...LANCE FREAKIN HENRIKSEN!!!

For the uninitiated, this film will wreak havoc on their senses, as sexuality - both moral and amoral - violence, and gore are on full display in HMWT2. Now, that alone does not, in its own right, make it a good film, but there is a method to what is on display here, though, seemingly (and again, for uninitiated), it is just nothingness interspersed between mutilation. That is not the full story, and the viewer must make his/her own decision what is being said in that context.

I applaud what the filmmakers and producers were able to do with such a small budget, as the fx looked pretty darn good. And by fx, I mean the viscera. There isn't a whole to address on technical levels, as the director uses tricks of the low-budget trade in order to make up for monetary shortcomings. Sharp and quick edits, black & white, onscreen static, shaky camera, and dim lighting all allow the director to "get away" with shortcomings. The "tricks" aren't as bad in HNWT2 than in some movies, but they definitely get in the way, imo. They don't, however, ruin the film, and in some scenes they actually contribute to the "vibe."

Look...there is nothing new or ground breaking about this indie film, nor is it something that experienced indie horror fans will flock to, but with a lack of decent, TRULLY independent extreme films being made, this will definitely tickle your pickle.

Definitely not for kids, or the squeamish.