Search
Lenard (726 KP) rated Dora and the Lost City of Gold (2019) in Movies
Sep 2, 2019 (Updated Sep 2, 2019)
Backpack, backpack, backpack, backpack
In the era of reboots, legacyquels, and reimaginings, films require a balance between innovation and "the original" product. Dora and the Lost City of Gold is such an undertaking as a adaptation of a popular children's show. The filmmakers had an objective to make a feature film while not alienating fans of the original Dora the Explorer. I believe that the team (who also worked on the previous two Muppets movies) did a good job. They found ways to have Dora speak to the audience (like on her show), have Backpack and Map speak, introduce Spanish words and phrases (the point of the show), and Boots and Swiper ("Swiper, no swiping.") were integral characters, all of which would have detracted from the film if done improperly. At the same time, the writers and director had to have a story that would sustain a 90-minute movie and leave little left to, pardon the pun, explore. The search for a lost city of gold and a race between archaelogists and treasure hunters satisfied that objective, a little Young Indiana Jones adventure mixed with National Treasure. The biggest liability in the whole film was Eugenio Derbez and his slapstick comedic style never fit the tone of the film. Luckily, Michael Pena can debilitate him with a styling monologue. Now that Dora has ended her adventure in the jungle, she can study the harshest environment known to man: high school in an anthropological dissertation.
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Miss March (2009) in Movies
Oct 1, 2020 (Updated Oct 8, 2020)
Bizarre, funny, and lovingly goofy enough to get a pass; but for being barely 90 or so minutes this doesn't just tread water it *drowns* before even the hour + ten mark. Still liked it, saw what this was going for immediately - a mostly effective satire of the usually ignominious teen sex genre at the time and its far past tired formula, as well as the way the 2000s noxious 'sex culture' warped its young men into Neanderthal-esque sexists (both the open kind and those who were brainwashed enough to think that they weren't) who saw women as nothing more than empty meat ciphers to project their selfish desires onto. Can't believe so many people misunderstood this but then again, the WKUK bunch have always been far ahead of their time anyway. That being said however, I have very similar problems with this as I did with a genre satire such as šš¢šµš¤š©š¦šµ in that it sets up its tropes to lambast and then not much sooner does it start to embrace them itself. Though this is still ten trillion times better than some bottom-of-the-barrel, spoon-fed meta horseshit like šš“šÆ'šµ ššµ šš°š®š¢šÆšµšŖš¤? - Trevor Moore's quintessential dopey dudebro is deeply hysterical, and both he and Cregger are pitch-perfect as always. For all its grinding halts and hit-or-miss jokes this still remains a smart, unfiltered sideshow of point-blank slapstick and caustic gross-out gags that certainly catered to my inner imbecile.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Army of Darkness (1992) in Movies
May 29, 2022
I love The Evil Dead. It's gritty, low budget, scary as fuck. I love Evil Dead 2 for its perfect marriage of horror and slapstick comedy. I love Army of Darkness for just how fucking silly it is. The original three films of this franchise all have their own identity, and stand out as very different chapters of the same story. AoD is arguably the weirdest of the bunch, dropping all of the gore in favour of a medieval gateway-horror comedy, and it works a treat, thanks in no small part to some fantastic practical effects, and of course, Bruce Campbell. Campbells physical comedy chops are one of the highlights of Evil Dead 2, and those skills are put front and centre here. There are multiple sequences that are just brazenly ridiculous, and simply wouldn't work anywhere near as well if it was any other actor in the drivers seat. His commitment to the bit is wholly admirable. The practical work looks great for the most part, especially the army of skeletons that are introduced in the final third. Some signature style from Sam Raimi occasionally butts in to remind us that this is still an Evil Dead film, and there are some memorable monster and deadite designs to keep its foot firmly in the horror genre. Above all, AoD is just a whole load of fun that knows exactly what it is. Hail to the King baby.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Jan 16, 2020 (Updated Jan 16, 2020)
Cutting satire (1 more)
Great ensemble cast
Don't be stupid, be a smarty
Taika Waititi's much discussed movie is an odd beast. Set in a small German town towards the end of the war, Jojo (Roman Griffith Davis), is a young boy indoctrinated with Nazi fervour as a member of the Hitler youth. Together with his rotund and bespectacled friend Yorki (Archie Yates), they are not likely to spread fear into the approaching Allied forces: they are a pair that would be likely to get picked last for 'sides' in a school football match.
Perhaps to bolster his flagging self-esteem, Jojo has an imaginary friend - - Adolf Hitler (played by director Taika Waititi). Hitler provides him with sage - and sometimes foolish - advice. His mother (Scarlett Johansson), as well as obviously being hot and thus obtaining lustful looks from returning troops, is also kindly. She makes up for the absence of Jojo's father, due to the war, with the help of some play-acting and a sooty beard.
But, when alone in the house, Jojo hears noises from upstairs, his world - and his whole belief system - begins to unravel.
Comedies have tip-toed around the sensibilities of World War II in the past, most famously with Mel Brook's "The Producers". I don't think anyone's previously been brave enough to introduce the holocaust into the comedy mix. And - to a degree... we are NOT talking excessive bad taste here - the movie goes there. There's an underlying sharpness to some of the dialogue that - despite not being Jewish myself - nevertheless put my sensibilities on edge: the pit in hell 'set aside for Jews', for example, is filled with not only piranhas... but also bacon.
As a satire lampooning Antisemitism, much of the comedy is slapstick and the anti-Jewish sentiments expressed are deliberately ludicrous. And it's one of my issues I guess with the film. There are some good lines (Rebel Wilson's fanatical Nazi screaming "Let's burn some books" at the students) but some of the slapstick farce just didn't work for me. Sam Rockwell is great as a one-eyed ex-war hero looking for new challenges and exuberant costumes! But a lame gag from him about German Shepherds made me go "What? Really?". And this lessens the impact for me of the satire.
The second half of the film for me was far better, taking a much darker and edgier tone. There's a sudden turn in the film - brilliantly executed - that is truly shocking. This scene is somewhat reminiscent of one in that other great Holocaust comedy, "Schindler's List". It's understated, yet devastating. (Now, before seeing the film I'd heard from other reviews that the film "turned darker" and - based on the trailer - I'd kind of set in my mind what that would be. But I was wrong! So take this comment not as a spoiler, but as an anti-spoiler!).
As the war unravels for Germany, a late re-appearance by the imaginary Hitler is also memorable.
As the young star, Welsh kid Roman Griffith Davis - with no previous acting experience - turns in a star performance. Though to say that the performance ranks alongside the top 5 male performances of 2019 is, I think, overstepping the mark. Scarlett Johansson got a Best Supporting Actress nomination for her role. And I think this is deserved.
Elsewhere in the cast, few seemed to have recognized Thomasin McKenzie's role playing Elsa. The 19 year-old New Zealander really delivered for me. A strong female character, she's vulnerable yet with a will of iron under the surface. She made me really care about the outcome of the story.
Less positive for me is Rebel Wilson. Here she is marginally less annoying than I normally find her in that she's playing a deliberately annoying and unhinged character. But the role seemed largely redundant to me: it didn't add anything to the overall story (unlike Rockwell's - surprising - character arc).
If there was an Oscar for originality - and that WOULD be a good new award category - then this film would be a contender. It's certainly novel: amusing in places; disturbing in others. If you like your comedies on the edge and bit whacky - like "Death of Stalin" - then you will probably enjoy this. I'm not sure it's the best film of the year - and there are probably others I would swap into that Oscars nomination list - but it's still a well-made movie and a recommended watch.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/16/one-manns-movies-film-review-jojo-rabbit-2020/ )
Perhaps to bolster his flagging self-esteem, Jojo has an imaginary friend - - Adolf Hitler (played by director Taika Waititi). Hitler provides him with sage - and sometimes foolish - advice. His mother (Scarlett Johansson), as well as obviously being hot and thus obtaining lustful looks from returning troops, is also kindly. She makes up for the absence of Jojo's father, due to the war, with the help of some play-acting and a sooty beard.
But, when alone in the house, Jojo hears noises from upstairs, his world - and his whole belief system - begins to unravel.
Comedies have tip-toed around the sensibilities of World War II in the past, most famously with Mel Brook's "The Producers". I don't think anyone's previously been brave enough to introduce the holocaust into the comedy mix. And - to a degree... we are NOT talking excessive bad taste here - the movie goes there. There's an underlying sharpness to some of the dialogue that - despite not being Jewish myself - nevertheless put my sensibilities on edge: the pit in hell 'set aside for Jews', for example, is filled with not only piranhas... but also bacon.
As a satire lampooning Antisemitism, much of the comedy is slapstick and the anti-Jewish sentiments expressed are deliberately ludicrous. And it's one of my issues I guess with the film. There are some good lines (Rebel Wilson's fanatical Nazi screaming "Let's burn some books" at the students) but some of the slapstick farce just didn't work for me. Sam Rockwell is great as a one-eyed ex-war hero looking for new challenges and exuberant costumes! But a lame gag from him about German Shepherds made me go "What? Really?". And this lessens the impact for me of the satire.
The second half of the film for me was far better, taking a much darker and edgier tone. There's a sudden turn in the film - brilliantly executed - that is truly shocking. This scene is somewhat reminiscent of one in that other great Holocaust comedy, "Schindler's List". It's understated, yet devastating. (Now, before seeing the film I'd heard from other reviews that the film "turned darker" and - based on the trailer - I'd kind of set in my mind what that would be. But I was wrong! So take this comment not as a spoiler, but as an anti-spoiler!).
As the war unravels for Germany, a late re-appearance by the imaginary Hitler is also memorable.
As the young star, Welsh kid Roman Griffith Davis - with no previous acting experience - turns in a star performance. Though to say that the performance ranks alongside the top 5 male performances of 2019 is, I think, overstepping the mark. Scarlett Johansson got a Best Supporting Actress nomination for her role. And I think this is deserved.
Elsewhere in the cast, few seemed to have recognized Thomasin McKenzie's role playing Elsa. The 19 year-old New Zealander really delivered for me. A strong female character, she's vulnerable yet with a will of iron under the surface. She made me really care about the outcome of the story.
Less positive for me is Rebel Wilson. Here she is marginally less annoying than I normally find her in that she's playing a deliberately annoying and unhinged character. But the role seemed largely redundant to me: it didn't add anything to the overall story (unlike Rockwell's - surprising - character arc).
If there was an Oscar for originality - and that WOULD be a good new award category - then this film would be a contender. It's certainly novel: amusing in places; disturbing in others. If you like your comedies on the edge and bit whacky - like "Death of Stalin" - then you will probably enjoy this. I'm not sure it's the best film of the year - and there are probably others I would swap into that Oscars nomination list - but it's still a well-made movie and a recommended watch.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/16/one-manns-movies-film-review-jojo-rabbit-2020/ )
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pixels (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Where's the off switch
When was the last time you went to the cinema to see something original? Itās probably a question a lot of film fans ask themselves and in the last few years, perhaps proved rather difficult to answer.
However, with 2015 being the year of the reboot and the sequel, itās nice to see a film like Pixels showcasing something completely different. But is it worth a go?
Directed by Chris Columbus of Mrs. Doubtfire and Harry Potter fame, Pixels stars Adam Sandler, Josh Gad, Peter Dinklage and a woefully miscast Kevin James in a film that doesnāt do enough with its fascinating premise, descending into painfully unfunny slapstick instead.
Sandler stars as Sam Brenner, a video game lover who, after a brief scene showing his history, is tasked with saving the world as aliens infiltrate Earth and begin to attack using some of our most-loved classic arcade games.
Alongside him for the ride are fellow video-game champs Josh Gad (Frozen), Peter Dinklage (X:Men ā Days of Future Past) and Kevin James (Paul Blart: Mall Cop). The latter also happens to play the US President.
Unfortunately, none of the cast are particularly likeable with the usually on-point James playing one of the worst Presidential roles ever put to film. He is simply unbelievable as the leader of the United States and provides Pixels with some of its more cringe-worthy moments.
Once the film gets going, there are a few standout moments including a Pac-Man rampage through New York City but this has been so heavily marketed in the trailers that there is practically no suspense or joy in watching it unfold.
The finale is also very good, with a Donkey Kong showdown rendered in some stunning CGI and ridiculously clever set building and itās great fun seeing so many classic arcade games being brought to life on the big screen.
Pac-Man, Q*Bert , Centipede and Donkey Kong are just a few to appear and look glorious with their 21st Century upgrades. Q*Bert in particular is a little cutie and is a major character throughout the last third of the film.
Itās unfortunate then that Chris Columbusā usually reliable direction takes such a knock here. Thereās none of the clever generation-bending humour of Mrs. Doubtfire or the laugh-out-loud slapstick of Home Alone, and the visual style he brought to Harry Potter is nowhere to be seen. In the end, Pixels just comes across as a brilliant concept that seems wasted.
Perhaps this can be blamed somewhat on poor casting choices. Adam Sandler hasnāt been hot property for a while after numerous box-office bombs and Peter Dinklage is still establishing himself as a major movie star. With Kevin James also proving a disappointment, itās only Josh Gad who comes out on top ā just.
Ultimately, Pixels is fun while it lasts and has some absolutely brilliant set pieces but once the credits roll, itās apparent that it wonāt be memorable like the wonderful arcade games it parodies.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/08/16/wheres-the-start-button-pixels-review/
However, with 2015 being the year of the reboot and the sequel, itās nice to see a film like Pixels showcasing something completely different. But is it worth a go?
Directed by Chris Columbus of Mrs. Doubtfire and Harry Potter fame, Pixels stars Adam Sandler, Josh Gad, Peter Dinklage and a woefully miscast Kevin James in a film that doesnāt do enough with its fascinating premise, descending into painfully unfunny slapstick instead.
Sandler stars as Sam Brenner, a video game lover who, after a brief scene showing his history, is tasked with saving the world as aliens infiltrate Earth and begin to attack using some of our most-loved classic arcade games.
Alongside him for the ride are fellow video-game champs Josh Gad (Frozen), Peter Dinklage (X:Men ā Days of Future Past) and Kevin James (Paul Blart: Mall Cop). The latter also happens to play the US President.
Unfortunately, none of the cast are particularly likeable with the usually on-point James playing one of the worst Presidential roles ever put to film. He is simply unbelievable as the leader of the United States and provides Pixels with some of its more cringe-worthy moments.
Once the film gets going, there are a few standout moments including a Pac-Man rampage through New York City but this has been so heavily marketed in the trailers that there is practically no suspense or joy in watching it unfold.
The finale is also very good, with a Donkey Kong showdown rendered in some stunning CGI and ridiculously clever set building and itās great fun seeing so many classic arcade games being brought to life on the big screen.
Pac-Man, Q*Bert , Centipede and Donkey Kong are just a few to appear and look glorious with their 21st Century upgrades. Q*Bert in particular is a little cutie and is a major character throughout the last third of the film.
Itās unfortunate then that Chris Columbusā usually reliable direction takes such a knock here. Thereās none of the clever generation-bending humour of Mrs. Doubtfire or the laugh-out-loud slapstick of Home Alone, and the visual style he brought to Harry Potter is nowhere to be seen. In the end, Pixels just comes across as a brilliant concept that seems wasted.
Perhaps this can be blamed somewhat on poor casting choices. Adam Sandler hasnāt been hot property for a while after numerous box-office bombs and Peter Dinklage is still establishing himself as a major movie star. With Kevin James also proving a disappointment, itās only Josh Gad who comes out on top ā just.
Ultimately, Pixels is fun while it lasts and has some absolutely brilliant set pieces but once the credits roll, itās apparent that it wonāt be memorable like the wonderful arcade games it parodies.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/08/16/wheres-the-start-button-pixels-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Tag (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
When you hear about a movie being based on a true story, especially this film, the first thing you ask yourself, āWait a second, this actually happened in real life?ā This movie is about 5 lifelong friends who have been playing the kidsā game Tag for 30 years. Every year during the month of May, itās no holds barred attempt at tagging each other.
The movie starts out with Hoagie (Ed Helms) trying to procure a janitor job at his friend Callahanās (Jon Hamm) company for the sole purpose of the game. This year, Hoagie is on a dire mission to tag Jerry (Jeremy Renner), who has never been tagged. After heading out to tag Chilli (Jake Johnson), and Sable (Hannibal Burress), the guys find out they were not invited to Jerryās wedding mainly because he didnāt want to get tagged.
Jerry has spent decades calculating every move and hidden attempts and is hellbent on never being tagged. You can pretty much guess what ensues once the gang arrives to the wedding. There is an exorbitant amount of slapstick humor in this film, that it masks the absolute absurdity of adults playing tag. There isnāt very much substance to this movieās storyline. Itās pretty much vulgar humor, physical antics, and everything youāve wanted in a film about adults playing a kids game. If youāre looking to spend 2 hours laughing immensely at a movie that will most likely win a Razzie, go see this one.
Youāll think itās unbelievably ridiculous, you canāt help but love it!
The movie starts out with Hoagie (Ed Helms) trying to procure a janitor job at his friend Callahanās (Jon Hamm) company for the sole purpose of the game. This year, Hoagie is on a dire mission to tag Jerry (Jeremy Renner), who has never been tagged. After heading out to tag Chilli (Jake Johnson), and Sable (Hannibal Burress), the guys find out they were not invited to Jerryās wedding mainly because he didnāt want to get tagged.
Jerry has spent decades calculating every move and hidden attempts and is hellbent on never being tagged. You can pretty much guess what ensues once the gang arrives to the wedding. There is an exorbitant amount of slapstick humor in this film, that it masks the absolute absurdity of adults playing tag. There isnāt very much substance to this movieās storyline. Itās pretty much vulgar humor, physical antics, and everything youāve wanted in a film about adults playing a kids game. If youāre looking to spend 2 hours laughing immensely at a movie that will most likely win a Razzie, go see this one.
Youāll think itās unbelievably ridiculous, you canāt help but love it!
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Peter Rabbit (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Had they not attempt to make a movie based off a beloved childrenās book
classic by Beatrix Potter, this film would be exceptional. Unfortunately,
they chose to deviate from the innocent storytelling and put a slapstick
comical spin on it. Peter Rabbit (James Corden) and his sisters, Flopsy,
Mopsy, Cottontail, and their cousin Benjamin are constantly trying to steal
vegetables from the unpleasant and always grumpy Mr. MacGregorās garden.
Fortunately, the rabbits have one human on their side, MacGregorās
neighbor, Bea (Rose Byrne), who reminds MacGregor, the animals were on the
land first and everyone should share.
One morning Mr. MacGregor (SamNeill) keels over after trying to save his garden from those pesky
rabbits. His straight-laced city boy grandnephew Thomas MacGregor (Dohmnall
Gleason) inherits the property and is left with trying to maintain the
ārodentā problem. An all-out war ensues between Peter and Thomas!
What made Beatrix Potterās books so appealing, was her ability to show a
vulnerability to where the reader could sympathize with such
mischievous rabbits.
This film was chalked full of naughty behavior, jealousy, and entitlement
within the story line characters. As a film, itās hilariousāHome Alone
type shenanigans with a little Dennis the Menace antics peppered in. Live
action mixed in with CGI effects is quite impressiveātoo good, you almost
think the rabbits were real. If you can deviate from the stories weāve all
grown to love, this film is excellent, entertaining, and for the intended
audience-kids under the age of 10ā¦ā¦ā¦ which all thought it was
ātotally awesome!ā
classic by Beatrix Potter, this film would be exceptional. Unfortunately,
they chose to deviate from the innocent storytelling and put a slapstick
comical spin on it. Peter Rabbit (James Corden) and his sisters, Flopsy,
Mopsy, Cottontail, and their cousin Benjamin are constantly trying to steal
vegetables from the unpleasant and always grumpy Mr. MacGregorās garden.
Fortunately, the rabbits have one human on their side, MacGregorās
neighbor, Bea (Rose Byrne), who reminds MacGregor, the animals were on the
land first and everyone should share.
One morning Mr. MacGregor (SamNeill) keels over after trying to save his garden from those pesky
rabbits. His straight-laced city boy grandnephew Thomas MacGregor (Dohmnall
Gleason) inherits the property and is left with trying to maintain the
ārodentā problem. An all-out war ensues between Peter and Thomas!
What made Beatrix Potterās books so appealing, was her ability to show a
vulnerability to where the reader could sympathize with such
mischievous rabbits.
This film was chalked full of naughty behavior, jealousy, and entitlement
within the story line characters. As a film, itās hilariousāHome Alone
type shenanigans with a little Dennis the Menace antics peppered in. Live
action mixed in with CGI effects is quite impressiveātoo good, you almost
think the rabbits were real. If you can deviate from the stories weāve all
grown to love, this film is excellent, entertaining, and for the intended
audience-kids under the age of 10ā¦ā¦ā¦ which all thought it was
ātotally awesome!ā
Reggie Watts recommended The Great Dictator (1940) in Movies (curated)
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) in Movies
Jan 25, 2021
Comedy comes in many forms and is certainly subjective. Unfortunately, slapstick comedy which is plastered all over the second outing for Indiana Jones really holds the film back as a whole for me.
Where Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Last Crusade are more straight shooting adventures, the comedic elements in them are placed fantastically, sparingly, and add to the overall experience. Temple of Doom is more of a gauntlet of jokes and over the top silliness, and most of it unfortunately doesn't land.
A lot of this comes from Willie Scott (Kate Capshaw), who acts as (constant) comic relief and Indiana Jones' love interest. The character is written in a way that she ends up at worst not being remotely likable, and at best being hugely grating.
Thankfully, the final third of Temple of Doom redeems matters a fair bit. The whole last sequence is unrelenting in its series of events. The action is masterfully executed, and feels like Spielberg was just constantly trying to one up himself in what he was doing, and his efforts result in an extremely fun and thrilling final act.
Once again, a lot of practical effects on display that lends this blockbuster series a sense of magic in a pre CGI age, and an as-per-usual incredible score from John Williams can be considered huge positives.
Overall then, Temple of Doom is a mixed bag for me, and easily my least favourite of the initial trilogy, even if I do have some find childhood memories attached to it!
Where Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Last Crusade are more straight shooting adventures, the comedic elements in them are placed fantastically, sparingly, and add to the overall experience. Temple of Doom is more of a gauntlet of jokes and over the top silliness, and most of it unfortunately doesn't land.
A lot of this comes from Willie Scott (Kate Capshaw), who acts as (constant) comic relief and Indiana Jones' love interest. The character is written in a way that she ends up at worst not being remotely likable, and at best being hugely grating.
Thankfully, the final third of Temple of Doom redeems matters a fair bit. The whole last sequence is unrelenting in its series of events. The action is masterfully executed, and feels like Spielberg was just constantly trying to one up himself in what he was doing, and his efforts result in an extremely fun and thrilling final act.
Once again, a lot of practical effects on display that lends this blockbuster series a sense of magic in a pre CGI age, and an as-per-usual incredible score from John Williams can be considered huge positives.
Overall then, Temple of Doom is a mixed bag for me, and easily my least favourite of the initial trilogy, even if I do have some find childhood memories attached to it!
Andrew Kennedy (199 KP) rated Undead (2003) in Movies
Jul 14, 2019
I watched a Top 30 zombie movies video on YouTube and this film was on it. I have never heard of it before then and given that it was a micro budget film from Australia that was big on the festival circuit in 2003, probably not surprising it had passed me by.
First up, if you want a serious zombie film like 28 Days or Romero's Dead films look elsewhere, you won't enjoy this. If however you don't mind some slapstick gore and tounge firmly in rotted cheek humour and like early Peter Jackson splatter horror Braindead this is for you.
In a quaint Aussie fishing village meteorites fall from the sky and before you can say this looks familiar the townsfolk are turned to the ravenous undead.
Yes the acting is hammy, the dialogue at times is weird but this film is at its heart, fun. Blood, gore and brains soak the screen as things break down. Also, what is in the rain?
Characters are a bit stereotypically but I feel the ending is the most satisfying ending to a zombie film ever. Yes it looks on paper like an idea that shouldn't work but somehow it does.
Good debut from the Spierig brothers made for $2 million Aussie dollars and effects done on a laptop. It's better then some big studio zombie flicks.
Lot of negative reviews of this on IMDb, I don't understand why it's by no means perfect but it's a lot of fun with a great early Peter Jackson vibe.
First up, if you want a serious zombie film like 28 Days or Romero's Dead films look elsewhere, you won't enjoy this. If however you don't mind some slapstick gore and tounge firmly in rotted cheek humour and like early Peter Jackson splatter horror Braindead this is for you.
In a quaint Aussie fishing village meteorites fall from the sky and before you can say this looks familiar the townsfolk are turned to the ravenous undead.
Yes the acting is hammy, the dialogue at times is weird but this film is at its heart, fun. Blood, gore and brains soak the screen as things break down. Also, what is in the rain?
Characters are a bit stereotypically but I feel the ending is the most satisfying ending to a zombie film ever. Yes it looks on paper like an idea that shouldn't work but somehow it does.
Good debut from the Spierig brothers made for $2 million Aussie dollars and effects done on a laptop. It's better then some big studio zombie flicks.
Lot of negative reviews of this on IMDb, I don't understand why it's by no means perfect but it's a lot of fun with a great early Peter Jackson vibe.