Customer Reviews

Rise of the Dead

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(9)

 

 

This is NOT a zombie film by any means.

I purchased it this with the impression I'd be seeing the story of a girl whose town would be invaded by flesh-eating corpses and along with her family battle a desperate wage to survive. Along with said family, conflicts would arise and the battle for humanity becomes stronger than the battle to survive. And so on.

Instead, what I got was a film about a girl who decided to give her baby up for adoption and after he had been bounced from house to house, 3 years later the baby accidentally kills himself (a bit of a spoiler but this is learned early on and is crucial to the plot) and now the soul of the baby - ready for this? - is possessing people to kill his natural born mother for giving him up.

Any zombies in this film? No. Any gore? Nope, not really. Is it a good film? ...Yes, actually it is. BUT it's NOT a zombie film.

The acting in the film was very decent I must say and the storyline intriguing though the prospect of having hordes of flesh-eating ghouls was not only forwarded by the eye catching cover art, but the back of the box as well for describing the film as "A frightening zombie thriller". While the people "possessed" by the infant are zombie-like, they are certainly not zombies and no more than one person at a time becomes a murderous fiend.

Actually had this film had a completely different title, with a different box, I would have enjoyed it immensely. But because it's marketed as a zombie film, it can't be ignored that it is NOT a zombie film but something more along the lines of "Fallen".

Honestly, it's not a bad little film - just not something for zombie fans to seek. Horror fans in general will like it but don't expect a full blown zombie film because again - that's not what you're going to get.

My expectations for this movie were pretty low, and I was very pleasantly surprised. I don't particularly like schlock horror movies; but this was filmed in my hometown. Although I liked the Crook Brothers' other horror movie, I enjoyed this one much more. The acting was better, and I thought it was overall more seamless. How many low budget horror movies have (quasi) logical plots and good acting? True, it should be classified as a slasher and not zombie movie; but if you're really sensitive about that, get over yourself; it was bought it in a zombie package. Given the budget and genre, this was an impressive little movie. Unfortunately, the working title,'Tantrum', didn't stick. 'Tantrum' as a title, a better synopsis, and different classification would do better to further the surprising little experience that was this movie.

Everyone in town wants to kill Laura especially the spirit of the child she gave up for adoption. The first couple to adopt are religious freaks who think the baby is cursed-the second couple are just weird. The "mother" is holding the child in her lap and hubby is showing her his new semi-automatic. She yells at him for bringing a gun into the house with a child and he sets the gun down on the coffee table and the two go off to quarrel while the toddler starts sucking on the business end of the gun.

Now the dead baby is out for blood and everyone however loosely connected to the birth mother dies grisly but because of the really low budget, fake looking splatter deaths. A kitchen fork is one of the lethal weapons. The dead baby has the ability to transfer from person to person and when the heroines bf is invaded by the spirit she knocks the bf unconscious, has sex with him, and now she finds herself pregnant. Baby is now back in the womb he loves best.

For a cheapie budget costing less than a box of Pampers, the movie is not that bad but the title is mis-leading and I do feel queesy about the scene showing the toddler sucking on the gun-but the movie is worth a watch, as long as you know beforehand, the movie is not about zombies, and is about a dead baby with a nasty temper.

I always try to keep an open mind when watching a movie. I also have this useless talent of unearthing at least one positive aspect of a movie, even if the movie doesn't deserve it. Well I have to say that "Rise of the Dead" was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I tried so desperately to find something good about it, but to no avail. The only reason I didn't turn it off after twenty minutes is a friend of mine let me borrow the movie and told me I had to watch it. This movie clocks in at 72 minutes that felt like 72 hours.

Now there is a genre of movies/films that can be classified "so bad they are good". Movies that fit this paradigm are some of my favorites. Sadly, this movie doesn't fit this mold. The movie looks like it was made on a fifteen dollar budget. The acting (if one could claim that the performing arts even transpired in this schlock) was beyond hideous.

The plot was also really stupid. An adopted toddler who has died wants to take his revenge out on his birth mother. It is never really explained why his hate is directed towards his birth mother, the tike was only like three when he died. So the spirit of the toddler possesses people who are in proximity to its birth mother, in order to kill her. This process is executed so poorly. As for the ending.........you have got to be kidding me.

Another issue with this movie is the title, "Rise of the Dead". With a name like this, a person is led to believe that this is a move about zombies, or even vampires. The cover of the DVD shows this gruesome and decomposing head. Sound like the undead to me. Well that would be a big fat NO. The people who become possessed have a zombie-esque feel to them, but this is more of a ghost story. Don't get me wrong, I like a good ghost movie, but I felt half the problem with this movie was it was misleading. The other issue with this movie is it was so bad. The content was terrible, even if there was this pseudo-pediatric poltergeist going on. Hey that is a better name for this movie, "Pseudo-Pediatric Poltergeist" or better yet "Angry Infant Spirit".

Rise of the Dead (William Wedig, 2007)

First off: everyone's complaining that Rise of the Dead is a zombie movie title, and this is actually a ghost story. Well, it's not like the title specifies what kind of dead are rising, right? Second, there's a weird misunderstanding that seems to be floating around about the ending. I can kind of understand where the detractors are coming from, but let's face it, you're reading into it. If you think the ending is more offensive or taboo-breaking of whatever, than, say, the entire film Birth, then I think that says more about you than it does this movie. If you put those two things aside, what you've got here is a surprisingly professional-looking-- and decent-- flick made on a budget that's far more shoestringy than most micro-budget horror flicks get (according to one source, the budget for the film was $20,000-- and this was shot in the mid-2000s).

I'm not sure how much of a synopsis-- if any at all-- I can give without major spoilers. In fact, saying it's a ghost story and not a zombie flick may already be giving too much away. The story has to do with Laura Childs (Erin Wilk), a young woman who's got way too much going on around her. One night, after a fight with her boyfriend Jack (Synecdoche, New York's Stephen Seidel), Laura is the subject of unwanted, and extremely aggressive, attentions from a well-regarded local lawyer. Jack comes to the rescue in a not-so-subtle fashion that finishes with him in jail. After that, it seems like everyone around Laura suddenly goes crazy and tries to kill her. Laura and Jack (who does eventually get out of the clink, though it's a kind of flimsy scene) have to figure out why and, more importantly, how to stop the madness.

While I'm suitably impressed with William Wedig's ability to make a really good-looking film-- seriously, the camerawork here rivals most of what comes out of Hollywood these days-- I do wish the script had gone through one more rewrite, and some of the minor actors could have used a few more classes. But still. I'm sorry to keep harping on the budget, but you have to figure most of the folks here were working for free, or for peanuts and beer, and I just can't bring myself to write all the nitpicky stuff I was going to write. This is Wedig's first film as a director, and I'm mighty impressed with his ability. The man is going places. I wish I could say the same for everyone else involved, though I do have to point out Wilk's performance, which ranges from competent to excellent depending on the scene (she does remind me a bit much of Naomi Watts in The Ring a few times-- you know, just stand there and scream).

Okay, I give up. I keep trying to criticize this flick, to explain the low rating, but I just can't, so I'm rounding it up. ***

this film is a slsher. not a zombie film. the killers arent even living dead, just crazy people. i give it half a star but amazon wont let me. horrible film.

I never leave comments about movies really but this one is warranted...this movie is absolutely awful! This is perhaps the worst movie i've ever seen. On top of that, whoever did the designing of the front and back of the case should be liable to pay back each person who rented this thinking it's a zombie movie cause it's not. They totally lied about what this movie actually is! There's not ONE undead in this whole movie, this a possession movie about her disgruntled child who passed away. I rented this movie for 49 cents but felt the need to leave an accurate user review so everyone wouldn't waste their' time and spend that money on 2 packs of gum or something. This movie SUCKS!

WARNING: FALSE ADVERTISING. THIS IS NOT A ZOMBIE MOVIE! Period.

From the front cover art (a head emerging from the ground tangled in what look like roots; not in the movie!), to the back cover art (which looks like a legion of the shambling undead; also not in the movie!) and the description (claiming the movie is a "frightening zombie thriller" and that the main character is "under attack by the undead"; the first is simply false and the second only applies if you consider ghostly possession of living human the same as "the undead"), the packaging is misleading in the extreme.

If you think you're getting a zombie movie, you're dead wrong (pardon the pun). This movie has nothing to do with zombies, at all. Not the risen dead or undead, nor the infected, nor even voodoo powered zombies.

This is a possession/slasher flick. Period. No zombies.

I can hardly unbiasedly review this because of my disappointment over it not being a zombie movie when all indications from the packaging say it is. But, I'll try:

I guess I'll just say that the movie was pretty boring. I didn't find many of the "scares" very scary (and I use the term very loosely, since they're all telegraphed pretty far in advance through stupid camera tricks, obvious rising musical cues or simply showing in the background that something is coming).

The basic plot is that people around a certain chick start behaving strangely and trying to attack her. If you don't guess the "twist" that's coming by about 10-15 minutes in, you're not paying attention (for which, honestly, I can't blame you)... The other 60-some odd minutes are just tedious bloodletting waiting for the director to catch up and reveal the twist you realized not-too-far in to the movie.

The ending is just disturbing nonsense. Not disturbing in the sense of scary or gruesome, just in the fact that it borders on a stupid plot device that amounts to paranormal incest. Not good.

Ohh, and did I mention the gratuitous nudity and sex scenes thrown in that do nothing to advance the plot? Methinks they're thrown in just to distract the viewed from how truly godawful this movie is. Sadly, they fail to titillate and only serve to show just how bad this movie really is as it stoops to even lower levels.

Can I get my money back so I can go buy some actual low-budget zombie movies like Dead Meat, Dead Heist, Last of the Living, etc? Sure, they may not be high cinema, but at least their packaging is honest when it says they're about zombies. I'm hoping Zombies of Mass Destruction will be a decent flick. I'll let you know...

If you want high zombie cinema, try: Fido, Shaun of the Dead, Zombieland, Resident Evil, Dawn of the Dead, Romero's Night of the Living Dead, Land of the Dead, Diary of the Dead.

That said, I'm giving it a 2. On the zombie-meter I'd give it a zero. Certainly the package is false advertising... Given that it's not a zombie movie, and leaving the packaging aside, I guess the movie isn't absolutely wretched. About on par with a Sci-Fi channel original movie in quality. Only so-so. For what it is, it's okay. It doesn't look like it's shot with a handycam and the acting isn't completely terrible. But, as mentioned above, even ignoring whether the zombie tag is accurate, the movie still doesn't rise much above a 2 out of 5. 3 would be stretching it...

Rise of the Dead actually proved to be a more interesting film than I anticipated. Unfortunately, the ridiculous premise and the weird and disturbing ending (and I mean weird and disturbing in a totally not cool, yucky kind of way) are too much for any film to truly overcome. A misleading box cover and description (we're not really talking about the undead here) doesn't do much in the way of promoting viewer satisfaction, either. Don't blame the independent filmmakers for falsely marketing this as a zombie movie, though - that cinematic sin was committed by the film's unscrupulous distributors. I hope horror fans will just give this film a chance.

Laura Childs (Erin Wilk) is just an unremarkable waitress in a nowhere town - until, that is, several of the townspeople start trying to kill her. Friends, family, leading townspeople she doesn't even know - the girl never knows when someone near her is going to suddenly have a go at her with whatever sort of weapon tends to be handy. Fortunately for her, the would-be killers seemingly lose all but a bare modicum of control of their coordination and bearings and her quasi-former boyfriend usually shows up in time to help her. Of course, the cops have a little trouble connecting the dots Laura is giving them, especially after she connects enough of those dots to figure out what is actually going on here. Eventually, a couple of the cops get a strong dose of "seeing is believing," but that doesn't really do Laura - or the cops - any good whatsoever. Now a lot of reviews of this film go on to totally reveal every last facet of what goes on here, but I hope a few people will actually be able to avoid those and truly judge this film on its own merits.

I don't know what marketing genius decided to change the original title of this film, Tantrum, to Rise of the Dead (oh, wait, Lions Gate picked this film up for distribution - that's who really deserves the scorn of those who went into this film expecting to see zombies). Tantrum is, I daresay, a perfect title for this movie. It's a real shame that Lions Gate's typical exploitation practices have led to so much criticism of the original independent film itself. As I said, it's a rather absurd storyline with an icky (but original) ending, but this isn't a bad movie - especially when you consider the fact that it was reportedly made for a mere twenty thousand simoleons. If you just judge the film on production value alone, I don't see how you can come away without being impressed. If nothing else - even if you dislike the storyline - there is originality and directorial boldness in this film, and that makes it an independent horror effort deserving much more respect than it has received.

Never judge a DVD by it cover. I thought that this was going to be a Zombie movie...It had nothing to do with Zombies (although the people who are taken over by the spirit of the dead toddler moved sort of like a zombie). A toddler was killed by a self inflicted gun shot wound to the head. He then proceeds to posses the people closest to those who have done him wrong in order to kill them. All and all a warm tale about a kid who wants to be with his mommy.