|
|
9 of 11 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
That's it, no more shot-on-video horror for me, January 9, 2001
By A Customer
Well, I did it again. I read the glowing reviews of this movie on various horror Web sites (even the reviewer on "Mortado's Page of Filth," who admitted that he was prejudiced against shot-on-video films, gave it a thumbs-up), and went and bought the movie, since I couldn't find it in rental places. And now I'm stuck with another tape that I can't sell on eBay, even to recoup part of my losses... Well, the movie isn't all bad, and I'm giving it four stars because I have no wish to disparage the efforts of filmmakers who obviously worked hard and didn't have much money. But since it IS for sale on Amazon, the truth must be told to other customers. Here's what was good about the movie: First, certain visual effects worked. There were some computer-generated effects that looked pretty cool (especially what I assume was Satan's lair). Some of the acting was pretty good for such a low-budget film. And then there was that member of the cult leader's "harem," the brunette listed in the credits as Cari Minster--WOW! If you can get an actress who looks like that to be in a movie called "Zombie Cult Massacre," I would think you'd take full advantage of it and make her the star of the film! She was definitely the best thing about this movie. Here's what was bad: Although the movie is being given credit for having an "original" plot, it's actually lifted from Romero's Dawn of the Dead and Day of the Dead. There's a climactic battle involving a biker gang (from Dawn), and the middle portion of the movie, the longest part, is set in a confined environment (in Day of the Dead it was an underground military complex, here it's the cult compound.) As in Romero's movies, all the action is packed into the first and last 15 minutes. The problem with this plot structure is that the middle section really drags. And then there is the all-important element, the GORE. It doesn't work. Granted, it's a zero-budget film, but if I'd been the filmmakers I would have put ALL my effort into making the deaths as realistic and creative as possible. Instead, they used the following technique: the actor lies on the ground and is surrounded by zombies. The director yells "Cut!" and the film crew puts raw meat & various "entrails" under the actor's shirt. Then the director yells "Action!" and the zombies tear into the actor's shirt, and we get 30-45 seconds of the zombies "eating" the guy's insides. Even for a low-budget film this is very cheesy and unimaginative; in fact, there's really no excuse for it. Well, like I said, this movie wasn't terrible, and it's way above the level of supposed b-movie goremeisters like Tim Ritter and Todd Sheets. But it could have been way better. There IS such a thing as effective shot-on-video gore, but until the people at Dead Alive finally get off their lazy behinds and put out Andreas Schnaas's "Cannibal 2000," I'm swearing this genre off...
|
See all Editorial Reviews
