Flesh Freaks

And I thought some of my low-budget B-movies were bad...

Flesh Freaks is easily one of the worst movies I've ever seen. The plot is simple - zombies invade a university after an archaeological dig brings back some type of parasite that turns people into zombies.

The main problem I had with this film is the very poor quality. It is appears to be filmed by a regular hand-held digital camcorder you can purchase at Walmart. Seriously, much of the footage shot for this film looks like someone's vacation video, with pointless and lengthy shots of sunsets, shorelines, jungle, and insects. The cameraman also was too jerky and moved the camera too much, which constantly reminded me throughout the movie just how amateur this movie is. The sound quality is equivalent to any hand-held camcorder - crappy.

The only good point I can say about this movie is the makeup is pretty good. The makeup artist did a great job with the zombies, and the zombie masks were pretty good for the quality of the rest of the film. Also, lots of blood.

Negative points about the movie: 1. Too long. Lots of unnecessary footage of wilderness, shorelines, etc.

2. Half of the movie was shot on location at a university (Christmas break?). This film appears to have been shot by film college students on location.

3. Absolutely no skin. Zip. Nada. No nudity.

Think twice about buying this movie. Or even renting it. It probably appeals to only those involved in filming it or acting in it. Really, the whole thing looks to be someone's pet project in a film class. Avoid this movie at all costs. Before you watch this dreadfully tiring movie, watch something remotely entertaining, like Lawrence Welk or Andy Griffith.

This is the most amateurish and boring (so-called) "horror" movie I've ever had the misfortune of seeing. I watched the first 30 minutes and could hardly stay awake (at 5 PM), then I couldn't stand any more. This is a movie that manages to make archeology in Central America look even more boring than it actually is. The (non-existent) "plot" concerns a group of archeologists in the Belize rainforest, supposedly excavating artifacts from an ancient Mayan temple. They're attacked by a "zombie" who looks like a young Canadian filmmaker with black paint on his face. That's probably because it is in fact a young Canadian filmmaker with black paint on his face... The movie is shot with horrible sound and shaky hand-held video, in a documentary style with realistic (i.e. very boring) dialogue. Most of the movie is an annoying, monotonous, droning voice-over by the one guy who managed to survive the murderous "zombie". The script is truly awful, with lines like "There was also an ancient well, its purpose long since forgotten". OK, excuse me, but isn't the purpose of a well usually the storage of water? I mean, did anyone actually think about reading this script through once it was written? It seems as if someone wrote the whole movie one night, probably after drinking several beers, and then decided with his friend to go to the travel agency the next day and buy two tickets to Belize, because he had a friend there who was an archeology student and would let them stay there for a couple of weeks.

I've honestly never seen a worse movie than this. Its only value is to show you what not to do if you're a young independent filmmaker. It was apparently made in Canada. It makes a Canadian university and the jungles of Belize look like the two most boring places on earth. All of the characters speak in monotonous droning voices and it's clear they're all consciously trying to remember their lines as they deliver them. They blew the entire budget for shooting the movie on the plane tickets which took them to the Central American jungle. (I don't know if it's Belize or not.) The most interesting shots in the movie are of an ant carrying a leaf and some birds, lizards and monkeys in the forest. There are absolutely no special effects at all, the gore is extremely fake and only seen for a few seconds in the entire movie, the constantly shaking camera is really hard on the eyes, and the makeup and costumes are non-existent. The "zombie" is a guy wearing ordinary clothes (jeans and a shirt, not even ragged!) with some black grease smeared on his face. It's quite obvious that he is a healthy young guy. Don't waste your time with this embarrassingly awful Canadian student movie. Some film students are definitely majoring in the wrong subject...

Flesh Freaks, a no-budget Canadian zombie romp, manages to twist genre expectations while ladling on the requisite blood-soaked body count. While this basic concept has been done before, notably in Fred Dekker's retro shocker NIGHT OF THE CREEPS (1986), talented director Conall Pendergast and his pals provide their take with just enough zip to make for some refreshing, old-school schlock. Clever use of existing locations, including actual footage from Belize, gives the film a bit more scope than most shot-on-video outings. Moreover, the ever-moving camera-work by G. Gillard Golen, combined with an editing scheme heavy on dramatic digital zooms and Steve Kado's creepy, minimalist score, add immensely to the film's sense of dread. Minor faults do become apparent, such as inconsistent acting and stilted dialog, while an abundance of travelogue scenery conveniently pads the running time. As for the freaks themselves … well, realism apparently didn't figure into the make-up design by Pendergast and Alex Perkins! I'm guessing, however, that the inspiration for their crumbly zombies comes not from the watershed effects of DAWN OF THE DEAD (1979), but the comically stylized pull-over masks used in Mexican monster potboilers like THE BRAINIAC (1961), briefly glimpsed here in a theater scene. They're still fun creations, to be sure, and so is FLESH FREAKS, an amusing exercise in gusto and grue. Not to Mr. Kado – love the groovy theme music

Of course I had never heard about this 2000 horror movie titled "Flesh Freaks" prior to stumbling upon it by random chance here in 2025. And given my love of all things horror, of course I opted to sit down and watch the movie.

I have to admit, though, that I wasn't exactly harboring the biggest of expectations to the movie as I sat down to watch it.

From the very first scene, it was rather obvious that this was a low budget production. But I still carried on with the movie, as a low budget movie doesn't necessarily equal a bad movie.

The narrative in the movie was not particularly compelling, interesting or entertaining, which meant that sitting through 79 minutes of this was quite an ordeal.

Needless to say that I was not familiar with a single actor or actress on the cast list. And I can't claim that I was particularly impressed with the performances on the screen, not that they were bad or anything, but they were just bland and forgettable.

"Flesh Freaks" wasn't exactly a movie with great special effects to lift up the otherwise bland narrative.

If you enjoy horror movies, like I do, then don't waste 79 minutes on this movie. Some of us suffered through this ordeal, so you don't have to; you're quite welcome.

My rating of "Flesh Freaks" lands on a generous two out of ten stars.

A couple of anthropologists talk endlessly about whether one saw a zombie or a terrorist while the most fake 'zombie" ever kills people in mundane ways. LOW budget home-made zombie film that doesn't do anything right, the acting's atrocious. The plot horrid. The camera work terrible. and no suspense. All this adds up to one of the worst ways you can spend an hour and a half. I feel dumber just having watched this moronic trash. Only serious maschocists need apply. Don't say I haven't warned you.

My Grade: F

DVD Extras: Director's commentary; Outtakes; 2 short films (Flicker and Satan's Psycho Ghoul); Preview Trailer; and Trailer for "Kill them and eat them"