Shatter Dead

I'm not surprised that this film has gotten so many bad reviews, although this is not to say I agree with them. I contend that Shatter Dead, although obviously not professional looking, is a brilliant film.

Yes, it was shot on a low budget. Yes, it was shot on video and not film. Yes, the sound is low quality. NO, THESE THINGS DO NOT MATTER.

What matters is that there's (a) a very creative take on the zombie genre, (b) a script with tremendous depth that works on multiple levels, (c) many clever lines (that also work on multiple levels), (d) many powerful scenes, (e) a profoundly haunting mood that permeates the entire film, (f) a fantastic musical score, (g) a sharp and dynamic visual style that defies the low budget, (h) well-developed, memorable characters, and (i) efficient storytelling.

If you need your films to have bright colors and celebrities and pop music, then you will not like Shatter Dead. But if you're looking for something that's actually innovative and meaningful, then perhaps you should give it a try.

Shatter Dead exhibits much weakness within its plot and structural makeup. The story appears to be dreamed up as some kind of twisted fantasy of the director as the filming process progressed. The "blood and guts" effects were possibly the largest downfall of the film. The same effect could have been achieved by merely dumping spaghetti and meatballs on the actors and actresses. A majority of the acting was unprofessional and cheesy.

Sadly, the only scenes which are able to keep an audience awake are the ones which contain nudity. Sound effects are another large problem which adds to the films downfall. The camera crew is able to be heard brushing up against the camera. That is acceptable in a documentary or a film of that caliber but not a "walking dead" movie. In conclusion, Shatter Dead merits a 3 on a scale of 10 for not containing key element of a credible film.

When I borrowed a friend's copy of Shatter Dead, I expected to get some thrills of the zombie gore-fest variety. What I received was really really bad. It wasn't even good in a really really bad way. The first thing that upset and disgusted me was not blood or wanton violence but rather that it was shot on video, not film, immediately cheapening the whole experience. The pictures on the DVD case (yes, DVD) misled me into thinking that this would be a professional piece of work. I have seen many low-budget films, but this takes the prize for worst makeup. Some characters, many of which I'm sure were willing locals and student volunteers, donned grey paint on their skin. Others had some some cheap looking gashes about the face. Most, however were not made up at all. It was also very slow paced, a bit confusing and featured both flat staging and acting. It was hard to tell whether it was the poor acting or the poorly written lines ("Don't be scared, I'm scared too") were what made me want to turn it off.

Having ripped in to this movie quite a bit, it's only fair to share some highlights. Indeed writer/director, Scooter McRae puts an interesting spin on the old living dead yarn that discusses "souls" as being un-killable, despite condition of the body. It also receives my thumbs up for explicitly using, one more than one occasion, a hand gun as a phallus. It's also encouraging to any aspiring filmmaker to see the manifestation of McRae's ideas and labor, on DVD no less. I guess it won some sort of award, too. Bottom line, this flick is for hardcore low-budget horror fans only. If, on the other hand, a friend owns it you might want to watch it. If not for a laugh, then at least to broaden your filmic horizons.

Hmmm. Where to start with this one. I just watched this flick for the first time last night and it left me a little uneasy. I am not sure if I am upset at myself for paying so much for a camcorder shot looooooooooooooooooooow budget flick, or if the movie actually had an effect on me.........I am still pondering that one.

For those who love extreme gore, action, and excitement.....this movie will probably not suit your fancy. I would not even call this movie a horror movie. There was nothing scary about it, nothing shocking (except for the gun up the muff scene)...I have seen it all before. I would consider this movie a dark comedy, even though I am sure Scooter did not intend for it to be funny. I mean the really bad acting and dialogue just has to be laughed at, especially Stark Raven and the Preacher Man. Some of the dialougue is just hilarious, like "don't be scared, I am scared." You just have to laugh.

Stark Raven is about as talented and sexy as a slab of cardboard (she's as flat as one too). Her gratuitous sex scenes sort of nauseated me because she is not in the least bit attractive....for once a movie would have been better without the female lead getting naked. The only thing that "shattered" in this movie is the mirror everytime Stark Raven looked in it (God, those teeth..........).

The clever storyline and idea behind this movie are strongly overshadowed by the lousy acting, camera work, and dialogue, and get left behind and forgotten quickly.

I mean, any movie with a guy dressed up like Howard Stern as Fartman with a gun cannot be taken seriously.

Worth a rent but not a buy. Nuff said.

I had heard that this movie was so cool and creative, so I had high expectations. I was immediately disappointed when the movie started and the picture looked like it was filmed by a camcorder. The female lead's acting is so bad, I contemplated turning the dvd off. That bad. I kept on watching because I paid a pretty penny (more than the average price for a dvd) to get a copy of this movie (from the distributor). I also wanted to see if the story and gore were any good. Good luck. The story is about a girl trying to get back to her apartment, that's it. There was some crappy gore and a xxx scene involving the female lead, her boyfriend and a pistol (a pellet handgun in reality). You can probably figure out the rest. I threw away the dvd, just as I threw away my money when I bought it.