Apocalypse

I know it's a low budget movie, but I've watched low-budget movies that were amazing to watch. Sitting through the entire 1 hr 43 mins of this movie is one of the greatest tests of endurance I have have ever engaged in. I spent $3.99 to rent this movie and will I miss that money forever. The movie is unbelievable and makes no sense whatever. The characters have guns but don't use them when they need to for some unexplained reason. Please save yourself. There is absolutely nothing you will gain by watching this nonsense, unless perhaps you are a filmmaker who wants to learn about how not to make a bad movie.

In a coordinated attack, an unknown and unnamed faction releases a virus that reanimates the dead. This takes place primarily in the UK, but there are some scenes in various other countries. A news reporter for a major network is brought a video detailing how the virus came to be by one of her sources. Once streaming the video live is complete, she and her coworkers fight to survive in the new world.

This is a low budget movie and should be watched through that lens. If you are a fan of other British produces zombie movies like Shaun Of The Dead or the 28 movies, then do not try to go into this thinking there will be any similarities. They relied a bit too heavily on bad CGI, from fires to smoke to impact wounds to people being torn apart, there are very few practical effects here. The actors are not bad, though the gentleman that play the lead news anchor plays his part way over the top. This movie did keep me watching to the end and I enjoyed the fact that the ending was ambiguous as well.

Overall, I would say this is a decent enough entry into the genre, but there is nothing ground breaking or Earth shattering here.

No. Just no!

This is another one of those generic zombie movies that cash in on an establish movie in terms of its title, and has nothing to do with that aforementioned movie.

"Dawning of the Dead" was generic in every sense, the storyline was so predictable that you saw it coming a mile away. And since the directors opted to throw no curveballs or put in any twists or surprises, then it was just a straightforward, albeit very generic ride.

The zombie make-up was nothing extravagant, but at least they didn't succumb to the horrible B-movie mistake of just painting the faces gray and forgetting about the rest of the body.

Personally I find running zombies a major no-go in the zombie genre, and guess what? Yeah! There were running zombies here in "Dawning of the Dead" (aka "Apocalypse").

The characters in the movie were fairly generic too, although the did differ from one another. But it was ultimately just characters that you didn't bond with or felt empathy for. So when they died, you just shrug and move on.

I managed to finish this movie but can honestly say that I will not return to this zombie movie a second time.

In response to adam pikes review, i also was an extra in this and the scene he refers to was for a different movie.

I find it incredibly sad to see sexist, amateur writers creating dross like this - eating up good budgets whilst some talented writers get nary a penny to produce their stuff.

Some things that really get to me about British productions at the moment. Sexism (including misogyny and misandry) and racism. Many directors especially on the BBC productions of things like Doctor Who get caught up trying to give a nod to the British equivalent of the US "token black guy" and that is a "token Asian or Middle-Eastern female". The fact that she appears to be over-praised and rude are about the only two authentic aspects of this kind of stereotypical person in the UK. In fact, every stereotype is there. The leering older man who is accused of "using the same line word-for-word on me when I wouldn't give him a blowjob", the cheerful trolley woman who is used to lure the zombies away from the group, the scared and life-endangering young man who panics and lets the zombies in, and the nervous yet competent female assistant.

The main issue with this whole film is clearly a lack of directorship. One of the jobs of a director is to steer the "direction" of a film to give a realistic and accurate illusion that the people we are watching are actually really there and in their life-and-death situation. I can suspend disbelief with the best and worst of people, but when the opening scene shows a pixelated animation for bloody special effects, I should have known what was coming. Dialogue confusingly juxtaposes between contrasting emotions in a some of schizophrenic conversation that rarely matches the scene, the actor's persona, or the whole narrative.

Then there is the acting itself. You see people who are either first-time actors, or have struggled to get work and have not been vetted properly by the casting crew. They even appear to laugh at some moments. I suspect that the fact that the film had no less than 5 people appearing as directors suggests a failure to agree on artistic vision.

The only good actor I could find who seemed believable was ironically the most extreme character - Agent Proteus - played by the talented Leo Gregory who must have had a bad patch when he accepted this script. I've seen him in some other movies and he can turn a turd of a script into a diamond.

Which underlines another important point - there are a lot of damn good British actors out there so why are we stuck with this bunch? Whose fault is it for this film being so lame?

Until we start setting the bar a bit higher and being more critical of our work, we're never going to see the likes of Trainspotting come out again. The time of the Millenials is upon us. Sadly we seem to have given them too much credit and they've given us apathy and a lack of interest in anything challenging. Is it that we are so scared of being accused of bullying because of the politically correct brigade that we've ended up not daring to point out absurdness or badly created media?

We can do so much better than this. It's one I suggest any readers stay very well clear of. (Innit' fam?!)