ZMD: Zombies of Mass Destruction

I have a hard time understanding how people can see this movie as anything more than mildly entertaining. I decided to watch it with high hopes as I am a big fan of the zombie genre and some reviewers compared it to Shaun of the dead and Zombieland. In my opinion however, there is no comparison, even when taking into consideration the far lower production costs of ZMD. There is no depth to any of the characters and I don't see how the acting can be viewed as anything more than up to par. The humour and satirical elements consist of easy one-liners which failed to even make me grin. I mean, come on : "Don't shoot, I'm gay". Is that even a joke ? If I was to compare this movie to anything I've seen, I might consider Zombie strippers. However, Zombie strippers, at the very least, added a new original take to the genre and there was some much appreciated subtlety to the humour in the script. Furthermore, I've seen Zombie strippers twice whereas I would never consider sitting through ZMD a second time. In all honesty, I feel generous in rating this movie with a 3/10.

Don't get me wrong with my summary. What I mean with the mass destruction is that; this movie shows that a low budget movie could be way better without a cheap nudity, sex and other ridiculous stuff that are infecting most of low budget zombie/horror/thriller movies out there. Of course there is a few things that make this film incomparable with Shaun of The Dead, Dawn of The Dead or other great zombie movies but for a low budget movie; this is good. This movie is not stereotypical as many. There is no hero and heroine that in the end live happily ever after. What they have in this movie is issues with politics, racism, sexual heretic(gay), and a few other things. In spite of that, there are some weak point in this movie. The script could be better and more comical since people tend to laugh to the silly script not the comedy itself in this film. The filmmaker seems to cling with the cliché act of many zombie movies where someone's arm being pulled-off so easily(which is silly). Without such scene, this movie could be better. Well, this movie is worth to watch but never expect it to be that perfect.

I didn't know what to expect going into this other than Zombies. I was really surprised. A lot of people have compared it to Shaun of the Dead, and there is some definite homage there. No offense to the actors in this, but they just aren't Simon Pegg. There are really no scares that I remember, but the effects themselves are not that bad (remember - non Hollywood!) I really laughed a lot at this flick. Some of it was at corniness, some was some good humor. At one point I did think that this would be a good candidate for an (over the top) Americanized version of Shaun of the Dead. It really picks on so many aspects of culture.

The lead actress really did a good job, as did the two playing Lance and Tom. I think "Lance" gets some of the best lines and has some good comedic timing.

As long as you don't mind a little poking fun at yourself and are not looking for the next over-the-top, over-polished Hollywood turd, this is a very enjoyable movie.

First off I'd like to address the audio issue, whoever mastered this needs to learn that when something is only 20ft away is doesn't need a second worth of reverb this caused pretty much any noise off screen to sound incredibly awful. This is something that shouldn't be a problem even in a low budget film it would've been better off with no processing.

As for the zombie scenes I was actually surprised at the quality of makeup and acting during these scenes, some of the effects were noticeably low budget but overall quite impressive for what they had to work with, there was a lot of camera cuts which seemed a little over done.

In the political sense it addressed several issues touching on homosexuality, religion, mayoral office, and the middle east. it did seem to overemphasize them but perhaps that was the point. I only had a problem with how they were trying to make a point it detracted from the flow of the movie, there would be one scene where they're fighting zombies and then the entire mood changes to make political point it seemed like the writer wrote a political movie then an editor came along and said what do you think of adding zombies. The scenes didn't mesh together and felt forced.

The cast seemed a good fit for the characters they played, however the acting was definitely B-film quality I'd say the gay couple and the Iranian girl were by far the best actors/actress of the film. The Iranian father's actions and lines seemed rehearsed and forced. The zombies seemed as you would imagine from most zombie movies slow, stupid and bloodthirsty.

In conclusion a Zombies of Mass Destruction is a zombie film crashed into a political movie and didn't have any insurance to fund the collision repair, which makes for decent zombie killing action mixed with b-c class acting and interruptions of over-exaggerated political views, when I say interruptions I mean it takes on the mood of an entirely different movie.

This film reminded me of a George Romero zombie movie, no not the good old ones I mean the crappy modern ones where he tries to shoehorn in some political commentary and it just doesn't work. Billed as a political zombie comedy it fails on all three levels.

Politics? Well, it mentions politics but has nothing to say about it really. It's just there.

Zombies? This isn't too bad, there's some good scenes of zombie action but they are spaced too far apart and the gaps are filled with boring scenes.

Comedy? It's just not funny, at all. It thinks it is, but it isn't.

I wouldn't waste your time, nothing happens for 30 minutes and the zombie bits are only slightly better than a cheap 80's Italian zombie flick. Rent one of those instead it's got more laughs (unintentional) and will probably have a lot more action. None of the characters have stories that lead anywhere which must surely be indicative of one hell of a crappy piece of fiction to even the least discerning viewer.