Zombacter: Center City Contagion

Bad acting! Bad storyline! Worst zombie movie I have seen in years. Avoid like the plague as you will thank me for it.

A first time student film would have been more entertaining to watch. I am also offended by all the "God D***"'s being spewed by all the actors thinking it would somehow add something to the lack of acting skills. The story is a worn out one that we keep seeing over and over, except this is the bottom of the heap. Why someone would think that putting out another zombie movie is something we need, I'll never know. Find decent writers and let the so-called actors go make furniture out or campaign commercials.

I hadn't even heard about this 2020 movie before now in 2021 as I stumbled upon it by random luck. And seeing it was a zombie movie, of course I took the time to sit down to watch it. After all, I am huge fan of all things zombie.

But as luck would have it, "Zombacter: Center City Contagion" is just your average run-of-the-mill low budget zombie movie, one of those types that come a dime a dozen. So yeah, while you're in for a zombie movie, don't expect anything grand or extraordinary here.

Storywise then "Zombacter: Center City Contagion" could be any other random zombie movie, because it is just that stereotypical. But if you don't mind watching a movie that is pretty much exactly like the hundreds of other similar zombie movies before it, then "Zombacter: Center City Contagion" is definitely something for you.

Visually then I will say that "Zombacter: Center City Contagion" was actually not half-bad for a low budget movie. There were some decent enough zombie make-up effect here and there, but they also resorted to the classic low budget zombie make-up effects of just slapping paint on the face and forgetting about every other bit of exposed skin.

One thing that did prove interesting in "Zombacter: Center City Contagion" was the fact that writer and director Sean Bingham actually included a cause for a zombie outbreak in the movie. That is something that is rarely done in zombie movies, so thumbs up for that.

The acting in the movie was as to be expected for a low budget zombie movie. I mean, some actors and actresses put on adequate enough performances, while others were just shambling around like the zombies chasing after them.

"Zombacter: Center City Contagion" came and went without as much as a groan, much less leaving a lasting bite mark. While it was watchable, it was just too generic in every aspect. And that reflects in my rating of the movie, which lands on a four out of ten stars.

A fairly decent for a low budget zombie movie. Clearly a rather local production (as the inter textual reference to a book alludes to?). This offers enough for a zombie movie fan, but of course only for them.

Although believable characters - not too logical or coherent, a bit one-dimensional caricatures, but with clear inclinations - the script tends to be a bit hindered with a bit unclear jumpy timeline. Also some of the fight scenes are a bit unrealistic (how come people dont use the barricades for what they are for - narrowing the point of entry), but well.... Doesn't ruin it though, since the pacing is very good: the director kept things running all the time, with a sense of constant urgency, and to me it tells about good directing and/or editing.

Makeup and lights decent, although maybe some after work for the film general colour spectrum could have been done (i mean, maybe a bit softer tone - not sure if it would have effected the realism feel of it a bit). No interesting artsy camera tricks unfortunately, which might have brought extra points - camerawork basic.

The motive or "message", or point in script is not very well fleshed out, but once again the all-important pacing and speed makes up for it.

About the same level as World War Z (not logical but well paced etc.), but with way less expense. I myself hate the economic waste done with "blockbuster budgets". One does not need a big budget to make a good film, or even a decent entertainment film (this film in question definitely falling to the latter category). The difference is one of creativity - if one has low budget, one needs to have fun with the crew (it shows; and that is what makes it a collective form of art, which a movie is, just as a medieval cathedral) and/or get creative (the creativity doesn't show here, but i bet there was plenty of it in the production: surely they had to pull some strings with the local community and had to really figure how to get things done with such a low budget). This is clearly more of a "movie" than the antithesis of it - "a product".

Knowing this was a low budget film, I went in with appropriate expectations. Is it a $50mill budget film? Nope...

That said, it was really fun to watch a movie after reading the book written by a somewhat local author.

The filming was on par with movies well beyond the budget here. The backstory was also fun to have right up front! I seriously hate wondering what supposedly happened to cause the outbreak in movies and shows... Looking at you TWD....

There was plenty of cool makeup up effects that were also on par with much higher budget films.

I may be biased as the film was a local production. But I loved it. Having passion projects being made outside of the big studios is really cool.

If you go into it knowing it is a passion project, you can see it shine through.

Kudos for fighting for your dream It's always easier to knock someone on their dream than it is to go after your own.