Edges of Darkness

I saw this movie with the knowledge, that this was the worst movie ever. That shouldn't be a problem. A bad movie can be a movie that's so bad, it is good again. Or so bad, that it is just plain funny. This film was just painfully bad. The story doesn't make any sense. You have absolutely no idea who the people are and what they are doing. After a good start with destroyed zombies every where, there is no action at all. And when there's action it happens outside the camera. They're talking, and talking and talking and you have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. I had the idea that they made a movie and after that they left the movie on the cutting room floor and put all the outtakes together. The movie looks bad, like they made every mistake in film-making on purpose. All above should-en't be a problem if the movie is at least fun to watch, because of all this mistakes, but it isn't. It's all heavy set drama. Every character has problems, are depressed and they're talking about it. Even the zombies are depressed and talking about there problems! The filmmakers took themselves way too serious. Like they really wanted to tell something and give a message to the world. Is there nothing good to tell about this movie? Some of the actors really can act. Especially the older actor. The old zombie and the oldest priest have a voice that is very pleasant to hear. They could use them for voice acting. But it doesn't feel right in this movie. Good acting was way misplaced in a bad movie. I felt sorry for the actors who maybe hoped to show their acting skills in a movie, but ended in one big boring nonsense I hope they had fun making this movie, because if you make a no budget movie, it should be fun to make with no expectations, that it's going to be a good movie. Than it is fun to watch.

As far as zombie flicks go, it can't get worse than this. Please save your money. Maybe just watch the Walking Dead which deals with the subject matter a lot better.

One of the main complaints about zombie movies is that they're all so similar. Most "zombie enthusiasts" would disagree and could easily point to a particular film to make their case. This is one such movie. Not only is this different but it adds some new ideas for the zombie genre as well. For example, this movie has 3 different scenarios all against the backdrop of a zombie apocalypse in Los Angeles. Unlike a great number of zombie films, this one doesn't start at the beginning of the apocalypse or give the details of how it happened. Instead it focuses on some of the ways a few survivors have coped with it all. What is so interesting is that each of these survivors have their own story to tell and although they live in the same city, none of the stories are interrelated. I won't go into what secrets each of these people harbor but I will say that I thought it was a decent movie because it was so original. Now, I suppose it could have been better if the scenarios were somehow linked together but even so I thought this film had plenty of surprises to keep my attention.

The only thing this movie was missing was a plot. It was as if a bunch of horror movie writers sat around and wrote an terrible movie based off of their ideas. The movie was based off of bunch of people who all believe they are the last people on earth(which they aren't) that have nothing in common except that there are zombies outside of their house. There really wasn't anything good to say about this movie. I mean even the cactus had a name. I have never wanted a zombie to eat my brains out more than after i finished this movie. Here is a crazy question, Why didn't any zombies get killed in this movie? More mice died than zombies. However, There is a zombie apocalypse outside and you have the curtains open!

The end credits says that this film was based on a stage play and it certainly seems that way with almost all the action happening indoors. The film consists of three intertwined stories against a backdrop of a zombie plague but actually the stories could easily have been three separate half-hour plays with no zombies at all. It is my belief that the zombies were mostly a marketing ploy.

The first story is about a couple whose marriage has hit a rough patch with the wife being neglected by the husband who is obsessed with writing a play (or book) and spends all his time on his computer. Unbeknownst to the couple, the computer is cleverer than they realise.

The second story features a vampire couple who take in a young woman who is not what she seems. The couple cannot believe how lucky they are when the young woman lets them drink her blood but there is a price to pay for this largesse.

The DVD cover which shows a Lara Croft look-a-like about to blow away a zombie was the reason I bought the DVD and is the main character in the final story. Our glamorous heroine has rescued a young boy from the zombies, (it did not have to be zombies - it could have been any plague) but two priests believe the boy to be the Antichrist and want to kill him. The question is, is he really the Antichrist or are the priests just religious zealots gone mad?

You see? There really was no need at all for the zombies. To give the film its credit, the zombies were well done and so was the chomping and chewing but perhaps the budget spent on the film could have been better spent in some other way.