The Zombie Chronicles

Without wishing to be a killjoy, Brad Sykes is responsible for at least two of the most dull and clichéd films i've ever seen - this being one of them, and Camp Blood being another.

The acting is terrible, the print is shoddy, and everything about this film screams "seriously, you could do better yourself". Maybe this is a challenge to everyone to saturate youtube with our own zombie related crap?

I bought this for £1, but remember, you can't put a price on 71 minutes of your life. You'd do well to avoid this turkey, even at a bargain basement price.

I think I will make a movie next weekend. Oh wait, I'm working..oh I'm sure I can fit it in. It looks like whoever made this film fit it in. I hope the makers of this crap have day jobs because this film sucked!!! It looks like someones home movie and I don't think more than $100 was spent making it!!! Total crap!!! Who let's this stuff be released?!?!?!

I should learn. God, why have I not learned. I see these movies advertised as trailers on other crappy movies, and I get hooked in....The trailer for this movie (which I saw on the unelievably crappy Terror Toons) looked interesting. I am a living dead head, and thought it looked like a good low-budget zombie flick. What I got was beyond that. Most low budget directors will at least try and make things semi-believable. IN this, you have storylines in the 70's with people driving cars and wearing clothes from the late 90's, bad acting (extremely bad acting), crappy blurry filming which I guess is supposed to be 3D, some decent, but mostly lame make-up and gore effects, and to top it off, there is some giraffe necked Zombie at the end that noone explains about....huh?

The movie lasts slightly longer than the trailer, a little over an hour, which is another rip-off. The man playing the hitch-hiker is totally ridiculous and acts as good as a cardboard cut-out. He has to be reading cue cards.

What is sad that I expected an extremely low budget flick, which is not always bad. It's the acting and direction of this film that puts it in the crapper.

If I buy another braindead film, please, Eat meeeeeeeeeee.................

1st watched 8/3/2003 - 2 out of 10(Dir-Brad Sykes): Mindless 3-D movie about flesh-eating zombies in a 3 story within a movie chronicle. And yes, we get to see zombies eating human flesh parts in 3D!! Wow, not!! That has been done time and time again in 2D in a zombie movie but what usually makes a zombie movie better is the underlying story not the actual flesh-eating. That's what made the original zombie classics good. The flesh-eating was just thrown in as an extra. We're actually bored throughout most of this 3-part chronicle because of the lame(twilight-zone like) easily understood and slow-pacingly revealed finale's. The last story is actually the story the movie started with(having a reporter investigating a so-called ghost town) and of course we get to see flesh eating zombie's in that one as well. Well, I think I've said enough. Watch the classics, not this 3D bore-feast.

There's tons of good-looking women in this flick. But alas, this movie is nudity-free. Grrrrrrrrrr Strike one.

Ahem. One story in this film takes place in 1971. Then why the hell are the main characters driving a Kia Sportage? Hello? Continuity, anyone?

As you might know, this movie was released in stereoscopic 3D. And it is the most hideous effect I have ever seen. I'm not sure if someone botched the job on this, but there WAS no 3D, just double-vision blurs. I didn't have the same problem with this company's other 3D movies, HUNTING SEASON and CAMP BLOOD. Sure, the 3D in those ones sucked too, but with them I could see a semblance of 3D effect.

This thing is a big ball of nothing.

And whoever that women was who played the daughter of the ear-eating dame, yum! I'd like to see more of her. In movies, as well. Looks like Janet Margolin at a young age. Purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr