Redcon-1

Just wasted a lot of time watching this absolutely boring film, predictable, bad acting, could go on but as I say wasted enough time, just bad. Bad.

Given the word I had heard about this zombie film, I was disappointed with the execution but - being a fellow creative - I don't want to dwell on the negatives so will get those out of the way early on before concentrating on what was done well.

1. Acting / characters: The acting was not good in this film. Some of the dialogue was both clunky and cheesy. I found myself not really knowing much about the characters and - as a result - I didn't care about them.

2. The run time: The film was way, way, way too long. At least an hour too long. It was action scene, zombie stuff, internal conflict with the soldiers, repeat the above for over two hours. None of the action sequences brought anything new to what you were watching so - when you saw the first one, you'd pretty much seen the rest of them.

3. Script / Plot: Nothing we haven't seen before but not as executed as well as it could have been. It needed tightening and some new twists (other than a "twist" at the end which just missed the mark by a mile and infuriated me). It appears to have taken bits from your favourite zombie films, mashed them together and executed them in a poorer style.

That's the negatives.

The positives.

1. Action is hard to direct and I've seen many directors who are at the top of their game fluff this. But it was clear to see what was happening, who was punching who and with little motion sickness (some go way overboard with shaky cameras in other films but not this one). It was shot well.

2. The score was good for the material they had to work with. Had the script been tighter, there could have been some powerful scenes with the added music.

3. For a low-budget film it looks great. There are a couple of dodgy effects which people laughed at (knees getting shot for example) but - overall - it would stand up well next to high budget films...

Last comment: style over substance. Had it not been so long, it could have been an average film but... The running time and other issues killed it for me personally. Give it a watch though and make your own mind up :)

This is a B-Movie, to be sure, with the requisite bad acting and feeble effects, featuring "fast zombies", kind of a cross between traditional zombies & 28 Days Later. The trouble was in their inability to keep their zombie lore straight for 10 minutes without changing it around. They were all over the map trying to hit every trope existent without any rhyme or reason to tie them together cohesively. At a running time of 1:55 this was at least 30 minutes too long. Making it shorter could have avoided some of the more painfully indulgent scenes near the end.

Overlong, laughably bad zombie flick that contains every imaginable cliche associated with the sub-genre.

Watching the "premiere" of this indie zombie film, I had initially had fairly high expectations, given the amount of marketing that has gone into promoting this film. What I actually found was far less. Here we have a classic silhouette of the ever popular 28 Days Later but with a twisted storyline that makes no sense whatsoever. The characters were identified but the continuity lost itself half way into the film. Given a stronger storyline and direction that leads the audience to several important plot points, this could have been a big hit worldwide. The only noteriety attached to this film is actor / producer Carlos Gallardo who has a verifiable link to Hollywood director Robert Rodriguez who brought us titles like Desperado, Once Upon A Time In Mexico and From Dusk Till Dawn. This is paperweight and fails to compensate for the lack of story, continuity and true to life action that this film sadly does not deliver.