Outpost: Rise of the Spetsnaz

The first 'Outpost' film was a classic (well... a classic in the B-movie horror genre). However, the second part was totally unnecessary and not even worth trying to watch. Here we have the third instalment of the franchise. And it's a prequel/origins movie. But don't worry if you haven't seen parts 1 or 2. It also works as a stand-alone affair.

It's set in 1944 on the 'Eastern Front' where Russian commandos are raiding German bases. While doing so, they only go and discover that those dastardly Nazis are trying to resurrect the dead and turn them into 'super soldiers.' Naturally, the Nazis don't plan on letting this little secret get out and capture our Vodka-swigging heroes, leaving them to escape from the undead-ridden facility.

Okay, so the plot isn't going to blow your mind, but then the film isn't either. It's average. There's not much else to say, but, if you need reasons, I'll mention that the you won't care too much for the characters. The Russian heroes are tough, grunting macho men with no real depth, therefore you can hardly really relate to them. The Nazi commander of the base is a little too campy for the role. It's a gritty and serious film and he comes across like a cackling Bond villain.

Nothing much happens in the first twenty-five minutes, but, if you stick with it, at least you're rewarded with some violence and zombie-killing fun. Its strengths are that it's suitably violent and well-shot so as to make the most of the bleak and gloomy setting. And it's not that long either, so, once the twenty-five minutes are over, it moves swiftly for the rest of the duration.

But, ultimately, it's nothing new. And that's its major flaw. You've probably seen plenty of zombie movies. And many of them are better. Therefore, do you really need to watch another one? If you think the 'Nazi element' may make it different, just stick to Outpost (1) which is head and shoulders more fun than this. Or, if you can put up with subtitles and a lighter tone, try Dead Snow for a really gory and light-hearted approach to killing dead Nazis. Outpost 3 is just too little too late. You probably won't hate it, but you probably won't remember it by this time next week.

http://thewrongtreemoviereviews.blogspot.co.uk/

I like science fiction, horror, thriller, I dislike bad science fiction, horror, thriller - and I hate being cheated by reviews and hype. I bought Outpost III having read some good reviews. Hopefully this review will stop you making the same mistake. I should have learned my lesson with Outpost I, low budget, bad script, bad acting, bad direction. I skipped Outpost II and tripped up on III. The review I read said that it was a definite boost to the franchise, fine acting, fine camera work, script, etc., etc. In my opinion all of those do not apply. Imagine Outpost I and effectively you have Outpost III. This is lazy film-making. When a Nazi quotes Shakespeare expect the worst and you will not be disappointed. When someone says Bryan Larkin puts in a fine performance ask - in which scene? When Nazi soldiers attack like retards and start filling up the corridors with their stupid dead bodies and you think - is this it, is this the movie? Answer yes and find something else to do. I am generous giving this 3 stars out of 10.

Honestly, don't know why it got 4.2 in my opinion the movie at least deserves 5.0-6.0 yes it is a cheesy sci-fi plot, but I think it is well executed. The thing I love about Outpost movies is the atmosphere and even though I think that the film took an odd turn by going back to WW2 to have an origin story it was still well done. But we can all see that the budget of the movie isn't completely as good as the first Outpost. The acting is decent and the action is good. Plot and the story maybe little bit too cheesy, but it's a Nazi zombie sci-fi flick so what do you expect? god father? I'm actually surprised with the stern treatment Outpost movies receive. Not to mention when people call ''Dead Snow'' good it's just eerie. Even Frankenstein's army has 5.0 than this considering the fact that it is not as good. War of the dead has 4.0 even though it's not an awful disaster. This one actually had some cameos and references from the previous films including the Beethoven song that starts randomly playing once in a while in all three films (very good touch in my opinion) as far as I am concerned the movie is definitely a 5.0 - 6.0/10. It wouldn't hurt to let the logic fly out and enjoy a cheesy flick that can grant you certain entertainment.

IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes logic: if it's not a masterpiece, it's bad. Even though IMDb is a saint compared to Rotten Tomatoes. Hopefully, when more people vote it'll at least get the rating of 5.0

I just rewatched the first one and the second one but had never heard about this one so I decided to watch it. While the first movie is a decent low budget horror movie, the second one is an action/horror movie and this one. This one is a pure russian wank fantasy that has nothing to do with the first movies. So if you enjoyed the first one and kinda liked the second one but wanted more? Well this movie contains nothing about what you liked from the first two, so just ignore this one. If they had called this movie just Rise of the Spetsnaz instead of Outpost and removed the whole "zombie" element it might have been a decent low budget war movie. But as it stands I'm judging the movie as a trilogy and as such it's an awful one.

I thought it wasnt bad.. better than the second, not as good as the first, but definitely made me want there to be a fourth one. Theres still alot they could do and id watch it.