I've never seen so many fake reviews. This is hilarious.
I didn't even watch this movie but i'm going to assume it sucks ass because of all the fake reviews given. If its that bad that they need to come here to pump their own movie up, it must be really bad. I'll pass on this one.
i have seen the movie. It beyond sucks ass. It sucks the ass of the person sucking ass. it's that bad.
shareI don't believe that my review was fake. I had NOTHING to do with film. Just a fan that saw this back in Feb at Texas Frightmare weekend. Will this movie win Oscars? NO but it did what it set out to do. Be an entertaining take on the zombie movie. Its nice to see an original film that is NOT a remake cashing in on a fan favorite. If you don't like the film that is fine. But don't assume that every positive review is a plant or a fake. Just because you don't like it.. doesn't mean that every person on the planet has to agree with you.
sharethen why do you only post about this movie???? is this the only movie you have any opinion on???
"I'll have a bloody mary, and a steak sandwich, and... a steak sandwich, please." - Fletch
No it is not the only opinion I have about movies. But since most movies I have seen lately have been mainstream, I really don't feel the need to be poster #4230 saying this is good. And I won't post about a movie unless I have seen it. There are alot of low budget movies I have heard about, seen the trailers, but have not viewed in its entirety. Hence the lack of comments. But in the future I will make sure that I post lots of reviews so that the trollers here can have something else to chew upon.
sharesure there buddy.. SURE!
*QUOTE* From Your Review
"I really have nothing but good things to say about this movie. I saw it at Texas Frightmare Weekend and it completely delivers. The Zombies are slow (as they should be) and are each unique. They have different mannerism, stages of rot, eyes. The f/x is top notch and nice to see. Clint and Parrish give a new twist to the hero/villain dynamic. There is no bad acting in this movie. It was not treated as a throwaway, but as a labor of love. It shows. The pacing is excellent & the cinematography is beautiful. This movie does deliver on the scares and is fun at the same time. Check this out and add it to your horror/zombie collection. You will not be disappointed.
I have noticed that there are quite a few people trying to say that all positive reviews are faked. Just here to say that I am just a fan of this film. I didn't write, direct, star, cater, do make-up, or sleep with anyone connected with this film. Take my review as I would take any review. Watch the movie if you like this genre.. make your OWN conclusions. I think that if you enjoy B movie horror and gore you will like this film"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You wrote that review in feb 06 and till now you've only had 3 recent posts replying to this movies thread denfending the fake reviews. Why dont u go look at other movies?
It doesnt take much to piece together the puzzle. The only person who would praise himself over something he really sucks at is himself.
I assure you over my dead body that even for the very few people who've liked the movie will SURELY know that the acting is more then BAD.
"There is no bad acting in this movie." i quote from you and thats all i'd need to waste my time on proving that you're a FAKE.
valfreya i wouldnt usually call anyone out but your one sent4ence, 'There is no bad acting in this movie.' turned the tables. the acting was terrible.
the story was a good twist on the zombie genre, but wasnt executed very well. i didnt feel for any of the actors. sound effects sounded like were off a videogame.
We're here to take your pornography and sodomize our vast imaginations.
Thats your OPINION, and V has his/hers. That doesn't make the review fake. Damn, alot of reviews praised the new Tex Chainsaw Massacre movies, and it was a steaming pile with terrible acting and laughable sfx, that doesn't mean the reviews are fake, just that they have their own opinions.
share[deleted]
He mustve been being sarcastic in his review, here, let me translate to what he actualy wrote in his review....
"I really have nothing good to say about this movie. I saw it at Texas Frightmare Weekend and I wanted to slash my wrists by the time it was over. The Zombies are slow (as is the plot) and are each unique, as in, each one is played by a different person. They have different actors in make up, looked like they where desperate for a movie role, of any kind. And only the ones in heavy make-up I would think would be OK with being in the movie now, as no one will every recognize them, unlike the main bad ass hero who will never be able to land a role in anything ever again. The f/x is top notch if you still live int he days when "frogger" had the most state of the art graphics you had ever laid your eyes on, and it's nice to see the use of "extras, do your own make up at home before coming to the set" again. Clint and Parrish, (yes, thats right, I actually cared to look up there names), give a new way to scam your attention to see this thing, but only achieve in laughing there asses off at you as there thought of "hey, we know the movies crap, but we really wanted to nail this chick and we pretended to be movie makers, and she wouldn't put out unless she saw us making a film, and, well, ya know how it goes". There is SO much bad acting in this movie, it is worse then when Rupert G. pretends to laugh at David Letterman's jokes! But Rupert G does such brilliant acting compared to "CLINT" & "Parrish" (two names you would have to be bored sh*beep*-less to go look up who they actually where) It was not treated as a throwaway film, but we would all love to have seen it been, it shows. The pacing is excellent, I thought the actors walking around actually looked OK when they walked... no, i'm kidding, no wait, the actors playing the zombies walked like they where wearing 8 year old Forrest Gump's brace boots while doing Stevie Wonder impressions. The cinematography is beautiful, it's just a shame they had to put there actors over the top of it. This movie does deliver on the scares, it will scare the hell out of you that someone actually can get a movie like this made and produced, and sent out to your local video stores and retailers where you have to pay your own money to watch it. Dont bother with this movie, don't waste your time downloading it, and it's really not worth shop lifting or asking those guy's at the black market if they can rip you a copy of it for two bucks. You will be highly disappointed."
go back to your cave, troll.
wow, someone liked a low-budget not-so-good movie and wrote a review, IT MUST BE FAKE CAUSE EVERYONE ACTS AND THINKS LIKE ME AND IF NOT THEIR FAKE.
Grow the f up, trolls. Ive seen faker reviews in the NY Times.
I just got finished watching this movie. No it wasn't AS horrible as everyone says it is, it didn't make me want to 'slash my wrists', but I definetly had my complaints.
I actually liked the main bounty hunter because he pretty much kicked ass...but WHY did he kick so much ass, and how come he didn't die when he was shot at in lost hills? Some more background details on the main character would have been great.
And what was up with his jacket??? This was supposed to be 83 years ago, I know for a fact they didnt have punk rock trench coats with studs and skulls on them back then. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Plus how did that one bounty hunter infect soooo many people while his crew didnt even notice??? That must have been hard.
Many more complaints to this movie, obviously, BUT I am not going to 100% bash it. For it's low budget it was decent because it did have a great storyline. I would have maybe told the writer of this screenplay to sell it to a production company that could have pulled it off a lot better though.
[deleted]
I see now...but I think it should be better explained, I was kind of lost. But maybe I was just having a blonde moment throughout the whole movie. Plus, I saw the version that was 80 minutes and not 90. There was no motorcycle or anything like that in this version. Maybe the cut version is more confusing?
It was pretty cool when he shot his girlfriend, though.
"This was supposed to be 83 years ago"
It's meant to be 83 years in the future i believe.
Hey guys, The Zombie take over happened in the 80's. 85 years into the future and you have the world Gerald Nott created. So roughly sometime in the year 2070 is when the story takes place. The kawasaki bike is from 1982 and the other bikes are 70's makes. The truck was a wreck from the 30's or 40's.
Any other questions?
And for the record. Gerald Nott (director and producer) and I Clint Glenn Hummel (Actor, producer) Never told anyone to write fake reviews or rank this film a ten. I give you my word of honor. I think in the beginning we screened our film at the Texas Frightmare in January of 2006. We were there for three days and I think a lot of the "glowing reviews" came from people we befriended. We had no control over zombies in the film voting, investors voting, and even actors voting and writing reviews.
I did not even know what the imdb was until 2006 when someone told me "Hey, look at this web site where people are writing about our 100 thousand dollar film (I have no idea where the 750K figure comes from.) Foolishly, I voted my own film a ten. Which now after being on pro for a year I realize that is just stupid. I changed or I think I did... I have the technological skill of a caveman. I still draw on my walls.
I just think the most redeeming factor of this whole experience is two guys... on who at the time was a women's shoe salesman and the other I guy who painted doors and waited tables can make a movie from scratch, shoot it, and by the grace of God get distribution. We just set out to do what we loved and were ambitious with nothing. We had no idea people would either love this film or think if was worse than Yor Hunter from the Future.
I am not asking for a break just please know we did not try and fool anyone to buying our film. That is wrong and evil and Jerry or I did not do that. My Word of Iron we did not.
And I thank everyone for posting on this page. I have read every comment and love all the feed back from the "Glowing" reviews to the someone saying "I had the charisma of most pairs of socks." Most of my socks have holes in them and are still being sent to me by my mother for Christmas. I don't think I have ever bought a new pair.
Thank you.
Clint
i never knew that the film took place in 2070. is the 80 minute version completely differant than the 90 minute version??? because i saw the 80 minute version.
the whole time i thought it took place in the old west. don't get me wrong, it was a great plot line otherwise i wouldn't still be thinking about it a few days after i watched it. their were just sooooo many damn things unexplained. maybe we would like to see a prequel?
like i said in previous posts, one of the few things i highly enjoyed about this movie was the main male character.
[deleted]
The film is actually very low budget.I would be lying if I said that it doesnt suck.
But I respect and admire independent film makers and actors. I saw some talent in some parts of the film(the clever title, the first scene, main actor and a few others can evolve and become suitable professionals etc), although these talents are mostly in the "rough".
"It doesn't matter what Bram Stoker has told you... dead people don't come back from their graves"
I thought it was pretty good, all things considered. My friend talked me into watching it. It's not your typical zombie movie, which is good. Originality is a refreshing thing to see in an industry crowded with remakes, sequels, rip-offs, and remakes of remakes.
OP should definitely watch movie before forming final opinion about movie.
I have no affiliation with any film companies, by the way.
"You wanna talk jive?! I'll talk some jive like you never heard!" -- Royal Tenenbaum
Out of curiosity ... If you haven't seen the movie how do you know a review is 'fake' ? Judging reviews authenticity by the style of the reviewers' prose might be misleading if not an outright shallow judgment.
They're not as bad as the blatantly bogus "reviews" Sam Mraovich posted in defense of his film "Ben & Arthur."
This movie was better than chris Kattans western zomidey.
I like zombie flicks. I thought this was was good enough for me to watch because the are some REAL BAD ones out there.
I liked it.
If you think i'm faking this or something come to my house i'll piss on ur face.
That said it was WAAAY far from perfect but I liked it.
beat's the balls off of children of the dead (and that had tom savini in it for 5 minutes which is A+++++ but not enough)
Ahhhh.. Prune Juice ... A WARRIOR'S drink.
[deleted]