These "zombies" are the poorest looking zombies I've ever seen. They just seem to have dirty faces and very red eyes. Period. Oh, and they even speak normally and they can articulate, such as the old female "zombie" who said she was "just looking for my daughter".
Just aweful makeup, It almost seems as though the makeup artist has never heard of, let alone seen what a zombie might look like.
So bad, so boring, such a waste of time. Ugh...just TERRIBLE!
Oh, and they even speak normally and they can articulate, such as the old female "zombie" who said she was "just looking for my daughter".
Well, you know, since zombies don't actually exist, there's no set rule for what they have to look like. Anyway, these would have been very fresh zombies, with little or no decomposition, because the event was so recent.
More important, though, is the fact that they are not zombies. They are not dead. They are like the 28 Days Later folks, living human beings who have been turned into flesh-eating, rage-driven creatures by some sort of chemical weapon.
I do think it's a little strange that no one seemed surprised or disturbed to learn that unstable chemical weapons were being stored outside a town in eastern Kentucky, 35 miles from Lexington.
Overall, I enjoyed State of Emergency for what it was. It was entertaining, and there were moments of tension. The acting was not great, but at least none of the characters were unusually annoying. I also liked the non-twist at the end, where the military really does rescue them and doesn't just shoot them down like dogs, which is the usual way these films end.
I was surprised by the estimated $1M+ budget, though. It sure didn't look like they spent that much. I liked the film better before I saw that entry in imdb, when I thought it was the usual $35,000 shoestring indie shoot.
Didnt really bother me.
share