Rise of the Dead (2007)

Simply A Masterpiece

Highly Overrated But Still Good

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Yeah, technology and the degradation of the arts have allowed films like this to be made. This reminds me of Guitar Hero in a very round-a-bout way. You see, when I worked at a musical instrument retailer, I'd get kids coming in that played Guitar Hero and instantly thought that would translate into actually playing guitar. They were so convinced that they would be awesome that they'd get their parents to spend thousands of dollars on equipment just so one day the world would be assaulted by talentless crap. Yeah, this movie reminds me of that. I think the directors and writers played a game called Cinema Hero and got a really high score once so they thought, "Man! We'd be awesome at making an actual movie!". Well, they were so very wrong. First of all, this could possibly have the most ridiculous plot in the history of plots. It's not inventive or fresh, yet it's not just a rehash of some other horror film. You see, no other filmmakers would actually agree to make a film if this were pitched to them. The continuity was just thrown out the window. The writers cared so little about what was going on that they actually forgot how many murders had happened in the movie in one scene. People magically change positions, hats magically appear and disappear. Yikes. The acting...well, I guess I shouldn't really call it acting. It's more like...well, I really don't know, but I hope I never have to see anything reminiscent of that again. The cinematography is choppy and even appears that the camera was cocked in some scenes. It's a bit disorienting and terribly unprofessional. The physical "stunts" are mainly done away from camera and literally look like they were done intentionally bad for laugh factor. Bottom line, the crew of the film obviously wrote reviews for their own crap here on IMDb. Yeah, it's cheap as hell and totally unprofessional...precisely like their "film". Really, no matter how much you like movies, just because you have one bad idea and a few grand, it doesn't mean you should make a film. Lesson learned.

For a crappy low budget movie, not bad. But it's still a crappy low budget movie. I appreciated the plot and story. This movie actually had one, most horror movies of this type usually barely even try. I also was actually impressed with the special effects, for the budget, they did a good job, didn't look stupid.This movie also had those two low-budget horror movie mainstays: Gore and tits! I liked the blood and guts gore, and I also liked the nudity. That is basically the whole point of any horror movie anyway. That is basically the whole point of any horror movie anyway. That is basically the whole point of any horror movie anyway.

This movie is pretty disappointing. I gave it a 4 star just because it was funny when it wasn't really supposed to be. I barely gave it a 4 star considering I thought I was going to watch a zombie movie, not a movie about some women who seems to be chased by people who are getting possessed by her dead son. It was mostly funny due to the sub-par acting, the obvious plot motifs (ie. a girl getting naked and promptly murdered with her breasts out) and corny death scenes. Most of the death scenes were nowhere near realistic, and there was some blur effect they did with a few of the possessed that came off really cheesy. There was also some white balance issues I noticed really early in the movie. I also found the end of the movie to be rather confusing, and sorta disturbing. It appeared like she was having sex with her boyfriend at the end, while he was possessed with her child. Not only that but she was talking to him as if he was her child while they were having sex, strange, I'm sure Freud would have a few things to say about that. Regardless, I didn't understand that at all, ha ha it totally was a "wtf" moment for me. All in all, It was a decent effort but I can't find it in myself to give it anything more than a 4 star mostly because: 1.) I was upset about how I seemed to be deceived by the title and 2.) It came across as INCREDIBLY LOW BUDGET which, even if it is, you should try to avoid that in my opinion (I mean 28 days later was made on a really low budget also, but that was amazing).

This movie can be briefly summarized in one sentence: Lionsgate's attempt to capitalize on the increasing popularity of the "zombie" genre.Viewers be warned: This is NOT a zombie movie!! In the horror genre, it is actually an OK movie. The acting was top-notch for the budget, and the special effects were tastefully done (while the nudity, unfortunately, was not). This movie would have won a 5 from me if not for one simple problem: The poster (and the DVD box art!) and plot synopsis of this movie (and subsequently, the genre it was defined as!) DO NOT match the plot AT ALL. It's almost like they didn't think anyone would notice! I sat down to this film hoping for another Romero-style zombie bloodbath; I left even more disappointed than I was at the new "Day of the Dead." And trust me, I was disappointed.