Army of the Dead (2008)

How sad is this?

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

In 1590 Spanish conquistadors using LED lamps discover a cave filled with gold, only to be killed by the malnourished dead. Centuries later John Barnes (Ross Kelly) is celebrating his birthday by driving a VW buggy in the desert and sleeping in a tent, kicking out his former girlfriend (Audrey Anderson) who I thought was hotter than his wife (Stefani Marchesi with a zit). Needless to say someone in the group arouses the underfed third world dead and they never think about running the bones over with their vehicles. The gold and boulders seemed Hollywood light. I really couldn't imagine that girl lifting that huge rock over her head that easily.The film was low budget and SyFy quality with badly written characters who were uninteresting.Guide: No sex or nudity. Brief language, some blood splatter.

At some point this must have seemed like a fresh idea, an army of C.G.I. skeletons defending a treasure. Unfortunately the skeletons, who do not speak, are more interesting, and have far better acting skills than anyone else in this movie. With stupid unnecessary female conflicts, ridiculous dialog "What the hell is that,blood?" "Yea this is not good", and "Indiana Jones" nonsense, "Army of the Dead" is a wannabe spectacle of awful proportions. What starts out as a dune buggy adventure, winds up with a possessed professor and illegal treasure plundering. BAD, and not good bad . "Sharks in Venice" is a masterpiece, because it's so bad it's good. This is just BAD. - MERK

Someone owes me 89 minutes of my life back. Or to be accurate- 55 minutes, as I switched this garbage off before it could do any additional damage. Initially I thought this would be OK. The initial scenes did an alright job to build the tension and the use of shadows to show the "undead" killing the Spanish chaps who were intent on stealing the gold were quite well handled. However, I thought that the use of shadows was for effect, but how wrong I was. The reason for shadows is that the CGI skeletons were so poor that Ray Harryhausen must have been spinning in his grave (if he was dead, which he isn't). The moment that caused me to switch off was when they used CGI to show one of the actors having his throat cut. This is sub-par Sinbad / Jason and the Argonauts, with the worst dialogue you can imagine. I pity the actors, who did their best with the lines they had been given, but the pauses between responses smacked of "it's your turn to say something". Save your sanity and watch Army of Darkeness. The real-time skeletons are 100 times better than those shown in this shoddy piece of film. Avoid.

Okey... I've seen bad movies, this is beyond bad. Don't know if this count as a spoiler exactly, but marking it as one just to be sure. Apparently, skeletons don't die of shotgun blasts, or any shooting weapon for that matter, what kills are fire. Now, thats just the most stupid thing i've seen. Skeletons die after a few seconds of fire? LOL! Skeleton being pumped with led : Lives Skeleton on fire : Dies (well again) Oh and electricity kills them too, and swords... but not bullets.Oh seriously, the blood in this movie was by the far worst i have ever seen, that goes for all effects too. The lightning... well, the carton made lightnings in He-Man looked more realistic.Save your time, i don't think this is good even if your stoned beyond recognition.TOTAL CRAP!