moviehawg59 I'm sorry but this WAS NOT "the worst movie ever made"! It actually had a different kind of take on the zombie apocalypse that was a little refreshing. Would I pay an admission fee to see it? No! But, if you (like me) are an insomniac, and a channel on your cable package just happens to be showing it some night ... give it a "look-see". You might be a tad surprised. Anyone that is a huge fan of the zombie genre, realizes that you have to watch 5 zombie movies, just to get one half-way decent movie out of the bunch. Every now and then, you get surprised and see one that looks at the zombie apocalypse from a slightly different angle. This is one of those movies. Sadly, David Carradine was wasted in this movie. If I had him under contract for my movie, I sure as heck am gonna find more'n 5 minutes worth of "screen-time" for him. And, I must say that I AM a Dexter Fletcher fan ... and, without him, the grade may have been as low as a "3" or less. Lana Kamenov was "okay", and Dickon Tolson phoned it in (tho, a lot of my problems with his work could've been due to the weak script). I'd at least give it a chance ...

Kingkitsch Somehow, I watched "Autumn" since it appeared in the streaming service I use. While studiously avoiding all zombie flicks for a long while, it seemed that this incredibly bad movie might finally offer something different. I was wrong. Really wrong."Autumn" is (and owes everything) to a lost and forgotten flick by Arch Oboler made in 1951, "Five". Ostensibly one of the first, if not THE first film to speculate the aftermath of nuclear war. "Five" eschews the dead in favor of the living, as "Autumn" tries to do. Survivors of a global tragedy pick up the pieces and try to go on. "Five"is a shrewd little movie, only showing the remains of the unlucky in one riveting scene. "Autumn" attempts to copy this idea, by focusing on the survivors of some kind of viral epidemic; the resulting zombies from the holocaust are kept at bay until the movie runs out of steam and then attempts to scare the viewer with some eat-em-up action. The climax of this foolish exercise from Canada is ripped off completely from "Night of the Living Dead" and reaches some ambiguous ending that you can't bring yourself to care about. The end titles are pretty and seem to have some kind of medical message about the viral epidemic by showing microscopic somethings wiggling around in psychedelic colors. The living protagonists in "Autumn" are not as smart as they appear to be at first. If they were smart, there would be no movie. We wait around for nearly two hours until something happens that could have been avoided. The time period here is murky, as autumn moves into winter. How many winters? Why do the two male leads never shave, yet their facial hair stays the same trendy stubble/neck beard? No mention is made of exactly how the three survivors live other than raiding for supplies in a conveniently nearby town, but in a burst (the only burst) of deviating from the norm, not one of the two men hit on the lone woman. These three idiots know that sound attracts the undead, yet they lounge around in the "safe" house eating snacks and watching movies at night. Evidently, the twist here is that in the beginning the undead are just "meatsuits" that wander around rotting off the bone, but by the end of this exercise in stupidity, they're full-fledged Romero zoms looking to make fajitas out of the dummies who should have left instead of holing themselves up in an isolated farmhouse. Gee, that doesn't sound familiar at all, does it?Skip this junk as I should have. It's slow, attempts to be meaningful, and ends up being the same as every other zombie movie out there. Oh yeah, a puppy gets eaten by the undead, which is not something anyone wants to see. A cheap gimmick that pretty much sums up the fear factor in this stupid movie from the Great White North. Also, a slobbering clown appears to stoke your clownaphobia. No more zombies!!

Pope 13 I am familiar with the Audio version of Autumn, and I see some of the story in this film, but it is like someone put the original script in a blender, and then took half the pieces mixed some rejected Ken Russell dream sequences, and had a 10 year old fill in the missing pieces. The story just isn't there. Lucky they got David Carradine, which is probably why this film got financed, but the extended scene with David Carradine which just go on way to long (though this scene might just stand up on it's own as a short), and doesn't do anything for the plot. Add to this the amateur production of the film, it is a shame this films does such a disservice to the source material.

buckthor-1 This movie starts a bit slow but as the movie progresses so does the quality and action. I think for a low budget movie it does well with the graphic nature and intense physiological build up of the zombie interaction as it progresses from the zombie being docile and brought inside to be studied, to the growing intellect and need to feed, turning them into aggressive predator in a matter of days/weeks, leaving everyone unaware of the danger till it is to late. This is the way horror/zombie movies can be done that changes the way we the audience view this type of movie and helps us to react with the survivors of the movie as it progresses.