macguffin54 Very vague, minor spoilers. First, there are zombies in this movie. Only 2 (well, 3, maybe 4), and they are only on screen mainly for a very brief flashback, but they are there. But beyond that I think this could have been a decent little movie. The acting isn't great, but it serves its purpose. The problem is not much happens to string the movie along to its conclusion. I think, perhaps, if they made the subplot with the baby even slighter bigger (or even slightly less implied and more direct) it would have given the movie more depth. And if there had been a bigger "to-do" outside at the end, where they actually could have had a full action/dramatic scene rather than a quick jolt. The movie wasn't about scares, anyway. So why end that way and take away one of the few opportunities to show something happening (other than her opening the front door)?

Peter Pluymers "Baby, maybe we're just both crazy. What if we're, like, in The Truman Show ? There is no plague. And...there's cameras everywhere."I'm certain that many will speak disparagingly about this movie. Typical statements as a total lack of tension, a deadly dull storyline, a cheaply produced film at a single location and the absence of confrontational, brutal and bloody images with zombies feasting on human flesh, will be used in abundance. But admit it, most zombie films use the same clichéd image of a slow walking living corpse, hungry for fresh blood, with a pale gray face with lifeless eyes in dark eye sockets staring into nothingness. "World War Z" used a very different approach to the phenomenon zombie and their characteristics were highlighted in a very different way. In "Dead Within" you only have the nasty outside sounds and short excerpts of transformed creatures. And frankly, I thought the opening fragment with those awful noises was quite frightening: the primitive growling and screeching nocturnal creatures (weird but it reminded me of "Jurassic Park") and the cries in terror of the victims being dismembered. Turn the sound wide open and those hysterical cries will give you the shivers.Apart from the opening scene (a staggering three split view with out of sync customized images) and the final scene, the complete film takes place in a wooden cabin somewhere in a forest at an unknown place. We see how Mike (Dean Chekvala) and Kim (Amy Cale Peterson), along with their newborn baby Lily and dog Teddy, arrive at the cabin of their friends Todd and Erika, where they probably expected to enjoy a long relaxing weekend. First there are fragments of them socializing. But this is abruptly broken off, and we see Mike and Kim on a dowdy mattress with a machete and a kind of riot-gun by their side. After a while we learn that they are hiding for 6 months already in this barricaded hut, letting no one inside because a deadly virus has spread (though if that happened locally or globally is a non-answered question) which transforms living creatures into black-eyed undead with ink black blood flowing through their veins. Apparently it affects every living being (the dog Teddy is a living proof of that). I asked myself at that time if there could be deadly squirrels or rabbits creeping through the woods.For the horror freaks who enjoy gory movies with plenty of severed limbs and gore scenes, I can already tell them that this will be a total disappointment. The only thing we are witnessing is the gradual change that Kim is undergoing caused by the total isolation. Mike is the only one who leaves the cabin on a regular basis (where he is risking his health and life every time) to seek for food and other consumables. Kim tries to kill her time by cleaning up once again, playing the guitar and to create a wall painting. It's obvious that after a while the two survivors not only need to fear what's wandering outside, but also realize that the growing paranoia and the realization that their situation seems to be hopeless becomes a threat. We see Kim evolving into a state of fairly psychotic behavior with delusions and conversations with imaginary people.Is it an excellent movie? No, not exactly. The repetitive situations and the lack of information won't make it an exciting movie. The use of flashbacks provide a partial explanation but after a while that starts to innervate anyway. The minimalistic use of real horror images also isn't an advantage. Is it a dreadful movie? No, not exactly either. The inner tension and the constant threatening atmosphere made sure it was entertaining in a way. And especially the performances of the two protagonists is magnificent. It's not obvious to portray such a situation in a convincing way. It's the same familiar situation as with two people who sat together for a long time in a confined space and trifles start to irritate them. "Dead within" is an atypical zombie movie where the emphasis is more on the psychological state of mind of survivors than on the destructive nature of mutated creatures. A survival film avant la lettre with anxiety, guilt and madness as a central theme.More reviews here : http://bit.ly/1KIdQMT

OhScarlett This was a half hearted attempt at an interesting twist on the 'survival after zombie outbreak' movie. The entire movie takes place in a cabin with essentially two characters. As a fan of this kind of movie I really thought it was gearing up to be more realistic than most. Not every zombie apocalypse can be the constant excitement of zombies around every corner where the average person suddenly has the knowledge and physical ability to use everything around them as a weapon and fight to the victorious end against a world that has gone awry. Here you have two people that have lost everything and everyone but each other. Including the ultimate loss for a family. He just wants to keep her safe and never let her be in harms way, however he's given her the most serious case of cabin fever ever. You can only stay in seclusion, in basically one room, before your cheese starts to slide off your cracker and hers is going quickly. So it sounds like a great premise for a darn good psychological thriller... but they dropped the ball. They never let you in on how the end of the world happened, when it happened, or what led up to them being in their current state. You aren't even let in on the details of how the zombie funk spreads from one person to the next or what the symptoms of infection are, which is generally important to know. There is no character development at all. You never find out who these people were or why she incapable of doing more than getting dressed for dinner or washing a dish. Are these zombies so skilled in undead combat that she can't even walk into the yard occasionally? Which leads you to not feel invested in either characters well being. I think I felt more for the poor dog than the people. Personally, I feel like it's not worth the time investment. The last 5-7 minutes is the only time anything really happens and even then, it lacked substance. All in all it seemed like the trailer for a decent survival movie that never got made.

lunchboxwanderer With no dessert.A story about nothing.Unless, and this could have made it awesome, they had made it about two meth heads going through a 5 day binge beset by paranoia.It was nonsensical.Clearly, the budget had to have been about 30 dollars maybe $40.Message to the makers, give the woman a reason for paranoid psychosis.If that had been introduced, especially at the end it would have been a great twist.The way it ended, was bleck.She's been bitten and going zombie insane. Like none of us have seen that before.