Leofwine_draca ARMY OF THE DEAD: ZOMBIE MASSACRE is a micro budget zombie invasion movie that's probably one of the worst I've ever seen. If watching some kind of shot on video rubbish that takes place mainly in the dark is your idea of fun then that's fine but it certainly isn't mine. The story features a zombie outbreak in a small town populated by duller-than-dishwater characters while the cameraman seems to be suffering from the shakes.Plot elements include a sleazy scene at a strip club containing some distinctly unappetising bump and grind, random zombie gore attacks including a bit where a victim has latex pulled off his face (?) and way too much white noise on the soundtrack. It's clearly indebted to Romero but viewers would be advised to just watch one of his classics or one of the modern classics like REC or THE HORDE instead. The worst thing about it is that somebody decided to have the zombie attacks play out to upbeat music - complete nonsense.

artpf The United States Government has developed a highly effective nerve gas that is unleashed upon the residents of a small Maryland City. During the top secret exercise the infected citizens begin to convert each resident into a sort of living zombie, until the remaining town residents, 6 total strangers, are trapped inside a movie theater cineplex.Direct to video taped on video and horribly acted. There is not plot at all. Tests go awry and people are suddenly zombies. Nothing new. Except that nearly half the movie is over before you see a zombie. And idiotically, when a gazillion zombies are rioting, an army guy actually repeatedly says "I got the shot. I got the shot." Uh, it would be hard to miss -- there are so many!It's really a bad movie

rdoyle29 You know the drill. It's a small town somewhere in the U.S. One day, folks start acting crazy. People who look … dead perhaps … start attacking people. All attempts to fight them off fail. It's almost as if they were zombies or something.That's right … it's another zombie film. All your standard bases are covered here. There's a government agency quarantining the town. They, of course, cannot successfully fight off the zombies, mostly because they keep forgetting to shoot them in the head. We have a group of survivors, some of whom know each other, some who are strangers, who lock themselves in an enclosed space (a movie theatre) to get away from the zombies. One of them has already been bitten by a zombie … I wonder what will happen to him? As you've probably surmised, this film is a by-the-numbers zombie flick. It's so by-the-numbers that it hits all the broad plot points without bothering to fill in the details. We see an unspecified government agency performing experiments that cause the zombie outbreak, but we never find out what this experiment is or how it might cause people to become zombies. We get no details about how this outbreak occurs. We see nobody become zombies. We don't know how people become zombies. Zombies just appear out of nowhere as needed in whatever size crowd the movie requires.Essentially, it's impossible to have much of a stake in what happens in this movie. With the exception of one creative plot twist during a climactic action sequence, you've seen all of this before and you've seen it done much better. At best, it's a mildly inoffensive time waster.

Stanley Bates Let me start off by saying I am not a frequent poster to IMDb, I am lurker, who uses the place as a reference tool and in fact I have never registered an account until I decided I just had to say my peace about this film. I am not going to go into the story or plot, you can see the summary and it pretty much explains everything that happens.With the inventing of, and cost effective nature of the Mini DV camera system, everyone now thinks they are the next Scorsese, Baz Lurhman, Christopher Nolan, or George Romero. Only a handful of people who have made low budget films can lay claim to fame as maybe being the next big director, then there are those who should have no business even touching a camera, writing a script, or directing a movie. This was the case with Gary Ugarek's 2006 offering "Deadlands: The Rising". One of the most wretched low budget, shot on DV zombie horror films ever made.The original Deadlands clocked in at around an hour and no matter how hard you try you will never get back that hour of your entire life. The film wreaked of amateur directing, writing, acting, cinematography, the list just goes on and on. So when word hit in 2007 there would be another zombie from that director I immediately searched out a vomit bag, and banged my head against the counter asking why? why? why? You should not be making movies. As time went on and updates were given I stuck my guns.Well, I can admit when I am wrong, and recently, I was lucky enough to see a work print screener of the film for the purpose of doing a film review for one of the online horror websites. Originally titled Trapped, the film took on the Deadlands title in early 2008 according to the films press-kit because it turns out that Deadlands: The Rising turn out to be some sleeper hit for its distributor, so in business terms it was better to brand the film with the Deadlands moniker. OK, I can buy that, but how much of hit was Deadlands: The Rising? Anyway, doesn't matter. What does matter is that this new Deadlands film, Deadlands 2: Trapped, completely blows away the first film, while that is not a hard task, even a nut-less monkey could do, the newest films show the director finally got his head out of his ass and turned out something watchable.I rated the film a 7, and I did this for a couple of reasons. 1. I was so shocked at how much better the film was in terms of story and technical work that it deserved an extra point for that. 2. The film actually keeps you interested. Especially in a time when low budget zombie films are a dime a dozen, so I added points for that. 3. The zombies were actually brutal, and unforgiving, which most people who make low budget zed films seem to forget to do. Zombies need to be menacing.Deadlands 2 should really be somewhere between a 5 and 6, but like I said I was very impressed at how much better this film was over the first that it actually showed that maybe this guy might get it right on his next film, whether or not he does a third or not and that alone was worth me giving it a 7, for now.The movie has some problems, the acting is very uneven, but it makes up for the fact there was no real acting in the first. The worst of the acting coming from the character of Sean, played by Joe Durbin. The best of it coming from Casey, played by Ashley Young.Pacing, the story does slow down at times, but it does keep you interested, but the one outstanding feature of this film is the locations. One medium complaint is the choice to shoot hand-held, which at times is a little too much to handle, but it does work to an extent in the final product.The gore, while on display, is sparse, which is more effective, the music effectively creepy, and the atmosphere, dark and dismal. One can't help but to notice the many nods to great 80's horror flicks. The first to come to mind is Demons (1985), and the second is Return of the Living Dead part 1. In fact, it seems Deadlands 2 highly references this film in terms of story and plot, but changes it just enough to avoid straight out plagiarism. I guess if you're going to give a nod to other zombie films you have to do a little copycatting here and there, but it works and thats all that matters.In the end, this film will be easier to sit through and stomach, and the final output is not as amateur looking as some films in the genre done on low budgets. The films vibe and final look and felt very 80's cheap as chips film stock, but thats a good thing because some of the best horror came from the 80's.Deadlands 2 is Rated R and runs 85 minutes. Recommended for all zombie horror fans.