Search - Rise of the Dead on DVD

Michael G. (mgmirkin) from PORTLAND, OR
Reviewed on 6/29/2010...

WARNING: FALSE ADVERTISING. THIS IS NOT A ZOMBIE MOVIE! Period.

From the front cover art (a head emerging from the ground tangled in what look like roots; not in the movie!), to the back cover art (which looks like a legion of the shambling undead; also not in the movie!) and the description (claiming the movie is a "frightening zombie thriller" and that the main character is "under attack by the undead"; the first is simply false and the second only applies if you consider ghostly possession of living human the same as "the undead"), the packaging is misleading in the extreme.

If you think you're getting a zombie movie, you're dead wrong (pardon the pun). This movie has nothing to do with zombies, at all. Not the risen dead or undead, nor the infected, nor even voodoo powered zombies.

This is a possession/slasher flick. Period. No zombies.

I can hardly unbiasedly review this because of my disappointment over it not being a zombie movie when all indications from the packaging say it is. But, I'll try:

I guess I'll just say that the movie was pretty boring. I didn't find many of the "scares" very scary (and I use the term very loosely, since they're all telegraphed pretty far in advance through stupid camera tricks, obvious rising musical cues or simply showing in the background that something is coming).

The basic plot is that people around a certain chick start behaving strangely and trying to attack her. If you don't guess the "twist" that's coming by about 10-15 minutes in, you're not paying attention (for which, honestly, I can't blame you)... The other 60-some odd minutes are just tedious bloodletting waiting for the director to catch up and reveal the twist you realized not-too-far in to the movie.

The ending is just disturbing nonsense. Not disturbing in the sense of scary or gruesome, just in the fact that it borders on a stupid plot device that amounts to paranormal incest. Not good.

Ohh, and did I mention the gratuitous nudity and sex scenes thrown in that do nothing to advance to plot? Methinks they're thrown in just to distract the viewer from how truly godawful this movie is. Sadly, they fail to titillate and only serve to show just how bad this movie really is as it stoops to even lower levels.

Can I get my money back so I can go buy some actual low-budget zombie movies like Dead Meat, Dead Heist, Last of the Living, etc? Sure, they may not be high cinema, but at least their packaging is honest when it says they're about zombies. I'm hoping Zombies of Mass Destruction will be a decent flick. I'll let you know... Dead Heist is skippable. Dead Meat is so-so. Last of the Living is one of the better microbudget zombie flicks and ZMD is pretty good too.

4 of 4 member(s) found this review helpful.

Don't be fooled!

C. Macgibbon | Taunton, Ma USA | 11/10/2007

(3 out of 5 stars)

"This is NOT a zombie film by any means.

I purchased it this with the impression I'd be seeing the story of a girl whose town would be invaded by flesh-eating corpses and along with her family battle a desperate wage to survive. Along with said family, conflicts would arise and the battle for humanity becomes stronger than the battle to survive. And so on.

Instead, what I got was a film about a girl who decided to give her baby up for adoption and after he had been bounced from house to house, 3 years later the baby accidentally kills himself (a bit of a spoiler but this is learned early on and is crucial to the plot) and now the soul of the baby - ready for this? - is possessing people to kill his natural born mother for giving him up.

Any zombies in this film? No. Any gore? Nope, not really. Is it a good film? ...Yes, actually it is. BUT it's NOT a zombie film.

The acting in the film was very decent I must say and the storyline intriguing though the prospect of having hordes of flesh-eating ghouls was not only forwarded by the eye catching cover art, but the back of the box as well for describing the film as "A frightening zombie thriller". While the people "possessed" by the infant are zombie-like, they are certainly not zombies and no more than one person at a time becomes a murderous fiend.

Actually had this film had a completely different title, with a different box, I would have enjoyed it immensely. But because it's marketed as a zombie film, it can't be ignored that it is NOT a zombie film but something more along the lines of "Fallen".

Honestly, it's not a bad little film - just not something for zombie fans to seek. Horror fans in general will like it but don't expect a full blown zombie film because again - that's not what you're going to get."

How about calling the movie "Pseudo-Pediatric Poltergeist"

The Straw Man | Aloof October on April's Birthday | 09/09/2009

(1 out of 5 stars)

"I always try to keep an open mind when watching a movie. I also have this useless talent of unearthing at least one positive aspect of a movie, even if the movie doesn't deserve it. Well I have to say that "Rise of the Dead" was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I tried so desperately to find something good about it, but to no avail. The only reason I didn't turn it off after twenty minutes is a friend of mine let me borrow the movie and told me I had to watch it. This movie clocks in at 72 minutes that felt like 72 hours.

Now there is a genre of movies/films that can be classified "so bad they are good". Movies that fit this paradigm are some of my favorites. Sadly, this movie doesn't fit this mold. The movie looks like it was made on a fifteen dollar budget. The acting (if one could claim that the performing arts even transpired in this schlock) was beyond hideous.

The plot was also really stupid. An adopted toddler who has died wants to take his revenge out on his birth mother. It is never really explained why his hate is directed towards his birth mother, the tike was only like three when he died. So the spirit of the toddler possesses people who are in proximity to its birth mother, in order to kill her. This process is executed so poorly. As for the ending.........you have got to be kidding me.

Another issue with this movie is the title, "Rise of the Dead". With a name like this, a person is led to believe that this is a move about zombies, or even vampires. The cover of the DVD shows this gruesome and decomposing head. Sound like the undead to me. Well that would be a big fat NO. The people who become possessed have a zombie-esque feel to them, but this is more of a ghost story. Don't get me wrong, I like a good ghost movie, but I felt half the problem with this movie was it was misleading. The other issue with this movie is it was so bad. The content was terrible, even if there was this pseudo-pediatric poltergeist going on. Hey that is a better name for this movie, "Pseudo-Pediatric Poltergeist" or better yet "Angry Infant Spirit".
"

Not nearly as bad as I expected.

Robert P. Beveridge | Cleveland, OH | 07/18/2008

(3 out of 5 stars)

"Rise of the Dead (William Wedig, 2007)

First off: everyone's complaining that Rise of the Dead is a zombie movie title, and this is actually a ghost story. Well, it's not like the title specifies what kind of dead are rising, right? Second, there's a weird misunderstanding that seems to be floating around about the ending. I can kind of understand where the detractors are coming from, but let's face it, you're reading into it. If you think the ending is more offensive or taboo-breaking of whatever, than, say, the entire film Birth, then I think that says more about you than it does this movie. If you put those two things aside, what you've got here is a surprisingly professional-looking-- and decent-- flick made on a budget that's far more shoestringy than most micro-budget horror flicks get (according to one source, the budget for the film was $20,000-- and this was shot in the mid-2000s).

I'm not sure how much of a synopsis-- if any at all-- I can give without major spoilers. In fact, saying it's a ghost story and not a zombie flick may already be giving too much away. The story has to do with Laura Childs (Erin Wilk), a young woman who's got way too much going on around her. One night, after a fight with her boyfriend Jack (Synecdoche, New York's Stephen Seidel), Laura is the subject of unwanted, and extremely aggressive, attentions from a well-regarded local lawyer. Jack comes to the rescue in a not-so-subtle fashion that finishes with him in jail. After that, it seems like everyone around Laura suddenly goes crazy and tries to kill her. Laura and Jack (who does eventually get out of the clink, though it's a kind of flimsy scene) have to figure out why and, more importantly, how to stop the madness.

While I'm suitably impressed with William Wedig's ability to make a really good-looking film-- seriously, the camerawork here rivals most of what comes out of Hollywood these days-- I do wish the script had gone through one more rewrite, and some of the minor actors could have used a few more classes. But still. I'm sorry to keep harping on the budget, but you have to figure most of the folks here were working for free, or for peanuts and beer, and I just can't bring myself to write all the nitpicky stuff I was going to write. This is Wedig's first film as a director, and I'm mighty impressed with his ability. The man is going places. I wish I could say the same for everyone else involved, though I do have to point out Wilk's performance, which ranges from competent to excellent depending on the scene (she does remind me a bit much of Naomi Watts in The Ring a few times-- you know, just stand there and scream).

Okay, I give up. I keep trying to criticize this flick, to explain the low rating, but I just can't, so I'm rounding it up. ***

"