Dead Rush

"Dead Rush" (2016) isn't quite as bad as other reviewers have made it out to be; it's a passably entertaining zombie feature that I'd rate a 6 out of 10. It occasionally rises above its central gimmick to create a few moments of suspense and emotion. (The gimmick here is that the entire film is shot from the point-of-view of one man in the middle of a zombie apocalypse.)

That point-of-view device does wear a little thin by the end of this feature-length film … and I'm a found-footage horror movie fan who usually doesn't mind that sort of thing. This movie might have been better overall if the viewer weren't required to follow those "shaky-cam"-type visuals for quite so long; my understanding is that it was adapted from a well received short film.

If there was one thing that bothered me the most, though, it wasn't the POV. There is a recurring shot in "Dead Rush" that I liked a hell of a lot, involving the main character's memory of a loved one. It's made even better when it is rather creatively used as a framing device at the film's end. A little reflection, though, made me remember that this shot seems to crib a little too much from a similar effective recurring shot in 2011's "The Grey."

What the hell … if you need a zombie horror fix, you could do worse than "Dead Rush."

---MOTION SICKNESS WARNING: This film is shown as First Person camera angle--- Despite only being 73 minutes long (without the credits), the entire film drags minute by minute at a tepid, bland, boring pace. It's like a bad videogame cutscene where you could choose to do actions at certain parts, but you don't get to play. The acting is decent but the story comes off like it should be a less than 10 minute short. The sloth speed at which the few plot points show up makes watching this one a chore. The film here has the categories as Horror, Comedy, and Action, but there is literally no Comedy in this film. I am not knocking it as if the comedy is bad, it actually has no comedy/humor/lighthearted parts in it, intended or not. I don't know why it lists it as a category. An unintended stupid part in it is that the film is in David's eyes point of view as the camera angle, and even though he is an entire foot taller than his wife, she is looking at a straight angle into the camera, as if he is as short as she is and they're the same height.

Low budget film, with a good cast. The filming location is very wide range. The film director does a great job only scene shots. Editing is pretty good. Good sound quality and FX is above average. The plot is a 28 dayd later movie plot with out the monkey. This movie is excitement. The score of the movie coincide with certain scenes. Well done.

Actually another thing funny about this is that its trying to pass itself off as a movie when there isn't really a storyline that seems to go in any sort of direction.

The sad reality is in this day and age is absolutely boring flicks like this are much more common than they use to be, boring unlikeable characters followed with a shoddy FPS camera deliberately done to cash in on a certain film thats to hit the cinemas soon alongside with the obvious cover art which is much more thrilling than the flick is in which i'd state they should just stick to creating desktop images instead of films. No redeeming features whatsoever...avoid!