Dead Moon Rising

It would be very hard to actually call this a film. It's more of a collection of bad, poorly lit shots.

I would first like to mention that the majority of the good comments here are biased. And they all admit to being so. An unbiased review of the film would be the one to look for if you're going to be downloading or, god forbid purchasing this film.

The main reason I am saddened by watching this atrocity is that I am a struggling film-maker. And many of my favorite directors (and influences) have made their debut feature films with very very little money. Christopher Nolan, Darren Aronofsky, and Robert Rodriguez all filmed beautiful extremely low budget films. The films in order are: Following, Pi, and El Mariachi.

All three films had been performed by either non-professional, or non-actors. And all three films were originally shot for less than $10,000. Pi was the only one that cost more than $7,000 to shoot (listen to commentaries of these films, and/or read 'Rebel Without a Crew').

This film (Dead moon rising), for lack of a better word, is a steaming pile of waste. I continue to ask myself 'Where in the world did the $50,000 go to making this film?'. If anyone has a real answer to this, i'd love to hear from you. Email me at: Hellfire@hellfire.TV But I digress. Lets look at the reasons this film deserved a 2-star rating. Well, lets talk about the camera work to start. There were rarely any smooth pans, and suffer countless zooms. I'm sorry, but you never, ever ZOOM! Bring the camera to the subject/object with a dolly, or a steadicam.

Okay lets talk about sound. I don't know how or why this film came to be with such horrible sound. The quality, cutting, effects, everything was either off, or just bearable. Once again I ask myself what happened to the $50,000? Everyone that has praised this film has said that "it's a very low budget film, what do you expect?". I say that if there was any planning at all to this film, it was done horrifically.

You don't have a $50,000 budget and end up with one of the worst films i've ever seen. But then again there are tons of 10-20 million dollar films that are horrible. I should re-phrase that: You don't shoot a $50,000 film and not even BUY (not rent) at least an XL2 (less than $3,000) camera. That is probably the cheapest way to get 24P (Film speed), and the quality of video that is more than acceptable. Sadly it looks as if the consumer camera being used might have been one that a crew member, or the director himself already had.

There are countless errors in the plot, story structure as well. But there isn't a point in getting into every single detail. In fact, i've written too much on this film.

My advise to you Mark, if you're reading this is to PLAN! Plan every shot. Have auditions, and rehearse with your actors. Watch a lot of zombie movies. If your intent is to continue with the genre, pay attention to them. Zombies are better shot at night (less detail needed in make-up, etc) than broad day-light. Start by working with a lot of static shots. Read books on filming (if you email me, i'll suggest some excellent books on editing, cinematography, etc) techniques. Take to criticizing with out effecting you (hardest part of this industry). PLAN every move! Storyboard and make scene lists. Any scene should be able to flow visually and through sound on its own. This is extremely important when it comes to omitting useless scenes.

I loved this movie! It was probably one of the worst movies I've ever seen considering effects, props, camera, sound and general feel, and still I loved it!

So if it is so bad, why did I love it? It's a standard clichè movie with flesh-eating zombies, so you already know the story of this movie. The internal organs that are being eaten look really cheap, and I even think I saw a string of sausages somewhere in the mess... You can clearly see a difference in image-quality throughout the different cuts. You can clearly hear that sound-effects have been added, because they sound really cheap. Cutting seems a bit weird at times... So why did I love this movie??

It is clear that this movie had a low budget, but it was VERY WELL made despite this fact! Most of the actors are doing a very descent job, many of their comments made me laugh out loud and fall off my chair, the women are beautiful, and the constant weird twists throughout the movie are actually a bit interesting! All the shortcomings (bad effects, sounds etc..) actually added to the experience in a strange way, setting a special atmosphere throughout the movie. All that put together (and being able to look past the rough surface this movie very noticeably carries) left me feeling slightly impressed and very entertained. This movie is WELL WORTH WATCHING all the way through!

If you didn't like Bad Taste, then you will likely dislike this movie. But with the right sense of humor and an open mind (as stated in a few other comments as well), you will with no doubt love almost every minute of this movie!

In conclusion, this movie isn't for everyone, but it proves that entertainment doesn't need a budget!

Man, watching the first ten minutes, I had to keep looking at the cover of the DVD to see if I had picked up the wrong movie. Yes it's cheaply made, and there is nothing new with regards to this genre, but as I continued to watch the movie, I found the characters more and more likable. The gore looked like people were eating jam and sausages but hey, what else could they do on that budget.

OK the extras. What makes this movie worth buying or even watching is watching Jesse a dancer at Fox Den do her strip tease like dance. I could sit in front of her all day slipping dollars into her pants. She can really shake it. I heard she might be in the sequel too. What song was she dancing to by the way anyone know? All in all, it wasn't a bad movie by any means, I've seen a lot worse crap at the video stores being hawked these days. I am actually looking forward to seeing more from Mark Poole, and I hope everyone of the actors who didn't die in the film are back for more.

Synopsis: After the world's population mysteriously begins to turn into flesh-eating zombies, Jim (Jason Crowe) and the other employees of Cheapskate Car Rental must band together with the city's bike gangs to fight the legion of undead cannibals.

Review: From the start, it would seem this film tries to be too many other great films. The cover tries to play it off as an Army of Darkness-style film, while the job, girlfriend, and complete obliviousness to the outbreak makes it seem like a Shaun of the Dead ripoff. Even the opening credits are stolen directly from Dawn of the Dead (2004). So, only a few minutes in, and I already thought less of it due to its lack of originality. From there, it didn't get much better. On a film-making level, the movie's very low-level. It's got that cheap, shot-on-video look that so many horror fans have grown more-than-annoyed with and the horrid camera control doesn't help make it rise above the unattractive look it stuck itself with. The script was boring and lacking any real development. The dialogue was forced and the 'Malcolm in the Middle'-style of narration is stupid and overdone. The acting, yikes, was probably the worst element (outside of the horrendous sound quality). I barely saw a shred of effort from any of the actors, except for April (Erica Goldsmith), who played the barely legal field-hockey player. . . and that's only because she was overacting SO much that I needed an aspirin (or the mute button) after a few minutes of her speaking. Overall, while it is watchable if you have a high tolerance for poor film-making and headache-inducing annoyance, give it a shot. If not, just stay away from this one.

Obligatory Zombie Elements:

Cause of Outbreak: Biological? Solar flares? Clove cigarettes? Who knows. . .

Zombie Characteristics: Runners. . . similar to the 28 Days Later...-style infected, only actual zombies and about a thousand times less scary.

Zombie Effects: Not much to speak of. They were a bit pale with some bloodshot eyes. . . and that's all.

Violence/Gore: There's a good amount of violence, but the gore is pretty poorly done with the pink blood and lunchmeat-style flesh & guts.

Social Commentary: Mostly about outsourcing (for whatever reason) and the work ethic of the American people. . . though, I might just be reading into it too much.

• - -

Final Verdict: 2.5/10. Grab your Advil for this one.

Recommended? Nah, just watch one of the other, much superior films it steals from.

-AP3-

OK, somehow I just sat through this turd of a film.

I'm telling ya, this is bloody awful.

I love zombie films, but not this one.

The reasons are as follow:

1. The acting borders on embarrassing...you get this one guy who keeps talking into the camera as if he's talking to you (the viewer), just makes you wanna reach into your T.V and punch him

2. The gore, well sort of gore is made up of Blackcurrent and Raspberry jam...plus some sausages covered in something red to look like guts!

3. Running time - 91 minutes...90 minutes too long!

4. On the DVD cover it boasts the LARGEST ZOMBIE SCENE EVER TO BE SHOT......Complete Bull***t!

5. You think just by putting yellow paint on somebody's face makes a realistic looking zombie...You're wrong!

...Seriously guys, don't waste your time or hard earned cash on this, it does'nt deserve it. The only plus point is it does have a couple of pretty tasty chicks in it.

I reckon I could have made a better film for a tenner!

I CAN'T GIVE YOU ANY STRONGER WARNINGS...THIS FILM IS SHITE!!!