The Dead

I didn't expect that much from this movie. My first thoughts were: it is not even B-movie, rather C. But from the first minutes I realized that it leaves an impression of..."28 Days Later" and "The Walking Dead". It's kind of long shot, but that's what came to mind. While it is not as detailed and well played as those two, it has it's own new look on the old theme. Decent make-up, good camera work, the interesting contrast between gore images and beautiful "vues d'Afrique" savannah - all together with natural actor's work exceeds the initial shallow (to say the least) expectations. I don't think I will watch it again (well, not any time soon), but certainly I would not mind to see the next chapter. It looks like there is some space left for the Part II. PS: there is no cheap synthetic music (you all know it;)), that usually fills in the "wordless" episodes in some really boring movies. On my opinion, this sort of mindless soundtrack always serves as indicator. Sometimes I wonder if they use that sort of "music" as a warning: "it is going to be boring..." It's absence is a huge plus.

"The Dead" was really quite a surprise. And it is also a zombie movie way out of the ordinary; it is set in Africa, something you don't see every day. But if you have read David Wellington's "Monster" trilogy, then you will love this movie.

Let me say that the African setting was really a nice breath of fresh air in the zombie genre. It worked so well, because it was miles after miles of savanna and badlands. No big skyscrapers here, no high-tech underground facilities, no narrow and winding dark alleys. A couple of villages though, so it was cool.

However, one thing that puzzled me in "The Dead" was the amount of zombies that were shambling about in the savanna. I would have assumed that there wouldn't be that many walking around in the middle of nowhere. Near the villages, yes, but in the middle of the savanna, no! And oddly enough every time the two main characters in the movie stopped somewhere, there were suddenly (and always!) a group of zombies shambling in to attack them. That was so stupid. But I guess it was the simplest way to work in a heap of zombies into the story.

Basically the story revolves around two people only. But it works out well enough, despite the movie moving ahead at a fairly slow speed. But that was not a bad thing, because the movie was far from boring. Just don't expect speed, action and lots of adrenalin, though.

The cast in "The Dead" was nice and they did good jobs with their roles. And the two lead roles were well cast.

One thing that could have improved the movie for me, was if the zombies had glazed over milky eyes instead of those weird white eyes; it just didn't really make them have that classic zombie/dead person look. But hey, it was a minor thing. It is just me that pays attention to the small details.

All in all, "The Dead" was really a great movie and it was really nice to see this type of approach to the zombie genre. So thumbs up for the movie makers. And if you are a zombie aficionado like me, then you definitely want to check out "The Dead".

The dead are returning to life and attacking the living. After surviving a plane crash American Air Force Engineer Lieutenant Brian Murphy teams up with a local army Sgt. Daniel Dembele and they try to stay alive in dead infested war-torn Africa.

It's well filmed with the competent naturalistic visual style reminiscent of Monsters, less is also more in The Dead's case. Imran Ahmad's music score complements the on screen deeds and while not particularly memorable it is subtle and effective enough.

The African setting is a welcomed change, the on location shoot gives it an eerie real feel. The costume design appears authentic. Dan Rickard's special effects and Max Van De Banks' makeup are first rate, bones sticking out of legs, wounds, bites and the dead getting hit and shot at are executed perfectly. The traditional shambling sluggish dead are creepy enough and retain an air of menace.

The zombie/virus market has been saturated with countless sub-par films. There have been a few welcomed additions arguably - the Dawn of the Dead remake, cross genre Australian film Undead, 28 Days virus flicks, comedies including Shaun of the Dead, Zombieland and actioner Le Horde, Eaters, Mutant to name a few. I personally I like sober zombie films and The Dead is probably the most grounded undead film since Romero's original trilogy. Director and writer team Howard and Jonathan Ford manage to give their zombie offering scope, emotion and anxiety that arguably lacked in Land and Survival of the Dead respectively.

Due to the constraints of the story there's little dialogue. That said, what there is rings true and the characters are given time to develop. The acting all round is of a high standard, with fitting performances from both leads Rob Freeman and Prince David Oseia.

My only grumble is that there's been so many zombie films lately it mars the freshness that The Dead delivers. Intentional or unintentional as with Romero's films there is indeed a social commentary running though The Dead and the African setting is debatably no accident. The Dead may lack comradely wordplay but it doesn't try to reinvent the wheel.

Overall, The Dead gives the viewer a much needed solid piece of realistic zombie entertainment. Recommend.

I love me a good zombie flick, and I try to support independent cinema whenever I can. But I'll be the first to admit that the words "independent low-budget horror" can send me running for the hills. But after hearing some of the good buzz around this one, I thought I'd give it a shot at a midnight screening last night. I'm really glad I checked it out. The co-director was in attendance for last night's screening, where he spoke of his adoration of the early Romero films, and that influence shows. It's an endless stream of slow-walking, omnipresent zombies. It's the opposite of the hyper-stylized, fast-cut, fast walking zombie movies of recent years. Most of the action takes place during daylight hours in wide open spaces. Africa can be a harsh and brutal place without zombies, so you can imagine the difficulties that the survivors must endure. I thought the pacing was decent, and the acting was very solid. There are some really nice stylized shots in places. I'll remember that striking final scene years from now. I thought the sound design and the minimal score were very effective. Because the survivors are mostly out in the wild, there's this constant chatter of insects throughout. It's like a buzzing fluorescent bulb that always keeps you a little off- kilter. A refreshingly stark entry into the sometimes crowded zombie genre. Highly recommended.

This is the best zombie movie I've seen in a long time. The film is dead serious (no pun intended), there are no attempts at humor (voluntary or otherwise) whatsoever. That alone sets it apart from about 90% of all recent zombie films. The 2 protagonists (the American looks a bit like Billy Bob Thornton at times) do a fine job delivering their (few) lines). The whole movie is rather bleak, and even though you see a lot of zombies and victims it is not overly gory. The effects are very good and there is no crappy CGI blood (or if there is any I didn't notice it). There are many zombies missing limbs (arms and legs) and I had read a while back that they even used real amputees, which is a nice touch. The other thing that sets it apart from all other zombie films is the setting. All of the movie takes place in the African savanna (from what I saw in the credits it was shot in Ghana and Burkina Faso), which leads to some gorgeous vistas while the characters try to reach their destination. And finally, it was shot on film, not on video or digital video, which I hate even more than CGI blood.