Every Zombie Movie I've Seen

Forget the over-rated Cloverfield, THIS film is the "giant pussy that eats YOU out!".
Possibly the scariest film I have ever seen, certainly the most tense. I'm yet to find a film that properly scares me, but this one got my heart going for most of it's running time.
I couldn't give one about any of the characters if I'm honest. And unlike Cloverfield, that works here because the film doesn't seem too fussed about them either and they're realistic enough for me to feel for them simply as human beings in a crisis. Just because I don't care for them doesn't mean I want them to die, you know?
The zombie origins are handled brilliantly in a fairly original twist on the usual formula of zombie movies.
There's very little to separate this from the countless other zombie films out there, other than it makes such effective use of it's zombies. The film is all about jump-scares, and that's fine here. That's all the film is meant to be taken as, a wild-roller-coaster ride of a movie. And allmost all of the film's scares are incredibly obvious. You see them coming a mile-off, BUT they're still just as effective as a normal jump-scare, if not more effective because by making you wait for it, the film forces even more tension upon you.
That said, the film is far from perfect. There's a period of about 20 minutes where it just drags sort of after the middle. This is when the zombie crisis starts to kick off. It's just boring because all the characters seem to be doing is running in circles and shouting alot. However, it soon stabalises back into being fantastic for it's final moments (although the ending is abrupt and frankly a bit dissapointing).
The dragging moments would have lost this film a point, giving it 7/10, however I felt the need to give it an extra point for being the most tense movie I've ever encountered. As such...

Personal enjoyment: 8/10
Actual quality as a film: 7/10

Zombie movies have reached a point where they're all about execution as opposed to original ideas and with that on board, this is a thoroughly enjoyable action comedy.
It's not exactly hilarious, it's just very, very fun and it certainly has its moments. The big cameo (which I won't divulge) is absolutely amazing and nearly everything said whilst he's around is gold. The film's finale is also fantastic even in spite of some characters doing the most ridiculously stupid things.
The film does surprisingly, play around with the 'zombie rules' somewhat and it's quite smart with it. These zombies feel pain for example as they're not re-animated dead, just '28 Days Later...'-esque people infected with a virus.
There's talk of a sequel and I'd love to see one. Also, Emma Stone is really hot.

Personal enjoyment: 8/10
Actual quality as a film: 7/10

With the book being one of my absolute favourites, I was in a really odd position with this film.
When I first heard about it I was expecting it to absolutely rape the book. Thankfully it doesn't really rape it, it's more as though it shags it and never calls back.
Whilst I think alot of it was adapted nearly perfectly in terms of tone, more of it was nothing like the book at all. Ultimately, this is an incredibly glossy and very well made action movie but it lacks much of the depth contained within the novel and sadly falls victim to alot of Hollywood cheese.
It's sadly a real mish-mash of bits and feels like alot is missing from the final cut (including the original ending which sounds alot better, God damned American test-screen audiences).
It's a shame the Oscars wouldn't touch this type of film with a barge-pole for any proper awards because Will Smith really gives a nomination-worthy performance.
Ultimately, it's easily the best film adaptation of it yet, even if it's not as close to the book as "The Last Man on Earth", and I REALLY enjoyed it in spite of it's many flaws.

This film really pissed me off because I thought of a very similar concept for a film about a year ago and now I can't do anything with it because "it's been done". That, and the film starts amazingly then flushes the established quality down the toilet.
The first 2 thirds of this film are amazing. Up there with the best cinema of the year, the best zombie movies of all time and even the scariest films of all time. Then it's revealed that the zombie 'virus' is spread through words. That's right, there's no physical entity, just a virus that somehow survives within words of the Englsh language. What starts out as an incredibly original, intelligent and bloody well executed film turns into something utterly ridiculous. About 10 minutes later, when I'd accepted the retarded plot turn, I carried on enjoying the film but the disregard for living within the world of science (or sci-fi) made this film go from an 8 or 9 out of 10 to a 7 for me. That plus the very ending has been done many a time before within the zombie genre.
All in all, a mixes awesomeness with awesome levels of stupidity.

Personal enjoyment: 7/10 (the first 2 thirds get 9)
Actual quality as a film: 7/10

It's been too long since a truly wonderful zombie movie came along. I say too long, I mean about a year, but still.

There's something so endearing about Hong Kong's sense of humour. This film, whilst no masterpiece, is a great bit of fun.
Almost every character is candidate for the most 2-dimensional character I have ever seen and some of the dialogue is awful, however, I have a sneaking suspicion this is due to the dub I watched as opposed the film itself (couldn't get a subtitled copy). Especially as some parts of the dialogue are great and really witty.
It's a very strangely structured film, starting off almost like if Stephen Chow had directed Mallrats and soon turning into a typical straight-to-video zombie film (except it's good) before moving on to a dark ending. But for some reason that works here. Zombie films are often weirdly structured after all.
Overall, it's incredibly enjoyable, but if you can, go for the subtitled option. The two main characters are very likeable and there's some great humour. Also, it's the first film or anything that I've ever seen suggest the notion of human sushi, which is in my opinion something for it to be proud of.

Personal enjoyment: 7/10
Actual quality as a film: 6/10

You know those 80s horror-comedy, B-movie homages? This is one of the good ones. It's fantastic fun.
The characters are all quite bland with the exception of the absolutely fantastic police chief who whilst a massive stereotype is a wonderful massive stereotype and really likeable.
The concept is fairly original (or at least it was back in 1986, it's almost identical to countless films now, most obviously Slither). I mean, there's only so much you can do with zombie movies, but the idea of a slug-brain parasite was fairly unique back in '86.
The film has a good few unexpected minor plot points (though the majority is textbook zombie movie), some decent special effects given the obvious lack of budget, competent everything and some genuinely creepy moments. As already said, it's great fun.

Personal enjoyment: 7/10
Actual quality as a film: 7/10

This is a film realisation of the stereotype of adolescence, well, male adolescence. And if you take it as such, it's really very enjoyable. Guns, gore, naked women with huge boobs and as the title suggest, heavy metal, it's all here.
The first segment is like a blue-print for The 5th Element and even Bladerunner to an extent. I'm almost certain they drew some inspiration from it. Other segments vary in quality. My favourite was the one featuring zombies on a plane during World War II.
The wrap around is confusing and utterly cheesey, but in a film like this, you really can't complain.
The music is suprisingly good, the heavy metal music isn't really over-emphasised at all and the actual score is suprisingly majestic.
The animation is also (though dated), top notch.

This is really worth checking out, just for it's cult quality and it's obvious influence on the world of animation and sci-fi.

Personal enjoyment: 7/10
Actual quality as a film: 7/10

Wtf did I just watch?

It's clear to see why this film is regarded so highly due to how innovative it was. It's entertaining enough, but sadly the whole German-expressionist angle is so horrificly dated looking that you can't really enjoy it from a modern perspective. Everything looks like cardboard.
The plot is also incredibly simplistic. Again, not much of a problem for when it was made, but it just feels dated.

Personal enjoyment: 7/10
Actual quality as a film: 9/10

As far as the slasher films of the 70s and 80s go, this is one of the most inventive. To the point that it's arguably not a slasher film.
There's some fantastic special effects work, or at least fantastic special effects for gore. The plot is very simple when you look at it on paper, but that's why it works.
I was suprised to find out that Pinhead is such a minor character in the whole thing. He's not even the villain, really. I get the impression that he becomes the main villain in the sequels though.
Anyway, it's one of the better horror efforts of the 80s.

Personal enjoyment: 7/10
Actual quality as a film: 7/10

A very good zombie movie. And yes it bloody well is a zombie movie. PS. Funniest movie ending ever.

Brilliant in aspects and easily the best Italian zombie movie I've ever seen. Great atmosphere above everything else.

I thought after Bride, the Frankenstein sequels would just drop off into naffness. How wrong I was. Son of Frankenstein does an incredibly good job of continuing the Frankenstein storyline far beyond how long it deserved to last. Whilst not even close to the same level of Frankenstein or even more so Bride of Frankenstein, there is alot to like about Son of Frankenstein.
Firstly, the acting is all-round pretty top-notch featuring the likes of Basil Rathbone, Bela Lugosi and of course Boris Karloff in his swansong to playing the monster.
It's also shot beautifully and manages to capture that morbid poetic nature that can be found in many old black and white horror movies, albeit less than many.
The main flaw is the lack of emotion you can feel coming from the film-makers. Bride of Frankenstein was a labour of love for James Whale and as such dicks all over the first film (which was great to begin with). This film doesn't have that. It feels like it was made by big fans of the original, but big fans who didn't quite get what made the original two so special. That's topped off with a major drop in scale from Bride which was really quite an epic film for the 30s. Son of Frankenstein is much more intimate, and whilst that would be fine if it was a film on it's own terms, it feels like a step backwards from the others.
That all said and done, Son of Frankenstein is a typical threequel. A very good film but one that doesn't live up to the standards of the first two. It's certainly worth a look if you're a fan of classic horror movies though.

Personal enjoyment: 7/10
Actual quality as a film: 7/10

What we have here is an unfortunate mish mash of things that work brilliantly, things that don't work at all and things that are inbetween.

It is at very least, MILES better than Cloverfield.



Romero has some great ideas lying away in this movie and some of the set-piece moments are great, it's just a shame that our main characters and their main quest isn't as interesting. It's also a shame that Romero runs his context into the ground. He seems to have forgotten the idea of subtlety.



In all honesty, I think this is actually the worst Dead film so far. Land of the Dead was far from a bad movie, it just wasn't great. Unfortunately, this is slightly weaker than it, but hey, it's still way better than most horror we get nowadays.



I had no real beef with the acting like I've seen in some reviews. All that got me was how formularic this film was. It was oh, so predictable, and unfortunately didn't bring enough to table to justify it. Romero's social commentary was far too heavy handed and in your face for my liking, and I've never had a problem with his unsubtle nature before.



This review might seem like a bit of a mess, but that's kind of how the film itself turned out, so it's fitting. Also, I REALLY wanted to adore this movie. It's Romero and it's been getting good reviews unlike Land which I actually quite enjoyed. I was hoping for a return to form for the zombie master, but this is just 'above average' at best.



Personal enjoyment: 7/10 (would be 6/10 if it weren't for the extra 'clips of footage downloaded off the net')

Actual quality as a film: 6/10

I really wish I could see why this film is so hated. I mean, it's far from anything special and it's certainly noway near the first, but I genuinely enjoyed it alot. As far as cheesy horror films go, this is one of the better.

More early Cronenberg.

A fairly interesting and entertaining piece of work.

A load of absolutely brilliant ideas all jumbled up to form a meandering mess of a film, but a noble effort from a first-time film-maker working with practically no money.
There's enough plot for a short film. That's padded out with fantastic ideas and side-moments (some of which work, some don't) and a little bit of crap. The film is FAR too long for its own good. It could have ended after Colin's mother sticks newspaper all over a window about 30 minutes before the proper ending and I'd have been quite happy but it didn't and although there were some good aspects to the stuff that followed, it just dragged.
The quality of the footage itself varied drastically from shot to shot as well. The stuff using a tripod looked good; surprisingly professional -however, whenever there was an 'action scene', things went handheld and it looked awful. The lighting also sucked due to being non-existant.
Another complaint I have is the tone. For the most part, it's a serious film, but there are lots of moments that just feel comedic. I don't know if untintentionally (due to the low budget) but certain moments such as a zombie-hunter shooting razor blades tied to pound coins into zombies' eyes to kill them just wreaked of films parodying badassery like Army of Darkness and Undead. If the film had picked a tone and stuck with it, I think it'd be a lot stronger.
Still, it's not an amazing film but it's certainly in the top half of the 70+ zombie films I've seen and that's quite an achievement given its modest beginnings.

Personal enjoyment: 7/10
Actual quality as a film: 4/10

I really expected the worst from this. I thought the concept of zombies living among us who are just like us, but decomposing was stupid as what's the point in zombies if they're not a bit different. Flesh eating provides horror for example.
However, this only caused me to be very pleasantly suprised by how a horror film is sneekiliy popped in to the back half of this movie.
It's just a shame that it end's abruptly. This could have made for quite a nice 'start of the zombie apocalypse' type movie had they cut half of the start off (mostly un-needed) and skipped on allowing more time for the 'new world order'.
The ending is really what lets this film down. With a more wrapped up ending or something bigger happening, then this would have got 7/10, but alas, I guess they didn't have the budget.

It's mildly funny and quite creepy at times, but purely as a high-concept exploration of race as well as racial documentaries, it's a huge success.

Personal ejoyment: 6/10
Actual quality as a film: 6/10

The premise is genius, but unfortunately Planet Terror is so-so and Death Proof is just boring. That said, the trailers for Don't and Werewolf Women of the S.S. are both 10/10 material.

Cheesey as hell but fairly entertaining.

This film is at very least: above average for a zombie film. That isn't saying much at all (being the die-hard zombie fan that I am, even I have to admit that most zombie films are terrible), but it's genuinely quite enjoyable despite its constant shortcomings.
If you have the option, watch 'Pontypool' instead. No question about it. However, if you love zombie films, you could do a lot worse. As cliched as it is, it does actually put a tiny bit of originality into the zombie premise with the racial motivation of certain characters.

Personal enjoyment: 6/10
Actual quality as a film: 4/10

Just as "Night of the Creeps" which I saw very recently was a perfect example of 80s cheesetacular horror/comedy done right, "Night of the Comet" is a perfect example of 80s cheesetacular horror/comedy gone wrong.
The plot has obviously been done a zillion times before and this is honestly the worst use of it I've seen to date, which is made all the worse for how this film has blatantly stolen the plot out-line from those other films/books.
The acting is what you'd expect from a B-movie, so I don't have any beef with that. The writing however is terrible. It's a comedy, how about some humour? At least try and be a bit scary then? No?
It starts out somewhat promising but the whole last act is an absolute mess which destroys what the film had going for it. This bizarre-o plot about some laboratory full of scientist survivors trying to create a cure for themselves using children that they're turning brain-dead kicks in, and it's not needed nor does it add anything to the film.
There are many worse films like this, but that doesn't mean this is good. Watch "The Last Man on Earth", "The Omega Man", "I Am Legend" or just read "I Am Legend" instead. Those are the official versions of the story and even "The Omega Man" is better than this.

Personal enjoyment: 5/10
Actual quality as a film: 4/10

Insanely cheesey and about as far from being a good film as possible, but still enjoyable.

Just terrible. Terrible on every level except (surprisingly) special effects. With exceptions here and there, most of the special effects are surprisingly good (for a zombie movie).
But that still leaves the terrible dialogue and story and all those plot-holes and so on. But to be fair to the film, there are a handful of very funny moments. I think a review I read on Aintitcoolnews sums the film up better than I can with saying it's "exactly what you'd expect from a film called 'Zombie Strippers'. If you think that sounds like a good film, then you'll probably enjoy this, otherwise don't bother unless you're really into your zombie films like myself.

Personal enjoyment: 4/10
Actual quality as a film: 3/10

Thoroughly watchable, at least once it gets going, even if it's a pretty bad movie.

Very watchable, but at the same time far from a legitimately good film. Could have been decent in spite of it's many flaws if it was actually funny.

An absolutely brilliant premise but not pulled off that well, I would be upset about this except Diary of the Dead is still to come. Alright, but incredibly flawed.

Cheesey bollocks, but watchably so.

Simply put, quite boring.

Absolute bollocks, but frankly, what do you expect from a film called The Video Dead in which zombies climb out of a cursed TV set and kill people?
It has a lot of low budget 80s horror charm about it, but not enough to save it. It making shit-all sense aside though, I've seen worse zombie movies. Even zombie movies with worse acting.
Just about watchable for a zombie fan.

Personal enjoyment: 4/10
Actual quality as a film: 3/10

I'm a huge fan of zombie films, and this one had me thinking it could actually be good after it's pre-opening-credits-scene. Shame it just turned into a boring arse-flap of a movie. Not funny, not cool, NOTHING new. I've seen worse, but I've seen a lot better too.

Personal enjoyment: 4/10
Actual quality as a film: 4/10

Once the novelty of NAZI zombies wears off (which is before you start watching the film itself providing you've seen a plot synopsis or poster), this film has nothing to offer.
It's a tribute to such classics as the Evil Dead trilogy and Braindead but it's also painfully inferior. There's about 4 decent gags in the film and the rest is just recycled homage that was done better the first time. Maybe I'm being harsh on the film as I've seen over 70 zombie films now, so they bore me easier than before, but still. This film has nothing special to offer; there are worse zombie films, but there are better zombie films too. Lots of them.

Personal enjoyment: 4/10
Actual quality as a film: 4/10

Uggh. This reminds me of Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children. It came out. It was shit. People claimed you had to be a fan of the games to enjoy it and bummed it anyway.
The thing is, this time, I am a fan of the games, and I still think it's shit.
Also, the animation is pretty much exactly on par with FF7:AC's. It's beautifully rendered and because of that many people think it's good, when it's actually fucking HORRIBLE. Clunky, motion-capturey and devoid of life. The animation (how they move, not how they're rendered) is awful.
Now, the previous live action movies are also awful. They're a good example of how NOT to adapt a video game to the screen (as well as simply how NOT to make a movie). This film however serves as proof that sticking 100% to the source material also doesn't make for a good film. It's very faithful to the games (to the point of feeling like a cut-scene in ways). It needed to be adapted a bit more.
The acting is apalling for example, just like in the games. They should have ADAPTED the film a bit and hired some decent voice talent.
The zombies are also incredibly sparse and there's some shitty mutant thing near the end which is a common trait of the RE series, I know, but what makes for a good boss doesn't necessarily make for a good horror film villain.

So yeah. It sucks, it's dissapointing, but it's the best Resident Evil movie by miles.

Personal enjoyment: 3/10
Actual quality as a film: 3/10

Just plain boring. Maybe 1 or 2 decent-ish gags. But, pretty bleh overall. Just, bleh through and through.

Personal enjoyment: 2/10
Actual quality as a film: 3/10

Honestly, this is SO much better than I was expecting. I presumed this would be on par with Day of the Dead 2: Contagium (the worst film ever made), but no. Infact, I'm actually going to say this film has fantastic set-pieces. The dialogue is AWFUL, the plot is derivative and nonsensical, the acting is atrocious (even the likes of Ving Rhames is bad, God knows how they got such a wooden performance from him) and the characters are all bland and unlikeable. The plot is also riddled with more holes than that guy in Robocop who gets shot to pieces by that big-ass robot by accident.
The film's biggest problem is definately the writing. None of the dialogue is believable or flows, it's all just paint by the numbers set ups and characterisations. Bud just randomly says "I'm a vegetarian" out of nowhere to set up the fact for when he becomes a zombie who doesn't eat people (the most retarded plot point I've ever encountered in a movie ever by the way). The brother and sister start squabbling in the car about their past in a horribly unbelievable sequence that feels SO staged and just there to set accross "these are real humans, and they are siblings". It just doesn't work on any level.
But, as said, the set pieces aren't half bad. If the film's budget wasn't so obviously non-existant, and the actors were better, they'd be great scenes. But unfortunately, they're not so the scenes still fall short of the mark. That and this is a remake of an absolutely brilliant film, and as such, yes, it rapes the good name of Day of the Dead.
Judged on it's own terms, you could do alot worse for a zombie movie (Resident Evil: Apocalypse for example), but the film is still awful.

Personal enjoyment: 3/10 (but part of that was for how hilariously bad it was in parts, hence it doesn't get a score boost)
Actual quality as a film: 2/10

Suprisingly, the third entry in the trilogy is arguably the best. But seriously, it'd be a challenge to make a film worse than the 2nd and the 1st was hardly good either.
First, just like the other films, it has countless parts that simply make zero sense. For example Claire makes some comment towards the start about how lakes and major rivers completely dried up. At what point could a zombie virus ever begin to effect water levels? If anything lakes and major rivers would flourish with natural life without humans to interfere.
All the problems with the last 2 films are also present here. The acting is once again, uniformly apallingly bad. Milla Jovovovavich is hot, but that doesn't mean she can act. And she's the best actor in the film. And just like the first film, the retard spaghetti-covered dogs appear demonstrating more lack of sense (why does a virus that turns humans into slow, naff zombies turn dogs into super-powered canine warriors), but also look like shit. The zombies also look like shit and the CGI is awful, though to be fair to this film, it's used very sparingly. There are also parts that completely lack sense.
However, the film also has problems not present in the past 2. The most obvious being how much of the film is absolutely ripped off from George Romero's vastly superior Day of the Dead, particularly the whole Bub plot. On top of that, all of the zombies that have been given this half-way-cure to give them a bit of intelligence back look identical. Why? It makes no sense. And for some reason, intelligence = the ability to run. That's right, the zombies in this film run inexplicably after 2 films of the traditional slow zombies.
And I've not even gone into the problems with parts that make no sense and plot holes and such because frankly at this point, I'm basically just bullying an underachiever.
Now to be positive. Well, the film has one thing going for it that the other 2 don't, a post-apocalyptic, distopian setting; and they're always cool.

So yeah, this film is one of the worst zombie films I've seen and I've seen over 60 so far. And zombie films aren't exactly known for their quality. It's better than the last 2, but it's still a shitty piece of absolute garbage.

Personal enjoyment: 1/10
Actual quality as a film: 2/10