An interesting little canuxploitation flick made in Ontario obviously so someone could get a quick buck on the drive-in circuit. It's cheap and very amateurish in both directing and acting. It does however display some pretty graphic gore scenes, some nudity, and an interesting gimmick at the beginning were a warning comes up before the violent bits (similar to Boardinghouse). It apparently caused some controversy and as a result several minutes of gore were cut out, and are presumably lost. There's really no reason to intentionally seek this out, but, if you are a fan of this sorta thing give it a shot, it's short at only 57 minutes and as of this review is available on youtube.
12 Reviews
Zombie completists need only apply
udar559 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
What's this? A Canadian produced zombie flick that I have never heard of before. A mortician works on the body of a recently deceased young man. This allows for an extended flashback that show how the guy got there. Basically, he and friends went to a cemetery on Friday the 13th and raised the dead thanks to his silly chanting. Cut back to the morgue where our dead body comes back to life and kills the mortician and owner (who gets his eyes popped out). The final WTF? shot has the funeral home owner in a straight jacket and screaming, "I'm not crazy!" Amazingly, he has his eyeballs back.
Running a scant 58 minutes, this is certainly one oddity in zombie cinema. It feels a lot longer, but put me in some kind of trance where I couldn't stop watching. The film also has one of those "if you see this image, turn away from the screen" gags. It is the image of an old man getting sick in a theater (prophetic?) and when he pops up (only twice) the blood begins to flow. The scenes are pretty damn gory for the time period. There is a great gaffe where a zombie chops off a girl's right hand with a shovel, but - when he pulls the fake hand into the frame to chomp on - it is a left hand.
Running a scant 58 minutes, this is certainly one oddity in zombie cinema. It feels a lot longer, but put me in some kind of trance where I couldn't stop watching. The film also has one of those "if you see this image, turn away from the screen" gags. It is the image of an old man getting sick in a theater (prophetic?) and when he pops up (only twice) the blood begins to flow. The scenes are pretty damn gory for the time period. There is a great gaffe where a zombie chops off a girl's right hand with a shovel, but - when he pulls the fake hand into the frame to chomp on - it is a left hand.
Almost a minor classic
GroovyDoom6 February 2009
Warning: Spoilers
SPOILERS
For the most part, a homemade horror movie is bound to have some rough edges, and it's probably not going to be able to compete with a film that had even a modest budget. But there is the slim chance that, if the moon is right and the planets aligned just so, you might enjoy "Corpse Eaters" anyway.
First and foremost, the main hindrance here is the fact that it's difficult to see anything that happens when it's not going on in sunlight. Apparently the film's shoestring budget did not include movie lights, which is a big problem considering that a main set piece takes place inside of a dark graveyard vault. The film has no official transfer onto any home video format, so I can only say that the "unofficial" copies floating around out there are difficult to look at. Keep in mind it's a miracle that you can find this film to view at home at all, given it's odd history (see 'trivia' section here).
The very loose plot involves two couples who visit a graveyard for kicks and resurrect the hungry dead when they conduct a Satanic ritual in a vault. The zombies kill one of the foursome and critically injure another, who dies after his friends get him to a hospital. When his corpse is taken to a local funeral home, the funeral director finds zombies eating the corpses on display in the home. The end.
Yeah, there isn't much to "Corpse Eaters", and even the very title is dubious. The zombies do eat corpses, but they also eat living people, too. But there are a few effective moments in here. If the director hadn't been hung up on filming tight closeups of the actors, it might have given the movie room to breathe and be seen. The acting is horrible, but you would expect that in an amateur production, right? The real goods here come from the zombie makeup, which is actually very, very good. A few of the closeups reveal human-toned skin underneath applications, but for the most part it is very effective. The closest analogy is "Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things", to which this film bears a striking similarity. "Children" was also low budget, but looked and acted much better. This film suffers from the aforementioned closeup syndrome, and it bears the mark of amateurism in the way that it avoids showing people speaking on camera (revealing that the filmmakers didn't feel they could pull of a proper dub track). "Corpse Eaters", however, benefits from its own obscurity, and the blurry, dingy atmosphere that it earns by default. It also does not take itself that seriously, especially with an amusing gimmick inserted (a buzzer accompanied by the image of a man gagging into his handkerchief 'warns' the audience that something gory is about to happen).
For the most part, a homemade horror movie is bound to have some rough edges, and it's probably not going to be able to compete with a film that had even a modest budget. But there is the slim chance that, if the moon is right and the planets aligned just so, you might enjoy "Corpse Eaters" anyway.
First and foremost, the main hindrance here is the fact that it's difficult to see anything that happens when it's not going on in sunlight. Apparently the film's shoestring budget did not include movie lights, which is a big problem considering that a main set piece takes place inside of a dark graveyard vault. The film has no official transfer onto any home video format, so I can only say that the "unofficial" copies floating around out there are difficult to look at. Keep in mind it's a miracle that you can find this film to view at home at all, given it's odd history (see 'trivia' section here).
The very loose plot involves two couples who visit a graveyard for kicks and resurrect the hungry dead when they conduct a Satanic ritual in a vault. The zombies kill one of the foursome and critically injure another, who dies after his friends get him to a hospital. When his corpse is taken to a local funeral home, the funeral director finds zombies eating the corpses on display in the home. The end.
Yeah, there isn't much to "Corpse Eaters", and even the very title is dubious. The zombies do eat corpses, but they also eat living people, too. But there are a few effective moments in here. If the director hadn't been hung up on filming tight closeups of the actors, it might have given the movie room to breathe and be seen. The acting is horrible, but you would expect that in an amateur production, right? The real goods here come from the zombie makeup, which is actually very, very good. A few of the closeups reveal human-toned skin underneath applications, but for the most part it is very effective. The closest analogy is "Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things", to which this film bears a striking similarity. "Children" was also low budget, but looked and acted much better. This film suffers from the aforementioned closeup syndrome, and it bears the mark of amateurism in the way that it avoids showing people speaking on camera (revealing that the filmmakers didn't feel they could pull of a proper dub track). "Corpse Eaters", however, benefits from its own obscurity, and the blurry, dingy atmosphere that it earns by default. It also does not take itself that seriously, especially with an amusing gimmick inserted (a buzzer accompanied by the image of a man gagging into his handkerchief 'warns' the audience that something gory is about to happen).
Quite Brief
Uriah437 July 2015
Two couples are enjoying a weekend of boating at a nearby lake and then decide to do something a little different by visiting a graveyard that night. When they get there they notice a deserted mausoleum and once inside one of the men decides to experiment with a demonic chant. This causes corpses to come out of their graves and devour one of the women and infect one of the men. The infected man is taken to a hospital but during surgery is declared dead and then transported to a funeral home. Needless to say, he doesn't remain dead for very long. Now even though this synopsis is rather brief it almost depicts the entire movie for the simple reason that the film itself is quite brief as well (about 58 minutes). This fact is just one of the faults. Throw in bad lighting, lack of cohesion between scenes and some segments running on much too long and everything pretty much points to a less-than-average movie experience. The really sad thing is that this movie had some potential. Unfortunately, the resources just weren't adequate to pull it off. All things considered then I rate it as below average.
Hilariously awful, incompetent, yet strangely compelling
Logan-2212 August 2012
Warning: Spoilers
*** THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS ***
I thought I'd seen just about every zombie movie ever made, and especially everything from the '70s and '80s. Lo and behold my surprise when I stumbled across The Corpse Eaters, a 1974 Canadian crap-fest. I had to watch it. To say it starts off slow is an understatement. We get 12-minutes (including credits) of two boring old guys working at a funeral home. Nothing cool happens, but we do get a lot of voice-over narration as one of the old dudes drives his hearse around talking to himself about how he hates dead people.
Then we cut to a big long summer boating trip with four twenty-somethings (two boys, two girls--one uglier than the other, but neither is any great prize). After boating around the lake with cheesy music and no talking for minutes, they land on a deserted beach and are stared at by an owl in close-up for like 30-seconds. Then they get it on and the tops come off for some soft-core sex while a surprisingly not bad '70s rock instrumental plays over it. Then the hilariously awful dialog begins and we're almost 20-minutes into the 57-minute running time!
The girls wanna go to a rock concert, but the guys wanna spend the night in the graveyard on account of it's Friday the 13th. The guys win by drawing straws and so we're off to the graveyard. But it's rainy out, so the gang seeks shelter in an old mausoleum where the girls scream over a skeleton they find. Then the guys decide to invert a a crucifix and summon Satan because they are bored. "Lucifer, Lucifer! Barrabas Barrabas! By Santanis, Santanis!" (And yes, I know it should be "Satanis" but apparently the people making the movie don't.)
Lightning flashes and the dead rise from their graves with lots of gray fingers scrabbling up through the dirt. All right! Now the action can really begin! It's almost 30-minutes in and we've (finally) got zombies up and walking. About time.
*** WARNING! SPOILERS FOLLOW (BUT NOT THE FILM'S ENDING) ***
The first zombie attack comes at the 30-minute mark, but it's all in slow-mo with awful music playing over it. The better-looking girl dies under the zombie horde and the rest run for their car. One dude tries to hold the pursuing zombies back to help his friends escape, but gets bit in the process. The three do manage to speed away in their car, however.
This would be a good time to mention the film's cheap shock gimmick (explained at the beginning of the film). Every time a gore scene is about to happen, the film cuts to some old man holding a handkerchief over his mouth like he's gonna vomit. That's your cue to close your eyes if you've got a squeamish disposition. OK, soon after the first warning, we get to see zombies eating the girl's guts, but it's all rather dark and murky-looking. It does go on for a long time, however, and looks reasonably decent as far as zombie make-up, groans/eating noises, and gore FX go.
The three survivors head to the nearest hospital to get their bitten friend treated. Cue more boring stuff as doctors talk about nothing and we cut to random hospital equipment and clocks while a heart monitor beeps in the background. The bitten guy dies on the operating table. The doctor breaks the bad news, puzzled because his injuries weren't that bad, but nothing they did worked to save him. Then the ugly girl has bad dreams about zombies and making out with a dead dude, getting blood all over her lips. Her boyfriend comes to comfort her and she bites out his throat! Lots of spurting gore here! She then begins laughing in a deep voice like she's possessed. A fat blonde nurse comes in and screams at the mangled corpse, then gets stabbed to death by the possessed girl. Only this turns out be another dream, and the ugly girl and her boyfriend are still alive and OK.
We're 45-minutes in and suddenly cut back to the boring old guys at the funeral home talking about nothing. I won't give away the incomprehensible shock ending, but I will say there is one more zombie attack scene and somebody's eyeballs get ripped out of their head and eaten, so it's not all bad. But it's not good, either.
The Corpse Eaters is hilariously awful, incompetent, yet strangely compelling in that way only bad '70 movies can be. Then again, I'm a die-hard zombie fan, so I'll put up with just about anything to get my fix. Compared to normal movies, this gets a 1 out of 10, but compared to other low-budget '70s grind-house horror, I'll give it a 4. It does deliver on the zombie gore and some nudity. Probably the closest film The Corpse Eaters compares to is Bob Clark's Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things, but that looks like Dawn of the Dead compared to this.
I thought I'd seen just about every zombie movie ever made, and especially everything from the '70s and '80s. Lo and behold my surprise when I stumbled across The Corpse Eaters, a 1974 Canadian crap-fest. I had to watch it. To say it starts off slow is an understatement. We get 12-minutes (including credits) of two boring old guys working at a funeral home. Nothing cool happens, but we do get a lot of voice-over narration as one of the old dudes drives his hearse around talking to himself about how he hates dead people.
Then we cut to a big long summer boating trip with four twenty-somethings (two boys, two girls--one uglier than the other, but neither is any great prize). After boating around the lake with cheesy music and no talking for minutes, they land on a deserted beach and are stared at by an owl in close-up for like 30-seconds. Then they get it on and the tops come off for some soft-core sex while a surprisingly not bad '70s rock instrumental plays over it. Then the hilariously awful dialog begins and we're almost 20-minutes into the 57-minute running time!
The girls wanna go to a rock concert, but the guys wanna spend the night in the graveyard on account of it's Friday the 13th. The guys win by drawing straws and so we're off to the graveyard. But it's rainy out, so the gang seeks shelter in an old mausoleum where the girls scream over a skeleton they find. Then the guys decide to invert a a crucifix and summon Satan because they are bored. "Lucifer, Lucifer! Barrabas Barrabas! By Santanis, Santanis!" (And yes, I know it should be "Satanis" but apparently the people making the movie don't.)
Lightning flashes and the dead rise from their graves with lots of gray fingers scrabbling up through the dirt. All right! Now the action can really begin! It's almost 30-minutes in and we've (finally) got zombies up and walking. About time.
*** WARNING! SPOILERS FOLLOW (BUT NOT THE FILM'S ENDING) ***
The first zombie attack comes at the 30-minute mark, but it's all in slow-mo with awful music playing over it. The better-looking girl dies under the zombie horde and the rest run for their car. One dude tries to hold the pursuing zombies back to help his friends escape, but gets bit in the process. The three do manage to speed away in their car, however.
This would be a good time to mention the film's cheap shock gimmick (explained at the beginning of the film). Every time a gore scene is about to happen, the film cuts to some old man holding a handkerchief over his mouth like he's gonna vomit. That's your cue to close your eyes if you've got a squeamish disposition. OK, soon after the first warning, we get to see zombies eating the girl's guts, but it's all rather dark and murky-looking. It does go on for a long time, however, and looks reasonably decent as far as zombie make-up, groans/eating noises, and gore FX go.
The three survivors head to the nearest hospital to get their bitten friend treated. Cue more boring stuff as doctors talk about nothing and we cut to random hospital equipment and clocks while a heart monitor beeps in the background. The bitten guy dies on the operating table. The doctor breaks the bad news, puzzled because his injuries weren't that bad, but nothing they did worked to save him. Then the ugly girl has bad dreams about zombies and making out with a dead dude, getting blood all over her lips. Her boyfriend comes to comfort her and she bites out his throat! Lots of spurting gore here! She then begins laughing in a deep voice like she's possessed. A fat blonde nurse comes in and screams at the mangled corpse, then gets stabbed to death by the possessed girl. Only this turns out be another dream, and the ugly girl and her boyfriend are still alive and OK.
We're 45-minutes in and suddenly cut back to the boring old guys at the funeral home talking about nothing. I won't give away the incomprehensible shock ending, but I will say there is one more zombie attack scene and somebody's eyeballs get ripped out of their head and eaten, so it's not all bad. But it's not good, either.
The Corpse Eaters is hilariously awful, incompetent, yet strangely compelling in that way only bad '70 movies can be. Then again, I'm a die-hard zombie fan, so I'll put up with just about anything to get my fix. Compared to normal movies, this gets a 1 out of 10, but compared to other low-budget '70s grind-house horror, I'll give it a 4. It does deliver on the zombie gore and some nudity. Probably the closest film The Corpse Eaters compares to is Bob Clark's Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things, but that looks like Dawn of the Dead compared to this.
A Good If Rather Unknown Zombie Movie
Michael_Elliott10 October 2016
Corpse Eaters (1974)
** 1/2 (out of 4)
Producer Lawrence Zazelenchuk is the man behind this Canadian horror film, which was considered their first "gore" movie. In a pretty interesting story, the producer had two dreams in life. One was to own a drive-in, which he was able to do and the other was to make a movie to play there, which is this film. The story is pretty simple as four people stumble upon some zombies and chaos follows.
CORPSE EATERS was made for $36,000.00 and you can tell that the budget was that small. With that said, for the most part I thought it was a well-made picture with everything considered and it's certainly lives up to its new reputation. I say new because this film hardly got released back in the day and it was pretty much forgotten until it was released to VHS back in 1993. I think fans of the Herschell Gordon Lewis gore films will certainly enjoy this.
As with the Gordon films, this was here screams drive-in because it has that low-budget atmosphere that can only happen when you're shooting something without much money. The film also manages to be rather creative when it came to the kill scenes including one poor sucker who gets eaten and chopped apart at once. The gore scenes are certainly the highlight as some of them (like the autopsy) look rather cheesy but there are others that look excellent. The before mentioned scene where a person is eaten in gory details as well as chopped up looked extremely good and this was four years before DAWN OF THE DEAD.
The performances are bland to say the least and there's no question that some better cinematography would have helped. I'd also argue that there's very little to no story here and even at less than a hour the film drags in spots. Still, this is a pretty fascinating film with an interesting story behind it so zombie fans will certainly want to check it out.
** 1/2 (out of 4)
Producer Lawrence Zazelenchuk is the man behind this Canadian horror film, which was considered their first "gore" movie. In a pretty interesting story, the producer had two dreams in life. One was to own a drive-in, which he was able to do and the other was to make a movie to play there, which is this film. The story is pretty simple as four people stumble upon some zombies and chaos follows.
CORPSE EATERS was made for $36,000.00 and you can tell that the budget was that small. With that said, for the most part I thought it was a well-made picture with everything considered and it's certainly lives up to its new reputation. I say new because this film hardly got released back in the day and it was pretty much forgotten until it was released to VHS back in 1993. I think fans of the Herschell Gordon Lewis gore films will certainly enjoy this.
As with the Gordon films, this was here screams drive-in because it has that low-budget atmosphere that can only happen when you're shooting something without much money. The film also manages to be rather creative when it came to the kill scenes including one poor sucker who gets eaten and chopped apart at once. The gore scenes are certainly the highlight as some of them (like the autopsy) look rather cheesy but there are others that look excellent. The before mentioned scene where a person is eaten in gory details as well as chopped up looked extremely good and this was four years before DAWN OF THE DEAD.
The performances are bland to say the least and there's no question that some better cinematography would have helped. I'd also argue that there's very little to no story here and even at less than a hour the film drags in spots. Still, this is a pretty fascinating film with an interesting story behind it so zombie fans will certainly want to check it out.
a real grindhouse low budget master piece
trashgang18 December 2008
This thought long lost flick sometimes comes available on the web. So I bought me a copy. Well, of course the acting is terrible and the story line is childish but it does have his moments. I think people who searched this one also knows the backstory of it. It was made by a grindhouse cinema owner for an extreme low budget. But for me he surely didn't spoiled the money on props but on the make up. The make up is for that kind of flick well done. The zombies are watchable and the gore is intact. The only problem with that kind of movies is the quality of the pelicule. It's terrible, luckely no hiss on the sound but sometimes it's way too dark. So you have to watch clearly to see the gore. In a funny way they tried to sell this one as really not for the squeamish. A voice-over tells in the beginning of the movie to watch out for a sign and a man appearing with green flashes, that tells you there is gore on the way. Of course that doesn't work, made me think of Cannibal Girls, had that annoying bell when the red stuff started to flow. They had the original idea, Cannibal Girls was made a year earlier. Don't go for the storyline, go for the zombies and notice a continuity mistake. When the girl and guy are making love first she takes of her bra, then they make love and suddenly her underwear is back on...try to do that, or am I getting a bit offline,...eat it you ugly corpses
George A. Romero and William Castle are to blame for rubbish like this
Coventry20 August 2023
George A. Romero and William Castle both were natural geniuses and pioneers in the very secluded domain of low-budget shock and cult cinema! Romero single-handedly reformed the zombie genre in 1968 with "Night of the Living Dead", and William Castle had the unique talent of stuffing his cheap B-movies with slick gimmicks that made them extra entertaining and unforgettable. Thanks to them, and a handful of other great and visionary directors, the horror genre today is so wonderful.
Involuntarily and indirectly, however, Romero and Castle were also responsible for an incredibly large amount of insufferably bad movies. How is that? Well, because of their success, many other yet painfully untalented directors also assumed they could make money in the film industry for as long as they put zombies and funny gimmicks in their movies. Lawrence Zazelenchuk, for instance, was a Canadian drive-in theater owner who assumed that he was also able to produce a zombie cult-classic with barely $36.000. The result is "Corpse Eaters"; a nearly unendurably awful amateur flick without a plot, but with horrendous acting, slow pacing, pitiable make-up effects, terrible voiceovers, and hideous camera work & editing.
The story - or lack thereof - features a funeral home director who drives around a cemetery, and two couples that make the stupid decision of breaking into a vault and holding a séance. Their shenanigans don't work at first, but when they then turn a random crucifix upside down, corpses suddenly emerge from their graves and go after them. Whenever the rotting corpses are about to tear apart a victim, there's a buzzer sound and an image of an old man in a movie theater covering his eyes, and that is supposed to be the gimmick. If William Castle ever watched "Corpse Eaters" - I doubt it, though - he surely would have been rolling his eyes. Even with a running time of barely 58 minutes, the film is full of pointless padding footage. In short, it simply doesn't deserve to exist.
Involuntarily and indirectly, however, Romero and Castle were also responsible for an incredibly large amount of insufferably bad movies. How is that? Well, because of their success, many other yet painfully untalented directors also assumed they could make money in the film industry for as long as they put zombies and funny gimmicks in their movies. Lawrence Zazelenchuk, for instance, was a Canadian drive-in theater owner who assumed that he was also able to produce a zombie cult-classic with barely $36.000. The result is "Corpse Eaters"; a nearly unendurably awful amateur flick without a plot, but with horrendous acting, slow pacing, pitiable make-up effects, terrible voiceovers, and hideous camera work & editing.
The story - or lack thereof - features a funeral home director who drives around a cemetery, and two couples that make the stupid decision of breaking into a vault and holding a séance. Their shenanigans don't work at first, but when they then turn a random crucifix upside down, corpses suddenly emerge from their graves and go after them. Whenever the rotting corpses are about to tear apart a victim, there's a buzzer sound and an image of an old man in a movie theater covering his eyes, and that is supposed to be the gimmick. If William Castle ever watched "Corpse Eaters" - I doubt it, though - he surely would have been rolling his eyes. Even with a running time of barely 58 minutes, the film is full of pointless padding footage. In short, it simply doesn't deserve to exist.
Total crap not worth the film
Hezakiah416 December 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I find it hard to believe this total piece of crap cost 36 thou to make when a two dollar bag of flour mixed with water would have covered the zombie makeup effects, a few road kills would have covered the blood and guts scenes, and a three dollar blank VHS tape would have covered the filming cost.
I love zombie fliks and have slews in my collection, but I could barely sit through this garbage.I gave it a 1 out of 10 not only because a zero isn't available, but because it had some nice boobs in it for about 5 minutes and the bitchy broad got munched on.
The "warning" at the beginning and during parts of it of a "startled movie goer and a buzzer" for "graphic scenes" should have been a warning not to bother wasting time or money to watch this pointless drivel.The ending,if you can call it that, was obviously where they figured they had run out of money. Where did the zombies go? Retire to Miami? Wander off into the sunset? Maybe with massive amounts of illegal drugs or multiple bottles of hard liquor this would be watchable. Those that gave this a thumbs up obviously followed that advice. Go to a field and count cow pies; it will be much more worth your while than scoping out this flik.
I love zombie fliks and have slews in my collection, but I could barely sit through this garbage.I gave it a 1 out of 10 not only because a zero isn't available, but because it had some nice boobs in it for about 5 minutes and the bitchy broad got munched on.
The "warning" at the beginning and during parts of it of a "startled movie goer and a buzzer" for "graphic scenes" should have been a warning not to bother wasting time or money to watch this pointless drivel.The ending,if you can call it that, was obviously where they figured they had run out of money. Where did the zombies go? Retire to Miami? Wander off into the sunset? Maybe with massive amounts of illegal drugs or multiple bottles of hard liquor this would be watchable. Those that gave this a thumbs up obviously followed that advice. Go to a field and count cow pies; it will be much more worth your while than scoping out this flik.
This movie is a classic example of stinky cheese...I loved it!
mortarrack75mm31 October 2006
This movie has everything that makes a bad movie worth watching - sloppy editing, little to no continuity, insane dialog, bad (you might even say non-existent) acting, pointless story lines, shots that go on FAR too long...and it's perfect for MST3K-style riffing, not to mention the "Corpse Eaters Drinking Game": Scribble on forms...take a shot - Sign your name...take a shot - Catch a bad Foley edit...take many, many shots.
The only reason I didn't rate it higher than 8 is because there's not enough gratuitous nudity and because despite its insane badness, it's only an hour long - hell, a movie like this should have been at least 20-30 minutes longer!
The only reason I didn't rate it higher than 8 is because there's not enough gratuitous nudity and because despite its insane badness, it's only an hour long - hell, a movie like this should have been at least 20-30 minutes longer!
Funeral coach driver.
HumanoidOfFlesh9 April 2010
Lawrence Zazelenchuk was an owner of drive-in on Route 69,just outside of Sudbury.With the budget of $36 000 he made "Corpse Eaters"-the first Canadian gore film about zombies emerging from a ghastly crypt filled with coffins and bones.He wanted to have a horror film of his own to play in his cinema."Corpse Eaters" is loaded with grisly over-the-top gore and violence.The graveyard and crypt are downright creepy and the zombies look very Fulciesque.The plot is cheesy and it often jumps all over the place beginning with the morgue attendants,then to our sex crazed and beer starved quartet,who unleash the living dead to the hospital and back to the morgue again.If you like zombie movies or Herschell Gordon Lewis gorefests give "Corpse Eaters" a chance.7 out of 10.
36k Well spent.
moycon15 June 2008
I watched this flick yesterday and I have to say it's the finest horror film made for $36,000 I've ever seen (Sorry Steckler) The film is definitely worth seeking out if you are a zombie fan. This movie reeks of soul and atmosphere. Some of the shots of the zombs are the best ever committed to film. VERY creepy looking dusty webbed corpses slowly shamble to their screaming victims. Brrrrrrr.
Hot saggy Canadian women with sexy accents will keep you preoccupied before the HORROR rears its undead corpse eating head. This film entertained from start to finish. I couldn't ask for more than that. My only complaint is that is was too short.
Hot saggy Canadian women with sexy accents will keep you preoccupied before the HORROR rears its undead corpse eating head. This film entertained from start to finish. I couldn't ask for more than that. My only complaint is that is was too short.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
