Corpses Are Forever (2004 Video) User Reviews

this movie takes forever

[jbarker71 · 2/10 · 24 December 2004]

I'm always one to give a zombie movie a chance. This was more of a thriller that had zombies in it. Some zombies. The movie tried to impress upon you that the world had been overrun by zombies (why?), but there was never any tangible sense of fear or terror. This was a total vanity project.

As a newly minted Debbie Rochon fan, I had wanted to see her performance. The homicidal character she portrayed didn't serve much, if any, purpose. It was as though she was there to prop up the main character as a hottie girlfriend, but that was stretching the truth too far. The lead, in the B/W sequences, looked like a high schooler in a home movie. And it seemed like in every scene he was checking his clip for bullets. And the kungfu scenes... woah boy. And dude, keep your shirt on, that Bacardi bat tattoo was too skimpy looking (not bad ass, but ass-bad).

I did like Richard Lynch's over-the-top acting. And, there is something nice about seeing Brinke Stevens and Linnea in another horror film. In fact, I would have enjoyed more seeing Brinke, Linnea, Debbie, and Richard talking about horror films. That would have been interesting. However, this film is truly marred by the deus-ex-machina at the end with Linnea showing up saying "You owe me one (two... three...). In any sequel she would probably show up whenever the heroes were in trouble and bail them out. How unimaginative! Speaking of deus-ex-machina, let's have a serum that induces a flashback and amnesia that has little to do with the story! And let's have a bright white room with no segue to the other scenes.

Why, WHY, does one actor bring up John Carpenter's "They Live"? All of a sudden I was thinking about that film, and how much better it was than Corpses. It took all I had not to turn off the movie then and there. I'm a big fan of indie cinema and horror films, but this film simply falls short in so many ways. Total vanity project- it's as if the writer/director shelled out bucks for some talent and couldn't deliver on the script. The positives? Rochon, Quigley, Lynch, some of the lighting, and the car. The zombies sucked. But I'm sure the cast and crew had a fun old making it.

The Sound of Music had more zombies in it!!!

[edkishel · 1/10 · 29 August 2004]

All the positive reviews here on imdb this film has got (which is the only place you will find any) are very suspicious, as they all sound like canned PR material from the distributor. "Destined to become a cult classic" and "good old fashioned popcorn matinee", jeesh!! Of course I should expect as much from Asylum entertainment - purveyors of schlock even Charles Band wouldn't sit through.

As soon as I saw that the films lead was also the films writer, producer, and director, I knew I was in for trouble. First of all the kid can't act, neither can anyone else in the film, save for Richard Lynch who was barely watchable himself. Bad sound, bad effects and the story just plain sucked, a mishmash of rip-offs from the matrix, total recall, and James bond. And in a film that was about 90 min, there was only about 10 min of Zombie action.

The DVD box claims "its night, dawn, and day of the dead at once" Now that implies allot of living dead action, but nope. None to be found, just the films director running around with bad martial arts, and a performance that made me wince at every word. Don't rent, buy or even consider this film if you are a living dead head. You can tell how bad it is by reading all the fake reviews here that the filmmaker and his buddies probably put up themselves.

Good lord... Just walk away from this film.

[Bicuitrocious · 1/10 · 6 February 2005]

Here's your "zombie" secret-agent "thriller" in a nutshell: There are twelve zombies that never come close to hurting a soul, no plot, bad acting and a script so bad it poses the question: If 1,000 monkeys with 1,000 typewriters were put into a room for 1,000 years, would they be able to write something better? No and yes. No, they wouldn't write anything, but Yes, the flinging of monkey dung would be better than this dog of a film. If you are an indy filmmaker, why would you work so hard and gather some B- and C-list celebs into a movie only to make a confused, worthless half-ass piece of crap? Yes, I will crap on someone's dream because I love movies. I love movies so much that it hurts me when someone makes the effort to produce something so thoroughly weak.

And here's a question: If you're a CIA agent (that looks like a nineteen year-old kid with drawn-on tattoos) in the midst of a zombie invasion, why are you driving around in a convertible Caddy? Next time, the filmmakers should have ONE story and not only a real actor, but a REAL DIRECTOR. Find someone who knows how to write, and another guy who can operate an editing device. And a non-deaf person to be your sound guy...

I've got to go set this DVD on fire.

No punches held in this move, none landed either.(no spoiler)

[bublenutzpro · 1 October 2004]

Corpses might be forever, but my attention span wasn't. Another horrible movie distributed by the asylum, please stay away from the asylum.....unless you want to waste your money?

OK here's the story line, guy with amnesia wakes up in future where zombie are running rampage (why who knows?), zombie chase him, he runs, then he starts fighting them with kungfu (which looks like little kids in the backyard play fighting, not one punch or kick even come close to target) he then meets some people, who know him (how unusual..) then this process is repeated through the movie multiple times till it ends....

Another reason this movie was just bad, is because the person who wrote it, is also the main character, and his acting skills match his writing skills, horrible! must have been over budget?

Now don't get me wrong I am a big horror fan and love low budget movies, but this had the substance of a home movie, bad actors, horrible sets, unbearable script, and no plot, ya.. just like a home movie....

If you enjoy zombie movies I would stay away from this and cuddle up with ....day of the dead, dawn of the dead, night of the living dead, Shawn of the dead, the undead, and even the old school "zombie" movies...for some real zombie action.

If someone gives this movie to you, burn it!

[OakTownAs77 · 1/10 · 12 September 2004]

I have to say that this movie was the absolute worst piece of garbage I have seen this year. There is nothing logical to be found in this movie.For instance, when joe pendez(who is a horrible actor as are the rest of the cast)is suppose to be afraid for his life because of man eating zombies (which are slow, dumb, and, fake)I noticed that he actually is smirking through it all!

The action sequences are relatively non-existent and extremely unbelievable. i.e. when the karate kid(who is a wimp)starts kicking and hitting the zombies you can tell he is at least a foot away from impact.How pathetic!

Do not go near this worthless excuse for a movie!If you do, you will be sorry. (-1,000,000 out of 5 stars)

Dust bin Dwellars: Bad D.V.D. rental night courtesy of Asylum.

[Captain_Couth · 1/10 · 3 February 2005]

Corpses Are Forever (2003) is a waste of time. The film makers tried to make a cool movie but thinking somethings cool when it's not sucks, and so did this film. Instead of wasting money on B-Movie actors who know the product sucks, they should have spent in on production and writing a decent script. This movie is why Asylum is a joke of a company. They think they're Troma and they act like their product is all that and a bag of chips. You think that a company with the name Asylum would make edgy and horrific films that'll shock and terrorize you. Instead they scare you from watching any of their d.v.d.s

When you're making a movie, don't try and bring up cooler movies just so you can get some cred amongst old school horror fans. It wont work. You'll seem like you're reaching for some thing (and anything). The concept of this movie was interesting. Anybody could have made it work. The problem lies with these people. They just don't know how to make a watchable movie. Throwing stuff at the wall and seeing if it sticks is no way either. I could have made a better movie movie with $10,000 and three digital cameras.

Perhaps there's a market for this crap. I don't know who would watch this tripe but there must be. Just remember, have a decent script, motivated actors, a good director and lots of lighting. If you follows these rules you can make something that's watchable. If you try to make a movie that'll entertain yourself, you'll end up on the short end of the stick every time.

Not recommended. This movie is so bad it'll crack the lens within your d.v.d. player.

don't know why the video store bought so many copies

[phluttery · 1/10 · 8 September 2004]

Me and my husband rented this one night thinking it could be pretty bad, but we like to give many different films a chance.... we were right, it was pretty darn bad. The story line was very confusing as it flashed back and forth and i am not sure i every fully understood what the heck they were trying to do with that.. it seemed like whoever came up with the story was going for a mind F@#$ kind of thing, but it wasn't working... and the acting... the acting had much to be desired... the main character and his kicking martial arts crap.... and it was so unrealistic you could tell that he wasn't really hitting them... This is one of those movies you feel embarrassed you ever spent the money to rent... I would have much rather cleaned the kitty litter.

Terrible in ways I never dreamed possible

[Daelock · 1/10 · 13 April 2005]

I thought I'd seen the worst when I saw Uwe Boll's "House of the Dead" but no, this piece of junk had to come along and give me a new low of just how bad something can get. I'm not sure what happened, at what point the director thought it was a good idea to have him run from set-piece to set-piece using fake looking spin kicks (shot from the side to completely emphasize the point he gets nowhere near any zombie he kicks), speaking in one of the WORST British accents I've heard since Keanu Reeves was Harker in Dracula. If you want a great zombie movie, head over to Dawn of the Dead (either the remake or the original). It has better acting, better zombie scenes, and is an overall better movie. The plot was scattered around with unlikable character after unlikable character polluting the screen with their very presence. It's not even "good cheesy" it's most Definitely "bad cheesy" and bad in the worst way, bad because it doesn't know how bad it is. It's the kind of movie that makes you wish Myster Science Theater 3000 was still around to give movies like this the treatment it deserves.

Nonesence. A must to avoid.

[michaelRokeefe · 1/10 · 8 May 2005]

Straight to video. Why not straight to the trash bin? Jose Prendes directs, writes and plays two roles in this over-acted horror film. To be exact this movie is NOT even scary. Is there a crime concerning imitation of a movie? The Gates of Hell have squeaked open and it is up to a secret agent(Prendes) and a motley crew of military-types to close the open boundary and end the sure invasion of zombies. The agent is suffering amnesia and has chemically induced flashbacks of searching for his kidnapped son. Hard to tell which is the plot and sub-plot since this film makes no sense at all. As for the suggested zombies...they are small in number and so weak they fall down from the wind made by the missed leg kicks and karate chops of the super spy. Another case of believing the packaging describes the video inside. Other cast members are: Richard Lynch, Debbie Rochon, Brinke Stevens and Felissa Rose.

Interesting In Parts, But To Many Flaws Hurt This Film

[danthewrestlingmanorigin · 5/10 · 11 February 2007]

Two things straight off the bat, that hurt this film. Number one as the original reviewer mentioned the kicks on the zombies are way off, and hit nothing but air. I'm sympathetic to low budgets', but it's hard to focus when our lead hero is children's play fighting with the hordes of living dead. Second, Prendes is not an actor. Honestly I thought he did okay, if you keep that fact in mind, but he still doesn't hit the right notes at all, and really bogs down the film. It's odd, because the rest of the cast is excellent. Scream queens Rochon, Stevens, Quigley, and Rose all together in one film, was a huge plus. And Richard Lynch chews the scenery like the veteran genre pro he is. What I personally enjoyed about Corpses, is it's unique. So many zombie films be they big budget studio epics, or micro budget indie efforts, all try and recreate the magic of Romero, but Corpses dares to be different. In fact, if your looking for a zombie carnage film, you'll be disappointed, the zombies are never intimidating, and our heroes pretty much get past them with little effort. This is basically a supernatural spy film, with a solid story, and multiple twists.

Corpses Really Act Poorly

[ghoulieguru · 1/10 · 4 November 2004]

Corpses Really Act Poorly (C.R.A.P.) - Okay, so before I rip into this movie I want to explain why I gave it two stars. One star goes to Jose Prendes for having a good idea, and one star because it's a zombie movie. That's where my good will ends. The main thing that ruins this movie is our intrepid auteur Jose. His acting is only marginally worse than his martial arts skills. Watching the fight sequences felt like watching WWF. If a kick or punch landed within five feet of its intended target, it was a miracle. Our lead actor/director spends a good portion of the movie wearing a big felt hat that's about ten sizes to big for his head, trying to channel Indiana Jones or Humphrey Bogart in a sad attempt at Cinema Noir. Nice try, Jose, but you ended up being your own worst enemy. Get some actors next time, because your idea could have been interesting.

Good Old Fashioned Popcorn Eating Saturday Matinée Entertainment

[cinemadave · 8/10 · 25 June 2003]

"Corpses Are Forever" is destined for cult classic status with it's fresh mix of monster movie traditions and slick spy entertainment. Let's say it is "The Prisoner" meets "House of Frankenstein" with a pinch of "The Return of the Living Dead." The ensemble cast alone featuring Linnea Quigley, Brinke Stevens, Debbie Rochon, Felissa Rose, Don Calfa and Richard Lynch is worth the price of a DVD.

Despite the apocalyptic setting, the human spirit prevails. The catchy theme song (Corpses are Forever) and clever closing credits makes for an enjoyable 90 minutes....when is the sequel coming out?

"Corpse are Forever" has some great science fiction ideas that may be lost by the flesh eating crowd. Expect this film to be plagiarized by the Hollywood elite.

Indie Zombie Fun

[moviemaniacslash · 7/10 · 22 May 2005]

What could have been coarse, crass exploitation, is instead a fun exercise in crossing the living dead and spy genres. At the forefront, it is plainly noted the loving craft and attention dedicated to detail. While there are a few shortcomings, CAF will gleefully and overwhelmingly win you over. From fantastic cinematography to a great story, this indie film definitely stretches the barriers of what is to be expected of direct to video quickies. Rather than abuse the already beaten horror genre, CAF infuses wit, imagination, and style into an area of cinema that greatly appreciates it. So many horror films rather pander to the audience, while CAF goes the extra mile to entertain and challenge with its perplexing mystery that combines paranoia with action excitement. Go check it out.

This movie is AWFUL

[gwaring2002 · 2/10 · 13 June 2005]

I am in the middle of it was I write this, this has to be the most god awful movie I have ever seen, worse than "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas". The acting is terrible, casting is non existent. The music is unbearable, the accents are so fake its not funny. Who the heck is that General.. hardly standard military. Was there even a script? The black and white does NOT add artistic dimension. Is this a zombie movie or a kidnapping. Who knows? If I had not gotten this with a free coupon for Blockbuster I would ask for my money back. I swear I could do better with a old Super 8 camera and a couple of high school kids... but not the same ones used to make this film.

The marketers should be sued for false advertising!

[zombizilla · 7 October 2004]

I picked up this DVD in Hollywood Video hoping for a little zombie fix. Instead, I found myself going "Huh?"

CORPSES LAST FOREVER tries to be an original take on the zombie genre. The prologue before the credits is not bad. In black and white, we find a young man lying on the floor all bloodied. As he revives, a voice-over of his thoughts are trying to piece together what happened to him. He feels no pain, even though he has been shot and suffered a mangled leg. He grabs a gun on the floor and goes in search of his car.

OK, I was somewhat hooked at this moment.

After the opening credits roll (a take on James Bond films), we are introduced to a guy who has no idea who or where he is. But all of a sudden, he is kung-fooing some zombies who seem to be lined up left and right of center. This is where I start to groan, because these kicks and punches are NOT landing at all! I was reminded of the Elvis comeback special where Big E is showing off his martial arts moves in a musical/dance sequence where E seems to be kicking major bad-guy ass but the moves miss and the bad guys just merely jump and roll on the floor.

The plot of the movie seems to be part spy adventure, part army commando film and part devil-taking-over-the-world scenario. Zombies? Yes, there are zombies, but they seem to more fodder for the star to use his kung-foo than the driving force for the plot.

Jose Prendes wrote, directed, produced and stars in dual roles as the flashback guy and the kung-foo spy. Supposedly funded by Prendes' trust fund, the budget really shows. He seems to try and pay homage to several genres here. Several horror vets appear alongside Prendes; Richard Lynch, Debbie Rochon and Lennea Quigley (No, guys. She doesn't show any skin). Don Calfa (Ernie from ROTLD) is listed as a producer, along with Lynch. This Prendes must have some connections down there in Miami, where this was filmed.

Now the zombie action.

There is no munching, head shots or vacarious gore. NONE! The zombies only seem to stagger around while Prendes kung-foos them around and roll on the floor. Just like Elvis.

Corpses are Forever

[nirvana692kurt · 1/10 · 10 September 2005]

This movie was so horrible that I loved it. The movie's plot makes no sense whatsoever. It was supposed to be about zombies, but the zombies just stumbled around in the background. Somehow the devil gets involved in the movie. Also the main characters fighting moves are so fake. The movie also has a great James Bond spoof theme song. At the end of the movie there was some ghost lady that kept on giving the main character weapons and saying, "you owe me one." This part was really really confusing and stupid that it made me laugh. This movie was awful even for a B-rated scary movie. In the credits it mentions the sequel "The Corpse That Loved Me" which I can't wait to see how bad that movie turns out.

for what its worth...

[chappell666 · 5/10 · 14 January 2005]

I enjoyed this movie. No its not a great movie, but i felt it was well done camp. You cant take the movie itself seriously, but the movie plays off this, it isn't meant to be serious, scary or believable. This movie doesn't have pretensions, and i found it much more entertaining than say, club dread... (which was given a theatrical release.) i thought it was enjoyable, and very wisely had a runtime of 120 mins. And the devil looks very much like marlon brando, I'm surprised no one else has commented on this. I felt the storyline was very original, a nice change of pace from all the "teenagers visiting woods/secluded rural community" genre films (cabin fever excepted). If you want a little over an hour of mindless entertainment, and are willing to exercise suspension of disbelief, maybe check it out..... Or at least if you are contemplating renting club dread check this out instead..

Tries to be way too many different things.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 3/10 · 24 June 2011]

This movie started out promising enough but it started to become weird and messy soon after that.

It's absurd how many things this movie tries to be. It doesn't really fit into one genre because of that and it makes you unsure how to take this movie. It starts out as a serious mystery movie, then it becomes suddenly a zombie kung-fu flick and a spoof of about every every well known classic or cult horror movie. I often say it is a good thing for these low budget type of movies to not take itself so seriously but in this particular I was actually still digging this movie when it was being serious. It was when it became silly and more comedy like that I started to get annoyed and disappointed with this movie.

I can definitely see and understand what the film-makers were trying to do and achieve though. They tried to be like a Robert Rodriguez movie, that goes over-the-top with things and is a nod to some cult classics out of the horror genre. Kind of like from "From Dusk Till Dawn", only Jose Prendes clearly ain't no Robert Rodriguez and he isn't half as talented as he is. None of the ideas really work out in this movie because it goes into way too many different directions and only becomes an huge mess to watch because of that.

So this movie is many things but yet it also isn't good with being any of these things. It isn't a good horror, it isn't a good zombie flick, it isn't a good comedy, it isn't a good gory/action blood-fest. No, I just can't imaging anybody liking this movie as anything. In this case you also really can't blame the low budget for that, since it was the directing and writing that made this simply one huge mess to watch.

Guess it still has some mildly entertainment value to it because I just didn't hate this movie as much as I often hate modern low budget horror movies. But there is no reason for anyone to ever go and see this movie.

3/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

For a no-budget, not-sure-of-its-genre film, not bad

[Bry-2 · 3/10 · 9 August 2006]

If this movie could have focused, it could have been an entertaining little romp, filmed in Miami and Fort Lauderdale, with an excellent cast of grade-Z actors, including the homeless-man's Rutger Hauer, Richard Lynch, and the aging but still cute Linnea Quigley, among others.

The biggest problem I saw in this movie was the lack of focus. Was it a James Bond parody, as you might expect from the title? No. THAT would have been cool -- what would a James Bond-style secret agent do in a world full of zombies? No, this is more Memento meets Night of the Living Dead meets American Werewolf in London ... with Linnea Quigley as some sort of undead Deus ex Machina.

If you take into consideration the lack of budget (to the point that there are virtually no threatening zombies on screen and no threat of impending doom, until someone mentions it in dialogue), it's fun. If you try to judge it without those considerations, it's really really bad. So be kind! I'd rent the sequel, The Corpse Who Loved Me ... wouldn't you?

Embarrassingly Bad

[Uriah43 · 2/10 · 18 March 2013]

This is one of those low-budget movies that had the necessary talent to be a good picture, but lacked the direction required to bring it all together. I say this because the weaknesses were all too evident. For example, at the very beginning, the lead character "Quint Barrow" (Jose Prendes) is shown to have amnesia which results in flashbacks. Nothing new so far. However, rather than explaining anything, the back-and-forth scene technique just seemed to make everything more confusing. Same thing with the dialogue. Whenever Quint Barrow asked a question it seemed the other characters typically responded in riddles which left me even more bewildered. Throw in some bad action scenes, miscasting, bad character development and some of the cheapest sets I have ever seen and what should have been a good film became embarrassingly bad. And it didn't have to be this way. In my opinion, Jose Prendes had no business being the lead actor and a good director would have recognized this from the start. Unfortunately, the director and the lead actor were the same person. So rather than utilizing the buxom blonde nurse played by Trista Favor (absurdly named "Nurse Tittwana") who easily captured every red-blooded male's attention whenever the camera focused on her, the director chose to spotlight himself. Likewise, Linnea Quigley (as the zombie named "Elli Kroger") was terribly miscast and her talents were wasted in the process as well. Be that as it may, Debbie Rochon ("Marguerite") and Richard Lynch (as "General Morton") were able to put in adequate performances in spite of the poor scripts they were given. But then, Jose Prendes was also the writer. And I believe that is the main problem with this film. While I understand that sometimes low-budget films require every available person to take on additional responsibilities, having a person who writes, directs and acts in the same movie is sometimes too much. In this case the director doesn't utilize the talent or see the hidden resources that were available. Either that or he had an incredible ego to feed. In either case, this film doesn't live up to its potential. And the director, writer and lead actor are the reasons why.

A movie so lifeless that it comparatively makes zombies seem alive

[TheLittleSongbird · 2/10 · 17 February 2014]

There are only two things that save Corpses are Forever from being worse than it is. One is the reasonably well-shot and creepy prologue, the other is Richard Lynch, who sinks his teeth into his role and seems to be enjoying himself thoroughly. Which is more than can be said for the rest of the cast who either look embarrassed, are wasted or have no acting talent. Debbie Rochon is not bad but she is pretty wasted actually in that she is given next to nothing to work with. Linnea Quigley does not convince as a zombie and looks like she doesn't want to be there, and Brinkie Stevens is another actress who has very little to do. The worst of the lot though is definitely Jose Prendes in a performance so charisma-less and forced, often he makes the zombies seem more animated. And they were certainly nothing to write home about, in fact they were not scary in the slightest, all they did was lumber around as if stoned. They were also very poorly made-up- fancy-dress party zombie make-up has been much more convincing- and they even managed to feel irrelevant to the story. Prendes also writes and directs and in all honesty of all the writing/starring in/directing-by-one-person jobs from any movie Prendes for Corpses are Forever has to be down there as one of the all-time worst. The direction is completely amateurish, with all-over-the-place editing and his support and direction for the actors seemed non-existent too, you can tell by how the minor roles/extras were just wandering around looking as though they didn't have a clue what to do. His script-writing is stilted, doesn't develop the characters at all and adds ones that are completely extraneous, has a very improvised feel and has no structure and humour and banter that verge on juvenile. The awkward line-delivery doesn't help nor does the sound, sometimes you can't even hear what was being said. The storytelling is so thin on the ground that there is often very little of it at all, it is filled with plodding exposition that seemed to be solely there to pad out the running time, is very tediously paced(not in a while have I been this bored by a movie)and is often incoherent(perhaps due to that there was a lot of stringing-of-rip-offs going on). There is no fun, tension or thrills, you can go as far to say no atmosphere, and then there are action sequences that are haphazardly shot and to say that they are choreographed unimaginatively is being too kind. And the ending is too ridiculous that it is not worth commenting on, plus the most inventive Corpses are Forever ever gets are the title and taglines that are very cheesy themselves. In conclusion, not the worst The Asylum has done or the worst movie ever but it is a terrible and interminably dull one on all but one or two levels. 2/10, though it was a very tough decision as to whether to give it a 1 or a 2. Bethany Cox

Very Strange

[Insanity1865 · 3/10 · 1 March 2005]

I got up to take a leak during this movie and seriously considered just stopping it where it was rather than pausing to see the rest. Not a good film by most standards but not without its strong suits. First, budget. Obviously dirt-cheap but directed and utilized in such a fashion that it came off as pretty slick. Second, spunk. The movie didn't take itself too seriously while at the same time not pulling punches. The actors at least didn't look embarrassed to be in their scenes. There were a multitude of problems. First, the acting. Low budget rarely means good acting. This movie is no exception. The one vaguely recognizable Devil character only rings B-movie bells. Most of the dialog is so stilted and forced as to be laughable. Second, the action. There are three or four 'action' scenes in the movie which involve martial arts kicks and mild gun-play. These scenes are so lame and poorly choreographed that I felt embarrassed for everybody involved. It would have been better to leave them out of the movie and suffer the continuity distortion. Third, the storyline. It's quite possible that a plethora of deleted scenes help pull the plot together and help to explain what's going on, but what made the final cut had me confused from start to finish. Even once the b+w to color transitions and strange flashbacks are 'explained' the action doesn't seem to fit the facts. And about three quarters into the movie the story derails and seems to contradict itself as quickly as possible. The pseudo-triumphant, dues ex machina, cliffhanger ending is perhaps the least original thing about the entire movie. I will end with a few more compliments: 1) The blonde at the film's opening is super hot. 2) Two or three scenes involving zombie abuse were pretty funny. 3) The movie quotes one of my favorite lines ever from the movie 'They Live' with Rowdy Roddy Piper

Those three things earn the 3 stars. This isn't a very good rent for hardcore zombie lovers or casual horror viewers. It's in the very specific category of low-budget, nifty-directed, and not-too-original. If you don't just love movies like that, you'll most likely hate 'Corpses Are Forever.' PS: There is also a chance you will watch this movie and laugh your ass off the entire way through. I was too bored and found it just not quite funny enough. I'll have to check the message board and see if anybody felt different. Peace out.

Fast, Fun, & Ferocious

[horrordivas · 8/10 · 12 August 2004]

CORPSES ARE FOREVER is an intelligent, fun filled zombie spy film. In a time when Jason can take on Freddy and Aliens can attack Predators, it seems only natural that zombies should square off against spies. The melding of two genres can be precarious, but here it is pulled off rather startling. This is why independent films are so important, because they take real chances that otherwise generic Hollywood productions would not. The cast and acting of this film really surprised me for its budget. Familiar faces are everywhere and the acting really does shine. Performances were realistic, gritty, fun, and perfectly complimentary to the narrative structure. The cinematography, for me, is where CORPSES ARE FOREVER really hit a home run. Where as so many independent films are shot on video to different degrees of success, CORPSES ARE FOREVER has a legitimate big budget Hollywood film look. But beyond the texture of the image, the film also sports incredible lighting. The contrast and hues are excellent, scary and fun, and recall the earlier imagery of Argento. Whereas I felt the twist ending here may have been a bit over the top, it did keep in tone with the overall feel and mood of the film. Is it logical?

Well this is a zombie spy film. Is it fast and fun? You bet. Add a does of zombies and some legitimately great horror effects and you have a ferocious zombie action film. Check it out.

Impressive Debut

[haydenflicks · 7/10 · 4 February 2004]

Here is what should be a complete cinematic anomaly: the first zombie/spy/thriller/camp horror film ever made. However, "Corpses Are Forever" proves to be a lot more than just your average independent film. Whereas most films that attempt to combine various genres often become jumbled and incoherent, Prendes' impressive debut film walks a clever cinematic tightrope and succeeds at balancing its eclectic approach while never grinding any gears. Therefore wit and camp, zombie and spy, sexy and tasteful, action and suspense all blend seamlessly together for a highly entertaining and complex film. It shows that Prendes wishes this property to become a series-and justifiably so. Featuring a great ensemble cast, vivid imagery, and a narrative structure that cries out for a big budget treatment, "Corpses Are Forever" will have you asking for more. Today, most films are only interested in an ever expanding franchise of generic sequels. This film on the other hand would easily allow for direct continuations that would expand the narrative. Much like turning chapters in a book, continuations of "Corpses Are Forever" would allow the structure to grow as we continue to explore the imagination of Prendes.

Nice try, but no cigar.

[Hey_Sweden · 4/10 · 17 October 2022]

Writer / director Jose Prendes casts himself in the heroic lead role of Malcolm Grant, a C. I. A. Agent with amnesia in a post-apocalypse Earth overrun by zombies. He must join forces with a ragtag military unit to find out how to close the door to Hell that has opened and let these creatures out.

The average viewer would certainly WANT to like this effort more than they probably will. Give Prendes credit for assembling an ensemble cast full of schlock veterans (Richard Lynch, Brinke Stevens, Linnea Quigley, Felissa Rose, Conrad Brooks, Debbie Rochon, Don Calfa), some of whom at least get decent showcases. Lynch, in particular, is lots of fun as a very evil bad guy. But Prendes was unwise to save the hero role for himself, as he's pretty much a non-entity. Also, his script may be curious for being all over the map (encompassing espionage, sci-fi, serial killer thrillers, and horror), but it's seriously muddled, and the viewer will have a hard time keeping up with what's going on - or caring much. Prendes, too, tries his best to keep this visually interesting on his meager budget, by shooting some scenes in color and some in black & white.

But the action scenes are some of the most inept you'll ever see. They're so bad that they're not even funny. And, in general, this movie commits the unpardonable sin of being boring. Not even this cast can really save it.

To drive home the fact that Prendes is partly parodying James Bond flicks, there's a final joke before the end credits. Said end credits, fortunately, do contain *some* funny outtakes.

One of the lamest bits: the gun-toting priest shamelessly referencing "They Live", which lands with a thud.

Four out of 10.