Deadlands: The Rising (2006) User Reviews

Deadlands The Rising: They did the best they could

[Platypuschow · 3/10 · 10 January 2019]

For some reason I went into Deadlands wanting to like it, not sure why and unfortunately I simply couldn't.

A hyper low budget zombie effort this is the first part of a trilogy and is directed by, written by and starring Gary Ugarek.

It's your pretty standard stuff, an incident occurs, zombies appear and people do their best to survive. Trouble is it never really gets going, there is no actual story. What you'll be watching for little over any hour is what happens in the first 15-20 minutes of your average zombie movie.

Now as you'd imagine it looks and sounds cheap (Because it is) but somehow they make the best of it here. It's amazing what even the slightest bit of talent behind the camera can accomplish.

In no way is Deadlands anything even remotely resembling a good film however they certainly get points for effort. Onto the sequel soon I suppose.

The Good:

Above par soundtrack

You can tell effort was made

The Bad:

Looks/sound cheap and nasty

Dreadfully paced

So bad it's almost insulting

[Heislegend · 1/10 · 23 June 2007]

Let me start by saying this: if you liked this movie, good for you but please don't think that I don't "get it" simply because I didn't like it. No...I get it, and it still sucks out loud.

This film is a rarity for me. It actually made me angry that I sat through all of it. Most bad horror movies I can simply shrug off with a simple "man, that was terrible", but not this one. Even accompanied by a liberal amount of alcohol and a very healthy suspension of disbelief I still think this is truly just an awful movie. Why? Numerous reasons.

First of all, giving some "actors" some white grease paint for their faces and black around the eyes doesn't make a zombie. I realize you do what you can on a small budget, but if your zombies look like they're straight off of a Misfits album cover, just stop there. Hell, leave their faces alone and just smear fake blood on them. Trust me, it's a better effect. And that little disclaimer at the beginning of the film with something about the movie being violent and disturbing...get rid of that. Nobody likes a liar. The only person who would find this disturbing is *maybe* an 8 year old...but kids are so screwed up today even that's a stretch.

Then there's the script, acting, and direction. All well below par for any movie, indie or not. The actors throughout the entire film looked like someone with a shy bladder thinking "don't watch me! I can't do it when you watch me!". I imagine they may have been half way convincing off screen, but as soon as someone said action they just froze and delivered some of the most mundane, bland dialogue I have ever seen. The story was equally flawed...leaving much of the background information out of the film. I suppose I could knock the production values and minor technical crap like that, but it's an indie movie after all and you make do with what you can afford.

The pluses to this movie? It's only 60 minutes long so your suffering will be limited. And...well...that's about it. If you really want to watch a bad zombie movie that's at least funny bad, go watch Death Metal Zombies. Skip this junk.

A low budget, low quality, waste of time, amateur zombie flick.

[captzero · 1/10 · 26 April 2007]

The video and audio quality is sub-par. To me, it felt like a home video reminiscent of something you'd see taken at the relatives place on Thanksgiving Day.

The acting is amateurish, forced, and seemingly barely rehearsed. The screenplay/dialog is poorly written.

You just know a movie is going to blow when 50% of the opening credits go to special FX techs, the dude who cast "extras" for zombies, and the writer/director/editor is credited with about a half of a dozen other billets.

Usually, I'd say that a movie this horrible is worth watching for the simple entertainment of pointing and laughing at how bad it is... but the whole thing from start to finish is mind numbingly dull.

It just wasn't good.

[soheifox · 1/10 · 1 May 2007]

I sat down to watch this movie, with my brother. Together, we are NOTORIOUS fans of any and all zombie movies. However, I was almost instantly let down. From the opening shot with some unknown woman writing in her journal about a mysterious man who ruined the planet or somesuch, into the overly pretentious 11 minute opening credits....... OK, I digress.. but seriously, who cares about the radio stations still working and the 2 fat guys who drive around for a while mumbling. I don't have any idea what they were blathering on about and I somehow doubt it would have improved the scene much if I'd bothered to turn the volume up to a level which would have made the background music cause my ears to bleed. Wwhile I'm on the subject of music...it was there when it shouldn't have been and STOPPED the moment it needed to be there.. music while talking and none during 'action'. I absolutely despise when somebody reviews a movie that they did not even watch through, but *I* could not finish this movie.. for only the third time ever ( the first, being the pitiful remake of Rollerball, and second being that miserable piece of rancid feces, Freddy Got Fingered).

We got tired of all the non-stop "dialogue" and ended up fast forwarding in minor one-minute increments to see if it would ever end.. 30 minutes into the movie there was no sign of substance. So we took a five minute jump and were.... rewarded... with a blurry slow motion shot of people chewing on what appeared to be bloody eels, in a seriously unconvincing manner. The great John Romero did much much better with FRIED CHICKEN.. nothing bloody.. nothing weird....simple FRIED CHICKEN.

Another leap revealed something that seemed to approach an action scene but was lacking in background music (mentioned above) and we simply shut the "film" off. I went back later to try again... and still couldn't. Everyone's lines were forced, their every motion was filled with stagefright... or possibly too much drug usage. Seriously, the little kid looked high. For crying out loud guys, you should have at least watched your own film and realized that you BADLY needed to do another take. Heck, even other indie filmmakers have the intellect to know when they are making an unwatchable scene.

I'm not even going to be able to be polite here and say something re-assuring like "good first effort'.... these guys just don't have the talent to make movies. I'm aware they also have a history of attacking reviewers.. have at it, guys.. it won't change how simply awful this is. You're not "indie filmmakers" you're just a bunch of kids with a camera. This "film" is acceptable for an 8th grade show and tell session; nothing more.

ONE OF WHO?

[nogodnomasters · 1/10 · 26 July 2018]

Just because you can make a zombie movie, doesn't mean you should. Before the zombies are created through a bomb, the TV and phones go out...but airplanes can still fly with their GPS. The film is low budget, lame, boring, bad sound, terrible acting, worse dialogue and virtually lacking a plot.

Guide: F-bomb. No sex or nudity.

Cheapest zombie film you'll see

[Leofwine_draca · 1/10 · 23 January 2018]

DEADLANDS: THE RISING is a typical example of your indie zombie horror film of the mid 2000s. It has the old grindhouse wannabe damaged look and, being shot on video, might just be the cheapest zombie film you'll ever see. It follows the typical outbreak storyline, this time taking place in Baltimore, and there's evidence of a real budget at times, so it's a pity this is so terrible. Listen out for the inappropriately cheerful music during the zombie scenes.

So-So zombie film has a little something to offer living dead fans.

[engineerguru101 · 5/10 · 2 May 2007]

So I sat down with my girlfriend and watched this film we rented from the local video store, we both love zombie films so we figured it has to be at least decent right? Well that is a yes and no scenario.

Here we have a film made for no money, and it starts off almost one year into the zombie apocalypse with a woman writing in her journal about the events that led to the dreaded zombiegeddon. Soon after we are wound backwards to the day it all started and these two buddies are out on a drinking shooting spree to blow off steam. (I don't think mixing alcohol and guns was a very smart thing to do here, but whatever it isn't really the point.) As the day progresses further along an explosion rocks the city and suddenly things are thrown into chaos. As the city is evacuated we are treated to one of the most annoying performances from some woman chastising her husband about not asking for directions, and the over used story arc of a little girl who lost her mom, at this point my girlfriend and I were praying these people were eaten alive in the most painful of manners.

The second most annoying story or characters have to be the National Guard soldiers. As a member of the guard I almost felt insulted. I say almost because at least they were good for laugh.

Now nearly 20 some minutes have gone by and not one zombie pops up on screen. We were about to turn it off when finally the zombies show up and tear some poor cop to shreds. All that time to get to the good stuff, and then the film did get better from there. After that scene we immediately return to the traffic jam full of evacuees and the zombies begin to invade and attack. This ladies and gentlemen is the single best sequence of the entire film. The zombies tear through the unsuspecting motorists as violently as possible and the gore delivers when some poor woman has her throat torn out. The girlfriend and I finally started to get interested in the film, but that was as good as it gets. As the rest of the film played on each action sequence tried to get the same momentum going but fell short. What a shame as it started to get much better but ended up falling flat.

The question is, would I recommend this film? Give it a rent if you can find it. Just be prepared to sit it out before the film actually begins to build momentum. Better luck next time, if there is a next.

A brief, fair review...

[harperken80 · 5 November 2009]

At a bare minimum, Gary Ugarak's film stands out as an example of innovation trumping limitation. It's brisk (a little over an hour), and the production deficiencies are more than obvious (note the different video quality from shot to shot during some of the large scale scenes). But the fundamental story of a zombie apocalypse is so nicely rendered that one can't help but smile. The performances aren't particularly natural, but the film doesn't waste a moment of screen time.

There's not a whole lot of original content, but Ugarak's execution makes up for it. Deadlands is a worthy addition to the genre of the undead.

Flamers need to lighten up and give credit where due.

This is a zombie film

[meemoomay · 9/10 · 10 April 2007]

I have read the reviews, I have read the user comments, and I have looked at the votes. About half the people who have watched this film actually get it, and get what its about. The other half either don't have a clue, or don't understand what low budget cinema is all about.

Films like these are not something you can walk into and expect CGI explosions and people getting blown to bits, especially in a film made for 10,000 bucks. This is the type of film from people who have a love for the genre and try to bring you a vision as twisted as the films you love. I am sure if they had a million bucks you would see everything you like, but they don't and it ain't't gonna happen. If you go into this expecting Dawn of the Dead 2004 or 28 day later, for get it. That is not going to happen. You will see references to every zombie film ever made, especially the good ones, but you will also see one of the better no budget indie zombie films ever made.

Not a great movie, but it ain't bad either.

[ZombieGal · 6/10 · 7 February 2007]

I appeared in this zombie film as an extra, and was very excited to see it when the filmmakers finished it. I am happy Gary was able to finish his film, and he was great to work with on set. I know he was constantly bothered by the lack of budget the film had and wanted to do so much more with the movie but couldn't. I think it bothered him and it shows in the finished product.

I was reading the number of votes cast for the movie and I wish i could read the comments of the people whom voted it a ten and the people who voted it a 1. The film is neither, over all it is between a 5 and 7 at best. I personally gave it a 6. I don't say this in a mean or demeaning fashion but there were a lot of areas the movie needed improvement and lot of area the movie succeeded beyond even my expectations.

The opening was a bit long for my taste and the bulk of the movies action doesn't really kick in until the 2nd half of the film. My husband and I were amazed how a movie shot on video looked like it was shot on film, but Gary must of done his homework because we looked at it in disbelief and amazement. Still the movie lacks character until the action starts to kick. Getting through the first 15-20 minutes will be hard for some people, but in the end it will be worth the wait. I was very upset at the unfinished feel the ending had, but Gary always roamed the set stating this would be the first of at least 2-3 movies so that could easily explain the open ending of Deadlands.

This is not a movie you would want to let your children see, there are many moments of language and horror type gore that may scare the little ones. It is safe for probably 14 and above although it could easily qualify as an R rated movie based on the violence and language alone.

For a first time movie it is OK, I guess being a cast member makes me somewhat biased but I felt that I would be fair when writing my little blurb for the film. I am not going to praise it more than I feel it should be and I won't hate it just because it is a small little horror movie made on no money. Hopefully he can do a little better with his next movie.

People don't know jack....

[turtleman36 · 10/10 · 21 May 2007]

Of all the no budget zed films out there how can anyone say this is bad or horrible? It moves a long at a good pace. The running time is perfect considering the construct of the story. The gore is decent, and considering no one in the film is a professional actor, they did a decent job.

The comments some have left are just laughable at best. These so called zed fans that trash this film wouldn't have the guts to take on something of this magnitude nor would they have pulled off anything remotely decent, but yet they have no problem running off at the mouth about it.

This is the perfect homegrown zed film. The filmmakers should be proud. Don't listen to people who talk a bunch of trash and don't get worked up over it either. I have read the reviews, even the Fangoria review, and if Fangoria prints that it is a decent indie zed film who is anyone else to argue?

You guys did a good job, enjoy the fact you accomplished something like this as it does show zombies films still have pizazz.

Indie horror done right

[Psinelli · 7/10 · 11 February 2007]

I recently watched this film after trading a friend my Stink of Flesh DVD for Deadlands: The Rising, and I will admit I received the better deal.

First, Deadlands is no masterpiece of low budget indie cinema, but what it is, is a zombie film which is entertaining, gory, and fun. Indie zombie films get a lot of bad rap, as does indie cinema in general. So many people are used to the polished Hollywood look and feel that when someone attempts a reality based horror film it easily gets looked over. Deadlands is one of those films that takes all the glamour out of film-making and firmly grounds it in reality.

Deadlands is no masterpiece. It's weak spots lie in the acting, an entire unknown cast with little experience, but it is far from horrible. The editing on the film is decent and the soundtrack is superb. The music builds a lot of great tension and fits this film perfectly. Many applause to the composers for the music in the film. The zombies are of the running type, but the film also shows the shambling George Romero type zombies as well and to be honest the mix of fast and slow works well with the film. The zombie attacks are fast and brutal, the best of which is the traffic jam of evacuees swallowed up by hundreds of zombies catching them in every direction they try to escape. That scene is an edge of your seat experience all by itself. Deadlands only other fault is the running time which is just under 70 minutes.

The two other most outstanding things about Deadlands, besides the music, was shot selection and set pieces. You can easily tell the filmmakers were aiming for an epic size film and they pulled it off to an extent.

Don't let the meager budget keep you from checking this out, especially if you are a zombie film fan. This is one for every zombie fans' collection.

7 stars out 0f 10 stars, deducting 3 stars for running time(wish it had been 20 minutes longer) and the acting.

Why do so many hate this film?

[oneeyedwondermike · 7/10 · 11 May 2007]

Being an army brat for so many years had me living all over the world and trust when I say, "I have seen my fair share of bad movies". However, what I don't get is what people hate about this film. Have any of you seen any other low budget independent zombies films? I would assume not or I wouldn't be reading some of the forum comments I have read, nor would I have read the two poor comments/reviews left for the film.

Lets be honest this film isn't a perfect 10, no film really is, but this films is a solid 6/7 all the way. Take into consideration the budget and what was pulled off, this is easily one of the better zombies films to come from the underground in years. It has its moments of being a tad slow, and it has its moments of being spot on.

Before I even watched this I had my doubts, I then read a few reviews, one being from Canada's very own horror-movies.ca. I also read the bad reviews at Cinematical and Bloody-Disgusting, and I can say this easily, the bad reviews don't have a clue. From reading the reviewers comments you can tell the film was slagged off as a waste of their time as they are too busy trying to scoop the next Hollywood horror blockbuster. This is where word of mouth has to come into play, and I will set you all straight. This is a decent zombie project and if you are a true zombie fan you will love it or like it, there is no hate, unless you don't like running zombies.

This was good effort, even if the acting is poor at times, and the film really comes together as it progresses. This is definitely not one of those films where you need to care about characters, it is just a ride along of sorts that honors all the best things there is to honor in the zombie genre.

6.8 out of 10

The zombies that ate Baltimore

[scifiknut · 7/10 · 23 May 2007]

First it was Pittsburgh, then Louisville, Ky, and now Baltimore, MD has fallen to the army of the dead in Gary Ugarek's Deadlands: The Rising.

When George Romero gave us Night of the Living Dead it was a type of horror movie never seen before, taking the zombie monster and converting it into a cannibalistic killer capable of no emotion or remorse, making it one of the most terrifying monsters in cinema history. Today countless filmmakers have copied or tried to mimic the zombie paradox, some have succeeded and some have flat out failed, but every now and again, in the countless indie zombie horror films, a diamond in the rough that peaks out to grab the attention of zombie film lovers the world over.

Deadlands is that diamond. Although very low budget, and with flaws in hand, it has a great 80's movie vibe with a realistic feel and some nice gore, not too mention scenes building suspense are done quite well and the films score is eerily effective and felt in the vein of John Carpenter's musical styling.

Zombies are what people want and they will eventually get once they progress through the story of Deadlands. The films plays the angle of an average day turning into the nightmare from hell and although the acting leaves a lot to be desired you can easily see the direction Ugarek was taking when constructing the films story. One thing I want too mention as well is how Ugarek shares a similar trait as Romero, they both like to give the audience a little political commentary in their films. Romero's Land of the Dead had a more in your face approach with the political sub plot whereas Ugarek kept his more subtle and he played on the events surrounding not only 9/11 but hurricane Katrina as well.

Deadlands single biggest problem is a very slow start. The first zombie did not appear on screen until the 22:00 mark, but once the dead begin to walk and the blood begins to flow this is where Deadlands takes off and soars. Deadlands is also a little on the short side. The films total running time is about 62:56 seconds, but the actual film and story end at about the 57:00 mark leaving nearly 6 minutes for the closing credits, which has one of the catchiest medleys of the entire films score remixed into one song.

I cannot close of this review without giving props to the make-up department. Deadlands didn't go gore crazy, but what carnage does exist is done effectively and on the meager funds Ugarek mentions in the commentary make-up FX supervisor Stephanie Petagno knows how to make the money stretch.

Deadlands is probably one of the better indie zombie efforts I have seen in a long time and I feel it is up there with the big boys. If the crew of this film can pull this off for less than $20,000 imagine what they could do with $20,000,000.

7 out of 10

They did what they could...

[Turtle5729 · 6/10 · 31 July 2007]

My dad works with "Michelle" from the movie, and that's how I got around to seeing it. Michelle and her husband were producers on the movie, and her husband helped do the music, so they got acting bits. All of the actors were locals, and the "zombies" were random people that answered to an ad in the paper.

The producers pulled every string they could to put the movie together, and for low, LOW budget, it's not too bad.

AND I'M SURE IF YOU SAW THE MOVIE YOU WANT SOME THINGS EXPLAINED MORE: While they did manage to get a street blocked off for the zombie scene, they didn't have a lot of time to prep for filming it.

The thing with the dog - there were alternate takes where the dog had to be put down, etc. but it just wouldn't do things on cue, which is why the dog doesn't leave with Michelle after a fuss is made over it.

It Ended before I could turn it off because its unwatchable.

[yeodawg · 14 September 2011]

First off this is a bro film, a bro his buddy's lots of buddies a camera and a script. Starting off I don't know where the movie stats they have this big half hour monologue about the war and what caused the zombies but its just a bunch of fat people going hunting no zombies. Finally we see police and soldiers goateed hab shab uniformed sent out to protect the shelter. Well didn't the screenwriter have a buddy in the army or something who could've added some jargon? Even Tucker MAX (I hope they served beer in hell/assholes finish first) bragged about his soldier buddies calling people cock-holsters. Here the police preach to the soldiers about deadly force. No soldiers call it R.O.E rules of engagement; the police call it use of force. Anyhow the zombie make up is black and white. The movie fails to deal with man dealing with man during the outbreak its just fat zombies running around. I did like the camera work, felt like you were confused and in the middle of it.