Rise of the Dead (2007 Video) User Reviews

Low budget supernatural horror thriller.

[poolandrews · 2/10 · 6 February 2011]

Rise of the Dead is set in the small town of Dudley in Ohio where Laura Childs (Erin Wilk) works as a waitress, while walking home by herself one night Laura is attacked by respectable lawyer Sam Fulton (Jason Madera) but Laura's boyfriend Jack Walther (Stephen Seidel) manages to save her by running Sam over. Laura is shaken but not badly hurt although she has no idea why Sam would try to kill her, a question that local Sheriff Brown (Peter Blitzer) has the task of answering. Then soon after Laura's best friend & house-mate Amber (Jaime Whitlock) also tries to kill her without any sort of reason & again Jack comes to Laura's rescue & in a struggle Amber is stabbed & killed. Something definitely is going on, Laura discovers that a woman named Sally Sherman (Brooke Delaney) killed her husband & that they had both adopted Laura's baby & that the common link is Laura & her baby which she gave up. Laura becomes convinced that her baby has been possessing people in order to kill those responsible for it's misery & ultimate death...

Directed by William Wedig this was originally filmed under the title Tantrum which was then changed to the more horror sounding Rise of the Dead when brought by the company that eventually released it, the title Rise of the Dead gives the impression that this will be some sort of apocalyptic zombie film in the vein of one of George A. Romero's efforts but Rise of the Dead is in fact much more low key than that & is more of a supernatural ghost story as much a flesh eating zombie film. To be fair to Rise of the Dead it only lasts 72 minutes (including opening & closing credits) so at least it's short, unfortunately that's pretty much where the positives end. The story is an audacious one, the dead spirit of a young child starts possessing people in order to kill those that let him down & led to his untimely death by handgun, for some strange reason Laura is the only person in the town of Dudley who can defend herself since no-one else the kid goes after puts up any sort of fight whatsoever & while I was sat there watching this I was wondering to myself why doesn't it just possess Laura & then make her commit suicide? There are no rules, the kid seems able to possess anyone whenever it wants for no apparent reason, no explanation is ever given & the ending has to be seen to be believed. In order to stop the kid no killing her while in her boyfriend Jack's body & therefore not having to kill him Laura seduces her kid & has sex with him which leads to a so-called twist ending where laura is seen to be pregnant, I didn't know whether to laugh or be repulsed to be honest. With such a short duration there's no time to flesh the story out & all of the character's really are very basic one dimensional nobodies that leave no impact, the story is nothing more than random incidents strung together & the lack of any zombie action will surely disappoint many.

Obviously shot on an ultra low budget Rise of the Dead looks like it was, the video camcorder look, the drab colours, the lifeless cinematography & basic music. All the locations seem to be people's house's & the special effects are no more elaborate than a bit of fake blood splashed around. There are no special effects to speak of, no CGI or traditional effects work. There's no tension or atmosphere, the script never sets up any rules or limits & as such everything feels rather random.

Apparently filmed in Ohio & Connecticut the production values are rock bottom. The acting isn't much better from a cast of unknown's, what else can I say?

Rise of the Dead had the potential to be a decent supernatural possession revenge horror exploitation flick but isn't, it's bad in every aspect. Do yourself a favour & give this one a miss.

You have to be kidding if you actually think this is a good movie

[Artsen · 4/10 · 23 July 2009]

This movie is pretty disappointing. I gave it a 4 star just because it was funny when it wasn't really supposed to be. I barely gave it a 4 star considering I thought I was going to watch a zombie movie, not a movie about some women who seems to be chased by people who are getting possessed by her dead son. It was mostly funny due to the sub-par acting, the obvious plot motifs (ie. a girl getting naked and promptly murdered with her breasts out) and corny death scenes.

Most of the death scenes were nowhere near realistic, and there was some blur effect they did with a few of the possessed that came off really cheesy. There was also some white balance issues I noticed really early in the movie. I also found the end of the movie to be rather confusing, and sorta disturbing.

It appeared like she was having sex with her boyfriend at the end, while he was possessed with her child. Not only that but she was talking to him as if he was her child while they were having sex, strange, I'm sure Freud would have a few things to say about that. Regardless, I didn't understand that at all, ha ha it totally was a "wtf" moment for me.

All in all, It was a decent effort but I can't find it in myself to give it anything more than a 4 star mostly because: 1.) I was upset about how I seemed to be deceived by the title and 2.) It came across as INCREDIBLY LOW BUDGET which, even if it is, you should try to avoid that in my opinion (I mean 28 days later was made on a really low budget also, but that was amazing).

I don't just want my money back. I should get punitive damages for watching this thing.

[MBunge · 2/10 · 8 June 2011]

Firstly, this is NOT a zombie movie. It's not a movie about zombies. There are no zombies in this movie. I rented this thing because of a DVD cover that made me think it was a zombie flick. I was terribly deceived.

Secondly, remember the most awful zombie film you've ever seen. Rise of the Dead is even worse than that. I know that's an amazing thing to claim because the living dead genre has probably got the worst quality-to-crap ratio in all of cinema. The truly great zombie movies can be counted on the fingers of one hand and you can number the good ones before running out of toes. That leaves a legion or two of zombie films that range from mediocre to "I can't believe I'm watching this garbage". Rise of the Dead outstinks them all.

Thirdly, pretend that Rob Zombie had a brother who was an even less talented filmmaker. I know it's difficult to conceive of anyone THAT inept and horrid, especially if you've seen House of 1000 Corpses or Zombie's version of Halloween II, but bear with me. Now imagine Zombie's colossally clueless bro making a movie about teen pregnancy where the moral of the story isn't preaching abstinence or sexual responsibility, it's that babies are literally life-destroying monsters and the women who love them are crazy bitches. Essentially, Rise of the Dead is the world's worst Afterschool Special on the virtues and advantages of abortion.

The story, and I use the word "story" loosely, concerns a young woman named Laura (Erin Welk). Everywhere Laura goes, people start drooling and trying to kill her. Well, this one guy who chases her down the street appears to be auditioning for the new season of "So You Think You Can Dance?", but he may have been trying to Electric Boogaloo her to death.

After hearing a lot of bad dialog from a lot of bad actors on a lot of bad sets, we find out that the people trying to kill Laura are all connected to the baby boy she gave up for adoption as a teenager and that the only way for Laura to save herself is to indulge in some spiritual incest. I'm not going to explain what any of that means in any further detail because I already lost enough brain cells watching Rise of the Dead the first time. If I dwell on it any longer I'm afraid I'll lose the ability to clothe and feed myself.

This is yet another film made by people with no talent and very little money only because modern technology allows people with no talent and very little money to make movies. Rise of the Dead does have a couple of reasonably cute chicks who get naked and its atrociousness does reach the level of unintentional comedy a few times in its short, 72 minute run time. Those minuscule positives don't change the fact that this thing should never have been made and should never, ever, ever be watched.

Not as bad as some have said...

[plunderer-dailylink · 5/10 · 19 November 2007]

The movie wasn't bad for a B-movie. I have definitely seen far worse! The acting wasn't too bad (minus a few of the actors) and the story actually had promise.

However, the description is all wrong, as others have stated. This is NOT a zombie movie!!! There is no flesh eating and no brain munching!!! Without giving a spoiler, my only other problem with the movie was how they ended it. Not only was it creepy-gross, but it seemed like the writers couldn't figure out how to make a conclusion! The BEST scene in the movie was when the preacher was giving his sermon (I won't go into details). If there were a category for best supporting actor in a B-movie, that guy should get it.

Rise of the Deception Would Be a Better Title

[revsnowman · 1/10 · 17 November 2007]

I am going to ruin this cruddy little movie for you right off the bat. I rented Rise of the Dead based upon three things. 1. There was a great and gruesome picture of an undead creature on the front of the box. 2. The synopsis promised a zombie movie and I love zombie movies. 3. The film was distributed by Lionsgate and I normally enjoy their films. All that said, this movie's packaging is a bald faced lie!!! The movie is not about zombies but some sad sack young woman's dead baby risen from the dead to possess people. Possession does not equal zombies and the hordes of undead walkers the film's packaging alludes to are never present in the film. Instead the viewer is lead on a dull and ponderous ride through bad film making techniques and really bad sets. The asylum scenes are pretty amusing if you have ever been near a real mental institution. I love how an asylum looks like a cheap motel room in this picture. The only good thing about this movie is that it is short! The trivia for this film says the title was originally Tantrum. That title fits the film and if the synopsis would have equally fit the film I never would have rented this lousy excuse for a horror film. I guess the studio figured that out and used a savvy promotion department to sell on the zombie laurels of other more deserving films. I give an A+ to the cheeky creative type who thought up the advertising and an F- to the director and writers. The lead actress did an OK job with the mediocre fair she was given, so I hope this film's extreme badness doesn't lose her future jobs. Stay away from this totally rotten little film. I love bad movies as much as the next midnight movie film fan, but this one is just too bad to bother with and being lied to still stings my wallet. I actually paid for this one too instead of using a free coupon like I usually do. Ouch, that hurts!

Sweet Babies, This is Movie Is...

[hinesgtrservice · 1/10 · 25 August 2009]

Yeah, technology and the degradation of the arts have allowed films like this to be made. This reminds me of Guitar Hero in a very round-a-bout way. You see, when I worked at a musical instrument retailer, I'd get kids coming in that played Guitar Hero and instantly thought that would translate into actually playing guitar. They were so convinced that they would be awesome that they'd get their parents to spend thousands of dollars on equipment just so one day the world would be assaulted by talentless crap. Yeah, this movie reminds me of that. I think the directors and writers played a game called Cinema Hero and got a really high score once so they thought, "Man! We'd be awesome at making an actual movie!". Well, they were so very wrong. First of all, this could possibly have the most ridiculous plot in the history of plots. It's not inventive or fresh, yet it's not just a rehash of some other horror film. You see, no other filmmakers would actually agree to make a film if this were pitched to them. The continuity was just thrown out the window. The writers cared so little about what was going on that they actually forgot how many murders had happened in the movie in one scene. People magically change positions, hats magically appear and disappear. Yikes. The acting...well, I guess I shouldn't really call it acting. It's more like...well, I really don't know, but I hope I never have to see anything reminiscent of that again. The cinematography is choppy and even appears that the camera was cocked in some scenes. It's a bit disorienting and terribly unprofessional. The physical "stunts" are mainly done away from camera and literally look like they were done intentionally bad for laugh factor. Bottom line, the crew of the film obviously wrote reviews for their own crap here on IMDb. Yeah, it's cheap as hell and totally unprofessional...precisely like their "film". Really, no matter how much you like movies, just because you have one bad idea and a few grand, it doesn't mean you should make a film. Lesson learned.

Intriguing story idea, but too many plot holes

[Nywildcat1 · 8 January 2012]

As I've stated in earlier reviews, all I look for in a low budget film is a good story line or at least writing that makes sense. I don't want to blame everything on the writer, since who know what happened behind the scenes, but you would think that at least over a 100 people read the script and could point out the errors.

Here's the story line: An adopted baby dies by an accidental gunshot, and decides to take revenge on everyone in his quest to be reunited with his birth mother, by possessing the living and killing everyone that stands between him and his birth mother. Sound interesting? It was, until it went horribly awry.

I have to commend real critics who are able to critique a movie without giving anything away ( Siskel and Ebert, I salute you), but I'm not yet at that level. So in order to properly express my thoughts, I have no choice but to reveal some spoilers.

********************SPOILER ALERT BELOW******************************* The movie opens with a mother obviously possessed by something and murdering her husband (it's expressed previously that they had lost a young child). Next scene, a woman is attacked by someone else that also seems possessed, but the assailant is killed by the young woman's boyfriend. Boyfriend is held for questioning overnight (though she isn't). She gets attacked again in her home (after gratuitous nude scene), and the new assailant (again obviously possessed) is killed yet again by her recently released boyfriend. Cut to a scene in the police station that begins the nonsensical writing.

The cop reveals that this is the third murder in connection with her. Laura, of course, raises an eyebrow and asks "third"? The cop then proceeds to tell her about the opening murder scene and says he did a background check on Laura and it turns out that the baby she gave up for adoption was the child of the mother from the opening scene. He found all this out with a phone call. Which would have been impossible for him to find out, as Laura's shocked response and non-recognition of the adoptive mother's name clearly points out. If the adoption had been an "open" one, she would have known who ultimately wound up with her baby (it is later revealed that the child was placed with foster parents first, who she also didn't know about. More on that later). In a "closed" adoption, the officer could have found out that Laura gave a child up for adoption, but he would never known to whom, as records in a closed adoption are sealed and can only be opened under extenuating circumstances, and even then that would be highly difficult. So there was no way he would be able to find out that information, let alone make a link to Laura.

Laura, of course, starts investigating on her own, breaks into the adoption agency (which apparently doesn't have an alarm) and tracks down the original foster parents. A couple of religious fanatics that don't know who Laura is. Apparently Laura's child is taken away from them for being "too Christian", though exact reasons are never given. When the child is taken away from the foster mother, she curses him, which leads to the entire plot. But why curse the child? If the foster mother has this kind of power, why not curse the people who took the child away? Why not everyone who's against your religious convictions? It would have made more sense if she were a Satanist or something (to add to the supernatural element). Anyway, she also winds up getting killed.

Moving on. Apparently this kid is really busy and possesses a lot of different people. Her own mother included (who was totally miscast. She was an incredibly beautiful woman who was obviously only a few years, if not the same age, as the lead and was probably hired on her looks). Now here's the rub: everyone who survives being possessed knows exactly who they were possessed by. This is incredibly evident when the original cop mentioned above was also possessed. After he attempts to kill Laura, he heads to the jail to release the boyfriend, saying he now realizes what's going on and he's not guilty. Ummm, if you now know what's going on, where's the reinforcements to protect Laura? I understand that you can't tell the rest of the police force what's going on (who would believe you), but you do nothing? If you have the ability to unseal adoption records with a single phone call, you can certainly try to do something to resolve the situation.

Now here comes the sickest part of the movie, which, if the rest of the movie lived up to it's premise, this would have been brilliant. Laura figures out that the only thing that the spirit of her baby wants is to be reunited with it's birth mother (which is contradictory, since all it seemed it wanted to do was kill her throughout the entire film). Her boyfriend (who is not the original father) becomes possessed as well after being released from prison, and while attempting to kill her, Laura says something to the effect of "come to Mommy. Mommy loves you" which seems to calm him. What does she do next? Decide to have sex with her possessed boyfriend (thereby actually having sex with her son) in order to become pregnant again. Sick and incestuous and could've had a lot more impact if the rest of the film wasn't so poorly thought out.

This movie had the potential to be a great little horror film, but turned out to be an example of when a great idea is poorly executed. I only wish that someone had the resolve to point out all the flaws in the script prior to filming. Still, it's worth a view if only to see what could've been.

False advertising? Yes, it happens.

[TheBrandon-1 · 1/10 · 25 May 2008]

This movie can be briefly summarized in one sentence: Lionsgate's attempt to capitalize on the increasing popularity of the "zombie" genre.

Viewers be warned: This is NOT a zombie movie!! In the horror genre, it is actually an OK movie. The acting was top-notch for the budget, and the special effects were tastefully done (while the nudity, unfortunately, was not). This movie would have won a 5 from me if not for one simple problem: The poster (and the DVD box art!) and plot synopsis of this movie (and subsequently, the genre it was defined as!) DO NOT match the plot AT ALL. It's almost like they didn't think anyone would notice! I sat down to this film hoping for another Romero-style zombie bloodbath; I left even more disappointed than I was at the new "Day of the Dead." And trust me, I was disappointed.

For a crappy low budget movie, not bad. But it's still a crappy low budget movie

[Horrorible_Horror_Films · 5/10 · 24 August 2009]

For a crappy low budget movie, not bad. But it's still a crappy low budget movie. I appreciated the plot and story. This movie actually had one, most horror movies of this type usually barely even try. I also was actually impressed with the special effects, for the budget, they did a good job, didn't look stupid.

This movie also had those two low-budget horror movie mainstays: Gore and tits! I liked the blood and guts gore, and I also liked the nudity. That is basically the whole point of any horror movie anyway. That is basically the whole point of any horror movie anyway. That is basically the whole point of any horror movie anyway.

Amazing film for such a ridiculously low budget!

[franky-stone · 8/10 · 28 November 2007]

I just finished listening to the commentary on this (non-zombie but rather spirit/ghost possession) small little film and I have to say that this thing is quite a freaking achievement! With a total budget of 20 thousand dollars and a crew willing to work basically for free they were able to make this movie, which not only cuts together, it looks completely professional! And has lots of death and murder! Not necessarily some of the best scenes I've ever seen from a horror film but damn: This thing is glossy! It even has a super creepy, twisted and completely original ending (which you'll just have to watch to find out what I mean). In any case, it's creepy and weird but makes total sense for the story (the first kill is specially good and creepy and if anything this scene and the last one make this movie worth watching. There's also a good scene in a church where a women gets her head crushed with a statue of the virgin mary. It's messed up.).

I don't know how many of you out there actually are indie filmmakers yourself but I've had friends who have made 20 thousand dollar films before and they are usually just un-watchably bad. Bad sound, bad acting and bad cuts tend to plague these super-low budget films but this one seemed to gloss over and past those issues to deliver a very watchable, coherent and driven story. Say what you want about the film sucking, being boring, poor production value or whatever other problems the film may have, but don't take for granted that most movies you see are shot for well over 2,000 times this budget (and that's only a 40 million dollar movie, not the giant $150 million dollar movie that blockbuster's like Transformers cost).

I'd recommend this film to anybody who's interested in independent cinema (the film was independently produced with the name Tantrum, which I think suits the film way better, and then sold to Lions Gate for distribution), anybody who's interested in seeing new ideas and scenes in the horror genre and anybody who likes a good old fashioned horror flick complete with all the elements to make for an extremely entertaining Saturday night.

Good Movie For What It Is

[tomjeffrey2001 · 7/10 · 26 July 2009]

When I first began watching this movie, I was expecting to see a zombie flick. "(Something) of the Dead" just has to be a zombie movie, right? Well, in this case, no. Its original title was "Tantrum," and it was subsequently changed by the distributor, presumably to make it more marketable. I can understand the disappointment of some reviewers, but if one accepts this movie for what it is -- a creepy little ghost story -- it's actually pretty good.

For some reason, residents of a town are turning into homicidal maniacs. The reason becomes clear as the story progresses. The spirit of a young boy who died an accidental and tragic death is coming back to seek revenge on those responsible. His spirit moves from one host to another, as the body count steadily mounts. I can understand why some reviewers found the ultimate resolution to be controversial, but in my opinion the ending is imaginative and very much in the spirit (so to speak) of the movie.

This movie was done on a very low budget, and several of the actors double as producers, make-up artists, costume designers, and so forth. I thought it had a very professional look considering the budget. The acting, while not of academy award caliber, was competent. And it definitely was creepy enough to make me feel that the short amount of time (about 70 minutes) it took to view was not wasted.

Not the greatest movie ever made, by any stretch of the imagination, but well worth a watch.

No truth in advertising

[durantr-1 · 8/10 · 6 December 2007]

Just watched this movie on one of those bootleg movie sites (I would mention it but the M.P.A.A. might shut them down like they did with TV Links, but I digress, this flick was aaaiiight, as far as your B movies go. The acting was second rate but the kill scenes were great, bloody was gory man, just the way I like them, ha ha ha. There was a scene where the mom and daughter were arguing I had to rewind twice to catch something, hee, the mom asked "Where do you think you're going?", before the daughter even reached for her jacket! brrrrooother. The title is what caught me eye. I thought it would be a zombie flick, but it was far from that, oh yea, check out the scene when the kid grabs the gun oh man, this was a baad flick, hence B movie I suppose, oh well, Hollywood keeps turning them out, and we continue to watch them. All in all, it was worth watching. Okay gotta go, love ya, buh bye Grouphome

"I curse that baby!!!" Ha-ha, but unlike most apparently, I personally do not curse this movie!

[Foreverisacastironmess123 · 7/10 · 10 August 2014]

And there's your hook, it was the crazy Christian nut-job that brought about the supernatural angle when she cursed the poor innocent toddler with the force of her demented religious fervour - it's brilliant! Well no I can't lie, it's not, but it does fit the surreal tone of this picture, come on! Okay, so Rise of the Dead is a very low-grade and poor quality film, that's a given, but to me it's nowhere near dreadful. Budget constraints should be pretty obvious to anyone who watches the opening scene only, but when you consider what it had going against it budget-wise, and how it was made in the mid-2000's, the final result in my opinion isn't all that terrible. In its own modest and well-intentioned way I even find it a little sweet and endearing. It wears its flaws so honestly that I can't help but forgive them. Other 'better' low-budget horror movies that try to hard to hide all the shortcomings and have still looked cheaper and had much worse acting are a lot more intolerable than this. And for what they were the performances in this were hardly awful, I had no problem at all where the acting was concerned. I thought both lead characters were good, Stephen Seidel was so damn cute and managed to make his possessed act different then everyone else's at the end, and according to him when I communicated with him on his Youtube channel they had a blast making it. And Erin Wilk who I thought was very natural and cool also spoke on the commentary track of how everybody got along and got into a fun groove on the 22 day shoot and I can believe it, there is a kind of basic energy and enthusiasm to this movie. I think sometimes when there's a positive and productive atmosphere behind the making of a film it can translate a bit onto the final work, and it was nice to see some actors who weren't just going through the motions, but were trying to pull it all together. I love the downbeat tone and small-town feel of it, and also how it's actually so short that it's not even movie-length and seems more like an extended TV episode or something, it's a very quick watch and easy to get into. Of course I wish it could have gone on longer and had more much-needed development of its thin story, but it's very well-balanced and compact the way it is - it's slow and never exactly gets going all that much, but I really enjoy it, I find it a very watchable and compelling ghost horror story, and one that even shows a little originality at points. Specifically the unsettling and outrageous finale which depending on your point of view, features both male rape and paranormal incest! And I liked that scene, I thought it was daring and maybe even a little controversial. And rather than concentrating on the more perverse implications of the scene, I found it almost tender and quite moving, to me.. It's creepy and weird yes, but it does make sense for the story and provides a satisfying conclusion. The movie really should have been named "Ghost Baby", which is a little lame, but in the story only one dead person does indeed rise, and although the way the possessed act is very zombie-like, they're definitely not the undead and no more than one person ever becomes a murderous babbling fiend at a time. So ya know, don't go into this expecting a zombie picture and just try and like it for what it is, cos lord knows there's freaking legions of them out there, and many of them are of a far worse quality than this one is. It ain't brilliant or really anything close, but I think it's a decent, strong example of what can be done in terms of mood if nothing else, on an extremely low budget. All in all this twisted tale of the angry soul of a lost child who wants nothing more than to be with his mother is an interesting and different horror movie that's deserving of a little more respect and consideration than what it ended up with. Cheers, bye-bye!

Ohio Horror... Try Saying That Ten Times Fast...

[terrible2 · 8/10 · 9 December 2008]

Titles can be so misleading, but I for one, was glad that "Rise Of The Dead" was not just another low budget zombie flick, but instead a well thought out horror experience from Ohio.

Director William Wedig piles on the dread factor that the writing team of Jeff and Josh Crook have layed out for him in this seemingly no budget film about possession and things that go "Thud" in the night... Most films with the words "Of the Dead" in the title means: "Zombie" but Wedig has something else in store for his unknowing audience. This is a well crafted, though provoking, blood bath of a film with solid acting and cinematography through out. Stand out performances by Erin Wilk and a rather comedic turn by producer / actor Chris Ferry make "Rise Of The Dead" a worth while viewing pleasure for fans of the genre. The story itself, paints a vivid picture of how bad things happen to bad people, but does it with a flair not normally explored in this type of film. The gore is honorable, and of course the nudity is always present to reel in even the most frigid viewer. "Rise Of The Dead" is a sign of good things to come from Ohio, and the future of horror in general.

When Great Story Ideas Completely Fizzle Out

[bababear · 6/10 · 12 August 2012]

Laura is a waitress in a small town in Ohio. It's not bad enough that she's in a dead end job with no advancement prospects. One night a local man, a respected attorney, goes mad and attacks her.

With the passage of time the attacks against Laura and her friends and family increase in frequency and intensity. Finally she learns the cause of these attacks: the child she gave up for adoption died in a tragic accident, and his vengeful spirit won't rest until his revenge is complete.

OK. Awesome concept. Lots of promise. The Ohio locations are new to our eyes. So what went wrong?

The script is, to be generous, untidy. And the direction simply cannot rise to the occasion. Scenes that should have been terrifying are simply puzzling. And the ending, with Laura pregnant and preparing to give birth again- presumably this time she'll keep the child, so he won't grow up to be a demon- is simply dumbfounding. Not profound, just profoundly dumb and anticlimactic.

In a better world this screenplay would have fallen into the hands of a director like John Carpenter or Tobe Hooper who could reshape the story and bring coherence and a sense of menace. They could have used the same cast- I'm one of those nuts who thinks that with a strong strict an effective director can get a good performance out of almost anyone- and same locations. I'd be content seeing it remade on an equally small budget.

The people behind the camera are far from untalented. Unfortunately, they simply bit off way more than they could chew. But I do commend them for making a workmanlike effort.

Movie Karma

[disinterested_spectator · 6/10 · 3 October 2015]

Though there is no such thing as karma in real life, there is plenty of it in the movies. In a typical movie, the good are rewarded and the evil punished, each to the extent that they deserve. In some cases, however, movie karma goes a little overboard, and people are punished way in excess of what little faults they may have, and that is what we have in this film.

When the movie starts, a couple is having dinner, with the husband, Sam Sherman, saying grace. He makes a semi-blasphemous remark about how God let their baby die. Uh oh. Sure enough, he must be punished, and instrument of death is his own wife, Sally. She goes all zombie on him and kills him with a fork. Zombies don't usually use weapons, however, so this is our first clue that this is not your typical zombie flick.

Actually, just before the baby died, Sam and Sally were having an argument. He criticized her for not changing the diaper on the stinking baby, and she said it was his turn to do his part and change the diaper himself. So, maybe that's it. Sam is being punished for sexism, imagining that diaper changing is woman's work.

But there's more. Sam had left his pistol on the table where the baby could get to it. As a result, while Sam and Sally are arguing, the baby puts the barrel in his mouth and pulls the trigger. And thus we have to wonder if Sam was punished for being negligent in leaving a handgun around where a baby could get to it.

It turns out that the baby was adopted, and the baby's birth mother, Laura Childs, is being besieged by zombies, whom she manages to fight off or, in some cases, kill with the help of her boyfriend Jack or the sheriff. Her roommate gets killed, probably punishment for making a move on Jack. A sheriff's deputy is killed as punishment for being a jerk. And so on. When her own mother turns on her and is put in an insane asylum, she notices Sally Sherman, whom she knows to be the adoptive mother of her baby, is also a patient. Laura slips into her room, and Sally tells her that the baby's ghost is inhabiting people as a way of inflicting punishment on those who wronged him, and Laura is big on his list of those on whom he wants to inflict vengeance.

You'd think Laura would get credit for having the baby and giving it up for adoption instead of aborting it the way her previous boyfriend wanted all along. Well, said previous boyfriend does get punished for that, right after the ghost baby inhabits the body of the woman he was bitch-banging and lets him have some axe in the face. But Laura still did her baby wrong by not keeping him, so he is still after her as his main target.

Somewhere along the way, we find out that a fanatical Christian couple were the baby's first adoptive parents, and when Child Protective Services took the baby away, this first adoptive mother cursed it. Actually, the movie is thick with Christianity, and we regularly see crucifixes hanging on the walls of the rooms of different characters in the film. And thus it is that while ghost baby is going around wreaking death on those who wronged him, we sort of get the feeling that some of these people are being punished for excess of religion.

Anyway, Laura's mother escapes from the insane asylum, and, finding Laura at home, tells her that the ghost baby just wants his mother. But then ghost baby inhabits Laura's mother again, and Laura has to handcuff her to the oven. Then Jack comes over, and he gets possessed by the ghost baby too.

But now Laura knows what ghost baby really wants. She tells him to come to Mommy, lays him on the floor and has sex with him. So, spiritually speaking, she has sex with her own son, through the body of her boyfriend, resulting in impregnation. Talk about returning to the womb. Anyway, it does the job. Ghost baby is satisfied and he waits inside his mother to be reborn.

It looks as though everything has ended happily, but I have to wonder what movie karma thinks about incest.