Rating: 
Summary: They won't let me give it a zero!
Review: This is NOT part of Romero's DEAD series or another sequel to RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD! Consider yourselves warned. I rented this movie with a friend last Halloween thinking it would be bad but I never could have imagined how bad it was.
The first fifteen minutes, with Tom Savini rounding up the undead in the countryside, seem promising enough but It's all down hill from there. After that this becomes filth, nothing more. Straight to video... that should have never even made it that far. The idea of a master zombie? Come on, how ridiculous is that? This film is a terrible addition to the zombie genre which hopefully will not be remembered at all by anyone. Wanna see a good, new zombie film then watch RESIDENT EVIL, it's far better than this.
Rating: 
Summary: NOT AS BAD AS PEOPLE THINK!
Review: ... ITS FUNNY AND ITS STUPID...BUT I DUG THE GORE, ALSO IT HAS TOM SAVINI IN IT! THAT WHY I LIKE IT.... GIVE IT A CHANCE! ITS FAR CRY FROM DAWN OF THE DEAD...
Rating:
Summary: Absolutely awful time-waster, at times quite funny
Review: "From an executive producer of 'A Nightmare on Elm Street,'" shouts the nifty cover to this awesomely bad zombie time-waster, which looks like the non-existent budget was all spent on the decent Tom Savini (who even has a cameo) make-up effects. That aside, the film has at least two or three laugh-out-loud sequences of idiocy and pointlessness, with emberassing performances and contrived action sequences; horror fans might enjoy for some laughs. Love those close-ups of the snarling, growling lead-ghoul!
Rating: 
Summary: I enjoyed it despite the poor reviews!
Review: I rented this movie even though the reviews were bad and I'm happy I did! Yes it had sound, plot, acting, etc. problems. But lighten up people, this movie had some cool zombie action! ...Believe me, I've seen MUCH WORSE zombie movies... than this. This movie should not be judged by Romero, Fulci or Argento type standards.
Bottom line is, if you like good zombie action and don't mind a lower budget (with plenty of flaws, though not with the zombies) then this movie is a must see. If you only like the best of zombie flicks and hate lesser ones with bad acting, then steer clear of this one...
Who knows how long we'll have to wait for the next Romero-Dead installment. ...Rent it.
Rating:
Summary: THIS MOVIE IS DIRT!
Review: Thank God I rented this movie instead of buying it. This is a travesty to zombie movies. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the script was written by a 14-year old as a lame creative writing assignment for his/her English class. Watching the actors deliver this horrible dialogue is painful. The film is also packed with lots of editing errors and dubbing that makes this movie ridiculous. How on earth anyone could stand watching this and enjoy it, I don't know. Lucio Fulci could deliver imaginative zombie films with his own personal stylistic touch and George Romero could deliver zombie films as being dramatic and realistic. But this film is just trash. Bottom line: I'd rather be fisted in my sleep than to have to experience the displeasure of viewing this movie ever again.
Rating:
Summary: Average
Review: I've seen some really bad zombie movies in my time, and some really good ones. This one fell in between. It fell knowwhere near as good as any of the original living dead triology. However, Abbot Hayes nonwithstanding it portrays what I feel would have been a more realistic version of what would have happened. Zombies most likely would not have taken over as they did in dawn and day. The acting in this was pretty bad. And Savini's "crouching tiger, hidden redneck" character was just put in so the man could live out his action hero fantasies. Now on to Abbot Hayes. What was he, a magical zombie? He had super strength. Zombies in the living dead series don't have super strength. And his hands, those were faked really bad. I've seen better fake rubber hands in the local stores halloween department. If George Romero had had a hand in it I'm sure the movie would have been better.
Good points include... hold on a sec, I'm sure I can think of one... give me a sec I can do this... Oh yeah, other than Abbot Hayes the rest of the zombie make up wasn't too bad. And there was a cute girl in a backless shirt if you go in for that sort of thing. However there are much worse horror movies out there. I refer you to "The House that Screamed." Worst acted movie in history.Buy this movie only if you like stupid scary movies but aren't a big Living Dead fan.
Rating:
Summary: Eeeek, scared me for all the wrong reasons
Review: Upon first impression "Children of the living dead" looks like it has been produced by a couple of children who managed to convince their neighbours and friends to star in an unofficial sequel to the "living dead" series. However after a few moments have passed (and very slowly I might add) sudden realisation dawns that this is far worse than any living children could produce and eventually you're convinced that this must have been produced by people as brainless and primitive as the living dead themselves. Initially the script seemed to show some merit and I was beginning to feel it was just marred by the talentless people involved however it soon tops the list as one of the films major faults. On the acting front it is devoid of any memorable performances and even poor Tom Savini appears to have realised just how bad this production was and decided to just phone his performance in. The editing is choppy and atrocious and the word continuity seems to be missing from the directors vocabulary. Alan Howarth's score (a former collaborator with John Carpenter) soon becomes tedious and after a while you can tell he either bailed from producing fresh music for the project or they just couldn't afford him any more when his score from Halloween 4 & 5 appears throughout the last half of the movie. The only saving grace is the special Make-up f/x which although not always great (the lead zombie Abbot Hayes looks like an over-exaggerated scoobie Doo zombie) at the majority of times remind you of the excellent Zombies that Tom Savini created for "DAWN" and "DAY". On that note The producers of the original Living Dead series should be ashamed that this inbreed of the excellent originals (including the 1990 remake) should ever have been released in the first place and upon viewing the credits it appears that the producer Joseph Wolf has used the "living dead" name in shame as an outlet for his daughter Karen Lee Wolf to produce such uninspired drivel...some people have more money than sense and I probably should include myself in that statement for wasting mine on this thrash, although it did make me laugh out loud more than once;) If you're looking for a more modern, clever take, well acted and original spin-off on the Zombie and Living dead genre, my advice is to check out the special DVD release for "The dead hate the living" which in my opinion, for a low budget shocker, definitely set my taste buds on fire.
Rating: 
Summary: Boy I love John Russo
Review: Oh boy, where to begin! For those of you who are familiar with George A. Romero, and specifically with his living dead films (Night, Dawn and Day), all I have to say is "John Russo" and you should know what kind of movie Children of the Living Dead is.
This little film sits rather nicely with the heavy-handed ... job Russo and cohorts committed on their re-release of the 30th Anniversary edition of Night of The Living Dead back in '98. And shame on Anchor Bay, by the way, for having anything to do with that blasphemous spit in the eye to all self respecting fans of the original film. Then again, that's another story...
Agreeably, the first ten minutes or so of Children of the Living Dead is rather entertaining. After all, how often does one get treated to Tom Savini "zombie bashing" outside of Dawn of the Dead. But as an earlier reviewer noted, after Savini is taken out, the film quickly degenerates into a farcical Ed Woodish rampage. The head zombie is a character named Abbot Hayes (move over Bub, here's something dumber!). Mid-way through the film he appears as more of a troll in a tux than a zombie, complete with pointed ears and elongated Nosferatu finger extensions. From what I can make out, he's some kind of jumped-up Zombie Master and has the ability to raise more undead via some sort of "evil resonance".
One of the best moments in the film is Children's version of the now cliché "shoot em in the head speech". This segment is immediately followed by the same bunch of rednecks, who just received the speech, bum-rushing a horde or undead waiting outside the diner and utterly neglecting to use their guns for a good part of the battle ... choosing to mainly fire them in the air and yell "yee-haw". Fabulous!
I can say with confidence, that all of you mislead dummies out there, who think Dan O'Bannon's Return of the Living Dead actually fits within the Romero Dead Trilogy, will most assuredly add Children of the Living Dead to your already confused mythos.
As a side note, it should come as no surprise that Return was originally scripted by Russo, but O'Bannon actually made a fun film out of it. So you can see Russo was at it as early as the 80's. The really sad part of Children, as well as the extra footage Russo added into the 30th Anniversary edition of Night, is his desperate attempt to rewrite the mythology Romero has since created for the series.
After their split following the original Night ... Russo had legal use of "Living Dead" whilst Romero would use "Dead". For anyone who has had the misfortune of enduring any of Russo's pitiful work following the original Dead film back in '68, you can see why he's trying so hard to grasp at some form of income by capitalizing on Romero's Living Dead craze. He's still trying to hang onto the Venus Probe explanation for the dead returning to life (being one of his original screenplay ideas from Night).
So in conclusion, Children of the Living Dead is not something to be taken serious by any stretch of the imagination. By all means, if you still want this film, its a wonderful addition to any "Turkey Collection". Hell, it should get the Turkey Crown as far as I am concerned. At least its more exciting than Ghosts That Still Walk. You're assured a good laugh, especially if you give it the Mystery Science Theater treatment with a group of buddies. On this merit alone I've given it a rating of two stars, just for the laugh factor.
Rating: 
Summary: Not as bad as people say,just needs a little work
Review: I think Children of the living dead was great!I loved Tom savini's part,he kicked ... in this movie.the makeup effects were great,but the lead zombie looked pretty stupid.The only flaws i found in this movie was the acting in some spots and the lead zombie who was tall and skinny and didnt look very tough.I liked this movie because it had good makeup,good special effects and it was just entertaining to me.note...this movie is not for everyone,as i see some people didnt enjoy it as much as i did.
Rated R for strong violence/gore and language
George please come back!
Rating:
Summary: Great Film ,Bab Acting
Review: This was a good movie,only the acting was kind of sour,but the FX and makeup was pretty cool (Not no 100% Greatness) but cool.Plus i am a kid who makes home movies himself and would do anything to become a movie star and working on it.Children of the Living Dead was a pour title( concidering half the stars were Adults)but good enough.The film was very cheap ( About $500 )and $450 may have whent to the tape box,because the box is the only sweet makeup part,which is not even in the film,and the other $50 may have whent to the makeup,and cheap camera that you might find at a yardsale. If your a Horror/Zombie fan i reccomind you see this film.
|
