Main Menu

City of the Walking Dead

Started by , February 20, 1999, 05:33:31 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

RCMerchant

Quote from: Eagle on October 08, 2005, 09:10:02 AM
One of the worst movies that supposed to be a zombie-movie. Story and acting is boring, boring, boring. So they put just lots of ugly splatter-effects in it. The zombies can run and use weapons like mps and guns. So I would call them just kinds of mutant beeings or so and not zombies. If you wanna watch a good zombie- or splatter-movie for a good video-party, just watch a movie of John Romero or maybe Lucio Fulci.

John Romero? Is he related to George? brudders,mebbe?

I just bought this a couple of days ago. Fun stupid nonsense! Yeah,the zombies look like somebody smeared sh1t on their faces,but lotsa action ,so while it's dumb and nonsensical,it doesn't slow down and give you time to really think about it. Who needs charecter development when you got zombies with guns? I like it.
Supernatural?...perhaps. Baloney?...Perhaps not!" Bela Lugosi-the BLACK CAT (1934)
Interviewer-"Does Dracula ever end for you?
Lugosi-"No. Dracula-never ends."
Slobber, Drool, Drip!
https://www.tumblr.com/ronmerchant

Patrick

In my opinion, City of the Walking Dead is a classic only in the sense that it is so over the top, so self-depricating, not even trying to stand of the shoulders of giants like Romero of Argento, but understands that it can still find a niche somewhere in the nooks and crannys of the zombie genre, although it is not a traditional zombie film, these "walking dead" are driven by radioactivity for a thirst of red blood cells, I would say they are more similar the creatures from the "28 Days Later" saga, out of their minds, uncontrollable to the point they can't speak, only grunting to each other. This movie is enjoyable for what it offers, so I take it as another aspect of zombie canon.

Anders

I actaully think this movie was good. Although it wasn't like a typical zombie movie, I think it was awesome