Review of After Death

After Death (1989)
1/10
Very bad, even by zombie-film standards
3 April 2004
I really like zombie movies and find myself more or less forced to buy them since they are hard to get your hands on otherwise. Zombie 3 (Zombie Flesh Eaters 2, whatever) is pretty bad, but still enjoyable because of the gore and how stupid and cheesy it is. This film, on the other hand, was a pure insult. I mean when you see these films you have to expect a very very bad film in order not to be disappointed. Still, I thought this one really sucked.

The script is so weird I don't know where I should begin. There are "flashbacks" of scenes that take place 20 years earlier than the majority of the rest of the film, but there is absolutely nothing to suggest this except an explanation from one of the characters long into the film after the scenes in particular have taken place. The zombies are very disappointing also. Why are they all dressed in black rags? Why do they run around and jump like frogs? The gore is pretty boring too. Sure, the face being ripped off, that was nice. But the rest like the constant drooling of the zombies (clearly inspired by The Evil Dead, like a lot of other things in the film) is just not very exciting.

It's really hard with zombie films once you get past the more or less "quality" ones like Return of the Living Dead, Lucio Fulci's Zombie and George A. Romero's films. They all get a very bad rating on IMDb and the reviews vary a lot. I really liked films like Nightmare City and Junk, but this one was crappy as hell. It is not worth wasting your hard-earned money on. My rating: 1/10.
5 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed