User Reviews

My mom and I were looking at 1990's horror movies, and I said this title as I was reading through, and my mom said, "wait, 'Ozone'? My dad worked on that movie!", and now I'm here.

He was the pyrotechnics guy, and he did some special affects makeup too! I haven't gotten around to seeing the movies he's worked on yet, but hopefully I will (even if they end up being bad😂).

This came at the end of a long weekend spent watching really bad films. Don't think for a second that adds to its credit, though. I can't list everything I hated about this movie because a) it would take too long and b) I'm sure it killed a few of my brain cells, and my mind is blocking some of my memories out of self-defense. This movie contains: terrible acting, a horrible screenplay, lousy camera-work, way too much red lighting, occasionally no light at all, really bad makeup, plot hole upon plot hole upon plot hole, the least effective villain ever, a mind-numbingly bad soundtrack, and THE strangest sex scene I have ever encountered in my life. The director admitted in the commentary that he gets teased a lot for the "parking lot of death" scene, and I would say "teasing" is a generous word. I would like to throw feces at the man responsible for that scene. Also, when we got this movie it was listed as "Street Zombies", not "Ozone". It's a fair indicator of a bad film when there's more than one title involved-- alas, we had no warning. Here's what I can say to this film's credit: watch it with a bunch of friends and you just may get some good laughs out of the schlocky awfulness. In a scene in a bar involving zombified patrons, the director mentions that he'd been buying all the extras beer and they were all rip-roaringly drunk by the time filming was through. Watching this movie, I really, really, really wish I had been, too.

I'm not going to say that all movies made on video are crap just because they have little or no budget! No! But rarely, rarely have I seen one worth squat and this is one of them. Filmwork-Bad. Screenplay-Bad. Acting-non-existent. SFX- worse that The Incredible Shrinking Man. Bookhalter or Bookwalter should at least take a few classes at a community college, or read a book before he ever attempts to make another film, if he hasn't done humanity a favor and stopped already! Go rent out Invisible Invaders or The Giant Behemoth or the Brain from Planet Arous and have a good time. Don't watch this! You've been warned.

Ozone. Yep, it really is hard to discuss this movie. It is pretty bad, I have seen much worse and I really had fun laughing at it. The film looks like they used a video camera(I really think they did), during a fight the poorly designed prop weapons are switched with ones made of aluminum foil and the silly monster in it is oh so bad. I actually rushed over to my friends house to enjoy this masterpiece of horrible artistic beauty. I don't regret the film and I think you should give it a try if you enjoy really, really, really, really cheesy/poorly made films like me.

This isn't a great movie, but it's also not really a terrible movie. I found it pretty enjoyable, to tell the truth. The effects are obviously cheap, but when you consider the budget these people were probably working with, I think the film came out rather well. The major players act better than most in low-budget horror films, and the storyline, for the most part, makes sense. A few seemingly pointless scenes are thrown in here and there, but overall it isn't too hard to follow. I liked the movie, and if you enjoy horror movies and can appreciate a fairly well-made low-budget film, Ozone is worth checking out.

While ambushing a drug-dealer, Detective Eddie Boone (James Black) is injected in a fight against the dealer with a new drug called Ozone, which transforms the users in powerful zombies. His partner and friend Mike Weitz (Tom Hoover) is kidnapped by a group of Ozone addicted. Eddie tries to find Mike in the streets, fighting against the zombies and having several hallucinations due to the effect drug in his blood. "Ozone" is a movie which must be analyzed in two aspects: the screenplay is great, having a very good story. However, the effects and locations are among the worsts I have seen, being sometimes (or most of the times) ridiculous, like, for example, when the head of a police officer is smashed by a car in an empty parking area. In the balance, the average is positive and fans of trash movie will not be disappointed with this film. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Ozone"

It took me three days to watch this film because i had to stop it so many times i dont mean to insult the director or the actors but i dont think they even tried its a very bad film i wouldnt even waste your time

The picture on the back sold it to me dont be fooled its not good leave it alone go for a walk outside or take a nap its just not worth it

This is the weakest of JR Bookwalter's films because it strays from his style of fast, humorous action scenes. Bookwalter tries something more ambitious, moody and suspenseful and he fails. But its still typically watchable in its cheesiness. This is more drab looking and boring than his other films though. There are scenes where the black leading man is locked in cages, forced into a Mandingo fight and a zombie sniffs him and says, "You smell like a brother...". It might be a string of racist jokes or JR made a film thats a metaphor for smalltown racism. So Bookwalter tries to be artsier here and its appreciated, but he forgot to make it entertaining as he was NEVER scary or thoughtful director.

Ozone is the name of a new highly addictive street drug that is often fatal for bums and junkies.Detectives Eddie Boone and Mike Weitz are hot on the trail of drug lord Sam DeBartolo,who's behind the trafficking of Ozone.While running down a connection Weitz is attacked by zombies and disappears and Boone is injected with the drug.He slowly starts to mutate into zombie.I enjoyed "Ozone" due to its pretty high gore level.The main performance of James Black is quite solid and the digital effects are surprisingly effective.The pace of the film moves swiftly and there is plenty of gore on display.Considering the budget of "Ozone" I was impressed with this small indie production.I still haven't seen "The Dead Next Door",but I'd like to someday.7 out of 10.

The term "low-budget" carries certain connotations, but in practice it doesn't always mean the same thing. On the face of it the suggestion is simply of limited resources available to realize a project - nothing more, nothing less - and is no indicator of quality. We've all seen some movies that were incredibly solid and well-made, and defied the limitations of their financial backing. On the other hand, for lack of funding, "low-budget" also commonly communicates idiosyncrasies of style that fall below the standards of quality of major motion pictures. 'Ozone' immediately comes across as a bit of Column A, and a bit of Column B: I think it's safe to say that filmmaker J. R. Bookwalter and his collaborators did what they could with what they had to work with, and it surely seems as though the money available for the movie largely (wisely) went into practical effects. As far as that goes, at least, it's a job well done; the blood, gore, makeup, fluids, and all other gnarly, tangible visuals look pretty great to me, even if they were made on a shoestring.

On the other hand, the colloquial application of "low-budget" also undeniably shines through. Even though 'Ozone' is made competently at large, there's a definite, often glaring lack of subtlety and nuance in the feature as it presents. This pertains to most every last element of the picture, from top to bottom, in and out: cinematography, sequencing, editing, direction, sound design (fluctuating and imbalanced), scene writing, dialogue, characters, computer-generated visuals, stunts, costume design, props, vehicles, filming locations, production design, pacing, acting, lighting - and even some instances of the makeup artists' work are notably uneven, if not downright deficient. All these aspects, and more, are distinctly blunt, heavy-handed, and sometimes all but tactless. None of this is to say that this title isn't enjoyable, or that it's not well done such as it is. Yet the line blurs between lack of means, lack of skill, and lack of finesse, and it's difficult to discern at any given point how the flaws and shortcomings should be designated. What kind of "low-budget" is this? Full Moon Films? Earnest indie? Homemade, amateur passion project? Anyone's guess is as good as mine.

Putting all this aside - as if this weren't already enough - I'm not fully certain that the plot is entirely focused or cohesive; it seems to stray at times from a discrete path. Worse than that, some smaller scenes impress as self-indulgent, plainly overstaying their welcome, or going excessively over the top. This might be fine if 'Ozone' were written as a horror-comedy, but that's not the overall tone it holds to. For that matter, the general faults and deficiencies could be more easily forgiven in that instance, but again, not here. So when, for example, star James Black bends his knees and hunches down, then rapidly shifts his feet to spin in a circle - an attempt, with far less equipment or resources, to recreate that moment in a feature when a character clutches their head in confusion and madness and the camera revolves around them... well, this would be delightful in a title that was self-parodying; here's it's funny for the wrong reasons.

And still - still! - this isn't to say that it's not entertaining, or satisfying. For all the problems this movie struggles with, I can't say I didn't have a good time watching. I can readily envision what this might have looked like with the resources and guidance of a more practiced, established horror filmmaker (John Carpenter, perhaps, or David Cronenberg, among others; I see faint echoes of 'In the mouth of madness,' or 'Shivers'), and my mind swirls with joyous fancy. Accept and engage with 'Ozone' on its level, and its value and potential becomes more evident. In the widest of strokes, and even in some of the details, I think there are wonderfully strong ideas in the screenplay conjured between director Bookwalter and co-writer David A. Wagner. The concept is actually fantastic, opening up possibilities of psychological horror, body horror, a zombie flick, a monster movie, a terrestrial equivalent of cosmic horror, and other flavors. However one wishes to dissect it, the end result that is 'Ozone' is a strange, mixed bag, but for all its weaknesses, I see what it wanted to be, tried to be, and could have been. And against all odds, I think it's better than not, and I kind of love it.

Enjoying onself here requires that one is able and willing to ride with the feature in its lane; to judge it strictly in comparison to less humble productions isn't a fair playing field. I certainly do understand that this won't appeal to everyone, and why it wouldn't; at first blush, I too was rather aghast. But ultimately, the issues 'Ozone' faces are ones of limited money, and lack of polish. I feel confident that Bookwalter and Wagner had a meaningfully vivid, complete vision for their picture, and by one measure or another they just didn't have the opportunity to make it all that it could have been. For what it is, as we see it, the writing is mostly quite enticing, the (practical) effects are mostly splendid, and all involved put their best foot forward. That 'Ozone' still falters is unfortunate, but all the same, count me among its fans: horror flicks don't have to be perfect to be a whole lot of devious fun.

The movie runs for an hour and twenty minutes and it does nothing except prove that even good movie ideas can be ruined if not handled well. The acting is piss poor and the " zombie -mutants " don't even raise a laugh. While it is true that lack of money can seriously cramp one's style the fact that this movie is bad is not related to low budget but rather to low standards. Haphazard story lines, cliched dialogues ,poor lighting, crude sfx and an unsurprising twist at the end make this movie a must for masochists and insomniacs.