Unfortunately, the realism is boring. This movie, I thought it would never end, would have been better if all the characters would have been nuked in the first five minutes. Where's Blade when you need him? While as dismal as COMBAT SHOCK, REQUIEM FOR A DREAM and as nightmarish as BOISE MOI, DEAD CREATURES isn't nearly as entertaining as any of the aforementioned bleak movies. While the gratuitous cannibalism might make the wannabe Jeffery Dalmers hearts race a little faster, it wasn't nearly as interesting as RAVENOUS. Really, I found it about as interesting as late-night infomercials, and as exciting as a trip to the dentist. If you have strong masochistic qualities, you might be able to endure this, otherwise, for no one. I was really surprised that this one wasn't made by the people at Brain Damage as that was the quality of Dead Creatures.
16 Reviews
Decaying flesh and urban decay.
BA_Harrison20 November 2014
The blurb on the back of my DVD for Dead Creatures describes the film as a cross between the work of Mike Leigh, Ken Loach and George Romero. I'm a big fan of Romero's movies, but cannot abide the dull and depressing social realism of the first two directors; consequently, I found Dead Creatures a tough watch, far removed from Romero's zombieverse despite some pretty nasty and fairly well executed gore effects (given the low budget).
Describing Dead Creatures as a zombie movie is actually extremely misleading: the women in this film are not dead, but rather suffer from a degenerative disease that rots the skin and gives them a craving for human flesh. What we have here are cannibals! Sadly, they're boring and rather unlikeable cannibals, a skanky group of women who spend far too much of their time engaging in dreary conversation, smoking, swigging beer, and, in the case of Anne (Antonia Beamish), shagging total strangers for cash, when they should be munching guts.
Thankfully, when they do get around to feeding between chin-wagging, the film is suitably yucky: appendages are lopped off and passed around like chicken wings, and there is one delightfully revolting scene where the girls tuck into a headless torso in graphic detail, slicing off succulent morsels with a carving knife. Meanwhile, a crazed father is desperately searching for his missing daughter, abducting those he believes might be able to tell him where she is; when they fail to help, he shoots them through the head with a bolt-gun and chops them up.
I rate Dead Creatures 5/10 for the gore, but only 2/10 for the actual storytelling and acting, averaging out at 3.5/10 overall, which I'll round up to 4 for big-breasted slapper Anne simply because she has cool taste in T-shirts (she sports designs for Russ Meyer's Super Vixens, cult '50s sci-fi Attack of the 50ft Woman, and '70s TV series Charlie's Angels).
Describing Dead Creatures as a zombie movie is actually extremely misleading: the women in this film are not dead, but rather suffer from a degenerative disease that rots the skin and gives them a craving for human flesh. What we have here are cannibals! Sadly, they're boring and rather unlikeable cannibals, a skanky group of women who spend far too much of their time engaging in dreary conversation, smoking, swigging beer, and, in the case of Anne (Antonia Beamish), shagging total strangers for cash, when they should be munching guts.
Thankfully, when they do get around to feeding between chin-wagging, the film is suitably yucky: appendages are lopped off and passed around like chicken wings, and there is one delightfully revolting scene where the girls tuck into a headless torso in graphic detail, slicing off succulent morsels with a carving knife. Meanwhile, a crazed father is desperately searching for his missing daughter, abducting those he believes might be able to tell him where she is; when they fail to help, he shoots them through the head with a bolt-gun and chops them up.
I rate Dead Creatures 5/10 for the gore, but only 2/10 for the actual storytelling and acting, averaging out at 3.5/10 overall, which I'll round up to 4 for big-breasted slapper Anne simply because she has cool taste in T-shirts (she sports designs for Russ Meyer's Super Vixens, cult '50s sci-fi Attack of the 50ft Woman, and '70s TV series Charlie's Angels).
A new spin on old ideas
johnnycourageous3 August 2004
There has been some interesting horror films emerging from the UK in recent years, and 'Dead Creatures' is yet another in my opinion. Whilst Japan and perhaps other parts of Europe have contributed to a 'revival' of certain horror sub-genres, Britain has quietly been producing some fantastic horror films.
Set in contemporary London, we largely follow the lives of a seemingly normal bunch of women - one of whom is decomposing badly, and just looks absolutely disgusting. There are a couple of single 'zombie' guys depicted in the film also. The deliberately slow pace of the film eventually reveals that these people have contracted a strange virus, resulting in an urge to eat human flesh. Luring victims via various means, we bear witness to some gruesome images of cannibalism. Unlike other zombie films, these creatures are not green-gray skinned uncontrollable maniacs, but intelligent and emotional beings. They do not physically transform immediately either, but rot over a period of 12 to 18 months. Meanwhile, a mysterious man is hunting these 'zombies' primarily for the purpose of extracting information. After gaining some information, he kills these zombies in a gruesome but effective manner, before dismembering and disposing of the bodies.
Dead Creatures is obviously low budget, and looks it in parts. Look closely and you'll notice occasional camera shadows on the actors, or even a crew member darting off in the distance to avoid the camera! Yet no expense appears to have been spared for the horror effects, which seem gut-wrenchingly realistic. It's difficult to draw comparison to other films. The aura of starkness and dread reminded me slightly of the atmosphere evoked in Pete Walker's 'Frightmare' (1974). There appears to be a direct homage made to the bathtub scene in 'Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer' (1986). In this case the zombie women used a hacksaw to dismember a fellow zombie in the bathtub, lifting her head out of the bathtub in the same manner as Henry! I also noticed that one of the female actors wore a t-shirt of Russ Meyer's 'Super Vixens' (1976), and another later on depicting the silhouette of the 70's TV soap 'Charlie's Angels'. Not sure if the director intended to imply that these women were cannibalistic vigilantes, but that's how I interpreted it!
This film is definitely worth a look if you are interested in the zombie genre. It is certainly something completely different, and quite unlike any other zombie film I have seen. Just don't expect thrill-a-minute action. This is not that type of film.
Set in contemporary London, we largely follow the lives of a seemingly normal bunch of women - one of whom is decomposing badly, and just looks absolutely disgusting. There are a couple of single 'zombie' guys depicted in the film also. The deliberately slow pace of the film eventually reveals that these people have contracted a strange virus, resulting in an urge to eat human flesh. Luring victims via various means, we bear witness to some gruesome images of cannibalism. Unlike other zombie films, these creatures are not green-gray skinned uncontrollable maniacs, but intelligent and emotional beings. They do not physically transform immediately either, but rot over a period of 12 to 18 months. Meanwhile, a mysterious man is hunting these 'zombies' primarily for the purpose of extracting information. After gaining some information, he kills these zombies in a gruesome but effective manner, before dismembering and disposing of the bodies.
Dead Creatures is obviously low budget, and looks it in parts. Look closely and you'll notice occasional camera shadows on the actors, or even a crew member darting off in the distance to avoid the camera! Yet no expense appears to have been spared for the horror effects, which seem gut-wrenchingly realistic. It's difficult to draw comparison to other films. The aura of starkness and dread reminded me slightly of the atmosphere evoked in Pete Walker's 'Frightmare' (1974). There appears to be a direct homage made to the bathtub scene in 'Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer' (1986). In this case the zombie women used a hacksaw to dismember a fellow zombie in the bathtub, lifting her head out of the bathtub in the same manner as Henry! I also noticed that one of the female actors wore a t-shirt of Russ Meyer's 'Super Vixens' (1976), and another later on depicting the silhouette of the 70's TV soap 'Charlie's Angels'. Not sure if the director intended to imply that these women were cannibalistic vigilantes, but that's how I interpreted it!
This film is definitely worth a look if you are interested in the zombie genre. It is certainly something completely different, and quite unlike any other zombie film I have seen. Just don't expect thrill-a-minute action. This is not that type of film.
This about bored me to tears...
Shadow_Destiny8 July 2002
Ok I will sum up this movie... A bunch of skanky British women have some disease that basically is turning them into zombies. The whole movie consists of these women talking, smoking, and rarely going out for "meat" Or humans to eat. I swear I had to MAKE myself watch this movie... UGH
I beg you on all that is holy, don't rent this movie based on the cover art
jmabelis19 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I watched half of this movie and I didn't like it.
First reason: Boring. Barely anything happens, the women sit around and discuss how terrible their lives are and how they have no hope, they smoke weed, read magazines, care for their sick friend, and cut up the occasional dead body. BORING!!!!
Second reason: There are too many things left unexplained. Many scenes are dedicated to a zombie hunter who kidnaps random men, restrains them in a chair and interrogates them. Who are these men? How do they know anything about illegal activity concerning the diseased flesh eaters? Why does he kill one and let another one go?
Also there is this dude who at first I thought also had the flesh eating disease but he puts his fist through a wall with superhuman strength suggesting he's not quite what we originally thought-never explained! How frustrating is that?
Conclusion: I found the women annoying, the story uninteresting, the duologue tedious, and the action non-existent. Also the cover art is misleading since it makes you believe this movie is going to be cool when it clearly isn't. I rented this movie based on some of the reviews made by other people on this website, and although I respect the fact that some people might have enjoyed this flick, I will from now on make sure I read more than two reviews deep into a movie so as to avoid renting another movie I regret seeing.
I watched half of this movie and I didn't like it.
First reason: Boring. Barely anything happens, the women sit around and discuss how terrible their lives are and how they have no hope, they smoke weed, read magazines, care for their sick friend, and cut up the occasional dead body. BORING!!!!
Second reason: There are too many things left unexplained. Many scenes are dedicated to a zombie hunter who kidnaps random men, restrains them in a chair and interrogates them. Who are these men? How do they know anything about illegal activity concerning the diseased flesh eaters? Why does he kill one and let another one go?
Also there is this dude who at first I thought also had the flesh eating disease but he puts his fist through a wall with superhuman strength suggesting he's not quite what we originally thought-never explained! How frustrating is that?
Conclusion: I found the women annoying, the story uninteresting, the duologue tedious, and the action non-existent. Also the cover art is misleading since it makes you believe this movie is going to be cool when it clearly isn't. I rented this movie based on some of the reviews made by other people on this website, and although I respect the fact that some people might have enjoyed this flick, I will from now on make sure I read more than two reviews deep into a movie so as to avoid renting another movie I regret seeing.
Now this is a BAD movie...
rainking_es8 December 2006
I chose "Dead Creatures" because I thought it was a zombies movie just like "28 days" or so... but not at all. It isn't even a horror movie. Nothing happens, except for a group of women that seem to have been infected by a strange virus that make her to eat human flesh in order to survive.
That plot gives rise to a series of disgusting scenes of cannibalism...
Very VERY BAD MOVIE.
*My rate: 2/10
------------------
------------------
That plot gives rise to a series of disgusting scenes of cannibalism...
Very VERY BAD MOVIE.
*My rate: 2/10
------------------
------------------
Very different zombie movie.
Industrious30 November 2001
Dead Creatures is a very different zombie movie. The "zombies" are not the mindless, monstrous ones you are used to from traditional zombie flicks, but rather ordinary people who look, speak and feel like everyone else. Their difficult life in the apathy of British Suburbia is made even more difficult by a middle-aged man trying to hunt them down, and whose motives are not explained until toward the end of the film. The uncommon approach of making the zombies human, in conjunction with good acting, good script and gorgeous photography makes this a memorable movie. The gory scenes are quite disturbing and very well made.
WARNING: Do Not Watch This Film
anxietyresister7 January 2008
"ASTONISHING" Screams the LA Times from the front of the DVD box. They must have been referring to the fact that such a sorry piece of crap was ever released. The film revolves around a bunch of girls who have a disease which forces them to become cannibals, and murder innocent people just to stay alive. Their skin peels off throughout the film, we also see severed legs, heads etc that are about as convincing as a Halloween Fuzzy Felt set. There is an awful lot of talking b*ll**ks, a bit of human cuisine and some weird zombie hunter chap who imprisons the sufferers of said skin illness in his closet strapped to a chair, before stabbing them in the head, chopping them into bits...
You get the picture. Considering there is no acting talent on display at all, and the gore is laughably unrealistic, what is the point of this whole farrago? Again looking at the video box, the guy responsible for it is an "underground cult director". Would that be like those weird religious cults where they brainwash you into thinking one way when clearly the opposite is true? Because that's the only possible reason I can think of for anyone to derive pleasure by watching this tax write-off. Then, on the same paragraph he compares himself to Mike Leigh, Ken Loach and George Romero. HAHAHAHAHA oh stop it. Now you're just being silly.
Do you enjoy this film? Are you offended by the above opinion? If so, you must be a member of said cult. Do they pocket your wages? Do they let you see other family members? Do they force you to watch Andrew Parkinson films till you think he's the best director since A.Hitchcock? Do tell... this sounds like a Panorama special brewing to me. And say hello to the critic of the LA times when you return to your colony, will you? 0/10
You get the picture. Considering there is no acting talent on display at all, and the gore is laughably unrealistic, what is the point of this whole farrago? Again looking at the video box, the guy responsible for it is an "underground cult director". Would that be like those weird religious cults where they brainwash you into thinking one way when clearly the opposite is true? Because that's the only possible reason I can think of for anyone to derive pleasure by watching this tax write-off. Then, on the same paragraph he compares himself to Mike Leigh, Ken Loach and George Romero. HAHAHAHAHA oh stop it. Now you're just being silly.
Do you enjoy this film? Are you offended by the above opinion? If so, you must be a member of said cult. Do they pocket your wages? Do they let you see other family members? Do they force you to watch Andrew Parkinson films till you think he's the best director since A.Hitchcock? Do tell... this sounds like a Panorama special brewing to me. And say hello to the critic of the LA times when you return to your colony, will you? 0/10
interesting idea... poor execution
ervinphillips15 March 2005
This movie is one of those I regret having invested 90 minutes of my life that I'll never get back in. The premise is really interesting - essentially it's a zombie flick from the perspective of the undead (let's not split hairs as to whether they're actually dead or not}. Unfortunately, they fail to deliver a compelling story within this framework. The nearly unbearable monotony of the lives of the central characters may add to the realism of the film, but it sucks all the entertainment value right out of it. If they had put a little more effort toward keeping the viewer engaged, it would have been much more likely that they drive home the social commentary.
a quiet and beautiful, yet disturbing film
thanatonaute6 April 2002
Dead Creatures is of course no film for weak stomachs, but it is not the typical, plain gross and bloody, horror film you might think it is.
Dead Creatures is a very calm film. No big shock effects or action scenes, yet the film is not boring at all. Mr. Andrew Parkinson films his so-called zombies as human beings. His dead creatures are not dead they are only almost dead; in fact they are dying. They are all victims of some strange disease forcing them to feed on human flesh and making their skin degenerate. Parkinson shows his zombies as victims of their fate and not as those evil, generally really stupid creatures.
So this is an intelligent gore film; it is the first gore film I've seen so far (with the exception of Romero's Night Of The Living Dead) which doesn't exist because it wants to show you ugly bloody stuff, but because the plot requires the gore. Parkinson doesn't show you all the bloody details; he often uses ellipses, which proves his courage (most gore film-makers profit every time they can show you some blood) and shows that he had a special approach to his film and that he focuses on the characters. The gore in his film is almost what Mr. Hitchcock would call a McGuffin (something you need for your plot, but which is not really important).
Parkinson's camera is almost never moving, it usually stands still and lets the characters develop themselves. There Mr. Parkinson was really lucky to have gathered a great cast. Horror film actors often act really bad, but here there are some really fine and talented actors. The editing of the film is quite interesting as well. The cinematography is quite standard, but picturesque shots wouldn't have fitted in this film.
Mr. Andrew Parkinson is probably one of the most gifted gore film-makers around. I can just recommend you to watch this film, (though it isn't easy, because this film is mainly shown at film festivals.)
Dead Creatures is a very calm film. No big shock effects or action scenes, yet the film is not boring at all. Mr. Andrew Parkinson films his so-called zombies as human beings. His dead creatures are not dead they are only almost dead; in fact they are dying. They are all victims of some strange disease forcing them to feed on human flesh and making their skin degenerate. Parkinson shows his zombies as victims of their fate and not as those evil, generally really stupid creatures.
So this is an intelligent gore film; it is the first gore film I've seen so far (with the exception of Romero's Night Of The Living Dead) which doesn't exist because it wants to show you ugly bloody stuff, but because the plot requires the gore. Parkinson doesn't show you all the bloody details; he often uses ellipses, which proves his courage (most gore film-makers profit every time they can show you some blood) and shows that he had a special approach to his film and that he focuses on the characters. The gore in his film is almost what Mr. Hitchcock would call a McGuffin (something you need for your plot, but which is not really important).
Parkinson's camera is almost never moving, it usually stands still and lets the characters develop themselves. There Mr. Parkinson was really lucky to have gathered a great cast. Horror film actors often act really bad, but here there are some really fine and talented actors. The editing of the film is quite interesting as well. The cinematography is quite standard, but picturesque shots wouldn't have fitted in this film.
Mr. Andrew Parkinson is probably one of the most gifted gore film-makers around. I can just recommend you to watch this film, (though it isn't easy, because this film is mainly shown at film festivals.)
This is how much movie you get on a five dollar budget and zero talent from anyone involved
Quark2518 February 2002
A bunch of women with Cockney accents who can't act sit around talking and smoking pot.They have another woman in a wheelchair they hide under a sheet because she is "deformed", and supposedly they kill someone to feed this person human flesh that looks like some Spam that they dressed up by stickingon a few plastic fingers. We don't see them killing anyone or even infering that they did, yet suddenly there is a body on the floor covered by a bloodied sheet. I can't eat Spam covered by a sheet anymore because of this. Just the thought of Spam covered by a sheet is enough to induce the same narcoleptic fit brought on by trying to get through this movie. I just don't know how I got to the end; it seemed like an eternity before the final credits started to roll. At least five new species spawned and were fully evolved from the movie's beginning to it's end.
Occasionally there are randomly inserted scenes of a guy who is "hunting" them by way of torturing and interrogating some guy he has strapped to a chair in his basement. Why he captured this guy and how he is connected to the Sit-On-The-Couch Sisters is never explained. There are also scenes of some "superhuman" guy freaking out. He p*sses blood and punches through a wall, but who he is or what is wrong with him is never explained. He's just there punching the wall.
There is no action, no special effects, no story. If you want to watch some boring people talk in a profound way about nothing in particular while sitting around and eating Spam and smoking weed, then here's 90 minutes of that. If you're by yourself smoking weed and need a friend simulator, pop this movie in. Except for a scene where one chick does some hooking on a street corner and the aforementioned random scenes, absolutely NOTHING happens. (YAWN) Oh, I almost forgot, you get to see them move some stuff, including the deformed sister, when they move to their new apartment. Its one of the few times besides the hooking scene that they're not sitting on a couch or lying in bed.
Occasionally there are randomly inserted scenes of a guy who is "hunting" them by way of torturing and interrogating some guy he has strapped to a chair in his basement. Why he captured this guy and how he is connected to the Sit-On-The-Couch Sisters is never explained. There are also scenes of some "superhuman" guy freaking out. He p*sses blood and punches through a wall, but who he is or what is wrong with him is never explained. He's just there punching the wall.
There is no action, no special effects, no story. If you want to watch some boring people talk in a profound way about nothing in particular while sitting around and eating Spam and smoking weed, then here's 90 minutes of that. If you're by yourself smoking weed and need a friend simulator, pop this movie in. Except for a scene where one chick does some hooking on a street corner and the aforementioned random scenes, absolutely NOTHING happens. (YAWN) Oh, I almost forgot, you get to see them move some stuff, including the deformed sister, when they move to their new apartment. Its one of the few times besides the hooking scene that they're not sitting on a couch or lying in bed.
Zero style, lots of substance
spacemonkey_fg23 March 2004
Title: Dead Creatures (2001)
Director: Andrew Parkinson
Cast: Antonia Bemish, Brendan Gregory, Bart Ruspoli, Anna Swift
Tagline: Not just your girls next door
Review:
Well it defeneatly was obvious from the get go that this was a low budget effort, no big recognizable hollywood stars, no big make up effects, just a very unusual and onorthodox zombie movie.
Story is about these bunch of girls who suffer from an eating disorder. They were bit by an infected person and now they have to eat human flesh in order to survive, all the while trying to continue with their pseudo normal existence.
I have a few complaints. First off, the pace of the movie was slower then one of Romeros zombies. It was very dialogue heavy and had no action whatsoever. At times it seemed like nothing was ever going to happen. Still, I told myself, this is an independent horror film. Its lack of budget forced it to focus on story and characters...so lets pay attention to that.
So I did. The story was very interesting. I liked the way that Parkinson told his story. Mainly becuase he gave us very little information at first as to what was really happening. Its not until a few minutes in the film that you noticed that "hey! Those girls are eating human flesh!....Wait! They are zombies!" And that totally cought me off guard. It felt a little like watching a film like 21Grams, where you get stuff after your allready a bit into the film. Nothing is flat out spelled out for you and that was cool about it.
The characters were likable, and it was strange to see them trying to deal with the whole flesheating thing so matter of factly. Like a regular everyday thing that they have to deal with. In many ways this film also reminded me of Near Dark because part of it has to deal with a new girl trying to learn the ropes of becoming a flesheater. I liked that and yes I agree at times the movie felt like a documentary.
One thing I didnt like was the lack of style, the camera doesnt have any movement. Everything is very stale, no interesting camera angles or takes. Im guessing this also had to do with a fast shooting scheduel and minuscule budget, so hey I let that go. Im thinking up ahead in this directors life, when he gets some recognition and money, he'll have time for style. Here in Dead Creatures style was replaced with substance, which is strange since usually its the other way around.
I did like the subplot about the father hunting down the flesheaters and questioning them in morbid ways. I liked his method of killing them too, I dont think Ive seen anything like that on any movie before.
One really good thing this movie has going for it. The gore. It was realistic. The scenes with the girls eating flesh seemed very real. In fact theres a few decapitations on this and they felt very real to me. The managed the gore here very well, its not cartoony or over the top. Its just real and it certainly makes some of the scenes on the film all the more disturbing.
In conclusion, I think this film was interesting from a story/character development point of view, but suffered from lack of style and small budget. Still, I think that this director has some talent and would defeneatly watch another of his films in the future. Ive still to see I Zombie, Im looking forward to it.
Rating: 3 out of 5
Director: Andrew Parkinson
Cast: Antonia Bemish, Brendan Gregory, Bart Ruspoli, Anna Swift
Tagline: Not just your girls next door
Review:
Well it defeneatly was obvious from the get go that this was a low budget effort, no big recognizable hollywood stars, no big make up effects, just a very unusual and onorthodox zombie movie.
Story is about these bunch of girls who suffer from an eating disorder. They were bit by an infected person and now they have to eat human flesh in order to survive, all the while trying to continue with their pseudo normal existence.
I have a few complaints. First off, the pace of the movie was slower then one of Romeros zombies. It was very dialogue heavy and had no action whatsoever. At times it seemed like nothing was ever going to happen. Still, I told myself, this is an independent horror film. Its lack of budget forced it to focus on story and characters...so lets pay attention to that.
So I did. The story was very interesting. I liked the way that Parkinson told his story. Mainly becuase he gave us very little information at first as to what was really happening. Its not until a few minutes in the film that you noticed that "hey! Those girls are eating human flesh!....Wait! They are zombies!" And that totally cought me off guard. It felt a little like watching a film like 21Grams, where you get stuff after your allready a bit into the film. Nothing is flat out spelled out for you and that was cool about it.
The characters were likable, and it was strange to see them trying to deal with the whole flesheating thing so matter of factly. Like a regular everyday thing that they have to deal with. In many ways this film also reminded me of Near Dark because part of it has to deal with a new girl trying to learn the ropes of becoming a flesheater. I liked that and yes I agree at times the movie felt like a documentary.
One thing I didnt like was the lack of style, the camera doesnt have any movement. Everything is very stale, no interesting camera angles or takes. Im guessing this also had to do with a fast shooting scheduel and minuscule budget, so hey I let that go. Im thinking up ahead in this directors life, when he gets some recognition and money, he'll have time for style. Here in Dead Creatures style was replaced with substance, which is strange since usually its the other way around.
I did like the subplot about the father hunting down the flesheaters and questioning them in morbid ways. I liked his method of killing them too, I dont think Ive seen anything like that on any movie before.
One really good thing this movie has going for it. The gore. It was realistic. The scenes with the girls eating flesh seemed very real. In fact theres a few decapitations on this and they felt very real to me. The managed the gore here very well, its not cartoony or over the top. Its just real and it certainly makes some of the scenes on the film all the more disturbing.
In conclusion, I think this film was interesting from a story/character development point of view, but suffered from lack of style and small budget. Still, I think that this director has some talent and would defeneatly watch another of his films in the future. Ive still to see I Zombie, Im looking forward to it.
Rating: 3 out of 5
Dead gory but some may find it dead boring too.
Stevieboy66610 August 2021
Just watched this on DVD for the second time, bought a copy then realised I already had it! Could barely remember anything about it (the only scene I recognised was a girl getting out of bed, very brief full frontal nudity), so it obviously didn't make much of an impression first time round. This was released in the UK on the Hard Gore label, compared to some of the trash they put out this one isn't too bad. It certainly delivers on the gore, very graphic, mainly the cutting up of human bodies for cannibalism. This is not a zombie movie, the girls that commit the cannibalism are not dead but instead infected with some unexplained disease, passed on by biting (vampirism, in a way). As much a drama as it is horror much of the running time consists of a bunch of young woman sat in their grotty London flats, talking, drinking and smoking. A few choice lines: "My name is Reece, I'm going to kill you", and "I used to be a vegetarian but now I only eat human flesh!" Low budget movie, this does show, however the special effects are well done, they could prove too strong for some. The soundtrack does have some good tunes. I thought overall it was OK, something a bit different (for the time), but it will bore some.
STAY SAFE AND HEALTHY
nogodnomasters18 June 2018
Warning: Spoilers
The film opens as a mystery as we see a group of women care for another and a man abducts people looking for what appears to be his daughter and then killing the victim.. We discover in this low budget film, the women have a disease/ affliction which causes them to have to eat human flesh and organs to survive. They buy organs and feed off of Johns. That is pretty much it.
The film appears to be a statement about life in general, in how we all must feed off of "dead creatures" in order to survive, especially people who eat meat. It asks the question, "What's the point?" if everything dies so something else can live. It makes it a little more personal when one has to eat human flesh and do their own killing.
The film itself consisted of the most boring reluctant cannibals ever assembled.
Guide: F-bomb. Brief sex and nudity.
The film appears to be a statement about life in general, in how we all must feed off of "dead creatures" in order to survive, especially people who eat meat. It asks the question, "What's the point?" if everything dies so something else can live. It makes it a little more personal when one has to eat human flesh and do their own killing.
The film itself consisted of the most boring reluctant cannibals ever assembled.
Guide: F-bomb. Brief sex and nudity.
Perfect
BioChemical-Code5 June 2006
It was a while since i saw this movie but scenes in it still flashes before me. I love this movie.
First of all, the way its filmed makes you think its a documentary and it adds such a real feel to it. This film wouldn't have been as good if it was more professional made... the "documentary" feeling really put the feeling going.
Secondly, it's a good alternate "zombie" idea.
If you like high action blow up scenes or zombies that walks slower than grandma, go see another movie.
If you want something different with a good feeling. I personally recommend this... I've told all my friends about it... to the point the just saw it to shut me up haha!
First of all, the way its filmed makes you think its a documentary and it adds such a real feel to it. This film wouldn't have been as good if it was more professional made... the "documentary" feeling really put the feeling going.
Secondly, it's a good alternate "zombie" idea.
If you like high action blow up scenes or zombies that walks slower than grandma, go see another movie.
If you want something different with a good feeling. I personally recommend this... I've told all my friends about it... to the point the just saw it to shut me up haha!
I loved it! Not for the casual viewer.
LLAAA48378 September 2008
Let me start off by saying that the cover for this film completely sucks and it has nothing to do with anything that happens in this film. DEAD CREATURES is not a horror movie. I will also say right away that this film is definitely not going to appeal to very many people at all. It is shot in a way that is reminiscent of a documentary. The film is about a community of women somewhere in England who move from one nasty apartment to the next and who are suffering from a zombie-like disease. They have to eat human flesh to stay alive. The only serious problem is that they are decomposing and it gets more and more difficult for them to hide their disease from the public. Now I know that it sounds like a horror film, but the movie itself is actually quite talky. It is very slow-paced and it's remarkably grim tone-wise. There are a lot of scenes where the girls just talk to each other about things and talk about their lives and stuff. The opening scenes in the film remind me of that one scene in Larry Clark's KIDS where Rosario Dawson, Chloe Sevigney, and all those other girls are talking on the couch. If you watch this film expecting a movie where women just go around eating people's guts and stuff, you may be disappointed. There are only a handful of those scenes. However, I have to say, despite the fact that there are only a few scenes of actual on-screen violence, the gore in this film is really really nasty and quite repugnant. In fact, this is one of the few films I've seen where I actually felt quite sick to my stomach while watching. I probably shouldn't have been eating pizza rolls when I watched it. But yeah, just be warned that it's very well done and very sick. Anyway, there's also a running subplot throughout the film that has to do with a madman who is going around capturing zombies and then torturing them and killing them. I don't want to give too much away, but the reasons surrounding why he's doing it are kind of interesting. This film kind of reminded me of HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER, except that the murderers were cannibalistic young women. A lot of horror film-buffs will hate this film for all the talking going on. However, I quite enjoyed the dialog and I wasn't bothered by it at all. Also, being the quasi-feminist that I am, I found myself really caring for these women who have to force themselves to eat flesh and guts and stuff. I felt particularly sorry for the woman who used to be a vegetarian. However, this isn't the kind of film where the characters just whine non-stop about being the way they are. This is the kind of film where they eat human bodies in a very casual, and unassuming way. The film did kind of scare me with the idea that all these women seem like perfectly nice, normal, everyday people. It was really good. So above all, I can't really recommend the film since most people will hate it, but I absolutely love it and I am very happy that I bought it.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
