SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

Question #1. Why do people that don't like low budget horror... watch a low budget horror? Question #2. Why do people that don't like low budget horror and watch it bother to take the time to rate it on IMDb?Beats me... I've seen enough low budget Zombie flicks for two lifetimes and I can tell you that this was a clever, witty low budget film.Forget B-movie, this barely had enough of a budget to qualify for a C movie. But you know what, the writing was more than enough to save it from it's monetary woes.You have to know what you're in for.. it seems every review I write of a low budget zombie flick, I keep coming up with the same thing.. If you want Romero GO RENT A ROMERO FLICK! This is low budget at its finest and you have to appreciate it for what it is. A clever, witty, comical decently written script with a solid effort by all members involved.Bottom line: If you are a fan of Zombie/Infected movies and are on a quest to watch'em all... this is a must see. Especially due to the relative obscurity of the movie itself.

It would be very hard to actually call this a film. It's more of a collection of bad, poorly lit shots.I would first like to mention that the majority of the good comments here are biased. And they all admit to being so. An unbiased review of the film would be the one to look for if you're going to be downloading or, god forbid purchasing this film.The main reason I am saddened by watching this atrocity is that I am a struggling film-maker. And many of my favorite directors (and influences) have made their debut feature films with very very little money. Christopher Nolan, Darren Aronofsky, and Robert Rodriguez all filmed beautiful extremely low budget films. The films in order are: Following, Pi, and El Mariachi.All three films had been performed by either non-professional, or non-actors. And all three films were originally shot for less than $10,000. Pi was the only one that cost more than $7,000 to shoot (listen to commentaries of these films, and/or read 'Rebel Without a Crew').This film (Dead moon rising), for lack of a better word, is a steaming pile of waste. I continue to ask myself 'Where in the world did the $50,000 go to making this film?'. If anyone has a real answer to this, i'd love to hear from you. Email me at: Hellfire@hellfire.TV But I digress. Lets look at the reasons this film deserved a 2-star rating. Well, lets talk about the camera work to start. There were rarely any smooth pans, and suffer countless zooms. I'm sorry, but you never, ever ZOOM! Bring the camera to the subject/object with a dolly, or a steadicam.Okay lets talk about sound. I don't know how or why this film came to be with such horrible sound. The quality, cutting, effects, everything was either off, or just bearable. Once again I ask myself what happened to the $50,000? Everyone that has praised this film has said that "it's a very low budget film, what do you expect?". I say that if there was any planning at all to this film, it was done horrifically.You don't have a $50,000 budget and end up with one of the worst films i've ever seen. But then again there are tons of 10-20 million dollar films that are horrible. I should re-phrase that: You don't shoot a $50,000 film and not even BUY (not rent) at least an XL2 (less than $3,000) camera. That is probably the cheapest way to get 24P (Film speed), and the quality of video that is more than acceptable. Sadly it looks as if the consumer camera being used might have been one that a crew member, or the director himself already had.There are countless errors in the plot, story structure as well. But there isn't a point in getting into every single detail. In fact, i've written too much on this film.My advise to you Mark, if you're reading this is to PLAN! Plan every shot. Have auditions, and rehearse with your actors. Watch a lot of zombie movies. If your intent is to continue with the genre, pay attention to them. Zombies are better shot at night (less detail needed in make-up, etc) than broad day-light. Start by working with a lot of static shots. Read books on filming (if you email me, i'll suggest some excellent books on editing, cinematography, etc) techniques. Take to criticizing with out effecting you (hardest part of this industry). PLAN every move! Storyboard and make scene lists. Any scene should be able to flow visually and through sound on its own. This is extremely important when it comes to omitting useless scenes.

OK, somehow I just sat through this turd of a film.I'm telling ya, this is bloody awful.I love zombie films, but not this one.The reasons are as follow: 1. The acting borders on embarrassing...you get this one guy who keeps talking into the camera as if he's talking to you (the viewer), just makes you wanna reach into your T.V and punch him 2. The gore, well sort of gore is made up of Blackcurrent and Raspberry jam...plus some sausages covered in something red to look like guts! 3. Running time - 91 minutes...90 minutes too long! 4. On the DVD cover it boasts the LARGEST ZOMBIE SCENE EVER TO BE SHOT......Complete Bull***t!5. You think just by putting yellow paint on somebody's face makes a realistic looking zombie...You're wrong!...Seriously guys, don't waste your time or hard earned cash on this, it does'nt deserve it. The only plus point is it does have a couple of pretty tasty chicks in it.I reckon I could have made a better film for a tenner! I CAN'T GIVE YOU ANY STRONGER WARNINGS...THIS FILM IS SHITE!!!

I didn't even last through the first ten minutes. My stepson who shoots movies in our backyard with a home video camera and no discernible plot makes better movies than this.This was horrible, and would certainly have been a made for TV reject. The camera work looked like it was done on a $100 camcorder, the lighting was horrible and the acting even worse.Unfortunately, IMDb wants at least ten lines of text in this review, but the movie is so horrible there's nothing else to say so I will close by telling you not to waste your money. The only thing redeemable about this movie is the semi-hot looking chicks on the cover but I didn't last long enough to see them either.