n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

This doom-laden cheap and nasty production comes from Andrew Jones, who produced and co-wrote it. Jones is a prolific film-maker who has made a name for himself producing micro-budget horrors through North Bank Entertainment; his most successful projects involve demonic doll 'Robert', who has starred in three films so far, with more to come. His productions polarise opinions – on the whole, I've enjoyed them, with only 'Silent Night, Bloody Night: The Homecoming' and 'The Amityville Asylum' (both 2013) disappointing. 'Resurrection' is one of his first productions, and as such, has mixed results – and it IS nasty.In common with low-budget projects, the sound levels are erratic. Loud moments are followed with very softly spoken dialogue that is occasionally incoherent. Lee Bane, who stars in many Jones productions, is sadly guiltier of this than anyone, although his indecipherable ruminations are hardly the fault of the actor. He plays Kevin, a member of a fairly dysfunctional family, even without the influence of the current apocalypse.He's married to pregnant Jenny (Rose Granger), but seemingly having an affair with her young sister. There's Mum and Dad too, and a teenage son. The influx of living dead only add to the complications.One thing that annoyed me about this is that the characters seemingly know that once you are bitten, you become a zombie. This ruling is either forgotten or disregarded adding to the jeopardy, but making the characters inconsistent and seemingly stupid.Interestingly, however, the 'normals' outside pose an even bigger threat. Dad Terry travels alone at night to get help (always inadvisable) and meets a group of these thugs, who have taken the law into their own hands. Rather than run them down, he stops, something that doesn't him any favours.This is a mixed bag, really. There are scenes of gore that turn the stomach, and Director James Plumb makes the most of his lack of budget to produce a raw, grainy, unglamorous horror show.In a a vague homage to the Romero original, the character of Ben (Sule Rimi) seems destined to be the hero of the piece with a knowledge and resolve that would appear to earmark him as a main player. Like the Ben featured in 'Night of the Living Dead (1968)', played by Duane Jones, he is also unexpectedly shot and killed when the others mistake him for a zombie.

Don't you just hate those reviews that say blunt things like 'This film is rubbish!'I try to give a little more information than that, but, I have to say, that that is the crux of my review. For those ten people out there who don't know, the title of 'Night of the Living Dead' comes from the sixties zombie film, made by George Romero film and sporting the same name. The original sixties version is largely considered to be the 'start' of the modern take on the undead. This film, ie. The 2012 version where the film-makers have stuck the word 'Resurrection' on the end has NOTHING to do with the original or the official sequels spawned from it.It is a 'homage' to George Romero's classic. Therefore it takes the best bits and tries to give them a 'fresh' new spin. And it fails.Saying it's made on a 'shoestring budget,' would be an overstatement. I doubt they had a budget at all. The actors (and I use that term loosely) seem to be straight out of the amateur dramatics society and the camera is mainly hand-held all the way through, making it seem like your old home video footage of your holiday to Spain when you were a child.One plus point: the gore is reasonable in the few places it's used, plus there's quite a shocking moment early on that I doubt many will see coming.However, a couple of nice touches do not make a movie. The rest is just awful.Don't be lulled into thinking it'll be good just because the film-makers stole a classic's title. It's just a poor attempt at cashing in on the name. If you like British zombie movies then stick to the 28 Days Later pair, or Shaun of the Dead if you want your gore with some light-hearted moments in it.http://thewrongtreemoviereviews.blogspot.co.uk/

Cheap production value, cheap sound quality, and cheesy dialogue make this film one to avoid at all costs, just when the British film Industry has at last made its mark in the world of film and cinema along comes this load of old tosh that drags it back 20 years why oh why oh why, oh I know why, to make a few quid, if you want to know what it feels like to be mugged buy this DVD and you'll realise! it shouldn't even be allowed to carry the title Night Of the Living Dead George A Romero must be livid his highly original work getting used as and excuse to sell this rubbish!!I have to make this review at least 10 lines OK it looks like it's been filmed on a phone, the characters in the film are very flimsy and the actors playing them must have been chosen in a raffle of some sort, or responded to an ad in the local paper, I didn't care what happened to the characters I just wish they would all get killed so I wouldn't have to hurt my eyes anymore watching this rubbish, I have seen a lot of films not all of them good be warned this is the first time I've been moved to write a review, be afraid be very afraid.

A disturbing and disappointing zombie film. But then again it was low-budget film-making. And I give them a B+ for effort.It takes Romero's original storyline but changes it quite a bit. It has the zombies as heroes in way because the remaining humans have a far more terrifying threat than the just the zombies to deal with, it has psychotic hoodlums who are using the zombie apocalypse to torture and kill innocent people just for the fun of it! This storyline was I believe handle and done much better in the Zombie Diaries films done earlier in 2006 & 2011. Still, not a bad effort.The actors in this film were very amateurish. But the music score was 'dead' on! (no pun intended) This could have been a great film had it had more money budget and better acting.What was frustrating was that these people who were holding up in this so-call cottage, did not bother to board up the windows or doors at all! And all they had for weapons was one lousy shotgun!? there was one scene where they talk about going in the basement or maybe even the attic, but that was squashed with the 'brilliant' idea of the main old guy saying he's going for help all by himself in the middle of the night with no weapon because he gave it to his zombie bitten/infected son-in-law!? WTF?! And what's more frustrating was the anticipation of a zombie baby scene and all they do is tease you with it and it never manifests! Damn! Still, I can't help but like a film that has a bit cameo homage to Romero's original. It's at the beginning of the film when we meet the "Ben" (Sule Rimi)character who when talking on his cell phone to someone named "Barbara" (get it?) his signal drops and he tosses the phone on the car seat. We then see for a brief second that the picture/icon for 'Barbara' is none other then one of the original movie posters of actress Kyra Schon as Karen Cooper, the trowel-wielding zombie kid in George Romero's original "Night of the Living Dead" which she portrayed back in 1968! Now how cool is that? Plus, the ironic twist they have for 'Ben' our doomed hero in this film, is priceless. I don't want to ruin too much, you just have to see it once if you are a true zombie film fan.