The first must-see film of the year.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

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

The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

Well I watched this film a few years ago but my version of the DVD was called Armageddon of the dead. Although the film has terrible writing and acting, me and my friends still enjoyed watching it as it falls into the it's so bad it's good category. The characters in the film make awful decision and the special are horrendous so the film is so much fun to mock especially with a group of friends. So even though the film is terrible you can still have a fun and enjoyable time watching it. The best time to watch this film so that you get the most out of it is late at night drunk, then the film will seem brilliant. But if you watch it sober with a bunch of film fanatics then you will have a awful time.

First of all, I must say that when I sat down to watch "Armageddon of the Dead" (or "Risen") it was with some heavy influence from all the negative reviews it had gotten both here and on Amazon (where I bought the movie from). Then why watch it you might ask? Well because it is a zombie movie, and I am a huge zombie aficionado, and just got to watch all things zombie.Sure "Armageddon of the Dead" is a low budget zombie horror movie, but so what? There are so many other low budget zombie movies out there on the market, and lots of them are far worse than this movie. I honestly think that "Armageddon of the Dead" was one of the better low budget zombie movies that I have seen in my many years of watching movies.Given the DVD cover has nothing to do with the movie itself, and that does raise the question why opt for that cover for the movie? It depicts a man and a woman with guns standing in front of a massive horde of zombies and a city in ruin in the background. It was pretty far from the actual contents of the movie.The story takes place in a suburb where we follow a small group of people, whose life is turned upside down with the spread of some infection that causes the dead to rise and attack the living. Yeah, fairly standard over-used storyline here, I agree, but it still worked out well enough. Especially because "Armageddon of the Dead" is not about the gore and showing off gruesome effects and mauled people, it is about the storyline and the trials of the small group. The story builds up a good sense of suspense and dread, and doesn't delve into the gorefest mayhem that most zombie movies do (and yeah, I do love that, no doubt about it), but it was nice to see a zombie movie that was story-driven and not gore-driven.And the people they had cast for the various roles, well most of them did adequate jobs with their characters and their roles. Sure, keep in mind that this is a low budget movie, so don't expect award-winning material, and yeah there were some questionable acting performances here and there, but in overall, I think people were actually doing good jobs, and it helped carry the movie quite a bit."Armageddon of the Dead" is not heavy on gore and mayhem. There is a heap of people with blood on them and showing smaller lacerations and injuries, and it was done well enough, especially because it wasn't the gore that drove the movie. And keep in mind that people were recently dead and recently reanimated, so it would be very limited with the sense of decay and rot that there would be present. I found the blood and injuries were adequate enough and done well enough, because it was done with moderation.For a low budget movie, there is something unique about "Armageddon of the Dead" and it made it stand out in an otherwise overwhelming flood of low budget, and often quite bad, zombie movies. If you like zombie movies and don't mind it not being a multi-million dollar production, then you definitely should check out "Armageddon of the Dead".

For the love of humanity, all copies of this movie need to be destroyed. Do not be tempted to watch it, you will be sorry. 40 years of watching films and I have finally found the worst film on the planet.There is no budget spent,there is no plot, there are no actors and there are not even any zombies in it, just people covered in watered down pink paint. Anyone involved in the making of this ham fest should be ashamed of themselves even the person who sold it to you should be ashamed.The best thing about it was the end credits because I just couldn't wait until they arrived. This has been a public service announcement.

...then ever watch Risen again.I'm fairly unbiased when it comes to zombie flicks. I mean, I even own the Zombie King series so that says quite a bit. But disappointment can't even begin to explain the dirty feeling that Risen left in my brainpan.Plot synopsis? Sure! Outbreak occurs, family loses child, must find child. I hope they didn't pay their writer.Acting? Nah, hope they didn't pay their actors either.Special effects? Whoa, also no; very much on par with Day of the Dead: Contagion in that everything just looks like fake blood, and a point that would seem so crucial to a zombie movie was missed entirely: the zombies don't look dead at all.I drove a long way to Chicago, as I do every year, to see this and a few other flicks. Before driving back next year I'll be sure to check IMDb and ensure that no-one from Risen was involved with any of the films so I know to save myself a 10 hour drive.