Я бессмертный (2006) Online

I have watched several low budget, independent films. After watching Quick and the Undead I will have to say this was one of the better zombie films that I have seen. The acting of most of the characters was above average and the cinematography was very good. The story line was overall pretty good. There were both highs and lows in the story, some of which could have been improved. One thing in independent movies that really bothers me is the condition of the actors clothing and the background. In this movie as well as others, a lot of the zombies and main characters clothing was just in too good of a condition to be believable. Dirty it up a bit! Go to yard sales and used clothing stores to outfit your actors. Also make the props dirty and used looking. There is nothing more unbelievable as someone in a post apocalyptic world with new boots, goggles, tennis shoes, hats and other props that look as if they just came out of the box. The backgrounds needs to be in a more unkept manner. This movie had what appeared freshly cut lawns and exteriors of buildings that looked well kept. Dirty it up a little to make it more believable. I liked the fight scenes and the dialogue was above average. I would tell others to watch this movie and plan on watching others by this director/writer.

Looking at the ratings you would assume this is a classic, but yet again its just another example of poor independent film makers trying to drum up interest in their movie. They aren't even being smart about it 10/10 in the votes? I guess that to buck the curve and offset all the 1/10's it will get. Is this better than any decent zombie movie? No.

Acting, corny and rubbish.

Sound effects, cheap and nasty, if it wasn't for where the actors looked you wouldn't know where it was coming from.

Cinematography. These people act like they have borrowed their dads camera right after watching the matrix. Less is more, but more from this team is absolutely pap.

Zombies are rubbish as well. I don't doubt most of these people will never be heard from again, and it will be for good reason. I hope zombies eat their eyes as this was 90 minutes of pap that I wont get back.

And falsifying ratings just makes it a million times worse.

One reviewer said it was one of the best horror movies he has seen in the last 30 years? I can only assume that his recent cornea transplant was a success then.

Watch the trailer as thats a warning as to how bad this film is.

The Quick and the Undead is, finally, the first movie to actually render its own storyline null and void. It is, essentially, one gigantic plot hole.

Aside from that, the acting was quite bad, character motivations nonexistent or unbelievable and there wasn't a single character worth hanging our hat on. The most interesting cast member (who had great potential to be a dark horse protagonist) got snuffed halfway through the proceedings.

What the Quick and the Undead DOES serve as is an excellent example of how to do good color-timing. It looked excellent, when you take into account budget considerations.

Unfortunately, it plays out like a guy got his hands on a hundred grand and watched a few westerns (most notably The Good, The Bad and The Ugly) and then just threw a bunch of elements haphazardly into a movie... "you know, they have movies where characters do THIS! Does it fit here? No, but who cares! They do it in other movies so I should do it here!"

Maybe a good view for burgeoning cinematographers and colorists (first-year film-schoolers). Otherwise, a must-miss.

Technically it looks like a million, well at least $750M Cast, FX, Script are strictly fan film quality. For hard core zombie fans only, some great ideas here, don't be too picky and you might enjoy. Too bad really, a bit more self discipline and this baby could have actually been worth a million or two. If these folks are lucky enough to have the dough to try again one hopes they will spend a lot more time planning, casting, setting up stunts, finding more talented FX, and really going for an all out bang up script. If you got the money, have the patience to spend it well. Loved the way zombies moved at varying speeds, depending on the freshness of the corpse, loved the bounty hunter concept, the bounty hunters on bikes could have been stepped up to Mad Max levels of energy, the Western flavor and the gun play was super cool, see "Down In The Valley" for some real fine and fun gun play ideas.

I think being Nott and Glenns first movie, not having much dough this movie was good. Considering the low budget horror flicks made these days and the deceiving creative box covers this movie had no hidden punches. Anyone who watches "b" movies can tell this story was thought thru and not some overnight script. Honestly the acting wasn't that bad, I mean I did't see Brad Pitts name on the credits and I wasn't expecting him. Everyone has to start somewhere. I thought the music and filming was good, at least they cared about there production and tried not to cut any corners. I think they will get better and I have turned off a whole lot of "b" movies inside 5 min's.This wasn't bad at all. Good job guys. Oh by the way, I didn't sleep with the star......

MM

I took my nephew to see this film as part of the Texas Frightmare Weekend event in Grapevine, Tx. with great trepidation. There are very few "blood and guts" zombie type films that I enjoy. This one I liked. My nephew's was one of the early positive postings for this film as he loved the feature. We ordered the film today off the net and we were perusing the IMDb when we saw a few of the negative comments regarding this film, so here is my comment! First of all this film was photographed well for a horror film...no "Blair Witch" crappy camera handiwork...please! The actors were, I thought, great for a low budget film...and believe me when I tell you that my nephew rents many of these other B-movies that have actors with no acting skills at all in them. I liked the lead bad guy and, uniquely enough for this type film, thought that there was genuine depth to his portrayal. I also liked the Clint Eastwood character and thought he was played well. The Eastwood persona was fun to watch. No, this film is not "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" and I don't think it was meant to be, I took it as a zombie film meant to entertain while parodying some elements of the Italian western films of the old days. It was actually fun to watch this one and I'll it watch again when we get the DVD. I cannot say this for some of the other crap that my nephew brings home!

Having viewed some truly awful zombie movies, I thought the rating on "Quick" pretty much summed up what I was going to get. After a watch though, I actually kind of liked this movie. Post Apocalyptic zombie-hunting cowboys fighting over bags of severed fingers with plans to infect new towns for job security. I thought the second half lagged a bit, but then I listened to the commentary and found out that they lost their secondary actor 1/3 of the way through production and had to rewrite and ad-lib the remainder of the film completely on the fly. We are treated to cow-bikers, zombie chumming, and good old-fashioned western vengeance. It does have issues with pacing, and some of the effects are lackluster, but I had fun with it, and at least it wasn't just a dozen people arguing with each other locked in a basement like so many other of its' ilk.

The plot of the movie is pretty simple : a viral outbreak turned the population into flesh-eating zombies. Those who left became "hunters".

Well, first of all, this IS NOT the worst zombie movie there is. Among the worst are "Zombiez" and the infamous "Zombie Lake".

In fact i think, the idea for "Quick and the Undead" was very good, just executed poorly. Considering the budget they had to work with, this movie looks very good. I wasn't bored at all while watching it. Special Effects were solid, although they did use CGI once (fat zombie getting shot in the head), but everything else (gore, guts) was rather good. Acting is awful however. Our main guy looks like young Clint Eastwood, other "actors" are not even worth mentioning. As far as the plot goes, they didn't work enough on the development of the story.

Bad : acting, low-budget. Good : special effects, idea for the movie.

Overall, this flick deserves 4/10 from me. It's not as bad as people say. Imagine a ZOMBIE WESTERN, then watch this movie.

One look at the rating ought to tell you this movie was voted on by shills, in an attempt to artificially boost this film's ratings.

This film brings nothing new to the zombie genre. In fact, it is laughably bad (in acting and cinematography) and derivative in its plot. The make-up looks horrible and the zombies look even worse when shot. Lines are stiffly delivered and badly timed, with the exception of the female bounty hunter, who is the only good actor in this mess of a film. The worst offenders are the Italian guy (Hans), Ryn the protagonist, and the lead bad guy. I've seen better delivery from pizza truck with a flat tire.

This is a self-proclaimed "zombie western", but about the only thing that makes this a "zombie western" is the fact that people wear cowboy hats and the lead actor's real name is Clint. The protagonist isn't cool and mysterious like a traditional Eastwood hero, and as an anti-hero, he doesn't have the wise-cracking attitude to pull it off either.

Don't be fooled by the fake glowing reviews. This is just another B-grade zombie movie that's competently made for the budget it had (it does have some decent lighting), but it reeks of low-budget, first-time directing and bad acting. There are a LOT OF REALLY stupid scenes that make this look really amateurish.

obviously,lots of ppl involved in the film are trying to pump up the ratings for a movie that is really not all that good.

the film,as far as production values go,is not bad at all,especially considering the budget constraints. and the acting,not too bad either.(i kind of liked the clint eastwood thing,altho the actor didn't have much to work with) but holy crap people,what about a little character development? something resembling a more complete plot? and don't even get me started on what the hell the director was thinking with some of the ways the characters were developed. in one scene the villain is so upset by one of his henchmen having gone missing he looks ready to cry. later he mentions he's been up to some stuff that has infected/killed hundreds or possibly thousands,all to make some money. oh yeah,and the hero of the film hears about this plan to infect innocent civilians for profit and says "what a good idea....just not my style" and smiles!?!?! great idea for a film,great technical work (even the music was done well) but as far as a story and characters,not so hot at all.

it's one thing to see a movie that just stinks,but to see a movie like this that could have really been something different....what a damn shame.

Produced by Nott Entertainment, this movie is "nott" very good at all. I sat through the first 15 minutes of the film before judging that the acting is bad, the casting is bad and camera work is bad. As I hear that there is a download of this film floating around on the internet, it is "nott" even worth the bandwidth.

Up until the time I wrote this review, the average vote for this movie was an 8.5, which prompted me to view it and there was an average high majority of 10's for it, obviously voted on by liars and shills. This movie is "nott" for everyone. Or parents, if you want to punish your kids with this awful film, have them sit through this one for Halloween.

In my current quest to seek out and view every zombie movie ever made, when I saw this on the shelf at Blockbuster, free rental coupon in hand, I figured, what the hey? Guess what? I was pleasantly surprised. And NO, I had NOTHING to do with the making of this film! I never even HEARD of it before I saw it in the store! OK, so it's obviously an indie flick, and it rips off from just about every other zombie and/or western ever made. But I was intrigued by a future populated with zombies, and the remaining survivors resorting to living like the old West, complete with hats and six-shooters. Only problem I had was the plot twist--at first, I thought, Ingenious! But then, I'm like, OK, this is supposed to be the post-apocalyptic future, where zombies take over (ala "Land of the Dead"). So if they're running out of zombies, why aren't things getting back to some semblance of normal?? The acting WAS kinda shallow as well--I kept looking at the hero as a poor-man's Hugh Jackman (leather, scruffy, smokes a stogie, tough guy with a heart of gold, that kinda thing). And the bad guy (Blythe) reminded me of a young Dennis Hopper. But for a free rental, it wasn't that awful. A pretty good plot, a few clever camera tricks, half-way decent zombie gore (without going overboard)--not bad for a free rental.

I went into watching this film expecting a throw away storyline. I was quite surprised by how much I actually enjoyed it. The moment I saw the Goth Cowboy costume I was on my way to being impressed.

I adored the camera work, and the make-up. The way each zombie had its' own individual look impressed me greatly. The storyline was interesting, fairly realistic and had its' own quirky sense of humour. It reminded me of 'Evil Dead 2' at times.

This is not a film for those who swoon for 'Resident Evil', and have never seen 'Night of the Living Dead'. It does not deliver senseless, dragging action. The humour is too subtle for fans of outright spoofs, such as 'Shaun of the Dead'.

This is definitely going on my list of films to acquire, who can go past a goth cowboy hunting zombies? If that is not comic genius, I don't know what is.

All this film really needed to be a cult classic, is Bruce Campbell.

disclaimer. this is not a fake review. I am not related to, or endorsed by any of the films creators. Conspiracy theories can be put to rest. As amusing as wasting time writing fake reviews on the Internet Movie Database may be.

The trailer for this film promised a new twist on the zombie genre: setting it in the Old West. Except it's not the real Old West, of course. It's some sort of Future West, in a world where some apocalypse has, as apocalypses are known to do, killed people and subsequently turned them into zombies. It's zombie virus time again, folks, and you know what that means? Get bitten and become one of them.

So, into this dusty and dead-filled world comes a hero. He's a bounty-hunter, getting paid for taking care of zombies. It's not exactly clear who is providing the funds, but it seems a little cottage industry of zombie-hunting has emerged. But, as the trailer tells us, there's a problem. They are running out of zombies. The only way to keep on earning is to infect new towns and cities with the virus.

I think that's not a bad idea for a film. But unfortunately it takes a lot more than a good idea and a crowd of people pawing at windows to make a good zombie film. What we actually get is a Clint Eastwood clone (the actor's even called Clint, for crying out loud) and his "hilarious" sidekick, trying to bag zombies while trailing some still-living bad guys to get some big reward. The whole subplot about infecting other towns is only mentioned in passing, over half-way through the film. Instead, there's a lot of western movie clichés, poor zombie make-up and some world-class bad acting. Really bad. The sort that wouldn't even make it onto Hollyoaks. Both hero and villain chomp on cigars, quips are thrown, people get bitten. As the movie lurches to a conclusion, the only thing worth wondering is whether it's going to end with the cliché of the hero being the only man alive, having killed the one he loves, or the cliché of him turning into a zombie in the final frame. (It's the first one, by the way) This film was written and directed by Gerald Nott. It's the only thing he has done and, hopefully, it will be his last. At the start of the film there is a caption that reads "Nott Entertainment". At least they got one thing right.

I feel sorry for this movie, it only got a measly 2.7 in average. A fate that I do not think it deserves. Many of the posts about this movie has been way to harsh in judging it according to me. Sure it is a B-movie, but what do you expect from a low budget zombie movie? I think this movie has elements that could have been done better with a little more budget in the special FX department. BUT it has one thing that many other zombie movies lack, and that is consistency.

The world they presented to us seemed solid and plausible in the light of the facts stated in the beginning of the movie. The plot stayed inside its own boundaries throughout the entire length of the movie. Admirable for a movie of this kind. Not the best zombie movie I have ever seen, but far from the worst. I am proud to award this movie with a vote that is more than twice of its current average. That should bump up the stats a little.

Well, here we have a zombie movie that perhaps isn't even being much of a zombie movie. The entire movie is set in a zombie-plagued near future but yet the movie does very little with this concept. Instead it focuses on a zombie hunter who is trying to get revenge and his money back from a group of other bounty hunters. What good is money anyway when almost the entire world has gone to hell and towns are mostly desolate. And why pay money to people for killing zombies in the first place. As if people would not go on to kill this dangerous threatening monsters when they are not getting paid.

Needless to say that the story for "The Quick and the Undead" is far from a tight one. It of course also isn't being filled with the most logical and interesting moments, characters or dialog.

Still it's not a completely horrible movie. It certainly ain't as bad as some people try to make you believe it is. It's a rather good looking one, or rather said the movie at least doesn't have a cheap look over it. It's effects may be a bit overused but nevertheless they are quite good looking, as are the make-up effects as well.

Still the movie was not what I hoped of it. Its title might suggest that the movie is set in the wild, wild west, during the days of the cowboys but its title is just a misleading one, no doubt picked to cash in on it. I fell for it, expecting this movie to be a combination of a western and a gory zombie-horror-flick.

For the fans of the zombie movies this movie will mostly be a disappointment to watch. It of course adds nothing new to the genre but it also doesn't has enough of the genre itself in it to be considered a good one to watch.

Not totally unwatchable but also far from a recommendable one.

4/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

I just finished watching The Quick and the Undead, and loved it. I love westerns and zombie films, and this is a pretty good mixture of both. It's a modern western, but it still works. Not the highest budgeted movie, but neither were many of the great ones.

It had a good amount of gore in it, a cool mixture of weapons, and the main character had an awesome outfit. It wasn't a comedy by far, but definitely had humorous moments, including a small shout-out to the original Day of the Dead. Some of the shots were similar to other movies too.

A couple things could've made this movie better though, including better acting and better cinematography. Most of the characters, especially the main character, delivered very stale lines and many of the scenes held onto one shot for a bit too long.

Those things aren't enough to make the movie unwatchable though, it was good enough in other areas to make up for it.

I just saw this movie on my home theater projection system and I think the biggest problem with this film is the lack of character development and the average acting. The movie is shot in video 24P high def, which has its color saturation limits, which in this movie hurt the overall look. Some scenes seemed extremely dark, and the DVD M-Peg 2 encoders they used were probably not the best. It was also a very short length movie, which I feel if they took more time to create the characters, it would have improved things. I have worked on low budget movies and it is extremely difficult to orchestrate continuity in the story and character development. So lets give these guys a break and try to enjoy the creative side of this movie!

The Quick and the Undead is about the future after three quarters of the world is turned into zombies by terrorists. America reverts to the old west life style where bounty hunters go around killing zombies and turning in their finger for money. One player in the zombie bounty hunting profession gets greedy and comes up with his own immoral but financially sound plan to continue hunting zombies even though they are all but gone in there region of the country. The star has some secret on surviving the zombies and has several close calls. This is really meant to be a spaghetti western like film with a more modern backdrop. Nothing really good about this film, just a unique story give this film a C+ for me.

This is a entertaingly bad b-movie. Actually it really is much better quality than a lot of b movies. It had a consistent script, decent direction, cinematogrpahy, and I have seen worse acting. The zombies were great, clearly these were Romero zombies, and was really a interesting zombie story. Obviously not Oscar material, and if your not into zombie movies, or b-movies you probably wont enjoy this, but if you are you'll like this movie.

The main clint eastwood knockoff western character guy is pretty good, although they never really clearly explain how he can heal himself from gunshots and zombie bites. But if he has more than a line of dialogue that where his bad acting is really evident.

It was a good ending to, at least I thought so. Romero should be flattered if he ever saw this.

Although this film is really being trashed badly, it's not that bad. I rented it just to see for myself. I don't know what the viewers were expecting from a low-budget film like this, but after renting and viewing it, I'm also going to buy it.

For the amount of money spent on The Quick And The Dead, it could have been much, much worse. The acting is above average, the story interesting, and the photography exceptional. In addition, the effects were quite remarkable for a low-budget film. Mr. Glenn has lots of charisma and is perfectly cast. The others serve their roles well, also. Let's keep in mind that these actors worked without any pay on this film, just for the fun of it. I wish I'd been available, I'd have done the same thing.

Director Nott and star Glenn put their hearts and souls into this, and they deserve some credit for it (and no, I had nothing to do with the production).

I hope that they make enough money from this to finance more such films.

By the way, if you rent this, check out the commentary feature. It gives a lot of insight into how it got made, and what these guys went through in making their first film.

This is a cult zombie movie done Western style. If you don't like zombie movies you are most likely going to hate this.

If you on the other hand love George A. Romero's epic movies: Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead and Day of the Dead you may enjoy this.

The movies had no budget, so naturally everything is done as cheap as possible. In my opinion zombie movies are supposed to be made this way.

The lead actor, Clint Glenn, does a very good job heavily inspired by Clint Eastwood in the classic spaghetti Western the Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

The Western-style approach is refreshingly original to the zombie genre.

Down at the Movie Gallery, I saw a flick I just had to see. It looked like a fun low-budget horror/action/western that I could get into. Yeah, I knew it would suck, but I rented it anyway hoping for laughs. Only a few laughs were to be found. This was an extremely stupid movie. It begins with a bounty hunter, our protagonist, who is possibly the weakest main character in the history of film. He looks/acts like he could take on Chuck Norris, but he can't. His dialogue sucks too. Anyway, he goes into a village, shoots some zombies. You could tell they tried to make this longer by putting in these boring scenes where he takes 3-5 minutes to reload or watch some zombies. At least the zombies look cool. So anyway, some people get shot, some zombies die, and in the end, everyone is dead except our main character, who should have died at the beginning when he was shot down by four people.

For a B movie this thing was great! Good make up, good characters, good idea. The computer splatter effects were a little lame but the movie was still good. I am a huge zombie movie fan. I've rented many straight to DVD horror and sci fi movies and this one has been one of the best. Cheers to Nott Entertainment! Keep em coming! 10 lines? What more needs to be said?

For a B movie this thing was great! Good make up, good characters, good idea. The computer splatter effects were a little lame but the movie was still good. I am a huge zombie movie fan. I've rented many straight to DVD horror and sci fi movies and this one has been one of the best. Cheers to Nott Entertainment! Keep em coming! 10 lines? What more needs to be said?

There are a lot of really really bad zombie movies out there. In fact, in a recent study, the UCLA School of Theater, Film, and Television found that for every Romero zombie film there are approximately 112 horrible knock offs (I made that up, I have no idea what the actual ratio is). To be honest and blunt, The Quick and the Undead is a Romero knock off. Accept that. It's full of zombie clichés, sub par writing, and the atypical way-the-hell-over the top gory makeup you've come to expect from a low budget feature such as this. What makes this movie tolerable? What sets it apart from its brethren films (like Dead and Deader)? A great idea. In fact, I'll go so far as to call it a fantastic idea. Nearly every zombie flick out there tries to deal with the issue of identifying the zombie uprising, figuring out what caused it, then surviving for the next 45 minutes until the credits mercifully roll. However, in this film we don't care about how it happened or why, we only know that it DID happen and the world as we know it was changed irrevocably. This movie attempts to tell the story of what happens after the fall of man, when homo sapien is replaced by homo mortus and the few surviving humans must try to piece together a life in which they are no longer at the top of the food chain. Like I said, FANTASTIC IDEA. THe premise alone makes this film tolerable. It's not great, and it has plenty of groan inducing moments (as well as a copious amount of WTF?! causing dialogue) but if you give this movie a chance I think you'll find it to be adequate for your week night diversion needs. Just ignore the bad Clint Eastwood impression...