Whitech It is not only a funny movie, but it allows a great amount of joy for anyone who watches it.

SeeQuant Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

Raymond Sierra The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

Skyler Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

jmabelis 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.

johnnycourageous 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.

ghost-9 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.

thanatonaute 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.)