ManiakJiggy This is How Movies Should Be Made

Tetrady not as good as all the hype

Dotsthavesp I wanted to but couldn't!

ChicDragon It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

Scott LeBrun This is fairly effective raw and stripped-down genre filmmaking. The people behind "Dead Weight" decide to focus on the human element, presumably not having the wherewithal to stage elaborate set pieces, or construct lots of makeup effects. It's likely not going to appeal to the majority of horror fans, due to this de-emphasis on action and gore. But the writers / directors, Adam Bartlett and John Pata, get excellent use out of some great rural Wisconsin locations, and the acting, while expectedly not that polished, is reasonably convincing.The script moves between different points in time, often flashing back to happier moments from our two main characters' lives. Charlie Russell (Joe Belknap) is a young man who receives word from ex-girlfriend Samantha MacReady (Mary Lindberg) that all of a sudden an apocalyptic viral outbreak is under way. Charlie hooks up with a select few survivors, including Meredith (Michelle Courvais) and Thomas (Aaron Christensen), to make a trek through the Wisconsin woods to rendezvous with Samantha. (Supposedly, the woods are safer than the cities)."Dead Weight" is a quiet film, no doubt about that, that may admittedly test the patience of viewers conditioned to quicker pacing, louder volume, and more action. But at its core it's an effective little mood piece with some impressive atmosphere and a resonant main theme of trust issues in times of crisis.Belknap and Lindberg are likable in the lead roles, receiving fine support from their supporting players Christensen, Courvais, Sam Lenz (as Dustin), and Jess Ader (as Drew). Steve Herson as Harrison does a pretty engaging job of getting out what little exposition there is.Travis Auclair handles the lighting duties and does a good job; Nicholas Elert similarly delivers the goods with his music score.All in all, this is pretty good modern indie horror.Seven out of 10.

Woodyanders Charlie Russell (an excellent and convincing performance by Joe Belknap) embarks on a perilous pilgrimage across a harsh zombie-infested wasteland so he can be reunited with his girlfriend Samantha (a winningly spunky portrayal by Mary Lindberg). During his journey Charlie encounters dangerous fellow survivors -- a run-in with a trio of lecherous rednecks rates a definite chilling highlight -- and struggles with his own burgeoning appetite for violence.Writers/directors Adam Bartlett and John Pata relate the gripping story at a deliberate pace, maintain a bleak tone throughout, make the most out of the desolate wintry landscape, and present a deeply disturbing portrait of the breakdown of civilization that brings out the absolute worst in mankind. Moreover, a welcome and refreshing human element gives this picture extra depth and pathos, with Charlie's gradual degeneration into complete savagery in particular providing this movie with an extra potent and unsettling edge. The sound acting by an able cast keep this film humming: Belknap and Lindberg do sterling work in the leads, with sturdy support from Aaron Christensen as the rugged Thomas, Sam Lenz as the easygoing Dustin, Michelle Courvais as the feisty Meredith, and Jess Adar as the jittery Drew. The downbeat ending packs a devastating punch. Kudos are also in order for Thomas Auclair's crisp cinematography and Nicholas Elert's spare moody score. A worthy fright feature.

westsideschl Cheap: 1. No subtitles; really poor audio level control; poor enunciation at times by actors. 2. Another cheap production by "Ruthless Pictures" and "Head Trauma Productions" - the names should give you a "heads up". 3. How's this for an imaginative start. Smelling a gallon of milk to see if it's sour then pouring it on some cereal (close up of cereal box included in the editing), then eating the cereal. That scene alone foretells the rest of the movie. 4. Really cheap props. The viral outbreak consists of some little red circles over a map of a few cities shown on the tele. Followed later in the movie by a dead person with fake blood. Other than that - nothing. 5. 90% of the movie consists of a several people sitting and talking; walking and talking. Location sets/scenes consist of a room and a couple of farms. A couple of other people appear - whoopee! End of movie.

frank witting I recently saw this film on Wisconsin Public Television's "Directors' Cut" program, preceded by a Q & A with the filmmakers. "Dead Weight" is a romance film, interwoven with a post-apocalyptic suspense film, shot in a relatively short period of time, for a very modest budget.It follows a survivor, Charlie, as he makes his way to Wausau WI, where he hopes to meet up with his girlfriend Samantha. Along the way, the narrative cuts between his surviving in the present, and flashbacks to his relationship with Samantha.A note before my review: When I consider a film's quality, I do not grade low-budget indie films with more leniency than large studio films. The tools of filmmaking have advanced to the point where professional quality can be achieved on an indie level. Indie films do not have to hold themselves accountable to "least objectionable programing" standards and therefore can be more intellectually or thematically daring in their storytelling, and therefor have an advantage over big-budget films.Review: "Dead Weight" is a film that left me saying: "almost".There are sublime moments in this film - moments where Acting, Writing, and Cinematography come together with beautiful results. That the filmmakers were able to do this on such a short film shoot and low budget is a testament to them.However... for every one of these moments, there was a moment where quality in cinematography, acting, and writing was lacking, unfortunately to the point where it took me out of the story.Additionally, much of the character development and important plot points either felt very forced, or the tension that should have been present was non-existent. Much of this forced narrative is in regards Charlie's decent into madness. When Charlie murders the friendly couple his group meets, he does so for the simple fact they say Wausau is overrun with dead. Is this double-murder unexpected? Yes. Is it also without any context, and thereby feels gratuitous and pointless? Again, yes.There are many such moments like this that will leave you puzzled, and not because you're looking for deeper meaning. When the group is raiding a farmhouse, they hear a noise from upstairs and because of the unknown danger, they decide to leave. So what do they do? Casually stroll down the driveway, but not before having a rather vocal conversation outside in plain sight. Not something you should do if you think there might be armed homeowners who will kill anyone who's on their land. Or shortly thereafter, Charlie goes on a rant that the group is running low on water. Meanwhile, behind the group is a pond.It's these moments, and many others, that hamstring what could potentially be a very good movie. As I said, it has it's moments where it transcends its budget, and is absolutely beautiful. Some of the interactions between Charlie and Samantha are wonderfully well done. It's just a shame the filmmakers didn't give themselves more time and more money to realize their full creative potential, and do the script justice.