Stevecorp
Don't listen to the negative reviews
Lachlan Coulson
This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.
Scarlet
The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.
Tom Kiernan
The one thing which makes me not appreciate the scathing reviews of Colin is that with films which are made with such a uniquely low budget and mainly cast of people who aren't even obscure actors, it is key to try and review this film with some relativity to the fact it does not measure up in production values and acting talent.With that considered, Colin has several plus points which conventional and modern films will always lack. For example, the low quality camera-work and special effects (i.e. blood) is effective because the entire film is marketed in such a manner. It isn't a blip on an otherwise high-budget film, and has to be appreciated as a low-budget make. If only as a cheesily realistic look, the effects actually serve to make the film better. The second thing I really enjoyed was the unique outlook on a zombie flick from the perspective of a lone zombie without actually changing the traditional features of the modern zombie in horror films. Colin is still virtually mindless, unable to communicate and wants to eat people. We get to see the same zombie on his own travels whilst the world around him crumbles, and its a nice change from the lack of importance of zombies in the like of 28 Days Later.Finally, the story itself was very interesting despite the lack of great dialogue. The story basically demonstrates the change from Colin's death to his undead status and life as a zombie, with a nice twist and a flashback at the end which changed my perception of the zombified Colin . It doesn't contain in-depth plot changes or massive swerves, but with the films basic story and lack of obvious building blocks; the tale remains unpredictable throughout and relatively gripping.But of course, the obvious downside is the lack of dialogue. Even the non-zombified characters barely speak and parts of this could be vastly improved by a simple bit of conversation which alludes to or at least hints at the vague resemblance of a sub-plot.Instead, we have what turns into more of a diction-less documentary of someone who doesn't really do that much when its all said and done. As I will concede also, the low budget cannot be an absolute defence to the shoddy camera-work and poor acting/lighting at times. The acting and fight scenes are sometimes heavily drawn out and don't help people who really try to enjoy the simplicity of the film. It has been reported that even the director himself was not happy with some key parts of the film. My point is merely that some critics have over-criticised this aspect without contextualizing it or appear to have ignored how it was marketed to the public.In short, this film was never destined to be a golden bloke/movie award winning piece and lives up to its low budget status. Definitely to be regarded as a marmite style cult horror/thriller which will either intrigue you or bore you to tears.
Stengel
"Colin" has all the usual Dark Drama. The slower pacing would usually turn me off but I found the way the twists and the pacing were used was often more like an Art Film and actually made it more interesting. The long shot of Colin just staring out of the window while the sounds of the apocalypse playing out allows the audience to feel the shock he is experiencing. One must use their empathy and imagination early in the story, setting the pace for the rest of the movie. If you find that a turn off, you probably will not appreciate the way the rest of the film flows. Best of all, it is told from the Zombie's P.O.V.! A great twist on the Zombie Theme! I'm surprised it was not thought of and done years ago.
Neil Welch
I occasionally haunt the pound shop because I love the conversations I have there ("How much is that?" "A pound." "And that?" "A pound." "And that?"...) The DVD of zombie movie "Colin" was there. It was a pound. I read the effusive sleeve blurb telling me that "Colin" had cost ninepence (OK, forty quid) to make, and what a wonderful piece of work it was, especially given how little it had cost. I passed.And then it turned up on late night TV. So I thought, "Let's try it out - if it's any good, I might go back to the pound shop and splurge." Ed Wood, he of the infamous Glen Or Glenda, Plan 9 From Outer Space et al, has achieved an affectionate respect among some mainstream filmmakers because of his sheer determination to get his films made with threadbare resources and his success in then getting them out there into the market place and seen by the public. Yes, one accepts that it was a remarkable achievement. But that doesn't mean that his movies weren't hamstrung by both technical ineptitude and an absence of production values.Meet "Colin", the noughties equivalent of Ed Wood. Only, rather than the thousands of dollars Wood's films cost (a small number of thousands, admittedly, but still thousands, and during the 1950s, too), "Colin" cost forty quid.It shows. Filmed on hand-held lo-res video throughout, it's not so much that production values are low, more that there aren't any. It is technically lacking in every respect - script, acting, lighting, pacing, editing - to the extent that it is more or less unwatchable.And I say this as someone who actually watched "Aquanoids" all the way through.I give it one star because I have to, and another for the Ed Wood factor.
amy-skolnick1
If I could go lower than a 1, I would. This movie has absolutely no point. It's so awful. My friends and I watched this movie for an hour- way longer than we should have- expecting something to happen, but absolutely nothing happened.Do not waste your time and your money to watch this movie. It's literally a camera following a zombie while it walks around town and someone occasionally gets eaten.We tried to figure out the plot but the film gives you no information about anything. The only reason I know his name was Colin is from the name of the movie.
