BlazeLime Strong and Moving!

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Roman Sampson One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Staci Frederick Blistering performances.

Michael Ledo "World War Dead - Rise Of The Fallen" and "Clash of the Dead" are the same film. This is a found footage zombie film. A documentary crew with internal conflict are filming at Somme and talking about the battle with Dr. Brian Locke (Robert Bladen) an egotist expert. The discussion wanders off to a curse of the undead and an amulet found on an Rhodesian soldier. The next thing you know, zombies, which were not as well made up as the picture on the cover. We have the run at night cam, ground cam, and screaming while jerky the camera scare.The film started out as it might be interesting, but the actors were not convincing and the dialogue fell a little short. What I didn't understand was how the mining helmet lights still worked after 100 years. I want one of those batteries.Guide: F-word. No sex or nudity

rushknight Found footage features depend on one thing above all: believability. Almost every found footage movie begins by giving you some indication that the footage was discovered and "compiled" by authorities, then later leaked to the general masses. In short, it's a documentary. This illusion is generally effective when dealing with anything possible (floods, natural disasters, outbreaks of disease, serial killers), but becomes weak and convoluted when faced with anything improbable (zombies, vampires, ghosts).As this is a zombie feature, believability is already at stake. The initial implication that this is "real" immediately makes no impression. It comes off as merely routine. Shortly after, other factors follow that contribute nothing to believability, and yet continue to be standards in found footage movie making: 1. Too many camera angles to be possible for one camera. 2. Sound is too consistent as the scenes jumps back and forth between angles. An impossibility for one camera. 3. Lighting is too good to be real. It's clearly studio work. 4. The camera continually falls into the perfect position for filming, even though no one is thinking about it or even using it. 5. The fact that the camera is still on! 6. There's even a scene where the camera itself is videoed! Are you kidding me? Really???7. All the digitally induced fuzz doesn't even look remotely real, or even have a reason for happening. 8. There's a soundtrack. Nice of the authorities to put that in so that viewers of their documentary will be more interested.Then there's the acting, and the plot.. I'll just sum it all up with "It's unconvincing."All of these little pieces simply do not add up, instead the movie suffers from the greatest weakness a movie can suffer from: It was boring.Oh, and it finishes with some grinding electric guitar music, which is the only true constant in zombie films.

David Igra Had it been a production of a group of high school kids it would've been perceived as funny and rather a successful first attempt of movie making. But being as this project actually has some established actors in it, one can only marvel at how that came about to be.The film makes good use of many old tricks and methods in order to scare the viewer without actually showing much of anything. When done properly it can work, however in this case it's just sad and shows clearly how the film budget must've been no more than a couple of thousand euros.The film is just terrible.

arfdawg-1 The Plot. Yet another found footage movie this time about lost WW2 soldiers who turn out to be zombies.Oh boy.Everything about it stinks. Even the fake camera glitches. It sucks.77 minutes long and it feels like you've been watching for 36 hours.It's formulaic and predictable. It goes on and on and nothing happens.There director's idea of action is having the actors pretend they are out of breath.Midway into this movie they go underground and it's so dark you cant see a thing.OMG, it's so horrible.