jason-dante
When I saw this listed on the TV guide I thought, like most, *yawn* another zombie movie... but how wrong I was. The movie is a character tale with impressive acting and clever dialogue not to mention the detailed sets/locations. The opening scene immediately sets the tone for the film and you cannot help but emphasis with the characters. While watching I actually forget this was a zombie flick as I was so immersed in the lives of the 3 central characters. I wholeheartedly recommend this movie on so many levels.
Mikelikesnotlikes
Extinction feels like a movie that can't decide what it wants to be. Zombie flick or a PG drama about a single Dad bringing up a child. Maybe the writer handed over some scribbled notes and then disappeared.The sets were all well done, with high level production values, but where's the damn story. NOTHING of any interest occurred for long sections at a time. Mostly centring around feeding the kid and listening to her whine. The first hour should have been compressed into 30 minutes.The tension between the men was confusing. Stringing out the audience can be effective if information is fed in appropriate chunks. But we actually need the clues before the end of the film if we're to draw conclusions early enough to care. The 'cliffhanger' wasn't pivotal to the story.On the plus side, I thought the Zombie was excellent. As a hybrid, evolving species it was a formidable hunter despite it's lack of sight. There are no explanations why it might be evolving in this way though. And something that bleeds before it has been injured will probably be weakened, not made stronger.Extinction is a slow film. The only reason a person of my tastes would watch it is for the unique Zombie footage.
fedor8
The zombie genre has been bled dry, nothing new there; there is literally nothing new anyone can eke anymore out of it to make another great zombie flick. I certainly haven't seen a good zombie flick in over a decade. Instead of being creative by coming up with new creepy concepts, the vast majority of "film-makers" are content to milk the last molecules out of zombie and vampire genres. Only two adults (at the outset) are left in the world – yet they don't talk. That's a whole new level of dumb they're trying to sell, just so they can do injustice to that overrated movie term called "dramatic conflict". The notion that these two guys won't talk due to something that occurred eons ago, regarding some floozy from years back, is too stupid. It just doesn't wash. No matter what argument or hatred is going on between grown men, an extraordinary situation such as a zombapocalypse should have brought them together, at least to the point where they can talk and grudgingly co-operate. Beggars can't be choosers, yet the writer thinks they can. People forgive each other under much less stressful conditions, when they don't have to, let alone in an unpopulated, frozen wasteland in which co-operation is essential to survival.What's with this "double whammy" apocalypse anyway? We've got a zombapocalypse AND a new ice age! I'd be curious to know WHY a zombie virus would cause such a radical shift in global temperature. Any explanations, movie? No explanation. Movie refuses to discuss this matter with me. Movie knows it's wrong. Movie is a dummie. If anything, there should be global warming, not an ice age. Here's why: since zombies eat much more than humans (bless their wicked metabolism) – and yet remain skinny – this means they must do the brownie much more often than humans. The logical conclusion is that they fart more – which in turn would make the planet warmer, not colder. Am I right or am I right?Nor can I accept the fact that TWO major events occur at the SAME day, after nine years of relative monotony: first the hippie gets attacked by a new breed of zombie, only to be contacted by radio minutes later - for the FIRST TIME in nine years – by another survivor. That's coincidenceitatis being brought to a level of absurdity that's an insult to viewers, even zombie viewers many of whom are not unlike the movie's zombies themselves.It gets better. The little girl, who had been obedient for so many years, not leaving the grounds as ordered, suddenly decided it was OK to go for a NIGHT stroll – only a day after seeing a zombie for the first time! So let me get this right, movie: BEFORE seeing any "live" zombies, the girl didn't have that much interest in venturing outside, but as soon as she witnessed a zombie attack her neighbour, she somehow found that ENCOURAGING? "Hmmm, I used to think it wasn't safe leaving the house, but now that I've seen an alien-looking, deformed, vicious zombie with huge teeth attack another human right in front of my eyes – to which I reacted with shock, dismay and disgust - now I guess it's OK to go out. It's much safer out there with a zombie on the loose." Great logic, movie. Are we to believe all 9 year-olds are completely retarded, devoid of even the most basic survival instincts?Still, at least she isn't dumb enough to have herself locked up in a basement; but that's precisely what her guardian does. There's hardly an experienced film fan that didn't see THAT stupid plot-device leading to the girl's endangerment.Just exactly who or what threatens our less-than-merry bunch? A bunch of freakin' gollums, that's what. In recent years a dull fad has engulfed the world of horror flicks, a fad that is making many of them a lot less interesting: the gollum trend. We've seen gollum-like monsters in the overrated "Descent", we've seen them in "The Hallow", in "From the Dark", and many other recent monster movies. Must we have the SAME kind of monsters in every film?Besides, if these zombie gollums evolved during the new ice age, shouldn't they have grown fur at least? No: the movie thinks it makes more sense to make them totally hairless! Now, that's a logical evolution right there. Darwin would be laughing his ass off. Clearly, American screenwriters have devolved to the state of an amoeba, because so few of them think anymore. Horror, fantasy, and sci-fi films are getting dumber with every new generation of devolved film-makers.It mystifies me why the survivors have to resort to hand-to-hand combat with the gollums when they'd previously armed themselves to the hilt. And when they do finally get to shoot the gollums, they run out of ammo! I mean, here we have a world in which time is the one commodity the humans have in abundance, yet they never actually bothered to make sure they have sufficient supplies of ammunition. This is the kind of nonsense I'm talking about, a clear indicator that screenwriters have devolved from average morons who made average movies in the 40s and 50s to the sub-par imbeciles who never run through a script more than 2-3 times before submitting it to some daft director.
philipmorrison-73118
This movie had some interesting concepts, but also had some issues with the delivery. This movie is about a group of two guys and a woman and her baby trying to survive the zombie apocalypse. The woman gets bit, so it is just the two guys and the baby. The two guys head north where it is too cold for the zombies. The father, played by Mathew Fox, can't handle the trauma and becomes an alcoholic. His best friend, played by Jeffrey Donovan, feels he has no choice but to raise the girl himself and vows that his father will now have nothing to do with her. Time passes for 8 or 9 years and the little girl tries to get the two men to begin talking to one another and mend old feuds. Oh yeah, the zombies have adapted to the cold and are coming to get them. The filming of this movie is very dark and you can hardly see anything. The two actors played it up pretty well, but I couldn't believe for one minute that they would continue some long feud when they are fighting to survive. I like my zombies slow and dumb and these were fast and adaptable. The little girl does too many things to worsen their situation. The two guys have built a fortress to protect themselves and the zombies get in like it was nothing. A lot of little things brought this movie down from being a pretty decent concept.
