Autumn (2009)

A schoolteacher heads to the country to survive a zombie-apocalypse.Based on the indie novel by David Moody, director Steven Rumbelow's microscopic budget atmospheric film that while doesn't evoke the emotion of the likes of The Battery (2012) it never the less has a lot of novelty to it thanks to Dexter Fletcher's performance as Michael. It's more of mournful character study rather than a full on zombie assault. Don't expect too much from this choppy produced slow burner and you may be surprisingly pleased.Autumn is worth watching for its serious tone and Fletcher's sombre performance.

I was just looking around on Netflix for something to watch and the description seemed interesting. I usually love low budget zombie flicks. I mean, Night of the Living Dead was low budget and turned out to be a classic.What was I getting myself into? I yawned so many times through this film, it just wasn't interesting at all. I thought it might have a great storyline, but that didn't happen either. The acting was what I expected though, so no big deal there. Not much action at all, which usually isn't that important if there's a storyline.This film had nothing to keep me interested and I wouldn't recommend anyone actually paying money to buy this. But, if you want to watch a horrible low budget film, this is the one for you.

...many of the Hollywood adaptations of novels, both good and bad, don't do a descent story any justice, this is just another sad addition to that list. "I Am Legend" is another film disappointment taken from a great novel. I admit, I did enjoy Dexter Fletcher's performance, he was a likable character, however, he could not save this film, low budget or not. There's poor directing, poor makeup/special effects, sub-par acting, shoddy camera-work, poor lighting, etc. The novel tells a good story of survival in the wake of this plague, which kills everyone in seconds, except a handful of obviously-immune survivors. Now they have to somehow survive and make a new life for themselves. What could'vie been great action scenes from the novel were left out of the movie, and one of my biggest horror-movie gripes is nobody ever seems truly terrified. In the beginning of the movie, they're all seated in the community center as if the lights went out, there's no crying, no hysterical women, nothing -- they all seem to be bored. No panic whatsoever, where's the emotion?The walkers seemed to be covered in mud, that was the extent of the makeup, Zack Snyder's "Dawn of the Dead" had phenomenal makeup, receiving 10 of 10 in that category, by comparison, this movie would get a 2 out of 10, it wasn't believable. The fence they put up in the book consisted of farm equipment and wood and anything else they could find, even building up the banks of the stream to keep the walkers out. In the film they used something my 2 and 9-year old could knock over, and here they supposedly have hundreds of walkers leaning on it. Well, in the book there's hundreds, in the film they're lucky if they have fifty. I could go on and on, but there's too much to say, I enjoyed the book, but the movie, not so much...no suspense, hardly any action, too many negative aspects (directing, acting, etc.) The escape in the end wasn't even as exhilarating as it should'vie been, the walkers looked more like paparazzi than walking corpses. I think 3 out of 10 is a bit generous too.

This movie starts a bit slow but as the movie progresses so does the quality and action. I think for a low budget movie it does well with the graphic nature and intense physiological build up of the zombie interaction as it progresses from the zombie being docile and brought inside to be studied, to the growing intellect and need to feed, turning them into aggressive predator in a matter of days/weeks, leaving everyone unaware of the danger till it is to late. This is the way horror/zombie movies can be done that changes the way we the audience view this type of movie and helps us to react with the survivors of the movie as it progresses.