User reviews

Terrible script, only 3 locations that do not make any sense at all, terrible acting, a title that is associated with zombies, but is in fact about vampires, to many plot-holes to mention, just plain terrible.

Seriously bad dialogue with really bad acting.

Save yourself the trouble and go and watch paint dry instead.

I was bored to tears. The storyline was good, along the lines of I AM LEGEND, but instead of it told from the lone survivor perspective we could have gotten from the camp perspective. Needless to say it was horrible acting and effects showed zero effort. Really surprised they gave this a second season. I will put spoilers on this, but nothing was surprising in this show at all.

I couldn't even finish one episode. It was sooooo bad.

Loving vampire films I thought I'd give this a watch. It didn't take long to realise this isn't going to be a good one! Firstly the acting, if you can call it that was well below par especially the scenes around the elders table they were just bad. There was some attempts at acting but I don't know if it was bad scripting or terrible sound management as they all seemed flat and emotionless ?!. Secondly the story it was vague to say the least in fact I'm not sure what the story was? The plot itself was devoid of direction so I wasn't able to understand the story at all. Thirdly the effects, guns that keep shooting bullets without reloading, Bad CGI of any impacts of bullets and muzzle flashes that stopped despite the user still gesturing with his gun as though he were still firing. Any vamp biting was hidden so they didn't have to show any actual dripping of blood even when actors were getting bit they were so far away from the neck they may well have been receiving a BJ!.

I won't be recommending anyone to this movie.

Yes, really. I've heard this take on other shows before, and I've always wondered what they were talking about. The show was always either just plain bad, or it was obviously intended to be 'bad' (as with satire) which meant it really was good, given it was achieving its purpose.

Age of the Living Dead is bad. No question about it. The actors, writers, directors, etc. all intended to make something good, but it sucks bad, especially the writing. It's "what the ... are they DOING?" all the way through.

Yet it was enjoyable. Not in a laugh out loud way, although I did laugh a few times, but in a regular amused groaning at each absurd character behavior kind of way.

It is an interesting idea for a plot. the problem is the execution of said plot with horrible actors and horrible writing. had to really struggle to finish the first episode.

The worst rip off movies are made by an outfit, "Asylum".

If Asylum was in the tv series business, they would make something just like this.

Ingredients from all sorts of decent series involving vampires and zombies, but put it together like it was a comedy. Maybe if they added a laugh track it would make more sense!

I could only suffer through episode 1 - please save yourselves the pain.

Given the popularity of the genre and the unlikely, but still interesting scenario it's suprising on how many levels this fails. Since this doesn't deserve a several pages long essay, let me pick one such failure that is so glaringly obvious that it can be easily avoided in the future by whoever gives this another try.

Holes.

More specifically: Holes in clothing. Some are really important, because otherwise your head would get stuck while trying to dress.Others are supposed to be sexy or accentuate certain features, for example the cleavage, while technically still being holes. Especially children manage to make new holes by accident, wearing and tearing the fabric.

And then there are the holes someone cut into new clothes with a scissor, looked at them and said: This looks totally cool. Which it never did, not in the 80's when I did it, and not when you are doing it right now, and certainly not in this series. You and me, we can be forgiven, because we were young, or in your case: Are still young.

But if you cut random holes with a scissor into clean, new clothes, and you put them on a fresh faced guy with clean cut, styled hair full of product and think that he looks like a survivor out in the desert now, you don't have an excuse.

Especially not if, as I assume, it is your job to make costumes, or be a stylist, or the director, someone, anyone on that set who had to look at this guy, desperately trying to act in his grade school haloween hobo costume, and you didn't say: Wait! This looks freaking ridiculous! People will point and laugh at our series! Even if we do everything else right, and we won't, nothing will be able to survive this!

It really makes you wonder what was going on on that set. And that it probably was far more interesting than anything I just watched. Drugs. Sabotage. A secret strike. Overdoing it with the bring-your-kid-to-work-day. Someone losingt a bet.

It's hard to believe that something like can happen in a place where professionals work together without any monumental desaster in the background.

I managed to struggle through 15 minutes. Score of 6.8 is obviously fake.

The acting is enough to fill your existence with regret and right from the first couple of minutes, you know you ought to cut it short. First episode, first actor waking up in a military camp situation... his clothes are lacerated but they're squeaky clean and ironed, he's feeling himself. Next scene features a poor girl wandering New Mexico's countryside... you tell me how she's been walking for hours under a scorching sun but her hair remains impeccable, the dirt on her face is blurry in the right spots and contours her face to a T, her 'old' makeup hasn't budged... I guess that's what it must be like to be the survivor kind.

The SAS do not have loo tenants. I would have let that slip, but the show is British made! They should have known better!

I did enjoy the show, but it just was not that great. I never found myself drawn in by the people and the places. I was constantly aware of the fact that I was watching a show. I like to be completely enveloped by the world and its characters, and to totally lose the real world. This failed to do that. Luckily, it was only 6 episodes, so I was able to stick it out.

This is really not a very good TV show. It was so bad, though, I was entertained by the awfulness.

This review is based on episode 1. I don't know yet if I'll watch more episodes, because I haven't decided if the laughable script, acting, and direction make up for how awful and cliched the show is.

First off, season 1 takes place 10 years after the vampires have taken over the east coast, and yet several times the characters discuss the political/military situation like the whole vampire war thing just occurred earlier today--as if they haven't been dealing with the situation for a decade. At one point, the president gets lectured on the state of affairs of communication with the rest of the world (which quarantined the US because of our vampire problem) as if she were only just learning on that day about the situation, even though she should've been aware of it since before she was ever elected.

The acting was bad. There was a lot of over-acting in the show, and also some woodenness which I'm not sure is entirely the actors' fault. The problem may have been that the script simply didn't give the actors anything they could work with.

And in addition to the weak script, acting, and internal logic, there were some bizarre directorial choices.

One scene shows a tattered US flag--over half-eaten away by the elements--flying at a US base in "no man's land," but inside the base itself at least a couple intact flags are hanging on the walls. Why wouldn't the human military dispose of the damaged flag and fly one of the intact flags? (I assume the director just wanted the tattered flag on the flagpole to illustrate how rundown the human military is, and forgot about the other intact flags inside the base.) But just as curiously, why would they even fly a flag in "no man's land" where it's a violation of a truce for either humans or vampires to be? Also, the show sets up a scenario where the vampires have the East Coast & humans have the West Coast, but no man's land extends all the way to New Mexico?? Is three-fourths of the US no man's land? The first episode never answers that question.

Another weird directorial flub is when the president appears to be tending to a single potted plant, but she mentions a garden and her aide tells her it's a beautiful garden, but again, the viewer only sees her fiddling with the one plant.

Another mistake is when one vampire ties another vampire up in a spot where the latter will be burned up by sunlight coming in through a window as the sun makes its way across the sky. However, the first vampire warns the second that dawn is coming when the sunbeam is at the tied-up vampire's feet. The implication is that as the sun rises, the direct sunlight will move up the vampire's body. Well, no! At dawn, the light would come in the window high and move *down* the vampire's body, eventually moving off the wall onto the floor.

The first episode was full of little errors like this. But I'm a sucker for vampires, so I watched the whole 45minutes. It honestly is a very low-quality first episode. But if you're like me and you enjoy vampires and can laugh a bad production values, maybe it'll be a fun watch.

And frankly, I think I'm going to give episode 2 a shot, against my better judgment.

If you looked at the script for "Age of the Living Dead" having never seen an episode, you might just be moderately impressed. Its not exactly a new idea but there's enough here that's new and novel to get your attention. I especially liked the international aspect of this story, with global and not just local interests effected by the vampire infestation of roughly two thirds of the USA.

Regrettably the "B" execution leaves much to be desired. The acting ranges from alright to downright wooden. Its not helped by a conspicuously low budget, that even extends to sound effects. I wonder how many times in a week "combat practise with sergeant such and such, can be delayed". This had me chuckling as did the truly comedic vampires, who are a cross between any Hammer Films vamp you care to name and the Count from Sesame Street.

Its such as shame more money was not spent on this series. It's very much a case of wasted potential. The result being a series that's, at best, a marginal watch.

4/10 from me.

I started this series out of boredom, I wasnt expecting much but I was pleasantly surprised. It's a very interesting concept and its played out nicely; despite a slightly tweeny underlying love story and some some moments of sub par acting. I was pleasantly surprised to hear we will be getting a second season.

I like the idea of the story, it's just seems like a soap opera feel about it, i finished 2 episodes and will probably watch the rest to see if it improves, i just hope Fox lifts it's game and improves the show.

I thought the series was a little on the low budget side, but overall it's worth watching. Great storyline and a different spin from the traditional vampire tale.

This show is no Supernatural (S1-5) or Walking Dead...but it's NOT that bad, I'm actually kinda getting into it.

First let me say, I get the hate...the first episode I was a bit turned off. These are what I thought would ruin it for me but didn't:

Vampires are CRAZY cliché

The dialog can be painful to hear

No acting stands out except for the main girl, the Mother, and the Father is alright off and on

The CGI is pretty bad

But the story was good enough that I was able to look past most of this. There is only one thing still digging at me. WHY is the military still carrying and using guns when they're aware guns do NOTHING against the Vampires!?!?

I still say give it a try, get to episode 2 and you will like it or hate it. I almost shut it off, I'm glad I didn't.

The people saying it's amazing though are clearly fake reviews lol.

I think 4 is a fair reflection of the series. I like the concept but I must say whoever did the casting has managed to do what a lot of shows cannot, they filled the show with poor actors. Not one or two mi d but every character I have seen on there has been awkward, stilted with the acting ability of a first year drama class. That said it's not unwatchable but you need to really want to know what happens and so far I really don't care.

I cannot stress how Sean Sprawling is terrible at acting. Whatever he does is akin to a small child performing in a nativity play. I found the story of this to be fairly good but the way it was delivered was just terrible.

The acting and visual effects were bad and it shocked me they gave it another season.

Season one was enough for me and I only finished it in the hopes it might improve. I was not surprised when it didn't.