VeteranLight
I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.
Platicsco
Good story, Not enough for a whole film
FuzzyTagz
If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.
Portia Hilton
Blistering performances.
Michael Ledo
A construction crew opens a vault/tomb that was sealed during the Great Plague of London. This unleashes a zombie outbreak. The film concentrates on the old folks home and the young adults who rob a bank to get the money to save the home. Brothers Terry (Rasmus Hardiker) and Andy (Harry Treadaway) head up the group. They are aided by their cousin Katy (Michelle Ryan), bumbling ex-con David (Jack Doolan), and Mental Mickey (Ashley Thomas). Georgia King plays a hostage the guys try to pick up after they kidnap her.The film is a comedy and not a horror production as expected. It is not knee-slapping funny, but did make me laugh at some unique scenes such as drop kicking a zombie baby, attempting to kill a zombie with a metal plate in his head, a zombie gang fight, and of course the chase scene of a foot dragging zombie pursuing a man with a walker. Zombie fans just have to love it.Parental Guide: Plenty of F-bombs, no sex or nudity.
bgar-80932
I enjoyed certain parts of this movie but it's as ridiculous as it sounds. That's cool and all but it's not as funny as it should be. Maybe it's because I'm not British and my humor isn't quite the same. It does have it's moments though such as when the like 83 year old with a walker was running away from the zombie. If you like zombies I guess give it a shot but it's like a much worse Shaun of the Dead.
ericrnolan
"Cockneys vs. Zombies" (2012) began with such promise — with cool, funny characters; capable comedic actors; an attempt at a decent story; and dry, witty British dialogue. It looked like it could be a cool unauthorized companion film to "Shaun of the Dead" (2004).Sadly, then, it didn't pan out. The offbeat, character-driven banter gave way to a lot of slapstick that didn't really work for me. And problems with pacing and tension prevented this from being an effective horror film.I'd give this a 4 out of 10. Oh well.I have two questions after this film about British slang, with which I try to stay current. (What can I say? Some great horror movies come out of Britain. I love it when Frank tells the crow in "28 Days Later" to "get out of it.")1) When someone gets mad at another, they call him a … mop-head? Moppet? Muppet? They always say that word so fast.2) If somebody says something stupid, you call them a "plum?"
bowmanblue
A zombie film. Another one. Ever since Resident Evil they've been coming thick and fast - each one trying to add something different into the genre. Some work, most don't. Here we have a low budget British epic which does its best to steer away from comparisons with the classic Shaun of the Dead. However, it will always be doomed to fail on that front. For a start, it's British, it's a comedy, it has gore and is set in London, starring a load of 'average Joes' who just so happen to get caught up in an undead uprising.Although it's not bad. It has a few moments of humour and a decent amount of gore for such a low budget film. However, just as I can't really think of anything bad to say about it, I can't really think of anything good either. If you want zombies, gore and a dose of comedy, you really might as well just stick with Shaun of the Dead.Cockneys vs Zombies doesn't take itself seriously and die hard fans of the genre should find plenty to appreciate about it. It just seems a case of 'been there and done that.' I have to say I was kind of hoping, seeing as the film was set in the East End of London, to watch hordes of rampant flesh-eating ghouls rampaging through Albert Square, ripping apart patrons of the Queen Vic in the process. Now that would be worth the price of any cinema admission!
