Mjeteconer Just perfect...

ChanBot i must have seen a different film!!

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Adam Taylor Flight of the Living Dead is exactly what you'd expect it to be. A low budget, campy, silly zombie movie that is ludicrous, violent and full of D-list actors. It's a film full of "Hey! I know that guy!" actors who play the bit roles in a thousand different shows and movies.The special effects are pretty bad, definitely low budget. The airplane they're on is definitely built to "Hollywood standard". Having crucial control panels in places where they never would be, amazing ducts that seem to have more space in them than the plane itself, sections of the plane that are made of titanium or cardboard as the scene requires. lolThe acting is wonderfully bad, with lots of stupid one liners, completely out of place comments and just horrible decisions that only ever happen in the movies.All in all, it's a fine example of a fun movie to waste a couple of hours with.

bowmanblue Okay, so pretty much any zombie-fan will know about George A Romero's classic 'Night of the Living Dead.' There have been many imitations. Here we have one that goes as far as to try and rhyme its title for added effect. The result – so-so.I'll start by saying that 'FLIGHT of the Living Dead' is no classic. Any zombie movie today always has to fight to get noticed among the dozens of undead offerings we find released straight to DVD. So... what has this one got that makes it worth the watch? The answer... no much really. But that doesn't mean it's all together bad. The title alone basically tells you everything you need to know about the plot. A plane. A toxic outbreak on board. Zombies. Before I watched it I did kind of wonder how they could drag out a film set in such a confined space to an hour and a half – even the biggest jumbo jets would soon find every last inch crammed by flesh-eating ghouls pretty quickly. However, the film-makers have done a reasonable job of making things believable.The first half of the film introduces us to the characters (and reinforces what little plot there is). Basically, the plane is populated by stereotypes. You will probably guess the fate of most of them, but there are a couple which actually stand out as people you'd root for (ironically, one of the best characters is a prisoner who's on his way to jail!). And that's enough for this sort of film. It basically scrapes through on character traits. The plot is wafer-thin and the gore is nothing that you haven't seen before.Like I said, it's no classic, but if you're in the mood for (yet another) zombie film and you're in a forgiving mood, then this one might fill an hour and a half of your life.For me, the only part I really rolled my eyes at were when the undead – somehow – managed to 'punch through' the floor of the plane in order to climb out of the 'hold' and get into the cabin to feast on the passengers. Next time I'm on a plane I'll be a little worried when I'm taking my seat if I think the floor beneath my feet could give way so easily!

matzekarajanov-522-547176 Trailer looks funny, but it's desceptingafter 15 minutes you probably think this is going to be a good movie. The acting from the start is not that bad. But after the zombie virus breaks out, the acting level drops to a seven year old.It is unwatchable, waste of time, and i wan't my 1:20:00 min back. Unreversable regretment.My advice is if you are looking for a movie, with great acting and special effects this is going to be a big disappointment.Worst Zombie movie I've watched in years, Rather watch election propaganda than this, since you already know from the start you get bad acting.

carlitos71 The only reason I feel I have to write my first review is that some of the positive reviewers claim, that only the haters of this genre vote against this film. I strongly disagree with you on that. First of all I am a horror fan and I DO LOVE zombie movies!!! You can check my list: http://www.imdb.com/list/htEy53F25F8/ The Return of the Living Dead (1985), Dawn of the Dead (2004), I Am Legend (2007), 28 Weeks Later (2007) and Dawn of the Dead (1978) (5 films in total, not mentioning "the evil dead" and the "demons", which are similar, but there are demons involved instead of chemicals) are in my top 10 and you find lots of other zombie titles highly praised (high votes) on my list, like the Night of the living dead classic (brilliant) some of you quoted.So what's the problem with this one? 1.)It's not scary because the zombies look like normal people with yellow eyes and blood on their cheeks. I have nothing against low budget films and I'm not crazy about special effects, but check it out. The evil dead (demons) is an old movie (with some of the effects looking rubbish today) and still very scary. So is the low budget REC, which I really appreciated and believe it or not you can't find extraordinary special effects there either. 2.)There's no plot. I did not expect too much, but there's no plot in this movie at all. 3.)You can find errors in every film, but this one is full of them and you see a lot of absurdities. Even the other zombie movies do not challenge the rules of basic physics (e.g. a rocket causing a hole in the plane would explode/tear it to pieces immediately, but here it's not the case). I read all the reviews, where people gave the film 1 star and certainly every single claim is true. The worst for me was the scene when the zombies got through the passenger area floor catching people from there. How? Also It hurt me a lot when Dr. Bennett (he was the only scary looking character) flew into the jet engine, but he was able to hold himself out of it and survived. Other stupidity was the bomb (they used it and the plane did not blow up or there was no fire after using it!!!) and the abundance of weapons on board. 4.)People behaved like cattle. If you watched other zombie classics like the quoted Night of the living dead (a nearly 43 year old movie, which is much scarier, than this 4 year old film) or the return of the living dead you can see that people are gathering up and try to survive after the initial shock (at least in small groups). Here the people are running around, scream and 90-95% of them just die without any real fight and resistance. Only at the very end some of them tried to combine forces, but very, very few of them and very, very late. 5.)Awfully directed, as the original idea was good. After the first 30-35 minutes I still thought I would see a good film, so he could have succeeded.So briefly we have a zombie film, which is not scary, without a plot, with a lot of absurdities and where most of the people die without any fighting.Scott Thomas might be a good director (won a prize for thriller Anacardium (2001)) and he could have saved the film, but he didn't. Even if it is a low budget one, which is not a problem, you need much more to make a good horror movie. It's a shame really, as even after about the first 30-35 minutes (when the lady was transformed into a zombie, which looked good) I thought I would see a good movie. If you want you can vote against my review, but I wonder what the vote would be if the film were well known with many people voting. I guess 3 or 3.2 average (with the fans' votes included) or so. All in all I can't give more than 1 stars for this one. Only for hardcore zombie fans, but if you like quality don't watch it.