The Horde

The Horde

A posse of crooked cops, malevolent gangsters and a horde of walking dead are the centre point of this gruesome, tight, action packed, claustrophobic tale of retribution and escape. Penned like animals, on the top floor of a deserted high-rise block, these two opposing gangs find that they are not alone in the lair of bloodthirsty corridors of death. Joining forces to survive, they must reach ground level together or perish. Loaded with a bad ass attitude, guns, axes and extremely creative hand-to-hand combat sequences that project the fears and paranoia that are the fighting forces behind the need to survive, when caught up in the wrong place at the wrong time.

An end of the world battle between gangsters, cops and zombies. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


The Horde torrent reviews

Chris M (ru) wrote: An absolute riot. Must see!

kan T (de) wrote: hikaye gercekten ic acitan bir etkileyicilige sahip. aglamadan izlemek imkansiz gibi. o amerikanvari abartili yapmacik dialoglari olmasaydi keske...

CJ C (ag) wrote: A violent, mess of a movie.

Laura R (au) wrote: Hahaha. "The Ganglanders" are capturing people as prisoners and slaves. Meanwhile, a plague threatens to erase all humans from planet Earth. How much more awesome could a single film capture? Not much.

Kristin R (es) wrote: So terrible, it was fantastic!!! Watch for a good laugh.

Ryan V (us) wrote: Bacon plays the sadist reasonably well with a young Sean Astin along for his ride of torment. Mildly entertaining stuff.

Andrew G (br) wrote: "I dug you out of that could have asked!" Otis Stookey -- John Speredakos Pretty much an unknown film that gets constantly overlooked... for good reason. I'm going to throw this out right now: I'm not criticising this film for not having a big budget. Though I can't find even a guess as to how much this film cost to make, it's evident that it didn't cost a lot. It's an independent film, which is why I'm not criticising it for the budget. However, just because it's an independent film does not mean I'm just going to go easy on it. I feel that you should be able to make a good film, regardless the amount of money behind you. The fact of the matter is that Wendigo wasn't a horror film that needed lots of money behind it, so the fact that it doesn't work too well isn't due to the fact that it had little money behind it. George is a high-strung professional photographer, starting to unravel from the stress of working with a Manhattan advertising agency. Needing to take a break away from the city, George takes his wife Kim and their son Miles upstate to New York, to enjoy the winter sights. The drive up though is bad. George accidentally hits and injures a deer that ran into the road. Confronted by an angry hunter, Otis, he finds out that that specific deer had been hunted for a long time. When they finally arrive at the cabin, Miles is told by a shopkeeper about the legend of the Wendigo. It doesn't take Miles long to wonder if the creature he has been told about is responsible for the misfortunes that his family are having. I want to point out that Wendigo isn't a commonly known word, and it takes the film over half an hour to explain to us what the word means. Seriously, try going up to someone and asking them what a Wendigo is. The grand majority of people I asked had no clue what I was talking about, and those that did only knew because they had a strong interest in mythical creatures. The Wendigo is a beast from Indiana Folklore: a Half-Man and Half-Deer that can change itself at will. Would you know what one is if you didn't just read it? No. As much as I appreciate the fact that it isn't giving us a flat out explanation straight-away, there's no hint as to figure out what one means. Also, I said that it takes about half an hour for the film to explain it. It's 34 minutes to be exact. The film is 1 hour and 28 minutes, including credits. The first 34 minutes of the film should be used to introduce us to the characters in a way that we actually care about them; especially considering it waits a while to reveal the basic plot to us. Though the film is short, it's for the most part dull. It moves along at a very slow pace, and when something actually happens, it doesn't stick strongly in your mind at all. One of the biggest themes of the film is all about a child's imagination. It's a very clich memory for a lot of children where they have a Sweatshirt hanging in a closet, but it looks like a monster in the dark. Wendigo tries to pull that same thing off, but what it does is very similar to Alice in Wonderland. For most of the film, we are supposed to wonder whether or not these Wendigo scenes are actually happening, or whether it's all in Miles's head; much like in Alice in Wonderland where we're supposed to wonder whether or not there ever was a Wonderland. As much as this approach could have been pretty good; the film fails at exploring it as well as it could have. There's no part of the film that motivates you to make an interpretation of your own, because you genuinely don't care. If we at all cared for the characters, then maybe we would have. Not to mention, there are certain events that kind of break the illusion of these Wendigo scenes possibly being real. I'm not going to reveal the ending, because it's something I don't like to do in a review, but the scenes that make ruin the illusion aren't very well put into the plot. The film constantly tries to get inside your mind and see the logical side of things... that you'd guess yourself anyway. The way it compares the Wendigo story to Mr. Freeze from Batman and Dr. Evil from Austin Powers (direct references from the film), shows you just how much it's trying to appeal to the common pop culture crowd. Also, it's stupid. "They're just stories in your head". The difference between the Wendigo and the villains that were mentioned is that the Wendigo is an ancient Indian myth, whereas the others are fictional character created in the basis of entertainment. Did you ever see an ancient Indian scroll that engraved the immortal line "I'll get you Mr. Powers... isn't that right Mini-Me". Even if you cared, there's no point in making your own interpretation like the film encourages you to, because it's not done very well. Why should we put effort ourselves into interpreting the film, if the film-makers can't be bothered to make it a redeemable experience. It's a shame, because I really liked the premise of the film; just not the execution of it. The film tries to be artsy a lot of the time. Towards the end of the film, there's a montage displaying different Camera angles that don't fit a moving story, as well as vibrant visuals. It's all an attempt to sell the fantasy mystery surrounding of the Wendigo, and a metaphorical way of showing you just how unusual and unpredictable the creature would be if it for sure existed. It doesn't do the film well though, and it's clear that it's trying to go for that artsy excuse to redeem itself. Like I mentioned, the budget for this film is very small from what I can guess. This meant that they didn't have much to spend on the effects for the Wendigo creature. The way I see it though, if you're going to make a big deal of showing us something, makes sure it's good enough to see. If you want to use the bad effect well at all; make sure you use it in moderation. When the Wendigo appears on screen, they try desperately to scare you. It's hard to be scared though of an effect that looks like it belongs in an 80's American restaurant. You know the one's I'm talking about. The ones that have animatronics that do performances on stage. Things like Chuckecheese. It's not until the end that it piles on these special effects, because until the end it just shows us what we're supposed to think of as Antlers of the Wendigo. They just look like sticks, and its clear how desperate the director wants you to think it as the Wendigo because of the shaky cam used. Nothing screams desperation than imitation of an infamous scene from the Blair Witch Project. In fact, at times it seems to be going for the Blair Witch Project vibe: regular people coming across a creature thought to be myth. The camera doesn't show the creature in full much, and we're meant to be scared of what possibly could happen, as to what does happen. Even the ending, with the mystery that it has, screams Last Broadcast wannabe. The performances in Wendigo are downright terrible. George is played by Jake Weber, whom I have only seen in his small role in Born on the Fourth July. Weber isn't very good in this film; the dialogue he is given is terrible, but the way he delivers doesn't sound like normal speech. Patricia Wilson is terrible too. There are parts of the film where she's meant to be confused and terrified, but it's totally unconvincing. One thing in particular about her performance is when she has to swear. Granted, I dislike when horror films swear for the sake of it, but when Wilson delivers a swear word, it doesn't sound like any normal way of saying it. It sounds like she's putting way too much emphasis on it. I can't really describe it in words, but if you watch the film, you can see her putting so much strength into those specific words. Also, and this isn't the main problem with her performance, but she seems to be miscast down to her looks. She looks a lot older than the character should be. Miles is played by Erik Per Sullivan, who is most famous for playing the role of the little brother in Malcolm in the Middle. I don't remember much about the series, because I never watched much of it, but I know that Erik was ok in that. In this, he's gives a poor performance, and doesn't seem to react the way that a child would in these situations. I know people seem to think that children are incapable of pulling off convincing emotions in films, but I argue for Haley Joel Osment in the Sixth Sense. With that performance, we saw the fear that the character was going through, but it wasn't an over-the-top performance. We believe him, but you don't believe Sullivan. The people in the village are meant to be portrayed as crazy, and would you know that they aren't portrayed very well. While performances about crazy people are meant to be over the top, they're also meant to be convincing. This is something that the performances in this are not. Wendigo is not a good example of independent film-making, because it seems to be attempting to be a strong horror film, up there with some of the best of recent years. Because it tries too hard to do this, it begins to fail at being the film that it could have been. It's an extreme disappointment, and isn't a film I'd recommend to anyone but the hardcore horror buffs; but event then it's not something I think could be enjoyed. Andrew's rating: 2 out of 10

Dadgramps S (de) wrote: Really great movie wish it was the good old days again.

Morgan W (it) wrote: weak a times. but it is a good one if you like this kind of stuff.

Bret L (us) wrote: Despite bad reviews, I like this film.