Michael
Yes, I watched it so you don’t have to.
I considered reviewing Return of the Living Dead: Aftermath, but that would mean treating it like a movie. I’d love to call it the worst film I’ve ever seen, but I’m not sure it deserves the distinction. While the AI is getting most of the attention, the bigger problem is that nobody bothered making an actual movie.
We’ve covered this topic before. Chris Bumbray sat through AI-generated Hell Grind at Cannes, and Gods Don’t Give Gifts is headed for theaters. Danny Boyle and Eli Roth used generative AI in Ink and Ice Cream Man, and Ben Affleck used it on Animals. I had fun with Ice Cream Man, though plenty of people hated it. AI wasn’t a dealbreaker for me. There was still a movie there.
Where Return of the Living Dead: Aftermath Goes Wrong
Which brings me to Aftermath, a movie that somehow manages to screw up the most basic part of filmmaking: telling a story. Richard Driscoll’s continuation of Dan O’Bannon’s classic throws news reports, military footage, and zombie attacks together, hoping they’ll add up to a coherent film. Who the hell are we following? Half the time, I couldn’t tell who was talking or why I should care. The dialogue sounds like placeholder text somebody forgot to replace. I consider the original one of the best zombie films of all time. You cared about those people. Here, scenes happen, people talk, and nothing connects.
The AI visuals are atrocious. Faces shift, movements look unnatural, and the sound rarely matches the image. The AXON bodycam footage looks like it’s from an indie PS3 game. But imagine someone fixing every visual glitch tomorrow. Would that suddenly give Aftermath compelling characters, good dialogue, effective pacing, or a director’s vision? Of course not.
But the Production Itself Might Be Even More Disturbing Than What’s on Screen
Original stars Linnea Quigley and Beverly Randolph have publicly criticized the finished movie. Randolph has explained that she filmed material for a very different project and was horrified by the extensive AI manipulation of the final product. She even requested that her likeness be removed. Quigley, meanwhile, says she specifically warned against using AI before distancing herself from the production.
Think about that for a second. The very people whose involvement was supposed to lend this thing credibility want nothing to do with it.
What AI Means for Independent Horror
Look, I can see how AI might help independent filmmakers who barely have enough money to shoot their movies. Use it to improve an effect, or accomplish something your budget won’t allow. Fine. What bothers me is that independent horror filmmakers break themselves trying to get movies made. They work with tiny budgets, call in favors, wear multiple hats, spend countless hours on practical effects, and sometimes sacrifice years just to put something on screen. Their movies aren’t always good, but I can respect the effort.
Then Aftermath comes along, slaps a beloved franchise name on a pile of garbage, and expects fans to pay for the privilege.
Screw that noise. You can find the whole thing on YouTube, if you are even curious. Don’t give this guy your hard-earned money.
There’s Bad Horror, and Then There’s Aftermath
I’ve watched terrible movies I’d happily revisit. Give me terrible acting, ridiculous practical effects, and a story that makes no sense. At least I can have fun with that. Aftermath doesn’t even give me that satisfaction. Yet it has the audacity to tease another sequel. If branding and generated footage are enough, what exactly are we calling filmmaking anymore?
The zombies in The Return of the Living Dead famously crave brains. After watching this abomination, I’m convinced there wasn’t a single one involved in making it.
