I will start with why it is excellent: The movie open with a group of hikers going on Easter vacation. Their destination is a small cabin so far from any civilization that there is no reception there. Every character is a stereotype: a blond bimbo, a nerd, a shy reasonable guy, a caring girlfriend and others. They all speak Norwegian (or is it Swedish?) and are not at all known actors (at least not in Hollywood). However they give a great performance that on top of great cinematography and costume design. You would never had guess that this is a small low-budget production, it is simply beautiful how the director managed to pull this off.
Now the promise is that during WW2 some Nazis were stationed here and murdered locals for their gold. Now the civilians gathered up and chased the soldiers to the mountains were they seemingly froze to death. Of course they didn't and they are back to make a pretty nice threat. For the first hour this is great.
Now why the movie is disappointing: After the first hour the director run out of ideas. You see pulled intestines three (!) times. There is a battle between the Nazis and the survivors armed with tools from the shed. Its great but it only lasts for 3 or 4 minutes and they only use a chainsaw and a hammer. What is with the other tools? Especially that we were show to a pitchfork and also we can imagine using a monkey wrench or a vise or many other things. Having the chainsaw in the next 5 gags feels repetitive.
Also there is a problem of making a movie entirely out of clichés is problematic. They are only right when the event still happens in many films. If it was a cliché 20 years ago it is not so recognized anymore. Some are perfect like having zombies and a stranger appear from nowhere seemingly sneaking up on the character. This is exploited to the limit in Dead Snow and it is funny. But what would be a cliché ending - does everybody die or are there some survivors? there is no answer because there is as many examples for one as the other - now, director has to choose one and he can't be right, why should you watch it then?
Its hard not to compare to Shaun of the Dead, which had a richer satire and more interesting characters (I know, I know, thats not the point of Dead Snow). Even though Dead Snow comes first when you count make-up and cinematography. Yet, like many reviewers stated, it is a movie to have playing in the background of a drunk party. While some scenes are brilliant the movie as whole doesn't have enough jokes or/and clichés to fill 85 minutes. Watching the 10 minute clip of a mentioned "battle" is well enough for most movie goers, I assure you.
Now the promise is that during WW2 some Nazis were stationed here and murdered locals for their gold. Now the civilians gathered up and chased the soldiers to the mountains were they seemingly froze to death. Of course they didn't and they are back to make a pretty nice threat. For the first hour this is great.
Now why the movie is disappointing: After the first hour the director run out of ideas. You see pulled intestines three (!) times. There is a battle between the Nazis and the survivors armed with tools from the shed. Its great but it only lasts for 3 or 4 minutes and they only use a chainsaw and a hammer. What is with the other tools? Especially that we were show to a pitchfork and also we can imagine using a monkey wrench or a vise or many other things. Having the chainsaw in the next 5 gags feels repetitive.
Also there is a problem of making a movie entirely out of clichés is problematic. They are only right when the event still happens in many films. If it was a cliché 20 years ago it is not so recognized anymore. Some are perfect like having zombies and a stranger appear from nowhere seemingly sneaking up on the character. This is exploited to the limit in Dead Snow and it is funny. But what would be a cliché ending - does everybody die or are there some survivors? there is no answer because there is as many examples for one as the other - now, director has to choose one and he can't be right, why should you watch it then?
Its hard not to compare to Shaun of the Dead, which had a richer satire and more interesting characters (I know, I know, thats not the point of Dead Snow). Even though Dead Snow comes first when you count make-up and cinematography. Yet, like many reviewers stated, it is a movie to have playing in the background of a drunk party. While some scenes are brilliant the movie as whole doesn't have enough jokes or/and clichés to fill 85 minutes. Watching the 10 minute clip of a mentioned "battle" is well enough for most movie goers, I assure you.