S.N.U.B! (2010)

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

A group of people find themselves in a Secret Nuclear Underground Bunker when a 20 megaton bomb goes off. The film centers on their relationship and survival for the first hour, then the "fiction" aspect of science fiction enters the film.The characters were not well constructed. "Cloverfield 10" puts this film to shame. The suitcase bomb was constructed as a dirty bomb, but somehow they got a 20 Megaton blast from it. From the commentary it appears director Jonathan Glendening is unaware there is a difference between the two. The film is supposed to be a 50's style sci-fi camp film, but I didn't see it. On the plus side they used an actual SNUB to film the production. It was at least neat to see the bunker. The movie action should have started at 30 minutes into the film instead at an hour, so near the end. This requires quick concise character building. Note: This is not a zombie film.Guide: F-word. No sex or nudity.

This film does nothing for the British film industry and helps bang yet another nail in the coffin of an ailing industry. I wouldn't say the bad acting referred to in other reviews is the root cause of this poorly made film, it's more the terrible editing and lack of any directorial vision. The script itself is diabolical and it is shocking that this even raised any funding. If it were made for the estimated £400,000 then that's £399,999 too much! I've seen student films that have been better made on lower budgets.I hope this doesn't impact too heavily on the careers on Gary Mavers, Claire Spence, Tom Cotcher or Joseph Millson who tried to perform with terrible lines.As they say you can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear.

I'm giving this movie ten out of ten not because I think it's the best film ever, but because I think it achieves exactly what it sets out to deliver and deserves some credit! I found the trailer for this film accidentally on YouTube and okay, it's obviously low budget, but as a fan of especially British indie horror movies thought I'd track down a copy and give it a go.The effects are actually really good (though the zombie mutant things are a bit disappointing when they finally arrive). There's a lack of big scare moments but overall I just found the whole thing entertaining. It's tongue in cheek - in some places actually quite self referentially funny - and whilst very short, the pace is refreshing and kept my interest up.No, the characters aren't well rounded but they do tick all the boxes and I cared enough to enjoy watching the nasty politician guy get his come-uppance (and the pretty girls running away from the radioactive mutants). And there's a subtle twist at the end as well.It really depends what you want out of a film... if you want high brow art or a big budget studio picture, avoid this film, but if like me you enjoy a refreshing change of pace and an entertaining little British action flick, this is actually really quite good.

Well what can i say...Er, how about terrible! obviously Harriet Thorpe has fallen on hard times after Life is sweet, and in all fairness she was the only recognisable character.Everything about this film screams straight to DVD and it shows.Zero character development, sloppy direction, awful script, need i go on? avoid like the mutants that mysteriously mutate within 10 minutes of a nuclear blast??!! they should of called it C.R.U.D. I'll award it 2 stars, mainly because its British (and god knows our film industry needs it) and also probably because it's the directors first effort (lord knows i hope it is) 28 days/weeks later this is not!