When there's a seven year gap between films, a sequel might work best as a self-contained story; failing that, it should at least ease the audience back into things - a quick recap might even be in order. Wyrmwood: Apocalypse does neither, chucking the viewer straight in the deep end, picking up immediately where the last one left off. The problem is remembering who is who, what is happening and why. That said, I have a sneaking suspicion that, even if I had rewatched the first film immediately prior to this one, I might still be struggling to keep up, the film's chaotic visual style taking precedence over narrative cohesion.
Wyrmwood: Apocalypse suffers from the same problems as director Kiah Roache-Turner's previous film, Nekrotronic: potentially cool ideas, such as a 'slave-unit' cyborg zombie controlled by a mad scientist, are wasted, the weak script, sloppy direction, rapid editing, and CGI gore resulting in a loud, gaudy mess that rarely makes sense. Was the first Wyrmwood a fluke? I sincerely hope not, 'cos Roache-Turner is clearly an imaginative film-maker and enthusiastic about his work - I just hope that he is able to exercise a little (actually, make that 'a lot') more control with his next film, Sting, which sounds like it could be fun (I hate spiders, but I love films about them!).
Wyrmwood: Apocalypse suffers from the same problems as director Kiah Roache-Turner's previous film, Nekrotronic: potentially cool ideas, such as a 'slave-unit' cyborg zombie controlled by a mad scientist, are wasted, the weak script, sloppy direction, rapid editing, and CGI gore resulting in a loud, gaudy mess that rarely makes sense. Was the first Wyrmwood a fluke? I sincerely hope not, 'cos Roache-Turner is clearly an imaginative film-maker and enthusiastic about his work - I just hope that he is able to exercise a little (actually, make that 'a lot') more control with his next film, Sting, which sounds like it could be fun (I hate spiders, but I love films about them!).