"City of Rott" is a very ambitious project, and it ultimately turned out to be quite alright in the end. For an animated movie of this type, "City of Rott" is rather entertaining.We follow the old man Fred who is on the streets of the city looking for a pair of new shoes. Fred is not all by sound mind. And the city is filled with the walking dead, rotting corpses controlled by worms.Now what made "City of Rott" work out well enough was the sheer amount of gore and mayhem. Sure, it is animated, but there was something oddly fulfilling by seeing Fred dispose of the zombies with his walker. And the sounds were good as well.The story, well that was a bit under average, because it wasn't really all that believable. For two-thirds of the movie, the story does have coherency and it is semi-alright, but then at the last third of the movie, it starts to stagger and the story jumps around a lot, letting us follow different people that seemingly have very little to do with the main story. Time filler perhaps?As for the animation itself, well the style used here is not what you'd otherwise see in Anime, cartoons from the 80's and 90's, but it is more in the likes of Flash animated movies as seen on the Internet. There is a lot of using the same figures over and over, but in overall, that was a minor flaw in the animated movie."City of Rott" is worth watching more than once, though years should pass in between the watchings.

City of Rott is a home-made, animated (Flash-based?) feature-length movie set in a post apocalyptic city where parasitic worms have turned most of the population into flesh eating zombies; wandering through the streets of the corpse strewn metropolis—an old man, teetering on the edge of insanity (he holds conversations with his zimmer frame!), desperately searching for a new pair of comfy slippers...City of Rott's creator Frank Sudol has gotta be admired for the dedication and effort required in making this gory animated movie—look at the credits and you'll see that he single-handedly wrote, drew, animated, scored, edited and voiced everything in the film—but even though I have nothing but respect for the guy, I do believe that, in turning his idea in to a 77 minute zombie epic, he chomped just a little more than he could chew.The initially rather charming concept soon becomes very repetitive, and as much as I love me some intense carnage (even animated intense carnage), watching a crudely-drawn, senile codger repeatedly smashing heads with his walking frame soon becomes very tedious. Some fun can be gleaned throughout from the numerous in-jokes that proliferate the film (often in the form of signs/billboards/graffiti in the city), but in the end, this would have worked so much better if it had been kept to a running time of well under half an hour.4.5 out of 10, rounded up to 5 for IMDb.

Frank Sudol has done an incredible job of making an animated movie by himself and it looks somewhat reminiscent of a Cannibal Corpse cover throughout. I was initially attracted to Sudol's artistic style but quickly became bored because of the repetitiveness of the movie. While this would have been fine as a 5 or 10 minute short, there just wasn't enough story to fill a movie length feature and it became almost unbearably boring to watch. I'm sure there will be those that watched it with friends and maybe under the influence of chemicals, they will have found it to be hilarious or entertaining but as I watched it sober and alone, I really felt it needed to have been a short feature only.

"City of Rott" is an independent animated zombie movie which (if Google is any indication) is an extended version of an online movie of the same name.As you'd expect from an indie film, production values are limited. The animation takes a while to get used to. The music is repetitive and the voices aren't great. All of this comes with the territory, I suppose. In fact, the entire movie was done by a single guy - Frank Sudol. While the effort can be lauded, and its humble origins to DVD is impressive, it can't make up for the overall lack of quality. As per most zombie movies, it's rather bleak and cynical. The main character is an apparently senile geriatric named Fred who talks to his walker (which apparently talks back). Fred is motivated, despite the unfurling apocalypse, to find a comfortable pair of new shoes.The movie's biggest weakness is that even at 77 minutes, it's too long. There's just so much that didn't need to be in it. It's boring. I'm a fan of the genre and I couldn't even bear to sit through it in its entirety. There is gore, and it is a liberal amount. Unortunately, they're the same boring gorefests over and over again. Even the movie breaks the fourth wall about this; in one zombie-killing sequence Fred says "Hey, didn't I kill you before?". Inbetween these fights Fred talks to his walker and and roams the streets aimlessly looking for shoes. In a few of these "plot" sequences, there is candid discussion of deeper concepts such as struggling against inevitability and Fred's shortsightedness, but these are fleeting and don't make a lasting impression. I suppose the shortsighted journey for comfort in the setting of a larger crisis might serve as a parallel for modern life, but it's probably just seeing too much into it.If you want to see unapologetically tasteless zombie violence with a unique presentation, don't mind a heavy dose of tedium, and happen to see it somewhere, you might want to rent. Otherwise, stay far, far, away.