What can you expect from a zombie/vampire movie with the tagline: “He lives by the sword. They will die by it”? Not much apparently. Not even if Steven Seagal was the guy bashing up the bad guys. Especially not then. This 2009 direct-to-DVD movie falls into the 'not even good for a laugh' category.

It's so bad that I can sum up the movie in just one sentence – Vampire hunters Steven Seagal and co. rescues survivors and clears an about-to-be-bombed building in a time of zombie apocalypse. There! It's the usual zombie/vampire takes over world story except this time the good guys (no wait, two guys) use swords to kill them.

The story is bizarre to say the least. So you have the army blasting away buildings that the creatures hide out in, right? This is how they wipe out the bloodsucking flesh-eaters. Blast their daytime hideout and move onto next sanctuary. But it has to be when the vampires are inside. Otherwise they might move onto other areas. Yea, blast all you want but once the vampires step outside the building, apparently the debris and flames from the exploding building won't affect them. It's true, that's how Seagal and co. make it out before the deadline at the end of the movie.

So surely it made more sense to have Seagal and co. surround the building in question? And keep an eye out for any vampires making a run for it? You know, instead of actually venturing into that place and losing two of his team members? But no, that was more sensible. Seagal and his trusty warriors (all fans of the Matrix attire, all jumpy like caffeinated squirrels) walk casually through the building, in a very disorderly manner, while the clock ticks away.

At least they ran into the survivors, you say. Otherwise they would have been a yummy midnight meal for the vampires right? By the way, to clarify something, let me say that I'm not sure what these mutant/vampire/zombie hybrids are supposed to be. The director is not sure, the main characters are not sure and Steven Seagal just doesn't care. So let's go with bad guys that want to be a bit of everything, shall we? Well, the thing about picking up the survivors is that the hunters did a really bad job of finding them.

Firstly, by the time their idyllic little walk took them to the location of the survivors, a few of them had been killed off. It was probably close to halfway through the movie when this happened. What kind of plot is that? Secondly, the hunters didn't particularly care about getting the survivors out. Not just that, despite their wonderfully vast cache of weapons, none of them offered a weapon to the survivor group. Oh no, the hunters were focused on killing the bad guys even though a bomb in the near future would kill everything in the building anyway! Erm, where is the logic in that?

Well, in that case, at least you can enjoy an hour plus show of Seagal slashing away at zombie-vampire hybrids, right? Not really. Sure, his sidekick is almost always wandering by himself into a room and getting close to dying. Somehow there were tons of solo fighting moments for this guy. All good and well but what's wrong with sending an extra guy as backup? Seagal spends most of his time using his knife for attacks. When he does grab the hefty sword that he carried around (dude, get a sheath, seriously!), it cuts to a camera closeup of his face as he hacks away at something rapidly. Disappointing, not to mention unintentionally funny.

So many aspects didn't make sense in this movie. Why the sword? Why the poker face? What's with the weird accent? Speaking of Seagal's horrid dialog and strange accent … is this in some way linked to the fact that he had a voice-over double? Why do all the good guys head purposefully in one direction (only way leading to generator) and yet, turn around and run back when faced with mutant? Surely you are just doubling back now? Oh, why was this movie even made?