My friends and I were in the mood for a really, really bad movie today. We weren't sure whether to rent 'Sasquatch' or 'Vampires vs. Zombies', but somewhere along the line we decided on 'House of the Dead II'. Obviously, we weren't expecting anything more than B-movie schlock we could point and laugh at, and that's exactly what we got. Better than the first one (as if that counts for anything!), House of the Dead II is an ultra-cheesy gorefest that will satisfy hardened zombie fans, but will turn off most mainstream movie watchers. However, the fact that you're actually on the internet, reading reviews for the movie 'House of the Dead II' means that, most likely, you are already a hardened horror/zombie fan, so you'll probably like this. It has all the 'zombie movie' goods: gore, decapitation scenes, naked chicks, gunfire, etc. Don't expect anything more than that and you'll have a decent time.
Add a Review
-
coldstick22 May 2006
-
gridoon24 July 2007Having never seen the original, I found this sequel to be a competent little B-movie in its own right. Of course it has its flaws: it doesn't really bring anything new to the zombie sub-genre, there is a lack of genuine scares, and the script screws up the timeline near the end (before going to the university for the second time, the three leads say they only have 10 minutes before the government blasts the whole place with missiles, but they take A LOT more time to go in there and get the blood sample they need). But it still has enough suspense, humor and gore to please those who know what they're getting into. The casting is solid: I particularly liked Emmanuelle Vaugier, who not only looks like a perfect video game heroine in her uniform and ponytail, but also handles her guns in a very confident, no-nonsense manner - like an extension of herself. And Victoria Pratt is certainly one of the most convincing actresses you can cast as a female soldier, body-wise at least. The film is made with a certain wit (the "Shhhhhh" in the library, Sticky Fingaz's death scene - "No, no, I'm not infected - growl!"), and the downbeat ending cleverly piques the curiosity (even of people who may not have liked this movie) for a possible third chapter. (**)
-
BHorrorWriter12 May 2006The original HOUSE OF THE DEAD was a joke! An insult to horror fans worldwide. Uwe Boll is and forever will be a hack in the Directors chair. There is no style or merit to his work. It is all plain, dull and over-the-top in a way that does not represent a keen and penetrating eye for Cinema.
With that said...HOUSE OF THE DEAD 2 raises the bar...slightly. The story seemed to be put together better and had a focus in mind. Borrowing elements from previous zombie flicks like DAY OF THE DEAD, 28 DAYS LATER and countless others...HOUSE OF THE DEAD 2 did not break any new ground. It did, however offer a story that was not painful to watch. -
That is saying a lot as the first House of the Dead was absolutely abysmal in every way. I was expecting the sequel to be even worse, but actually while not great it is much better. True it is not perfect, Sticky Fingaz never really convinced me often overplaying his part(though his death scene is hilarious), the story doesn't have any huge surprises and is lacking in scares and tension often coming across as overly-silly, the script while having the odd witty spot is banal, the characters are stereotypical and while nowhere near as annoying as those of the first one are still not very easy to warm to and Michael Hurst's direction while infinitely better than Uwe Boll's(then again any director is better than Boll) does have one too many moments where it is pedestrian. On the plus side, the scenery and lighting are much more atmospheric and this film is much better edited. The music doesn't have much standing out but is not as over-bearing and doesn't feel like an excuse to incorporate some scares into what feels like one rambling, long music video(the first film felt like that). The downbeat ending is a welcome touch and there are some witty quips in the script which brings some bright flashes amongst the general banality. The acting is also better than average generally, Emmanuelle Vaugher and Ed Quinn are likable leads and James Park is appropriately dignified. The zombies are a clear improvement also, actually showing some menace. All in all, a huge improvement on the first film even if it is still rather lacking. 5/10 Bethany Cox
-
ded_meet24 September 2006I'm a zombie-flick fan. =) I'll admit that readily, but it took me several months before I finally saw this movie because I was so utterly disappointed with the first one. In the first movie they had these incredibly annoying, flashing video game-sequences or something cut into the movie - probably to save money since that way they only had to make half a movie.
None of that crap here thank god! This was actually a pretty decent horror movie - with zombies! I say decent but for a zombie movie it was pretty darn good. The special effects were better than average for a zombie movie, so was actually everything about this movie. Even the zombies stagger better in this one than usual! The story has a good pace with plenty of "plot" and action through-out the movie, and the acting was surprisingly good. And with that I mean that some of the actors were actually really good and the others decent!
My verdict is that this movie is in no way a future classic by any means, but it is a decent horror movie and as far as zombie-movies are concerned - definitely a trend-breaker in the sense that it falls into the "decent"-category as a whole. Ususally zombie-flicks are either really good - or quite the opposite. So if you are looking for a decent horror movie or a good zombie-movie - see this one. But avoid the prequel at any cost... -
indiecon0511 February 2006I haven't had a chance to view the previous film, but from what I've read on other posts it was supposedly worse than this one, although I doubt that is possible. I'm a huge fan of the "Zombie" genre, and I am fascinated by the psychological aspects of viewing creatures, that for all intents and purposes are human, as an atrocity that is only worth shooting in the head. That said, HOTD 2 takes the "Zombie" movie to an all new low.
Without giving any big spoilers (which I really should do just so you won't bother wasting your time actually watching this movie) I would like to express my utter contempt for the way the writers of this film portray our countries Special Forces. Gomer Pile could have probably survived longer than the "Spec Ops" soldiers in this film. For crying out loud they should have called them the Special Education Forces instead. If you are going to write a script where you send in an elite team to deal with an outbreak of zombies, at least have the soldiers be smarter than the walking corpses. I understand that you have to kill off some or most of the team, but you can find better ways to do it than having them set down their machine guns and walk over to lay a tender hand on the shoulder of the drooling crazy person rocking back and forth in the corner of the dark creepy basement.
The writers actually try to take the whole zombie thing to a more high-tech level by making it a virus that they are searching for a vaccine for, and the idea has merit, if it wasn't stuck in the middle of such a ridiculous display of wayward film making. I mean come on, zombie films aren't exactly "high art", and the viewer expects some tongue-in-cheek cheesiness along with the gore and thrills, but HOTD 2 is the type of cheese that makes you turn the channel in disgust and awe of the sheer stupidity of the characters. If you are a zombie movie fan like me, please do yourself a favor and stay away from this one. -
fireman1012824 February 2006i seen house of the dead 2 on sci fi last night and i have to admit it is much better the part one. The zombies look pretty good. unlike the old one the zombies are believable on this one. you don't see zombies jumping around at like 10 feet int he air. The story line isn't that bad and the acting is moderatly good. It is just a shame that it didn't go to theathres. it could have probably did better then the original.
on the the main story of the movie. a scientist makes a zombie girl thru his experiments and she escapes and starts biting people. an outbreak happens and the movie goes of from there pretty entertaining. all in all i would defetily recamind this movie to people who are bored at home on an Saturday. i would have to give this one a 5 out of a maximum of ten. -
walteraquilina27 June 2006I haven't seen the first movie cause people said it was awful and apparently there's no great connection between them. This movie looked cool and I like Emmanuelle Vaugier, so I thought I'd give it a try. Before watching it, I searched it here on IMDb and got pretty discouraged with its low rating and bad reviews. Since I had already rented it, I decided to watch it anyway.
I was surprised. I really liked it. It's like Dawn of the Dead (the remake) and Resident Evil: Apocalypse together. I don't know why people say it's very bad. It's an awesome movie, when you think about the low budget that it had and the fact that it was straight to TV. It also has those parts when it gets a bit sad and it has some funny quotes too (don't know why they're not listed on IMDb) Rent it, I'm sure you won't be disappointed. Just forget about the first one if you saw it, and think of it as another movie, not as a sequel. -
DigitalRevenantX725 May 2009A clandestine experiment at a university campus causes a zombie outbreak. 29 days later, a squad of Special Forces soldiers & government scientists are sent to the campus to find the original zombie in order to develop a vaccine from its blood. But their mission is jeopardized by a soldier's plans to sell the blood sample to a biotech firm, as well as the zombies, who are tougher than the team expected.
"House of the Dead 2" is the second of two film adaptations of the popular video game. The original HOUSE OF THE DEAD was lambasted by almost all reviewers as being one of the worst zombie films ever made. The only connection this film has with the original is the screenwriter, Mark A. Altman, a genre fan who co-wrote the script for the first film.
After viewing the first film, which was a third-rate spin off from a second-rate game, I set my expectations low before sitting to review this sequel. I was slightly impressed with the film.
Given the film industry's penchant for making films from older films, films made by other countries & videogames, "House of the Dead 2" works surprisingly well but is let down by a number of factors. First, the source material, in this case a video game, does not lend itself too readily for filmwork. The game is nothing more than a cheap attempt to rip-off the massively successful RESIDENT EVIL games, with the zombies being nothing more than targets for the player's guns (as well as the fact that the zombies act very un-zombie like, jumping, wielding weapons & not feeding on flesh). The original film, for all its faults, actually was pretty faithful to the game, with the exception of the setting. HOTD 2 again uses a different setting to that of the original but unless you count a college campus as a house, the title is a stretch at best.
Despite being derived from the game, the zombies here are a marked improvement over their game counterparts. They stick to the Romero mould, unlike the creatures in the first film, which were nothing more than undead thugs. The film tries a new idea – that of scientists trying to locate the original zombie in order to find a cure from its blood – which is perhaps its saving grace. That & the fact that the actors giving some good performances, as well as some clever characterizations. But while these elevate the film to a higher level than the original film, it still suffers from a poorly developed script. With the recent spate of comedies which derived their humour from film references, HOTD 2 throws in a few genre film references (one character mentions "Alone in the Dark"; the film is set 29 days after the experiment, after the British zombie film 28 DAYS LATER; the campus is named Cuesta Verde after the housing development in POLTERGEIST) which don't work too well. -
Majik138711 February 2006For it being a low budget movie and a "sequel" to House of the Dead, it was actually an okay movie. Sure, a lot of the acting was bad, but all movies have bad acting, even the huge budget Hollywood movies. I didn't really see any relation to the game except for people shooting zombies but it was still entertaining. The only thing that really annoyed he hell out of me was the background music. It just didn't seem to go with the theme or the mood of the movie in my opinion. I highly doubt this movie was made to be a money maker, but I think it will become a lesser known b-movie favorite. It was much better than the more recent Sci-Fi channel zombie movies, Return of the Living Dead 4 & 5. I say give it a chance if you have nothing to do or if nothing else is on.
-
Grimm2211 February 2006Its almost embarrassing to say I even saw this movie. I mean it doesn't take much to make a good zombie movie besides good special effects, lots of blood and gore, some scary moments and a decent plot. Does House of the Dead 2 do any of these things right? No, not one. Of course, its not as bad as its predecessor, from Uwe Bowle and thats the only thing about this movie that scares me.
The dialog in this movie is notorious, with such lines as "What do you do for a living?" in response "I kill zombies" and "I was never a disk jockey, I was a soldier." The special effects are embarrassing even for a made for TV movie, I mean seriously, the zombies all look like they have bloody lips are hyped up on crack. The army base in this movie, is a parking garage, with a desk and a open gated room. This movie is so low budget that they couldn't even get co-ed locker rooms. In fact it seems like this entire movie was filmed in a middle school.
Also, why is it that the all the female soldiers in this movie are models? And for that matter why is everyone in this movie so clueless at to what is going on that they simply just stand around letting the zombies kill them. Heck one guy even trys to give food to the zombie.
Overall, this movie makes even the worst of Scifi Channel movies looks fantastic. -
springsunnywinter23 May 2007I just can't believe that a sequel to an absolute rubbish film would turn out to be so good. After watching the first crappy House of the Dead I thought this one will also be the same, I rented it because I couldn't find another movie that looks good. Uwe Boll did not direct it so I was saying to myself "It shouldn't be bad as the first one". The film was much better than I expected and I have only 2 words for the make-up effects; awesome & mind-blowing definitely the best make-up for any zombie film. The story is really good about a mad scientist in a university campus whose dream is to bring the dead back to life but the virus broke out after an experiment on a dead girl so it took only one zombie to spawn an army, the special forces are sent to find the patient zero which is the original zombie from where the infection started and create an antidote to stop the plague. This is the third video game movie I've liked the other two are Resident Evil & Resident Evil: Apocalypse. I've seen it twice in my 2-day hire although I usually watch rented films only once. Do not mistake that the sequel is crap just because the first one was, House of the Dead fans won't be disappointed. Thank goodness Uwe Boll did not direct it and thank you Mike Hurst!
-
anthonyscullion4 June 2006Didn't hope for much when I sat down to watch this but, as said, it was a better than expected.
Expect low budget, but not too bad - i've seen much worse in special effects and overall production.
Some of the scenes have been lifted completely from Resident Evil so on the whole its not too original -
And with both of those things in mind its okay - I jumped a few times and the build up of tension when trapped by hordes of the undead was pretty good (although very Res Evil).
There's some good humour too, with more than one nod to films it owes something to (which is good as opposed to just outright plagiarism), again particularly Res Evil.
I wouldn't run out and buy a copy, but I would watch it again sometime, there's worse ways to spend an hour and a half. -
ctomvelu-128 October 2008Marginally better than the original, the extremely low-budget HOUSE OF THE DEAD 2 plays a little straighter and even takes us into other zombie movies at times, most notably 28 DAYS LATER and DAWN OF THE DEAD. A special forces unit is called in to deal with a zombie outbreak at a university, and just getting there itself proves a battle. While there are almost no scares, there are some good kills and some decent makeup jobs, certainly better than any sported in your typical Italian zombie movie. Everyone is a stereotype of the worst sort, and the one familiar face is Ed Quinn, late of EUREKA. Two very attractive females get to sport their black underwear for a bit, which is better than nothing. In the end, unfortunately, the movie goes nowhere.
-
jaywolfenstien19 February 2006I'm reluctant to inform the reader that House of the Dead 2 is an improvement over the first film because that implies that HotD2 is a more enjoyable experience. This is not the case.
The original was a spectacular failure. It was like watching a horrible fireworks accident that set Uwe Boll on fire, and he ran around in circles with sparks and flames and pretty colors going everywhere. Tragic? Yes, but highly entertaining in a sick twisted way. House of the Dead 2 is just a dud that falls over. It's awful *and* boring.
Although, it does have a few moments that arise to the Boll standard of "what the hell?" Such as when our hero smears zombie guts all over his body so the zombies can't identify him as living, which leads to the only scene in the film (or any zombie film) where we see Zombies sniffing around.
I personally loved how proficient these zombies where at knocking guns from the main character's hands. These zombies were well, trained, ladies and gentlemen. They were very well trained. It felt like something out of that Playstation game, "Nightmare Creatures." The zombies would stagger, Romero style, and then on cue run in and rip the guns from the good guys hands. Although, bear in mind, I'm making it sound more interesting than it really is.
Beyond the moments described above, there's only a handful of other entertaining points (zombie football, anyone?). The majority of the film is irritatingly cliché and flat out uninteresting. From the camera setups, to the pacing, to the sets, to the lighting, to the locations, to the editing, to the music every aspect of this film droned on with the intensity of a metronome. It's painfully apparent that this was a micro budget production.
I'll give the film the benefit of the doubt and inform the reader that House of the Dead 2 intends to be campy, but apparently it doesn't know how to get there. It has characters who are laughably unaware of their environment, making statements like "we can't get through the air vent on this side" nevermind the plethora of materials in the background that would make great make-shift tools. But yes, they find the chalk-board so they can outline (NFL game plan style) the single stupidest plan they could have possibly conceived. Like I said, everything is in place for House of the Dead 2 to be a great campy film . . . except it's slightly confused on exactly how to get to camp-land.
That and House of the Dead 2 is still boring. This is because at no point does the audience feel like the actions in the movie mean anything. While HotD2 is trying to be campy horror, it fails and in the process of failing it demolishes any sense that this zombie infestation poses any kind of threat to anyone. "Oh no! The zombies are going to eat the cannon fodder!" That just isn't intimidating. It could be funny, except: House of the Dead 2 is so friggin' boring.
In an effort to inject a sense of impending doom and intensity in the film, the plot revolves around the idea that the zombie infested campus will be blown up sometime the next morning. ("Oh no! The cannon fodder might get blown up!") So our hero and heroine have to accomplish their mission before the countdown reaches zero; however, the film and all the characters forget this almost immediately. Five minutes before detonation, they might as well be waiting in line for stamps at the post office. They don't seem to care about the countdown, so why should the audience? That and House of the Dead 2 is *still* boring.
What's worse? After our main characters accomplish their goal and acquire the zero-generation blood sample, they make their escape and lose that blood sample. It ain't over yet, folks. So now we get to watch the cannon fodder go back into the line of fire, and yes, it's just as boring this time around as it was before.
In closing, House of the Dead 2 is a superior film, but that, however, does not make it more watchable. If it weren't for the handful of priceless moments where the film reaches Uwe Boll levels of stupidity, it would have no entertainment value what-so-ever. -
gabriel_sanchez20 March 2021It becomes hard to get impressed when you wandered the dark corners of the zombie genre. After watching so many zombie movies, I think the zombie encyclopedia got exhausted. In the end, to me, most great zombie movies come down to the storyline evolving behind the gruesome fact than necessarily the zombies and any cool stuff they can do.
With such an infamous title, and taking his predecessor into account, I wasn't expecting much from House of the Dead 2 (2005). Good decision.
House of the Dead 2 (2005) takes place after the events of House of the Dead (2003), which is surprising. The movie is so different that you need to pay attention to realize that.
Some recurring characters from the first movie are back here, which makes no sense. Notably, because they were clearly dead to me.
The AMS agency is a Government group specialized in the undead. It seems the AMS agency already existed before the events of the first movie. This is also nonsense. And it begs the question: how come a special agency that deals with the undead have not made a special combat suit yet? They just go around with their body exposed, screaming "bite me!" Ludicrous.
Speaking of nonsense, the scientists are looking for the first generation of zombies to get a sample of their blood. The idea is that only the blood from the first generation can provide a suitable cure. OK, nothing new here, but they clearly get the sample from dead zombies to test if they are from the first generation. Why not do that all the time? Nope, eventually, they try to get the zombie's blood when they are still alive and kicking, posing a serious threat.
The climactic event is laughable. I can imagine the people portraying the zombies holding their laugh. I know the producers were trying to build tension, but the event was lame. The zombies are just holding the main characters without trying to bite them. The zombies were clearly ferocious beasts a while ago, so why are they just holding them now? Cringy.
Expected plot-twists add nothing to the story. You know what is lurking after every scene.
I would only recommend it if you are a die-hard fan of zombie movies and if you are on a quest to watch trash.
I'll give it a 3 because, at least, you want to know the ending. -
pyx29 January 2006It's a pity that studio lackeys have voted this film up to 8.8 (as of 28th Jany 2006), because it doesn't deserve to wipe the boots of classic like the Godfather, Lord of the Rings, Casablanca and others that legitimately earn their 8+ scores. As the genuine scores roll in, expect to see this one plummet to a 2 or 3.
I've seen many people declare on IMDb that a film was "the worst they'd ever seen" and thought that they were exaggerating, but this film is truly, the very worst, most carelessly written, worst scripted, worst acted, worst explained insult to celluloid ever to waste 90 minutes of anyone's time.
I thought that the new version of The Fog was poor, but it's an Oscar winner compared to this garbage. Did no one with a reading age over 7 years bother to take a look at this abysmal dialogue before filming?! If the scene in the lab with the college professor doesn't convince you that you're in for a bad experience, then nothing will. Take my word for it, that's an early warning - take heed and stop watching now, and go watch a decent action horror instead. I recommend the new Dawn of the Dead, or any of Romero's classics. For light relieve, you could definitely do far worse than Shaun of the Dead.
This film should rightly be a blot on the career of all involved, and if there's any justice, the director and script-writer will never again have the opportunity to waste anyone else's time and money. -
shalimar-429 October 2017Well no Uwe Boll at least That is a guaranteed improvement over the 1st in this "series"
Thankfully this one i not a Canadian production like the original was.. but it's bad... bad and more bad regardless of where it was filmed... The writing is virtually non-existent.. acting skill.. wait.. more like anti-skill. This was so beyond bad even the worlds best actors could never save it..
it's worse than most "Made for TV" crappy B movies so often found being broadcast.. especially at strange times of the day (6am "scary movie time anyone?).. and AMC in their infinite stupidity actually aired this crap earlier today right after the original.. (see my insane review of that one once it's approved.. it's intentionally insane)
I won't include spoilers here as I rarely do.. and there's simply nothing really to spoil with this movie.. it's horrible crap done on a budget so low I think the worlds cheapest dog food probably cost more per bag than they spent on production per day.
Suffice to say it's garbage.. skip it.. save yourself the mental anguish.. and know that as bad as this is.. it's infinitely better than the original.. the fact UWE BOLL is not involved is a guarantee of that alone..
I never played the video games for either of these btw so I can't comment on the quality of the source per se there.. but given the stitched in bits in both films I suspect they are no better than the films of the same names..
if you want to waste 2 hours or so of your life with no redeeming qualities at all skip this.. find a hallmark channel drivel movie.. it'll be better! This movie is more suited for use as a sadistic punishment by forcing the ppl needing to be punished to watch it.. and for those that are even more in need of punishment the original is in order!
For the rest of us with any sanity.. stay away!! Far far away.. there is no lack of bad zombie flicks out there than are better than this even though they are bad as well.
Now I've suffered through this and the original today.. I'm questioning my own sanity and I think my youngest son's idea of hitting his head on the hardwood floor might actually be preferable!
Seriously.. I'll never get back the time wasted on these movies today.. but at least I can try to save some others from the pain and suffering I have endured in the name of IMDb! -
Uwe Boll didn't direct this movie. That's a small mercy. Yeah, this movie isn't perfect, but it's not too bad either. Going in to this movie, I was fully expecting the same complete rubbish that House of the Dead was. However, I was fairly surprised. It was by no means perfect, but it wasn't that bad.
There were some glaring deficiencies in plot. The ending, which I won't give away, was ridiculous and solved nothing. In many senses, it's just a traditional horror movie, with all it's cheesy effects and, in many places, painful dialog. The "comic relief" of the movie, I believe his name was O'Conner, annoyed me to no end. Bart, the perverted soldier, made me want to kick him in the nuts, which, I suppose, is what the director was going for, but nevertheless, he was annoying as well. There were other problems with dialog in other places that do not come to mind at the moment. It seems like a decent movie that was made with a really low budget. This can be expected, I suppose, seeing as how it was a TV movie.
That being said, there were parts of it that were pleasantly surprising. I was happy to see Victoria Pratt in this movie, because I think the is a good, if not merely decent, actress with actual emotion behind her lines, which is lacking in a lot of horror. Also, I felt that there was a decent amount of chemistry between Emmanuelle Vaugier and Ed Quinn. Not enough for an Emmy, not even close, but for a horror movie, a TV horror movie no less, it was pleasantly surprising.
All in all, a thoroughly average film. 5 out of 10. -
I'm sorry, but they did leave the impression that these commandos fought zombies before. But they sure didn't act like they even seen a zombie before. Jumping and turning their backs on them like amateurs. Second, the characters are pretty badly written. The actors did the best they could with what was given, I blame bad writing and bad directing. Lastly and here is where the spoiler warnings are highest. They loose the sample twice and the girl Jennifer Holland doesn't know if she's been bit or not. How stupid is that? As much as it hurts to be bitten, one would think you would know, plus gallons of blood leaking from your body is a good clue. Dumb, the first movie had it's flaws but it has re-watchablity, unlike this disaster of a movie, which I could barely get through once. I give the HOUSE OF THE DEAD 2: NO GUTS, ALL STUPIDITY THE CRAP-O-LANTERN
-
While missing the unique touch of visionary director Uwe Boll, this sequel to his original classic film is a superb entry in the Zombie Canon. Michael Hurst certainly does spectacular work from the director's chair himself and screen writer Michael Roesch's supremely crafted script gives Hurst a treasure trove to work with. What truly distinguishes this fine motion picture from other stories of the undead is it actually is unafraid to use the word Zombie. It is a bold creative choice that most productions universally avoid and hearing the word spoken aloud by characters in a film is quite a moving experience for they who study the genre. The cast is uniformly excellent but there are several actors that truly standout. Sid Haig, of course, is nothing less than superb. The underrated Ed Quinn gives another stunning performance and it is one that brings an unequaled intensity, strength, and humanity to what might well be a stock character if played by a lesser artist. Overall, this is a extraordinary horror film of unusual quality, a cinematic triumph for the creative team and fine cast alike.
-
dementa4229 January 2006Lemme first start off by saying that the first House Of The Dead movie was a huge disappointment and a horrible film! This one i believe is a MUCH better film than the first one. One major thing that helped this film over the first one, was the lack of "Matrix-esque" Fight scenes and effects. This movie had NONE of that. Not even one shot as i recall.
The film is about a pair of scientists/zombie killers (i know, weird combo) who team up with a military task force and go to a local college in order to try to find an original zombie (hypersapiens as they call them) that they can take a blood sample from that could help cure the disease.
Pretty much the entire movie is on the campus with them killing zombies. 99.9% of the action is using guns on the zombies, so it was nice to see a sequence at the end with 2 characters warding off the zombies with an ax and a knife for a change.
This film was quite cheesy, but many horror lovers know the difference between good fun b-movie cheesy and just plain horrible and not funny cheesy. This was the tolerable kind of cheesy. I saw that this is premiering on Sci-Fi channel, which will not help it's cause any, as the movie is quite gory (blood, dismemberment's & intestines galore. Not to mention a decent amount of nudity and swearing. It's kind of hard to show all that on TV as we all know.
If you like low budget zombie movies this one is worth checking out! No where near the best, but not the worst either. -
jacobjohntaylor116 June 2017This movie is so awful 3.8 is overrating it. This is a 2. This movie has an awful story line. Some of the acting pretty bad to. It is not scary. The first movie of House of the dead is very scary. And this is a big let down. Do not waste your time. And do not waste your money. Do not see this movie. It is a an awful movie. Do not see it. It is a big pile of pooh. This movie is pooh pooh. It is not a good movie. It is a pooh pooh movie. A pooh pooh, pooh pooh. It so stinky it stinks. See the first movie of House of the dead. Do not see this. It is a big pile of pooh that is really stinky.
-
jellyneckr11 February 2006Without question, HOUSE OF THE DEAD 2: DEAD AIM is one of, if not the most unwanted sequels of all time. The original HOUSE OF THE DEAD was universally panned by both critics and audiences, and is widely considered one of the worst horror flicks ever made by genre fans. So why a sequel? My guess is that the filmmakers figured since the first one was so hated, this time they could do a House of the Dead movie the right way in an effort to redeem themselves. If indeed that was their intent, they succeeded. HOUSE OF THE DEAD 2: DEAD AIM is everything the original wasn't: scary, decently acted, and well directed. Director Michael Hurst was clearly the right man for the job. Some may argue that the action scenes were directed too straight, but I am actually thankful they were considering that almost every action sequence in action pictures these days are severely over edited and overly stylized. While the directing was admirable, the screenplay wasn't as good. There's lots of funny dialog and a considerable amount of character development for this type of movie, but towards the end, the story gets bogged down in clichés and characters start saying such obvious statements as "this is not good." My only other complaint with 'DEAD AIM' is for the first 85 minutes or so the pacing is perfect yet for the remaining ten minutes, it refuses to end. It just drags on, taking its sweet time to get to the end credits sequence. So it may not be perfect, but HOUSE OF THE DEAD 2: DEAD AIM is nonetheless great entertainment that should satisfy video gamers and horror fans, especially if they have low expectations after seeing the original. My rating: 7/10.
-
HeshNZ24 January 2007I am furious! It has been a while since the last zombie movie I've watched so I was really looking forward to watching a good ol' gory zombie movie. HoTD2 was a major disappointment. A reasonable story but awful acting, filming, dialogue, and nauseating clichés and punch lines. I didn't even see the first one which is supposedly worse than this one...now I am curious about how bad could that one have been! The film is full of mistakes and goofs. Who on earth analyses DNA using a blood sample!? Why are these "special forces" who "have been to hell and back" fight like spoiled 6 year old girls? We see ferocious zombies who would take a bite at any chance they get then hundreds of them that wave their arms at our two "heroes", take them down to the ground, then let them go without even a scratch. I could go on and on about this but life is too short and I have already wasted a couple of hours watching this pathetic movie which is an insult to the movie industry.