The best thing about this movie is the make-up... which is at times superior to Savini's work in any of the 'Dead' films, with the exception of the 'Dawn of the Dead' remake, which I thought was superb in most parts, zombie baby EXCLUDED :P While Savini has definitely pioneered many great techniques, and while he has definitely appeared to have mastered 'the zombie bite' effect... there is make up in Zombie 2 that is simply superior to much of his work, and creepier, I think, due to it's minimalist approach.
Other than that, this is possibly one of the weakest zombie movies ever made, with the exception of campy 1930's zombie fare.
The worst thing about this movie is the direction, hands down. This is interesting considering many of the user comments hail Fulci as some underrated auteur. The believability of much of this movie's goings-on relies on careful direction, not only of the actors, but of the narrative as well. Neither is sufficient. At times you may find yourself yelling at the characters in this movie...and becoming irritated with not only their stupidity, but the obvious lack of attention to the threshold of disbelief, on the part of the filmmakers. Characters in this film will freeze, and literally brandish their necks in anticipation of the zombie's attack, as if they are willingly offering up a free lunch, much like a bad Dracula film. Shock or sheer terror is not an excuse for this behavior...its simply unbelievable that people would 'act' this way, and silly.
The camera work in this movie is elementary, and textbook-ish. Fulci's overuse of the revealing pan is tedious, and stunts the pace of many the more intense zombie scenes.
The 'eyeball' scene is heavy handed, and its far too weighty an effect in comparison to the rest of the gore throughout the film. There is nothing else in the movie that even comes close to this scene, and the gore is inconsistent for this reason.
My favorite scene, is the later discovery of the Doctor's wife. This scene I felt, was duelly creepy and believable enough to stick with me. The use of the flashlight to reveal the scene was very choice, and better employed than in Romero's later 'Land of the Dead'.
I cannot overstate this film's sluggish pace. Though, should we expect more from a movie about the walking un-dead? I believe the remake of 'Dawn of the Dead'(2004) mastered the sluggish zombie to rabid zombie ratio.
The acting in this movie is largely a moot point, for two reasons. Of course, we cannot expect Shakespearean academics in a zombie film. But also, we cannot expect much more from an English over-dub. I recommend finding a copy of the original Italian, though much of the acting is still notably bad, regardless.
It is a shame that such an interesting premise for a zombie movie is so poorly executed. I appreciated the voodoo magic undertones of this film, but 'Woodoo' (Zombie 2) hardly delivers. It might be valid to say this movie suffers from a lack of information, whereas a movie like 'Day of the Dead'(1985) seems to suffer from a surplus.
'Night of the Living Dead'(1968), the original Romero classic, is still, in my not-so-humble opinion, the quintessential zombie film. After all these years, it seems to offer the best ratio of believability over sheer entertainment. Every zombie movie has its weak and strong points, but I do believe Zombie 2 is one of the weakest films I've seen in this genre.
I must say I sympathize with zombie enthusiasts over this film. I have yet to see a zombie movie that I felt was simply unwatchable. 'Zombie 2' is indeed an interesting installment/artifact in the zombie genre, however, it seems by perusing the user comments, that a few of the fans of this genre are much like the zombies themselves... voraciously feeding off zombie films regardless of the craft of film-making. No matter, zombie movies are good fun regardless, and make for a chilling time no matter what. I had fun watching this movie as with any zombie flick.
-andy
Other than that, this is possibly one of the weakest zombie movies ever made, with the exception of campy 1930's zombie fare.
The worst thing about this movie is the direction, hands down. This is interesting considering many of the user comments hail Fulci as some underrated auteur. The believability of much of this movie's goings-on relies on careful direction, not only of the actors, but of the narrative as well. Neither is sufficient. At times you may find yourself yelling at the characters in this movie...and becoming irritated with not only their stupidity, but the obvious lack of attention to the threshold of disbelief, on the part of the filmmakers. Characters in this film will freeze, and literally brandish their necks in anticipation of the zombie's attack, as if they are willingly offering up a free lunch, much like a bad Dracula film. Shock or sheer terror is not an excuse for this behavior...its simply unbelievable that people would 'act' this way, and silly.
The camera work in this movie is elementary, and textbook-ish. Fulci's overuse of the revealing pan is tedious, and stunts the pace of many the more intense zombie scenes.
The 'eyeball' scene is heavy handed, and its far too weighty an effect in comparison to the rest of the gore throughout the film. There is nothing else in the movie that even comes close to this scene, and the gore is inconsistent for this reason.
My favorite scene, is the later discovery of the Doctor's wife. This scene I felt, was duelly creepy and believable enough to stick with me. The use of the flashlight to reveal the scene was very choice, and better employed than in Romero's later 'Land of the Dead'.
I cannot overstate this film's sluggish pace. Though, should we expect more from a movie about the walking un-dead? I believe the remake of 'Dawn of the Dead'(2004) mastered the sluggish zombie to rabid zombie ratio.
The acting in this movie is largely a moot point, for two reasons. Of course, we cannot expect Shakespearean academics in a zombie film. But also, we cannot expect much more from an English over-dub. I recommend finding a copy of the original Italian, though much of the acting is still notably bad, regardless.
It is a shame that such an interesting premise for a zombie movie is so poorly executed. I appreciated the voodoo magic undertones of this film, but 'Woodoo' (Zombie 2) hardly delivers. It might be valid to say this movie suffers from a lack of information, whereas a movie like 'Day of the Dead'(1985) seems to suffer from a surplus.
'Night of the Living Dead'(1968), the original Romero classic, is still, in my not-so-humble opinion, the quintessential zombie film. After all these years, it seems to offer the best ratio of believability over sheer entertainment. Every zombie movie has its weak and strong points, but I do believe Zombie 2 is one of the weakest films I've seen in this genre.
I must say I sympathize with zombie enthusiasts over this film. I have yet to see a zombie movie that I felt was simply unwatchable. 'Zombie 2' is indeed an interesting installment/artifact in the zombie genre, however, it seems by perusing the user comments, that a few of the fans of this genre are much like the zombies themselves... voraciously feeding off zombie films regardless of the craft of film-making. No matter, zombie movies are good fun regardless, and make for a chilling time no matter what. I had fun watching this movie as with any zombie flick.
-andy