IMDb > Return of the Living Dead II (1988) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Return of the Living Dead: Part II
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Return of the Living Dead II More at IMDbPro »Return of the Living Dead: Part II (original title)

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 7 of 12: [Prev][2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]
Index 116 reviews in total 

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

A very clever sequel

Author: Michael Bregman ( from Gan-Yavne, Israel
15 January 2001

This is the first movie in the RETURN OF series that I've seen. I was about 10 at the time and I just loved this movie. I've recently seen it again back to back with the first movie.

The movie was done in a way that you don't have to see the first movie to understand it, but you enjoy it more if you did.

The story here wasn't as great as the one in the first movie, but it's still an excellent horror tale. Some little touches, like the 2 "resurrected" characters from the first film and the Michael Jackson joke make this movie an original classic.

Zombies kick ass! And eat brains! Braaaaaaaainssss!

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

There goes the living dead, and the neighbourhood...

Author: Renaldo Matlin from Oslo, Norway
1 February 1999

Note: I saw this picture for the first time when I was 12, and a decade later I still find it entertaining. When two bullies open an old barrel accidentally dumped by the army, they release a toxic gas that turns the living into zombies and the dead into the un-dead. Spoof on the George Romero-type horror movie mixes in comedy with fair results. It should be exciting and funny enough for the average joe. Young Michael Kenworthy is more than hero enough for kids who should happen to watch this when their parents are out (but beware, the gore is plentiful). James Karen as a gravedigger and veteran comedian Philip Bruns as "Doc" are both a hoot.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Children's movie

Author: Petter Werner from Oslo, Norway
12 April 2007

I just saw this movie and i got to tell you that this is not worth watching. But i have to add to this that when i was going to see it, I didn't realize that it was supposed to be a comedy/horror. So if you like movies that are just stupid and whit lousy gore then maybe you'll enjoy it. But i didn't. First of all this movie isn't that old and should have no excuse fore the poor gore effects. Im a huge fan of shocking gore, and this movie didn't have a bit of it. I know that its a low budget film, but others have managed to make a lot out off a low budget. If you like this genre of horror/splatter/comedy then watch Braindead or Bad taste instead.

The movie takes place in a small us town, and a couple of kids open a container whit poison acids witch helps raise the dead.

The acting is poor, the directing is poor and the gore is poor. The only thing that is a bit funny in the movie, is cut off head!

Excuse my spelling please!!!

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

One of the Best Zombie Films Ever!

Author: fibreoptic from England
9 February 2004

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie is simply awesome! Now this is the way zombie movies should be made. It has action, tension and a bit of horror. Romero's dead movies are good but can get a bit boring at times but Return Of The Living Dead Part Two has thrills throughout and yes it's a comedy nearing dangerously close to the border line of spoof (the Michael Jackson thriller zombie scene). The make-up is fantastic especially the zombie that comes out of the water tunnel (same zombie from the basement in the first one?). This is more of a remake than a sequel, it improves on the first one and i'm glad to see in this one the zombies don't sprint! And does Joey's girlfriend get some kind of sexual pleasure from letting him eat her brains? Bizarre! Shame that Part 3 took away the comedy because that one really sucked! C'mon, let's have a Part 4 like this one...more of the same pleeeeeeeease!!! 10/10

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

no Don Calfa, no Linnea Quigley, and no Dan O'Bannon

Author: Son_of_Mansfield from Mansfield, Pennsylvania.
28 June 2003

may contain spoiling comments

Strikes one, two, and three for this bad sequel. Everything that is remotely interesting was done better in the original, from the Tarman and two idiots down to the jokes. With the exception of the scene where the zombies come out of their graves, the humor was painful. In one scene early on, the zombies have the repairman right where they want him and then when the TV turns on, the twenty or so zombies let him get away while they watch aerobics. The main cool aspect of the zombies in the first film was that they were the flip side of Romero zombies. They ran, they talked, and they fooled dispatchers. No such fun in this movie. As for our heros, I would not have minded if they were all eaten. The little kid lives through the whole movie? Returning cast members James Karen and Thom Matthews add little, while Clu Gulager and Miguel A. Nunez Jr. are missed.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

dinosaurs aren't the only creatures with brains the size of a pea

Author: Jonny_Numb from Hellfudge, Pennsylvania
15 May 2003

Not too far into viewing "Return of the Living Dead Part II," maybe only ten minutes, I began to make a mental list of the truly terrible zombie movies I'd seen in my life: "Burial Ground"..."Zombie Lake"..."Night of the Zombies"..."House of 1,000 Corpses" (not really a zombie movie, but it was directed by one). Then, not too much later, I began to make a mental list of terrible sequels to generally decent horror movies, in particular the soulless retreads put out just to make a buck; first in my mind was "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2," followed by "The Hills Have Eyes, Part 2." And then, getting back to watching RotLDII, I knew, only maybe 30 minutes in, that this would be awarded with a high position on BOTH lists.

Okay, the story: a military pothead transporting a truck of that nasty poison gas that caused the zombie plague in the FIRST film, loses two barrels, a trio of woefully untalented kids come along and let loose the gas, thereby waking up the dead in a local cemetery. Did I mention that James Karen and Thom Mathews (who were both incinerated in the FIRST film) are hanging around said cemetery, lopping heads off of corpses and even reciting some dialogue from the FIRST film (the "like this job??" exchange is just embarrassing here)? Oh, for fun. Anyway (*yawn*), the poorly made-up dead rise as a way-too-resourceful kid (Michael Kenworthy) tries to tell his dumb-as-bricks sister and a TV repairman (who, like everyone else here, over-enunciate every syllable of dialogue and every facial expression) about the threat, which leads them to a drunkard doctor's home (this guy seems to be a stand-in for Don Calfa's mortician in the FIRST film), after which they scuff up his classic car and head to the hospital and.... Oh, why bother with the rest? You get the idea: Scream, scream. Yummy brains. Munch, munch.

Yes, RotLDII is one of the worst movies I've ever seen, and I am both a fan of zombies AND well-done sequels. The makeup is absolutely pathetic, the gore is generally lax, the acting and dialogue flat, and the attempts at comedy fail miserably (a jab at Michael Jackson has not aged well). Everything about the movie is bottom-drawer, from the amateur-hour performances (which consist primarily of a LOT of screaming and yelling) to the made-for-TV musical score, to the inept direction and lame one-liners ("That's why you're dead, jerk! A big mouth and no brains!"). In a way, I regret writing this review because negative reviews tend to provoke curiosity in skeptics, but anything I write can't come close to the actual EXPERIENCE of sitting and watching this trashfest, jaw dropped in stark disbelief of how bad a horror movie can really be. Writer-director Ken Wiederhorn seemed to have absolutely no confidence in his script or even the basic idea for this film, and it shows (he has even stated that he has "no feelings" for the horror genre). But keep in mind he did direct and cowrite "Shock Waves," a 1977 underwater Nazi zombie movie that's far superior to this rubbish. Seek that out instead.


Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

A Cheap Sequel

Author: horror7777 from New York
28 August 2000

Return of the Living Dead Part II IS a cheap sequel, if you can even call it that. It makes no sense, and the overall atmosphere is poking fun at the original, The Return of the Living Dead. It's characters are hollow, and it's zombies look fake. Thom Mathews's girlfriend in this one plays an unrealistic jerk who would actually let her boyfriend eat her brains. Girls: If your boyfriend wanted to eat your brains, would you let him? The movie's plot is also hollow, under poor, if even childish direction. If zombies did exist, they would act like they acted in the original, not like they acted in the cheap sequel. James Karen and Thom Mathews, who were brilliant in the original, seemed tired and childlike. I imagine it must hurt for two great actors to waste their talent and act like whining babies. As much as this sequel tries to copy the success of the original, and insult it at the same time, it fails everywhere you look. And the result is trailer park trash.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Silly sequel. Lacking the freshness of the original.

Author: vip_ebriega from Philippines
9 February 2007

My Take: Too repetitive to match up to the original.

Much of the guffaws in the original are lost in this sequel, in favor of off-the-wall humor, but still, it's fun it a simple way. The humor is abundant and the make-up is fine. Unfortunately, it could have been funnier.

James Karen and Thom Matthews come back from the original, with different roles, and they're the mostly the source of all the hilarity. The new story has a kid discovering the barrel of gas that reanimates the dead, and a group of bullies pushes him to open it. Now the gas is released and spread through out the cemetery and the town.

Don't expect it to be better than the original. Like all sequels, it could be better of on the back of the rental shelf on your local video store.

Rating: * out of 5.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Don't bother with this movie, unless you really want to waste $2.00 and 2 hours.

Author: jimdare from New Jersey
24 August 2003

I didn't see Return of the Living Dead, but somehow I doubt that really matters....

I rented this movie expecting another mediocre rip-off of Night of the Living Dead, for instance Dawn of the Dead and Children of the Dead. What I got was much worse. There was none of the original zombie lore present in this movie (e.g. what the zombies are capable of, how to kill them, etc.). Its attempts at humor fail miserably, but this may be because it was aimed at 12-year-old's. I should have gotten a clue when it seemed that all the adults (even the doctor) in the movie were morons. Be that as it may, other films have done humor in horror much better; for instance, the (original) Texas Chain-Saw Massacre is a riot.

This is the worst "horror" movie I have ever seen, and I have seen many bad horror movies -- I'm even sort of a fan of bad horror movies. This one, however, was atrocious. I cannot believe there are 5 of these movies.

Don't bother with this movie, unless you really want to waste $2.00 and 2 hours.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

Revenge of the 80's: The unnecessary sequel!

Author: Miyagis_Sweaty_wifebeater ( from Sacramento, CA
11 June 2004

Return of the Living Dead II (1988) was a worthless and unnecessary sequel to the classic Return of the Living Dead. I have no love for crappy sequels and the 80's was filled with them. This is your typical 80's flick filled with dated humor, bad acting and very little gore. The makers were probably aiming for a P.G.-13 film but this was when the R-rating was box office gold (especially for the horror film genre). Like all of these unnecessary sequels, it's too cute for it's own good and it shoots it's self in both feet in doing so. But it does have a couple of chuckles (and I do mean a couple). Not bad if it's on cable or satellite T.V. but I wouldn't go out of my way to watch it.

Not recommended.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 7 of 12: [Prev][2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
External reviews Parents Guide Official site
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history