IMDb > Return of the Living Dead II (1988) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Return of the Living Dead: Part II
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
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 10 of 12: [Prev][5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]
Index 120 reviews in total 

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Lame sequel

Author: Christopher Smith
16 October 2007

I'm not a big fan of the original Return of the Living Dead. While there was a time when I may have considered the picture a classic, a recent viewing left me wondering what I saw in it in the first place. Still, watching the original again did get me wondering about the numerous sequels that followed. This first sequel (or second part if you believe the title) is pretty much the original with little kids. It also shares a number of the problems I had with the original. Once again the characters are annoying, making little room for sympathy. Much of the dialog is also annoying and unrealistic. However, the biggest fault lies with the story. There are some noticeable plot holes, logic problems, and general lack of creative spark hurts the proceedings. Same goes for the directing, which is competent, but uninspired. The director didn't seem to put a great deal of effort into the film. You shouldn't either. 3/10

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

An exact sequel

3/10
Author: Horrorible_Horror_Films from Outer Mongolia
29 September 2006

I'm not really sure why this is rated R, the zombies are more cartoonish in this one, with much less gore, none of it realistic, and there no profanity or nudity or anything like that.

The music in the graveyard scene when the smoke seeps into the ground has to be some of the worst music ever done ever.

Now about these actors. There were a bunch of young actors in this movie, and I wish every last one of them was eaten by a zombie, but unfortunately that didn't happen. Also, the same two idiots who played the medical supply factory employees are in this one too, but they work for them graveyard AND the same exact stuff happens to them, and they even repeat some of the same dialogue, I thought that was pretty funny.

This was a pretty bad movie, but titanic sucked more.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

An empty-headed farce.

4/10
Author: lost-in-limbo from the Mad Hatter's tea party.
25 April 2006

After the army thinks that they've collected all the containers that hold the zombies and its devastating gas, one of them falls off the back of a army truck into a creek. The next day a couple of kids; Jesse and the bully Billy discover the container. Jesse thinks it's to dangerous to fiddle around with, but Billy and one of his buddies return to crack it open. In doing so they release the gas that moves over a nearby graveyard and in no matter of time the dead are up and walking again, while snacking on unexpected people. So it's up to Jesse, his sister and a cable installer who bump into a couple of grave robbers and one of their girlfriend's to combat the threat with the help of the local doctor.

First thing that will probably hit you when you're watching this flick is; Haven't we been down this path before, but better? Oh yes, most definitely. "Return of the Living Dead Part II" keeps basically the same set-up and plenty of deja vu scenarios. The only difference is the location of this madness is staged in a small town. But saying that its not a patch of the original, which blended the black comedy and horror quite well. On this occasion it's plain weak and pointless! The broad humour doesn't pay off with the constant slapstick gags getting worst and stale after each one. Simply it tries to be funny, but it's just so blatantly dumb that you just can't stop rolling your eyes in disbelief. Even the comedy duo of Thom Mathews and James Karen return to play the same act they did in the first, but as different characters. But it just didn't quite translate here with the comic-book humour being plain juvenile and drawn-out. The script followed the same fate as well. It's rather a witless experience that throws around pure drivel with the cast either yelling or screaming it out. These nonsensical characters had no redeeming qualities, well maybe the clueless doctor gave me a laugh at times, but the rest of these senseless twats seemed like they were there just to annoy you rather create some fun. Especially when you got a twit of a young kid in the lead role! The performances are just gawd awful. While, the cliché story is a simple rehash, but does labour in spots and it feels rather lacklustre as a whole. Things just seem to fit in place too much. The suspense is gone that's if you're looking for any because it's replaced by stupidity. The irritably, encroaching score is incredibly cheesy with an erratic rock soundtrack that makes its way strangely into the latter half of the film. What made the film more bearable though, had to be the impressively colourful, but gooey makeup effects of the zombies. They were the life of the party and far more interesting than the bland living characters. Actually, the set-designs and technical side I thought was well-handled for a low-budgeted production. The film looked great, but everything else is not-so. I like horror-comedies, but this one is failure in both fields.

This uninspired effort by director / writer Ken Wiederhorn (who made the FAR better "Shock Waves") is as hokey as you can get. I don't hate it, because I enjoyed it to "some" degree… oh my! But more often it seems way off the mark.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

2 Words...Freakin' Awesome!!!

Author: mmmCookies from Pittsburgh, PA
24 November 2002

Only 1 word comes to mind when trying to sum up the nature of this beast, AWESOME!!! This comedic-horror gem fits perfectly for all generations. This movie hits you hard with every angle necessary for an excellent film. Stunning directing, amazing editing, and top-class acting. The zombies need for brains and only brains, shows the genious work done by director Ken Wiederhorn. This is a must see for all fans that find themselves in the horror and comedy section everytime they go to the movie store. 9/10 even though 8/10 might be a little more realistic.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

* * out of 4.

Author: Brandon L. Sites (brandonsites1981@yahoo.com) from USA
2 June 2002

The dead are raised yet again by a group of kids fooling around with a mysterious gas that accidently fell off a military truck. Film has some scary and funny moments and good performances by James Karen and Thom Matthews, but comes nowhere near the intensity of the original and also lacks its style and good special effects.

Rated R; Graphic Violence and Profanity.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

UH OH

3/10
Author: cossallpsycho from Nottingham, England
27 January 2002

This is quite possibly the most boring Zombie film that I've ever seen. I honestly wanted every single one of the main characters to die a most painful death. I've not seen the first installment but I have seen the third and am happy to say that that one is much much better. I don't know if this film is supposed to be funny but it does have its moments. The stand-out is, of course, Tarman who is about as scary as a man in a slimy green suit!...Just a minute!!!...

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

silly, confused film

4/10
Author: Dennis G. Barnes (Zod-2) from Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
23 November 2001

This isn't a very good film. Why can't film makers take horror movies seriously? As bad as this film is I didn't have too hard a time sitting through it. The same cannot be said for Part 3 which is just terrible.

In this film the dead are brought back to life again. In the Return series, unlike in the Night of the Living Dead, the zombies can't be killed. Or can they? This series just doesn't make sense. What starts off as a pretty good suspenseful film quickly turns into a comedy and a bad one at that. The acting is terrible but I think it was meant to be that way, regardless it doesn't help. The first zombie we see is great, very scary and well introduced but he is quickly done away with and never seen from again. The rest of the zombies are boring as they prance around town.

This movie is supposed to be funny, it is not. I would assume it is supposed to be scary, it is not. The weird thing is it is still okay to watch. I don't recommend the film but you could rent worse (like Part 3). If you want a living dead film stick to the Romero entries in the genre (I haven't seen the first ROTLD film so I can't recommend it but it's supposed to be good). This film rates a 3 out of 10.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Amazingly they manage to almost match the first in quality!

8/10
Author: Sic Coyote from Staffs, England
24 May 2001

A brilliantly funny and fun spoof of Night of the Living Dead, just as the first one was but this is also sidestepping over into looking a bit more like the eighties brand of horror movie with some eighties in-jokes which are so well timed even though they might have been groan inducing if anywhere else are really funny because of where they are placed. The plot isn't a whole lot different than the first with the zombie running around after peoples brains but now it seems they may have found how to kill the zombies but I won't spoil it. All in all a good sequel to a great film with just about as many laughs and it helps to have a seemingly quite larger budget to work with as well as advances in effects. Great fun viewing, much recommended to anyone who likes horror. 8/10 Not quite as original as the original but since that there was less to be original about within the genre.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Good for a fifth sequel

8/10
Author: aaronzombie (aaronzombie@aol.com) from Yucaipa, CA
10 June 2000

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I consider this as the fifth installment of Romero's zombie series since I consider ROTLD as the 4th(Don't flame me for this comment ok.) !!!SOME SPOILERS!!! 3 kids open one of the canisters full of toxic waste, causing it to spread all over a cemetary.

The dead rise up and trap a band of survivors in a suburban neighborhood. Good story, effects, humor, and music. **** out of *****.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

This movie just sucks

1/10
Author: Jay from philadelphia
22 April 2000

This is one of the worst comedy/horror movie I have ever seen. with a name like return of the living dead 2 I wasn't expecting much in the first place but even those expectations were too high. The evil dead trilogy did it right on how to mix comedy and horror but this movie fails horribly. There is one scene in particular where a zombies head is in a bag and it's moving around. So the man un-zips the bag picks the head up and starts screaming then he points at it and puts his finger into the heads mouth, just dumb things like that. Worst movie I've seen in a long time. Rent it if you want to see how not to do a comedy/horror flick.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 10 of 12: [Prev][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