Day of the Dead 2: Contagium (Video 2005) Poster

User Reviews

Add a Review
116 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
1/10
Disgrace to Romero's Name & Series
graymdb23 August 2005
I wasn't having high hopes for this movie when I was about to see it. However, I also didn't imagine it could've been this bad. The acting was as if the cast was reading the script in front of you, the special effects was basically drying glue off on the skin and peeling it off (this was amazing to me when I was in kindergarten), and throughout the movie a whole bunch of philosophical nonsense is thrown at you. The movie was an hour and a half long, which could've been finished at an hour tops. This movie was more of a prequel to the Dawn of the Dead remake, rather than Day of the Dead because the zombies in this film also ran. I didn't like the fact that some of the zombies could talk also, and the idea of certain "super" zombies. This movie was a nightmare and should be avoided at all costs, DO NOT let the title fool you.

Day of the Dead 2: Contagium is a disgrace to Romero and all his works.
66 out of 74 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
A man, his thermos, lame actors, lamer cinematography, lamest zombies
leagueofstruggle22 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Where to start? The prancing synchronized soldiers or the fact that after holding this film back an extra year they still couldn't add muzzle flashes to the weapons firing? The overuse of Karo syrup blood to cover the lack of any FX appliances or the dodgy zombies running, walking, dancing across the screen while the camera operator looks as if he's having a seizure? Dolleys, folks, with a budget like this they should have at least been able to afford a tripod for God's sake. At least they managed to add a CGI explosion for the beginning, even if it was the worst one I've ever seen to date. The opening 'gore' is, as I said, just ludicrous amounts of fake blood, I mean a lot, I suppose they expected since it was night shooting that no one would notice... I did. In fact only a blind man would miss just how awfully put together the precredit sequence is, and that blind man would no doubt comment on how horrible the foley voices are. After the wonderful credits we get a few individuals that may have been able to act when they were playing the scene live but... well how can you act when the editing crew can't sync up your voices properly later? Laugh as you see lip matching similar to a Shaw Brothers kung fu movie from the 70's. After some horrible dialog to 'establish' the characters, meaning giving them a quirk so we can empathize with them, or rather just to let us know what archetype Ana Clavell pulled out of a hat for each character we get to the mental hospital where extras 'act crazy' meaning they probably showed them One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and said, "Act like this!" We also get some expository dialog so we know the female counterparts are crazy as well and Emma is on Suicide Watch/ cut to across the street wrist scars rather than down the street. Why not have PLOT POINT flash across the screen a few times to beat it into our heads? We follow more dialog that is either horribly acted or badly written, wait it's both! Eventually a thermos of undead doom comes into play as one of the patients open a thermos found on a garbage detail and alas drops it to release horrible CGI! It was neither radiation nor the wrath of god that started the undead apocalypse! It was some idiot in a bathroom with a thermos and some bad computer graphics! I'm still waiting to see how this ties in to Romero's Day of the Dead... Oh wait! It doesn't! Telepsychic alien invaded zombie type people that share pain but don't sometimes. Hell, check Emma's sweet outbreak which is latex without any coloring! I can see how 75% of the budget went into special effects. You can also dig the guy that's so 'CRAZY' he eats vomit without knowing it! Hilarious! And above all CRAZY! You can also catch one of the actors squeezing pus from his infectious wounds or just pulling the latex off because he was tired of having the stuff on, your guess is as good as mine. Have I mentioned that I have yet to really see a camera held steady yet? We eventually get some backstory involving a Russian pilot with the actor playing him at least showing off what he learned in High School and a badly carved scar of a naked woman that sets off the apocalypse. In the current time period a meat loaf monster runs amok through the hospital and well, I hate to say it but the plot is linear and I'm making it sound more interesting than it really is. So far the best part of the film would be the hospital's head doctor's awesome bow tie... But... the characters are not really zombies.. they are extraterrestrial virus victims... Night of the Creeps did it better though. Upon reaching the zombie laden climax they break out a few appliances but still no blanks, muzzle flashes, or even squibs. Where did the budget go? Into Jim Dudelson's pocket? In the end, well they don't end it but rather tie up nothing at all and leave it open ended as if to supposedly allow it to tie in to Day of the Dead only it doesn't. If there is a God, he will somehow not allow Taurus Entertainment to make their money back via Blockbuster and Hollywood Video sales, unfortunately they will. This movie has such horrible direction, you have shambling zombies, running zombies, hyper-intelligent pan dimensional zombies and an ending worse than Umberto Lenzi's Nightmare City. This movie just screams amateur on so many levels. After all the hype and promises they did remove the promised zombie baby in light of Dawn of the Dead 2004's zombie baby, by simply cutting the ending off the movie.I applaud the efforts of Taurus Entertainment as the makers of the worst zombie movie ever. This made The Dead Hate the Living! look like an epic of Ben-Hur proportions. It made me pray that a few zombies from Zombie Lake would wander on screen or that Uwe Boll would make a cameo. By far the most amateur, weak zombie film ever produced in terms of plot, acting, special effects, and cinematography.

Burning this film would be an insult to fire.
27 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
A sad day for zombie fans
slake0929 August 2005
There are bad movies, worse movies and awful movies. Many of them are quite watchable, assuming that you know what you're getting into and are prepared.

Day of the Dead 2: Contagium isn't one of those.

This film is just plain lousy, as if no one involved in the production really cared about it. The special effects would make Tom Savini cringe in embarrassment. The dialog is dumb, the acting wooden. Many moments of extraneous "drama" are thrown in for no discernible reason. Possibly they wanted to form more of a plot than other zombie movies; if so then it was a failure. Long before you can get into the plot you're distracted by the guns that don't appear to be shooting, the too-obviously fake blood and the actors who can't seem to get into their parts.

Editing and direction? Nonexistent. Cuts between scenes are abrupt, without any kind of lead in whatsoever. Camera angles? Forget it. Anything at all redeemable about this movie? Nope.

Go watch one of the Romero movies. Even if you've seen it a dozen times, it'll be more interesting than this.
60 out of 69 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Trash
MetalChef124 January 2006
Zombie movies are by far my favorite, but this was absolutely horrid. I was starting to dig the explanation of the "virus," but it took forever to get there and then cut out before the conclusion of the movie. This is quite possibly one of the worst zombie movies I have ever seen. It may even be the worst horror movie I have ever seen (I think the remake of carnival of souls might still hold #1.) Stay as far away from this movie as you possibly can. The special effects were really cheesy. It might as well be called Night of the Comet 2. I'm not knocking Night of the Comet, it was great for its time and was supposed to have comedic elements and cheese as part of it. This was a serious attempt at a movie and an absolute failure. I am furthermore upset that the listing for this movie had George Romero's name attached to it. I scoured the credits and thank god it's not there. This film is a disgrace to the legacy that he has created for his fans. There is no reason to see this film. I watch bad movies for curiosity and I love a lot of bad horror films, but this is in an entirely different class. I feel precious minutes of my life were stolen from me. Please don't watch this film under any circumstances.
39 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Horrible!!!!!
Zappy66764 November 2005
I'm a huge Romero fan..........and I loved all of HIS Dead movies. If you see the behind the scenes on Day of the Dead 2: Contagium, Ms. Clavell acts as if her movie is the first greatest zombie movie ever made, and that she is the only one who thought up of the idea of making a great zombie movie ever!! Did she ever hear of GOERGE ROMERO---and HIS.......NIGHT, DAWN, DAY, AND LAND OF THE DEAD MOVIES?? Honey, wake up and smell the dead flesh!! This movie is a must see, she says!! The acting, edit, and direction sucked. Thank God George Romero had nothing to do with this trash. Chalk this one up with Children of the Dead folks!! It's just as good! My advice, if you see this DVD in a store, take the only 1 copy of this movie, and chuck it under the shelf!! They'll find it years from now when the store closes and moves all it's furniture out of the building! This movie not only ripped George off, but it sucked!! I'm burning my copy right now. I give it a big ZERO!!
42 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
A shame
judaspriest25 September 2005
First of all, its a shame they use the title of a George A Romero movie and pretend this piece of crap is a sequel of it. Okay, they have the rights on the title, but this movie IS NO SEQUEL. ITS PURE TRASH. Second, I read some were that this one was shot on 35mm film! My god! It looks like a 1CCD miniDV!!! I believe that the producers are lying and saying that this was shot on film to make look the movie more important...but if this movie was shot on 35mm, it have the worst photography of cinemas history. Well, that about having a 8 million budget...yeah, sure. Zombie Bloodbath 3 have more production value than this one. All in all, a boredom, a piece of trash, a "8 million movie(hahah) were the guns have not flashes when they are shot. Avoid this one...
38 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
God-Awful
robbpastor22 October 2005
Save your time and just watch the last 5 minutes...what a piece of garbage! I can't believe that this movie costs as much as they say it did. My buddies and I could have done a better job with a camcorder, There are some good zombies, but not until the very end. This could have easily been a Troma movie! The acting sucked! The story line was weak and things just did not move along. I cant believe that I wasted 90 minutes of my life watching such a horrible piece of crap....A disgrace to the genre. It's disappointing because there was a great buzz surrounding this film. There is a website for Taurus Films (the company that produced and shot this piece of crap) and they are offering the chance to be in one of their films. This must be how they got everyone that is associated with Day of the Dead 2.
25 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Why do I do this to myself?
Beowolf200120 October 2005
I am a zombie aficionado. Unfortunately, most zombie films stink. This is pure and simple fact. So now I've watched Contagium (I refuse to honor it with a Day of the Dead sub title, since it doesn't deserve it and is in no way connected with George Romero) and The Dead Next Door in the same week. Well, thats about three hours of my life wasted. This was simply a crappy, bad film. While it had better production values than say, any Italian Giallo Zombie film of the 80's and left crap by J.P. Bookwalter and Todd Sheets in the dust, it was still garbage. The writers didn't know if they wanted to make a Romero type Zombie film or a Return of the Living Dead Zombie film, so the zombies bounce back and forth between the two. The lame opening tries to tie this craporama in with the Romero films, but don't buy the hype. Every Day Has a Beginning is simply a rip off of "Every Saga Has a Beginning" from Star Wars and tries desperately to sucker the viewer into believing this has something to do with the Romero Films, the five opening minutes of any of Georges epics are way better than this movie. While there are a few nice gore scenes, there is no logic or real continuity in the story itself, which kills the whole movie. Watch this crummy waste of time if you must, but don't be surprised when the credits roll and you scream "WHY DID I DO THIS TO MYSELF? You've been warned!
28 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
A wonderful example of...
DelendaEst26 May 2004
Warning: Spoilers
a cheap cash in on a now popular genre. It is obvious that Taurus wanted to cash in on the Dawn remake so they popped this out to make some money. This film should be avoided at all costs.

The film is in a sense a prequel to Day of the dead. It explains the apparent zombie outbreak to a Russian spy plane that crashes in 1968. Inside the plane are a dead pilot and some strange vials. The vials are brought to a military hospital where the patients and staff start getting a weird sickness. First off the outbreak should never be explained. The ambiguous nature of Romero's universe makes it work. When you explain it the story just turns into a cheeseball fest. From there a special forces team comes through and kills everyone, destroys the hospital and the vials except for one.

35 years go by and now the military hospital is a mental hospital. From here you have a horrible socio/political attempt to get the social commentary like the original day of the Dead. Unfortunately the film lacks Romero's touch and the acting is dreadful. The film is gory however but not at the same intensity as Savini's work. Check it out for the same reason you watched the Dawn Remake. it has zombies but it is no Romero.
33 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
Craptacular fun, but no Romero flick by any stretch.
junk-mail-427 August 2005
Yeah yeah, we all know the story about the rights to the earlier Romero flicks, so it's no mystery how this gained the nomenclature "Day of the Dead 2." A better question is why? Because the only way this film should be mentioned in relation to the benchmark work of Romero is in the phrase "...and isn't nearly as good as what Romero can do." It's name is opportunistic cash cow milking, no more. Let's be absolutely clear, this is a Day of the Dead sequel in the same way that the American remake of Get Carter is an inspired and intelligent reappraisal of the original. Not at all, basically.

That aside, it's not a bad movie and is a fun way to waste an hour and a half if you enjoy zombie flicks. Competently shot, if uninspiring and far from inspirational. The writing is ho hum, introducing a pathetic and pointless alien DNA exposition (the whole point is you don't KNOW why there are zombies, you idiots! Cah!) The acting is TV level but enjoyable enough.

It rolls along nicely, gives you what you want and expect from a film about the undead, then stops abruptly and rather weakly. No real gut munching, but some nasty effects. It could well be an extended episode of the Outer Limits with extra blood directed by a film grad and his mates over a dull weekend.

All in all, it just suffers from the expectations of its name. Left as merely Contagion it'd probably get a much needed break from let down viewers. Forget everything you know about the supreme original trilogy, switch your mind off, and enjoy.
25 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews