In 1968, in the Ravenside Military Hospital in a military facility in Pennsylvania, the army loses control of an experiment of a lethal bacteriologic weapon that changes the DNA and ... See full summary »
James Glenn Dudelson
John F. Henry II
Having recently witnessed the horrific results of a top secret project to bring the dead back to life, a distraught youth performs the operation on his girlfriend after she's killed in a motorcycle accident.
James T. Callahan,
In 1987 serial murderer and rapist Abbot Hayes disappeared from the morgue. Shortly afterwards, a zombie plague swept his hometown and many lost their lives in the ensuing battle. Now, ... See full summary »
While illegally selling one canister of Trioxyin-5, Charlie Garrison is murdered by a zombie. His nephew Julian Garrison finds two canisters hidden in the attic of his house with his girlfriend Jenny and they ask their friend Cody to analyze and research the chemical product. Cody finds that the composition of the product is very similar to ecstasy and he processes the chemical, making a large quantity of a drug that he called "Z" to make money. Using the services of the local drug dealer, they sell "Z" in the college campus. In the Halloween, the DJ and Jenny's brother Jeremy organizes a rave party. Meanwhile, Julian, Jenny and Cody disclose that the drug transform the users in zombies, and with the support of two weird agents, they try to stop the distribution of "Z". Written by
Claudio Carvalho, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Both this film and the previous entry Return of the Living Dead: Necropolis (2005) stray away from the series' rules that the Trioxin zombies are no longer the indestructible juggernauts of the first movie three movies, but instead much weaker and sometimes are seen to be dispatched with no more than a few body gun shots. Prior to this film, nothing short of incineration or electrocution with extreme high voltage would destroy a Trioxin zombie. See more »
In the lab, the test animal "Mr Stinky" is a rat the first time we see him, then a gerbil, then a dwarf hamster. See more »
Listen, if you can't trust your drug dealer, who can you trust? Huh?
See more »
Man, there are gonna be some seriously ticked-off fans. I mean, I'm a fan of the first 3 films (mostly 1 and 3) but I'm talking about the "die-hards" who are gonna be even more ticked than me because after 2 years of "in-the-making", THIS is what they come up with.
Sci-Fi channel can make all of the bad movies-of-the-week that it wants but making sequels to cult favorites like "Return of the Living Dead" is, well, they should really just know better.
As if part 4 wasn't bad enough (and it was awful), we get treated to something even worse: part 5. Having absolutely no redeeming qualities, it essentially plays like a 2-hour demonstration of what not to do when making a movie. Not even once does it rise to "so bad it's good" status as it's clear the writer and director aren't aware of ANY of the rules to good "bad movie"-making...such as this one: "Plot holes can exist as long as there is enough action to distract the viewer from focusing on them,"
The makers of this film apparently think every viewer has the IQ of a coat hanger because the plot holes come fast and steady from the beginning through to the end. Within the first ten minutes, we find ourselves asking: "Why is it that some of the high-school students in the P.E. class look to be about 30 years old?", "Where did the note about the guy's uncle come from?", "How can the main character have lived in his house for years (judging by the dust in the attic) without ever knowing about that secret room?" and "What exactly did Peter Coyote do to deserve this?" and then later, my favorite: "What high school lets unsupervised students use syringes on laboratory rats?" Meanwhile, we get mostly bad dialogue scenes instead of action (or camera work, atmosphere, good music, good dialogue scenes...really, take your pick), to go with these glaring questions.
Believe me, I'm not nit-picking. I normally don't mind plot-holes in otherwise entertaining movies. If I was able to overlook them while watching "House of the Dead", I'd say I'm pretty forgiving. I don't think a movie has to be completely in sync with reality, but come on, at least make an effort!
Here, it's obvious that someone was just too lazy or too inept to fix them...and that is just one problem that needs fixing! What about the fact that the zombies not only talk, but when they do, they sound just like...humans?! (Well, actually, that was more the case in part 4. Here, they only really talk when the opportunity for a lame one-liner presents itself.) Still, what about the fact that they feel pain? Or that they run (but only when convenient)? Honestly, I think this was made by people who have never seen a single zombie flick. If you don't agree, then explain the makeup effects because, let me tell you: gray face powder and latex cheekbones do not a zombie make.
Like I said, fans are gonna be ticked and die-hards may well storm the Sci-Fi Channel HQ. They would have been wise to change this to a stand-alone film instead of a sequel, but as it is, maybe "Return of the Living Dead 5: Dig Your Own Grave" would have been a better title.
39 of 56 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?