House of the Dead 2 (TV Movie 2005) Poster

(2005 TV Movie)

User Reviews

Review this title
54 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
For Hardened Zombie Fans
coldstick22 May 2006
My friends and I were in the mood for a really, really bad movie today. We weren't sure whether to rent 'Sasquatch' or 'Vampires vs. Zombies', but somewhere along the line we decided on 'House of the Dead II'. Obviously, we weren't expecting anything more than B-movie schlock we could point and laugh at, and that's exactly what we got. Better than the first one (as if that counts for anything!), House of the Dead II is an ultra-cheesy gorefest that will satisfy hardened zombie fans, but will turn off most mainstream movie watchers. However, the fact that you're actually on the internet, reading reviews for the movie 'House of the Dead II' means that, most likely, you are already a hardened horror/zombie fan, so you'll probably like this. It has all the 'zombie movie' goods: gore, decapitation scenes, naked chicks, gunfire, etc. Don't expect anything more than that and you'll have a decent time.
39 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Better Than Expected
anthonyscullion4 June 2006
Didn't hope for much when I sat down to watch this but, as said, it was a better than expected.

Expect low budget, but not too bad - i've seen much worse in special effects and overall production.

Some of the scenes have been lifted completely from Resident Evil so on the whole its not too original -

And with both of those things in mind its okay - I jumped a few times and the build up of tension when trapped by hordes of the undead was pretty good (although very Res Evil).

There's some good humour too, with more than one nod to films it owes something to (which is good as opposed to just outright plagiarism), again particularly Res Evil.

I wouldn't run out and buy a copy, but I would watch it again sometime, there's worse ways to spend an hour and a half.
14 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Amazing Sequel
springsunnywinter23 May 2007
I just can't believe that a sequel to an absolute rubbish film would turn out to be so good. After watching the first crappy House of the Dead I thought this one will also be the same, I rented it because I couldn't find another movie that looks good. Uwe Boll did not direct it so I was saying to myself "It shouldn't be bad as the first one". The film was much better than I expected and I have only 2 words for the make-up effects; awesome & mind-blowing definitely the best make-up for any zombie film. The story is really good about a mad scientist in a university campus whose dream is to bring the dead back to life but the virus broke out after an experiment on a dead girl so it took only one zombie to spawn an army, the special forces are sent to find the patient zero which is the original zombie from where the infection started and create an antidote to stop the plague. This is the third video game movie I've liked the other two are Resident Evil & Resident Evil: Apocalypse. I've seen it twice in my 2-day hire although I usually watch rented films only once. Do not mistake that the sequel is crap just because the first one was, House of the Dead fans won't be disappointed. Thank goodness Uwe Boll did not direct it and thank you Mike Hurst!
26 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Marginally Better Than The First
BHorrorWriter12 May 2006
The original HOUSE OF THE DEAD was a joke! An insult to horror fans worldwide. Uwe Boll is and forever will be a hack in the Directors chair. There is no style or merit to his work. It is all plain, dull and over-the-top in a way that does not represent a keen and penetrating eye for Cinema.

With that said...HOUSE OF THE DEAD 2 raises the bar...slightly. The story seemed to be put together better and had a focus in mind. Borrowing elements from previous zombie flicks like DAY OF THE DEAD, 28 DAYS LATER and countless others...HOUSE OF THE DEAD 2 did not break any new ground. It did, however offer a story that was not painful to watch.
24 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A badass sequel superior to the original(That I didn't see)
jrmoviemaniac30 January 2013
First of all,I didn't see the first film cuz I saw a review of it and it looks completely awful.I saw the sequel and man I was very surprised:I liked it.Tons of action with no BS like slow mo,shaky cam,or jump cuts(Yes I'm looking at u Taken 2).I liked the two leads Ed Quinn and the always gorgeous Emmanuelle Vaugier.They kicked a$$ and they were likable.It does have some problems:Some characters are disposable and there are some stupid moments(no spoilers here).Anyway,its not as bad as some people say and it should've been in theatres unlike the first one.A $6 million production?The money is on the screen.It looks a lot better than a lot of films with 10 times that budget.It was entertaining!
10 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Entertaining and Gore Zombie Action Movie
claudio_carvalho5 March 2007
In Guesta Verde University, the deranged Professor Curien (Sid Haig) is trying to bring back the dead, killing students for the experiment. There is an outbreak of zombies in the campus, and the government sends a NSA medical research team, formed by Dr. Alexandra Morgan a.k.a. Nightingale (Emmanuelle Vaugier) and lieutenant Ellis (Ed Quinn), with a special force leaded by lieutenant Dalton (Sticky Fingaz), trying to get the zero sample from the first generation zombie. The team has a very short time to accomplish their mission and leave the place before missiles are sent to destroy the area. However, the place is crowded of hyper sapiens and the group has to fight to survive.

"House of the Dead 2" is not so bad as indicated in many reviews in IMDb, actually it is an entertaining and gore zombie action movie. The silly beginning recalls "American Pie", with many partially naked women, and then the story shifts to a funny zombie movie. The choreography of the movements of the undead, the makeup and the special effects are good. I do not play the game, but I like zombie and trash movies, therefore I believe this film is underrated for fans of this genre. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "House of the Dead 2 - A Casa dos Mortos 2"
20 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
So much better than the first one...
ded_meet24 September 2006
I'm a zombie-flick fan. =) I'll admit that readily, but it took me several months before I finally saw this movie because I was so utterly disappointed with the first one. In the first movie they had these incredibly annoying, flashing video game-sequences or something cut into the movie - probably to save money since that way they only had to make half a movie.

None of that crap here thank god! This was actually a pretty decent horror movie - with zombies! I say decent but for a zombie movie it was pretty darn good. The special effects were better than average for a zombie movie, so was actually everything about this movie. Even the zombies stagger better in this one than usual! The story has a good pace with plenty of "plot" and action through-out the movie, and the acting was surprisingly good. And with that I mean that some of the actors were actually really good and the others decent!

My verdict is that this movie is in no way a future classic by any means, but it is a decent horror movie and as far as zombie-movies are concerned - definitely a trend-breaker in the sense that it falls into the "decent"-category as a whole. Ususally zombie-flicks are either really good - or quite the opposite. So if you are looking for a decent horror movie or a good zombie-movie - see this one. But avoid the prequel at any cost...
24 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
"Zombie" Writ Large and Spoken Unashamedly
dianerpessler-4616426 June 2015
While missing the unique touch of visionary director Uwe Boll, this sequel to his original classic film is a superb entry in the Zombie Canon. Michael Hurst certainly does spectacular work from the director's chair himself and screen writer Michael Roesch's supremely crafted script gives Hurst a treasure trove to work with. What truly distinguishes this fine motion picture from other stories of the undead is it actually is unafraid to use the word Zombie. It is a bold creative choice that most productions universally avoid and hearing the word spoken aloud by characters in a film is quite a moving experience for they who study the genre. The cast is uniformly excellent but there are several actors that truly standout. Sid Haig, of course, is nothing less than superb. The underrated Ed Quinn gives another stunning performance and it is one that brings an unequaled intensity, strength, and humanity to what might well be a stock character if played by a lesser artist. Overall, this is a extraordinary horror film of unusual quality, a cinematic triumph for the creative team and fine cast alike.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
much better then the first
fireman1012824 February 2006
i seen house of the dead 2 on sci fi last night and i have to admit it is much better the part one. The zombies look pretty good. unlike the old one the zombies are believable on this one. you don't see zombies jumping around at like 10 feet int he air. The story line isn't that bad and the acting is moderatly good. It is just a shame that it didn't go to theathres. it could have probably did better then the original.

on the the main story of the movie. a scientist makes a zombie girl thru his experiments and she escapes and starts biting people. an outbreak happens and the movie goes of from there pretty entertaining. all in all i would defetily recamind this movie to people who are bored at home on an Saturday. i would have to give this one a 5 out of a maximum of ten.
17 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Sleeping pill the movie
Bardok8200019 July 2021
I'm surprised to see this has zero reviews, in fact no, no I'm not. An extremely dull and contrived outing from some weirdo called Michael Hurst, who obviously didn't give enough of a sht to do any research on the first film. So what we're given is the most generic and predictable "zombie" movie you could expect, not an ounce of creativity or thought put in. It's not even a sequel apart from a few minor references, I dare say it's borderline plagiarism, I hate to say this but Uwe Bolls movie is better than this hot piece of trash. Yes I'm telling you that a man notorious for making phenomenally crappy movies, can make better films than this. That's it, just give it a miss and sleep like a baby.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A clear improvement
paul_haakonsen24 July 2010
Alright, well I will start off by saying this movie is a much needed movie to save the reputation of the "House of the Dead" games after the first movie that came out so savagely torn it apart. This second installment is so much better than the first one, that after having seen this one, you wish you never laid eyes on the first one, or at least don't want to openly admit to having seen the first one.

The storyline in "House of the Dead 2" is simple and easy to follow, and has much more depth and meat (no pun intended) than the first movie. And already here, this movie is on a better course than the first one. Of course, it is not brain-warping material, but still, the storyline and plot were well enough thought out and entertaining.

The characters in the movie were also given a bit more depth and time to develop than the ones in the first movie, again a notch upward. And it is always cool to see Sid Haig in a movie.

Moving on to the effects and the zombies. Nothing really bad or lacking here. I was adequately entertained with what I saw and found it to be alright.

For a zombie movie, this is a good contribution. Of course, it is not top of the line, but still, for a semi-low budget production, they pulled it off quite nicely. If you haven't already seen "House of the Dead 2", then buy the DVD and sink your teeth into it right away, it should be seen. Oh, and forget that you ever saw part one when you sit down to watch this one.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Better than the original.
DigitalRevenantX725 May 2009
A clandestine experiment at a university campus causes a zombie outbreak. 29 days later, a squad of Special Forces soldiers & government scientists are sent to the campus to find the original zombie in order to develop a vaccine from its blood. But their mission is jeopardized by a soldier's plans to sell the blood sample to a biotech firm, as well as the zombies, who are tougher than the team expected.

"House of the Dead 2" is the second of two film adaptations of the popular video game. The original HOUSE OF THE DEAD was lambasted by almost all reviewers as being one of the worst zombie films ever made. The only connection this film has with the original is the screenwriter, Mark A. Altman, a genre fan who co-wrote the script for the first film.

After viewing the first film, which was a third-rate spin off from a second-rate game, I set my expectations low before sitting to review this sequel. I was slightly impressed with the film.

Given the film industry's penchant for making films from older films, films made by other countries & videogames, "House of the Dead 2" works surprisingly well but is let down by a number of factors. First, the source material, in this case a video game, does not lend itself too readily for filmwork. The game is nothing more than a cheap attempt to rip-off the massively successful RESIDENT EVIL games, with the zombies being nothing more than targets for the player's guns (as well as the fact that the zombies act very un-zombie like, jumping, wielding weapons & not feeding on flesh). The original film, for all its faults, actually was pretty faithful to the game, with the exception of the setting. HOTD 2 again uses a different setting to that of the original but unless you count a college campus as a house, the title is a stretch at best.

Despite being derived from the game, the zombies here are a marked improvement over their game counterparts. They stick to the Romero mould, unlike the creatures in the first film, which were nothing more than undead thugs. The film tries a new idea – that of scientists trying to locate the original zombie in order to find a cure from its blood – which is perhaps its saving grace. That & the fact that the actors giving some good performances, as well as some clever characterizations. But while these elevate the film to a higher level than the original film, it still suffers from a poorly developed script. With the recent spate of comedies which derived their humour from film references, HOTD 2 throws in a few genre film references (one character mentions "Alone in the Dark"; the film is set 29 days after the experiment, after the British zombie film 28 DAYS LATER; the campus is named Cuesta Verde after the housing development in POLTERGEIST) which don't work too well.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Way better than I expected
walteraquilina27 June 2006
I haven't seen the first movie cause people said it was awful and apparently there's no great connection between them. This movie looked cool and I like Emmanuelle Vaugier, so I thought I'd give it a try. Before watching it, I searched it here on IMDb and got pretty discouraged with its low rating and bad reviews. Since I had already rented it, I decided to watch it anyway.

I was surprised. I really liked it. It's like Dawn of the Dead (the remake) and Resident Evil: Apocalypse together. I don't know why people say it's very bad. It's an awesome movie, when you think about the low budget that it had and the fact that it was straight to TV. It also has those parts when it gets a bit sad and it has some funny quotes too (don't know why they're not listed on IMDb) Rent it, I'm sure you won't be disappointed. Just forget about the first one if you saw it, and think of it as another movie, not as a sequel.
11 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Who Sad It Sucked?
Drjoemurphy313 April 2006
I thought House Of the dead 2 Was the best zombie movie I've ever seen. I heard some one say it was the worst movie besides the House Of The Dead one. I think Mark Altman has done the best since Dawn of the Dead. I think Romero and Altman have completely made the zombie genre. I would love to get Mark Altman and George Romero's email addresses i could thank them for the best movies ever and who said it sucked can go climb a tree. Because i don't know what the repercussions for cursing are. That is why i didn't say the f-Bomb.Icant wait to see the third and final movie. I loved the Romero Movies and The House Of The Dead Movies. I give the first movie a 4 out of 10. And the second movie an 8 out of 10. I also would like to know the emails of Romero And Altman. That would really make me a happy camper. Just jokin' 'round. But seriously I do want them so any one who reads this and knows email me at Drjoemurphy@oal.com.
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Bad movie? hell no!
crazy-cortez13 February 2007
I've seen some comments on this movie and their all bad.. I've bought this movie because I loved the first House of the Dead, and I also like this one! It's not so good as George Romero zombie films, but still the movie is good.

The only thing i dint really like is that all the "good" guys died so quick.. they were just with the zombies and 2 died.. Anyway there is a lot f action in the movie and a lot of zombies. The people in this film are good actors (in my view) they kick some zombie ass!

Only thing i don't know is, why is this movie called House of the Dead 2? It has not much similarities with the first film.. anyway its a good movie :)

Rated the movie an 8 out of 10 :) nice one!
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
One of the best zombie movies in years...
DrMongol27 June 2006
I don't understand why people don't like this movie. It has babes, guns, and zombies. What more can you ask for in a SciFi original. It might not be as good as the Uwe Boll original, but it's still one of the best zombie movies in years. This film features both great sfx and acting, and it easily tops Shaun Of The Dead and other mundane recent attempts at the zombie genre. I don't understand how people can dislike the storyline. The town is overrun with flesheating creatures, how cool is that? The scene in which the commando is sliced to pieces by the lasers in the hallway is priceless and will go down in cinema history as one of the coolest scenes ever. However, it might not be as good as the zombie classic Mrs. Doubtfire.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
It was okay
Majik138711 February 2006
For it being a low budget movie and a "sequel" to House of the Dead, it was actually an okay movie. Sure, a lot of the acting was bad, but all movies have bad acting, even the huge budget Hollywood movies. I didn't really see any relation to the game except for people shooting zombies but it was still entertaining. The only thing that really annoyed he hell out of me was the background music. It just didn't seem to go with the theme or the mood of the movie in my opinion. I highly doubt this movie was made to be a money maker, but I think it will become a lesser known b-movie favorite. It was much better than the more recent Sci-Fi channel zombie movies, Return of the Living Dead 4 & 5. I say give it a chance if you have nothing to do or if nothing else is on.
7 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A true zombie horror film
JDizZle9323 August 2007
I really enjoyed this film.It is much better than the first one that was directed by Uwe Boll . It had a good story line, quite good zombie effects and over all a brilliant directer. The script was nice and the special effects were not bad.I was on the edge of my set at all times.House of the dead 2 was more of a horror film ,when the first one was more of an action film.The acting was brilliant as far as i am concerned and i think it was a shame that this film did not appear in cinema.I gave this film a nine out of then because i enjoyed it but the last 20 minutes it was a bit dragged out.Anyone who is reading this comment should go out and buy this film if the have not watched it. But over all a brilliant film.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Excellent Zombie Romp-Rent the DVD!
commodoresx6425 June 2006
I had very low expectations considering the first film in the series. But with a lower budget and an 18 day shooting schedule, they managed to pull off the best zombie film I've seen since the Dawn of the Dead remake.

The plot is typical, (Special Forces + urban zombie issue) but they managed to make it a creepy atmosphere and kept you guessing as to what order the cast members were going to die in. My biggest criticism is the pacing at the end.

It has some flaws and clichés; however it kept me on edge and even the clichés were well executed. Also, the zombies looked great and the gore effects were delicious. Most importantly, the team seemed to really care about making a good genre film.

Bottom Line: Grab some popcorn, turn down the lights, turn down your expectations and enjoy a better than average B movie.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Much better then I expected.
stormruston6 June 2006
This is a good zombie flick, and related to "house of the dead" by title only. This film is low budget B stuff. But with that in mind it had some real good acting courtesy of Emmanuelle Vaugier and Ed Quinn.

The story is very basic: get blood sample from 1st generation zombie to stop the infection/spread of zombie-hood,the sub plots are as expected: greed and love.The dialog written around this story line is surprisingly good,rather then just waiting for the next gore scene I cared what happened to the main characters.

The Gore is pretty good,heads get shot, limbs cut off, people get bit and eaten and there are a one or two minor jump scenes.Oh and there is a bit of T&A at the beginning.

A solid entry in the modern zombie gene.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bad, Bland, and Boring?
jaywolfenstien19 February 2006
I'm reluctant to inform the reader that House of the Dead 2 is an improvement over the first film because that implies that HotD2 is a more enjoyable experience. This is not the case.

The original was a spectacular failure. It was like watching a horrible fireworks accident that set Uwe Boll on fire, and he ran around in circles with sparks and flames and pretty colors going everywhere. Tragic? Yes, but highly entertaining in a sick twisted way. House of the Dead 2 is just a dud that falls over. It's awful *and* boring.

Although, it does have a few moments that arise to the Boll standard of "what the hell?" Such as when our hero smears zombie guts all over his body so the zombies can't identify him as living, which leads to the only scene in the film (or any zombie film) where we see Zombies sniffing around.

I personally loved how proficient these zombies where at knocking guns from the main character's hands. These zombies were well, trained, ladies and gentlemen. They were very well trained. It felt like something out of that Playstation game, "Nightmare Creatures." The zombies would stagger, Romero style, and then on cue run in and rip the guns from the good guys hands. Although, bear in mind, I'm making it sound more interesting than it really is.

Beyond the moments described above, there's only a handful of other entertaining points (zombie football, anyone?). The majority of the film is irritatingly cliché and flat out uninteresting. From the camera setups, to the pacing, to the sets, to the lighting, to the locations, to the editing, to the music – every aspect of this film droned on with the intensity of a metronome. It's painfully apparent that this was a micro budget production.

I'll give the film the benefit of the doubt and inform the reader that House of the Dead 2 intends to be campy, but apparently it doesn't know how to get there. It has characters who are laughably unaware of their environment, making statements like "we can't get through the air vent on this side" nevermind the plethora of materials in the background that would make great make-shift tools. But yes, they find the chalk-board so they can outline (NFL game plan style) the single stupidest plan they could have possibly conceived. Like I said, everything is in place for House of the Dead 2 to be a great campy film . . . except it's slightly confused on exactly how to get to camp-land.

That and House of the Dead 2 is still boring. This is because at no point does the audience feel like the actions in the movie mean anything. While HotD2 is trying to be campy horror, it fails and in the process of failing it demolishes any sense that this zombie infestation poses any kind of threat to anyone. "Oh no! The zombies are going to eat the cannon fodder!" That just isn't intimidating. It could be funny, except: House of the Dead 2 is so friggin' boring.

In an effort to inject a sense of impending doom and intensity in the film, the plot revolves around the idea that the zombie infested campus will be blown up sometime the next morning. ("Oh no! The cannon fodder might get blown up!") So our hero and heroine have to accomplish their mission before the countdown reaches zero; however, the film and all the characters forget this almost immediately. Five minutes before detonation, they might as well be waiting in line for stamps at the post office. They don't seem to care about the countdown, so why should the audience? That and House of the Dead 2 is *still* boring.

What's worse? After our main characters accomplish their goal and acquire the zero-generation blood sample, they make their escape and lose that blood sample. It ain't over yet, folks. So now we get to watch the cannon fodder go back into the line of fire, and yes, it's just as boring this time around as it was before.

In closing, House of the Dead 2 is a superior film, but that, however, does not make it more watchable. If it weren't for the handful of priceless moments where the film reaches Uwe Boll levels of stupidity, it would have no entertainment value what-so-ever.
6 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
I have to agree....so much better than the first movie
TheLittleSongbird17 August 2012
That is saying a lot as the first House of the Dead was absolutely abysmal in every way. I was expecting the sequel to be even worse, but actually while not great it is much better. True it is not perfect, Sticky Fingaz never really convinced me often overplaying his part(though his death scene is hilarious), the story doesn't have any huge surprises and is lacking in scares and tension often coming across as overly-silly, the script while having the odd witty spot is banal, the characters are stereotypical and while nowhere near as annoying as those of the first one are still not very easy to warm to and Michael Hurst's direction while infinitely better than Uwe Boll's(then again any director is better than Boll) does have one too many moments where it is pedestrian. On the plus side, the scenery and lighting are much more atmospheric and this film is much better edited. The music doesn't have much standing out but is not as over-bearing and doesn't feel like an excuse to incorporate some scares into what feels like one rambling, long music video(the first film felt like that). The downbeat ending is a welcome touch and there are some witty quips in the script which brings some bright flashes amongst the general banality. The acting is also better than average generally, Emmanuelle Vaugher and Ed Quinn are likable leads and James Park is appropriately dignified. The zombies are a clear improvement also, actually showing some menace. All in all, a huge improvement on the first film even if it is still rather lacking. 5/10 Bethany Cox
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Zombie jamboree
ctomvelu-128 October 2008
Marginally better than the original, the extremely low-budget HOUSE OF THE DEAD 2 plays a little straighter and even takes us into other zombie movies at times, most notably 28 DAYS LATER and DAWN OF THE DEAD. A special forces unit is called in to deal with a zombie outbreak at a university, and just getting there itself proves a battle. While there are almost no scares, there are some good kills and some decent makeup jobs, certainly better than any sported in your typical Italian zombie movie. Everyone is a stereotype of the worst sort, and the one familiar face is Ed Quinn, late of EUREKA. Two very attractive females get to sport their black underwear for a bit, which is better than nothing. In the end, unfortunately, the movie goes nowhere.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Watch this one and forget the first one ever happened
A_Probably_Postman1 March 2007
Uwe Boll didn't direct this movie. That's a small mercy. Yeah, this movie isn't perfect, but it's not too bad either. Going in to this movie, I was fully expecting the same complete rubbish that House of the Dead was. However, I was fairly surprised. It was by no means perfect, but it wasn't that bad.

There were some glaring deficiencies in plot. The ending, which I won't give away, was ridiculous and solved nothing. In many senses, it's just a traditional horror movie, with all it's cheesy effects and, in many places, painful dialog. The "comic relief" of the movie, I believe his name was O'Conner, annoyed me to no end. Bart, the perverted soldier, made me want to kick him in the nuts, which, I suppose, is what the director was going for, but nevertheless, he was annoying as well. There were other problems with dialog in other places that do not come to mind at the moment. It seems like a decent movie that was made with a really low budget. This can be expected, I suppose, seeing as how it was a TV movie.

That being said, there were parts of it that were pleasantly surprising. I was happy to see Victoria Pratt in this movie, because I think the is a good, if not merely decent, actress with actual emotion behind her lines, which is lacking in a lot of horror. Also, I felt that there was a decent amount of chemistry between Emmanuelle Vaugier and Ed Quinn. Not enough for an Emmy, not even close, but for a horror movie, a TV horror movie no less, it was pleasantly surprising.

All in all, a thoroughly average film. 5 out of 10.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Proof Positive That IMDb Reviewers are Lemmings
asrexproductions17 January 2015
There are only four reasons to dislike this movie: 1) you presuppose that any B movie, particularly one made for the Sci-Fi Channel (or "Syfy," as it's now known) couldn't possibly be good, 2) you're closed minded, 3) you have some sort of mental deficiency, as evidenced by the fact that you like Uwe Boll, 4) you're a freaking idiot. Because anybody who knows anything about action and / or zombie movies couldn't possibly dislike this film.

HOUSE OF THE DEAD 2: DEAD AIM is B movie master Mike Hurst's unrelated sequel to Uwe Boll's godawful video game adaptation. There "house" in question is a bunch of frat / sorority "houses" (ha ha), and there are a lot of undead, requiring a crack team including gorgeous and talented Emmanuelle Vaugier (sp?) to go in and stop them. And like all good action movies, it's that simple. It sets up during the opening credits. It totally understands what it is and the genre, hence Sid Haig himself and a dry and appropriate sense of humor - not Michael Bay styled out of place crap. The production design is fantastic. The action is actually exciting. It is the movie that the previous film should have been, had Uwe Boll not directed it. And I absolutely love it.

I won't go much further into it than that, because honestly, I haven't seen it in a minute. I just wanted to weigh in on the gang of idiots who somehow think that this is a bad movie. Either we watched different films, or the world is really full of lemmings. My experience favors the latter, so I felt I had to speak up.

If you're a true action movie fan, do yourself a favor and watch this movie. It's really well made, really fun, and really worth your time. If you find a way to dislike it, ask yourself if your dislike is based on the movie or your idiot friend. And then watch it again.

-AS http://www.rottentomatoes.com/user/id/900752177/
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

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


Recently Viewed