Deadlands 2: Trapped (2008) User Reviews

Deadlands 2 Trapped: Inferior sequel

[Platypuschow · 2/10 · 13 January 2019]

Part 2 of a supposed trilogy (I don't believe the 3rd is out yet) Deadlands 2: Trapped is sequel in name only and is a separate unconnected zombie tale from the first movie.

It tells your standard zombie apocalypse tale about a group of survivors who hold up in a cinema when the undead masses appear.

Truth is the first movie wasn't very good, it was your pretty standard hyper low budget zombie film. It did however have a marginal amount of character and certainly wasn't the worst I've seen.

Deadlands 2 is on an even lower budget and lacks the character this time around. It's still not among the worst movie of it's ilk I've seen but it's really poor uninspired stuff. If you've seen a single zombie movie before then you've seen this.

To make matters worse the movie doesn't have an ending, it's one of those films where the credits suddenly hit you unexpectedly. Unless I missed something? What I didn't miss however was the background story that popped up every once in a while regarding the origins of the outbreak, that was certainly the highlight of the movie as these scenes were considerably better than everything else.

Liked the first movie? Then you might find a degree of enjoyment, but for average Joe zombie movie lover this will not appease.

The Good:

Zombies look better than the previous movie, just

The Bad:

Has no ending

Mediocre across the board

Trust me ... you've seen this before

[rdoyle29 · 3/10 · 17 May 2013]

You know the drill. It's a small town somewhere in the U.S. One day, folks start acting crazy. People who look … dead perhaps … start attacking people. All attempts to fight them off fail. It's almost as if they were zombies or something.

That's right … it's another zombie film. All your standard bases are covered here. There's a government agency quarantining the town. They, of course, cannot successfully fight off the zombies, mostly because they keep forgetting to shoot them in the head. We have a group of survivors, some of whom know each other, some who are strangers, who lock themselves in an enclosed space (a movie theatre) to get away from the zombies. One of them has already been bitten by a zombie … I wonder what will happen to him? As you've probably surmised, this film is a by-the-numbers zombie flick. It's so by-the-numbers that it hits all the broad plot points without bothering to fill in the details. We see an unspecified government agency performing experiments that cause the zombie outbreak, but we never find out what this experiment is or how it might cause people to become zombies. We get no details about how this outbreak occurs. We see nobody become zombies. We don't know how people become zombies. Zombies just appear out of nowhere as needed in whatever size crowd the movie requires.

Essentially, it's impossible to have much of a stake in what happens in this movie. With the exception of one creative plot twist during a climactic action sequence, you've seen all of this before and you've seen it done much better. At best, it's a mildly inoffensive time waster.

THIS IS A RESTRICTED AREA. TURN AROUND.

[nogodnomasters · 4/10 · 26 June 2019]

In Maryland, the US government conducts a biological warfare test using the local population as unknowing test subjects. Sort of like a prequel to "Return of the Living Dead, " but nowhere near as good. The local population turns into zombies while a group of young adults are trapped in a movie theater for what seemed like ages, creating a plot dead zone.

The soundtrack was decent with a heavy rock sound for zombie swagger. The make-up didn't seem half bad, but there were few close ups and the shooting was done at night. The characters were cardboard. The quick termination of the doctor in the beginning prevented inner conflict later on that might have added some interest to the film. They have one good scene where they rip flesh off a face. In fact they show it several times over in case you missed it. LOOK AT US!! WE GOT A GOOD SCENE! The women had zero character.

It was one of those films you can't wait for something interesting to happen while it as interesting as it gets. Fans of "The Zombinator" might like this one.

Parental Guide: f-bomb. No sex. Stripper nudity.

Really Bad.

[artpf · 1/10 · 12 November 2013]

The United States Government has developed a highly effective nerve gas that is unleashed upon the residents of a small Maryland City.

During the top secret exercise the infected citizens begin to convert each resident into a sort of living zombie, until the remaining town residents, 6 total strangers, are trapped inside a movie theater cineplex.

Direct to video taped on video and horribly acted. There is not plot at all. Tests go awry and people are suddenly zombies. Nothing new. Except that nearly half the movie is over before you see a zombie. And idiotically, when a gazillion zombies are rioting, an army guy actually repeatedly says "I got the shot. I got the shot." Uh, it would be hard to miss -- there are so many!

It's really a bad movie

Shot on video zombie trash

[Leofwine_draca · 1/10 · 7 March 2017]

ARMY OF THE DEAD: ZOMBIE MASSACRE is a micro budget zombie invasion movie that's probably one of the worst I've ever seen. If watching some kind of shot on video rubbish that takes place mainly in the dark is your idea of fun then that's fine but it certainly isn't mine. The story features a zombie outbreak in a small town populated by duller-than-dishwater characters while the cameraman seems to be suffering from the shakes.

Plot elements include a sleazy scene at a strip club containing some distinctly unappetising bump and grind, random zombie gore attacks including a bit where a victim has latex pulled off his face (?) and way too much white noise on the soundtrack. It's clearly indebted to Romero but viewers would be advised to just watch one of his classics or one of the modern classics like REC or THE HORDE instead. The worst thing about it is that somebody decided to have the zombie attacks play out to upbeat music - complete nonsense.

Very "Romero-esque"

[don-mcgee-844-716848 · 8/10 · 14 November 2013]

It just goes to show you don't have to have a big budget to make a good film. The original Romero films contained more story about the reactions of being involved in a zombie siege than action. This movie was no different. I'm just not a fan of fast zombies :/ lol I really liked this film. It really took me back to the old-school zombie flicks. I'm going to go back and watch Gary Ugarek's other films. And hope there are more to come from this Director. I'm in my forties, so remembering the way I felt when I saw the '68 version of Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, Day of the living Dead, and their remakes, still make me want for the older versions....did I mention I don't like fast zombies?!

Thanks Gary!!

A huge step up from Deadlands: The Rising

[NoStaplerMan · 7/10 · 17 December 2008]

Let me start off by saying I am not a frequent poster to IMDb, I am lurker, who uses the place as a reference tool and in fact I have never registered an account until I decided I just had to say my peace about this film. I am not going to go into the story or plot, you can see the summary and it pretty much explains everything that happens.

With the inventing of, and cost effective nature of the Mini DV camera system, everyone now thinks they are the next Scorsese, Baz Lurhman, Christopher Nolan, or George Romero. Only a handful of people who have made low budget films can lay claim to fame as maybe being the next big director, then there are those who should have no business even touching a camera, writing a script, or directing a movie. This was the case with Gary Ugarek's 2006 offering "Deadlands: The Rising". One of the most wretched low budget, shot on DV zombie horror films ever made.

The original Deadlands clocked in at around an hour and no matter how hard you try you will never get back that hour of your entire life. The film wreaked of amateur directing, writing, acting, cinematography, the list just goes on and on. So when word hit in 2007 there would be another zombie from that director I immediately searched out a vomit bag, and banged my head against the counter asking why? why? why? You should not be making movies. As time went on and updates were given I stuck my guns.

Well, I can admit when I am wrong, and recently, I was lucky enough to see a work print screener of the film for the purpose of doing a film review for one of the online horror websites. Originally titled Trapped, the film took on the Deadlands title in early 2008 according to the films press-kit because it turns out that Deadlands: The Rising turn out to be some sleeper hit for its distributor, so in business terms it was better to brand the film with the Deadlands moniker. OK, I can buy that, but how much of hit was Deadlands: The Rising? Anyway, doesn't matter. What does matter is that this new Deadlands film, Deadlands 2: Trapped, completely blows away the first film, while that is not a hard task, even a nut-less monkey could do, the newest films show the director finally got his head out of his ass and turned out something watchable.

I rated the film a 7, and I did this for a couple of reasons. 1. I was so shocked at how much better the film was in terms of story and technical work that it deserved an extra point for that. 2. The film actually keeps you interested. Especially in a time when low budget zombie films are a dime a dozen, so I added points for that. 3. The zombies were actually brutal, and unforgiving, which most people who make low budget zed films seem to forget to do. Zombies need to be menacing.

Deadlands 2 should really be somewhere between a 5 and 6, but like I said I was very impressed at how much better this film was over the first that it actually showed that maybe this guy might get it right on his next film, whether or not he does a third or not and that alone was worth me giving it a 7, for now.

The movie has some problems, the acting is very uneven, but it makes up for the fact there was no real acting in the first. The worst of the acting coming from the character of Sean, played by Joe Durbin. The best of it coming from Casey, played by Ashley Young.

Pacing, the story does slow down at times, but it does keep you interested, but the one outstanding feature of this film is the locations. One medium complaint is the choice to shoot hand-held, which at times is a little too much to handle, but it does work to an extent in the final product.

The gore, while on display, is sparse, which is more effective, the music effectively creepy, and the atmosphere, dark and dismal. One can't help but to notice the many nods to great 80's horror flicks. The first to come to mind is Demons (1985), and the second is Return of the Living Dead part 1. In fact, it seems Deadlands 2 highly references this film in terms of story and plot, but changes it just enough to avoid straight out plagiarism. I guess if you're going to give a nod to other zombie films you have to do a little copycatting here and there, but it works and thats all that matters.

In the end, this film will be easier to sit through and stomach, and the final output is not as amateur looking as some films in the genre done on low budgets. The films vibe and final look and felt very 80's cheap as chips film stock, but thats a good thing because some of the best horror came from the 80's.

Deadlands 2 is Rated R and runs 85 minutes. Recommended for all zombie horror fans.

See...filmmakers can learn from mistakes

[Heislegend · 6/10 · 10 December 2009]

I have to say that I'm writing this solely because one of the very first reviews I ever did on IMDb was for this film's predecessor "Deadlands: The Rising" and it was an awful review. Seriously...it was terrible and I still stand by it. But redemption can be sweet (even if the person getting it doesn't care at all about the person giving it, as is surely the case here). Deadlands 2 is by no means a great movie, but it's certainly watchable and a HUGE step forward for the director. Yes, it's still a low budget zombie movie, but it's better in pretty much every aspect.

The plot is pretty straight forward for a zombie movie. Throw a few strangers into an enclosed space and watch them battle wits with the undead. A bit derivative, but it's leaps and bounds better than the last film. One pitfall avoided that many directors fall into that is avoided here is the desire to use tons of blood/gore. Don't get me wrong, I love gore. It's just that it can make a low budget film look cheap and cheesy. Hell, even the zombies looked 10 times better. In the last movie they were just regular folks with white grease paint on their faces and black around the eyes. Looking like rejects from a Misfits album cover is no way to make zombies.

All in all the movie is flawed and if you don't know it's a low budget flick you might be disappointed. I, however, was pleasantly surprised, knowing full well the horrors of the previous film (sorry guys, I still think it was just terrible).

Fun low-budget zombie effort

[kannibalcorpsegrinder · 7/10 · 27 August 2012]

The residents of a small Maryland town find themselves stuck in a movie theater after the military conducts a test on a new virus that turns the residents into flesh-hungry zombies, forcing them to find a way out before being killed.

A decent low-budget zombie actioner, it does have some good stuff going for it in the sense of a claustrophobic space being used to good effect, some nifty action scenes with a swarm of the creatures running loose attacking at the same time, and there's some good enough gore to count among the pervasive amount of these types of zombie movies. However, it still suffers from several rather big flaws, in that the zombies look utterly terrible when we do get to see them since it's always so dark it's hard to make out anything with any certainty, the few glimpses are pretty terrible and not that innovative anyway, the zombie action is nice when it happens, but it's far too infrequent than what it should be and the finale is just plain terrible. Really needed work, but it's a decent enough film as is.

Unrated/R: Graphic Violence, Graphic Language, Nudity, an attempted rape and children-in-jeopardy