Return of the Living Dead: Necropolis

Last week, December 2, 2005, I was at the Hollywood home of the Director, Ellory Elkayam, who is married to my niece. I told Ellory about the comments on IMDb, so we logged in and read what was written by draven528, brennan79, ibanez747, jsauce, and many others.

Ellory said, "I don't disagree with what any of these people wrote." and stated that he needed the money and accepted the job for Return of the Living Dead 4: Necropolis and Return of the Living Dead 5: Rave to the Grave. He stated that he had no control over the script and that the whole experience was something that he wishes to forget. He may send in his own critique of these movies to IMDb in the future.

Wow. Where should I start. I've seen quite a few zombie movies in my lifetime, and there is always a never ending supply of worthless garbage in the genre. Not to say worthless garbage cant be fun, i happened to enjoy much of the stupidity and plot holes of "Hard-Rock Zombies" (a movie where an 80's hard rock band goes up against Hitler and his horde of zombies). They can be good for a laugh, no doubt. But THIS particular movie, this just wasn't funny, scary, or entertaining at all.

ROTLD4 plays like one of the movies i've seen actual high-schoolers tape without knowing or caring how to edit.

The makeup, granted passed as acceptable, but the super-soldiers were like a cross between a nemesis (from Resident Evil) and what happens to a squirrel while you clean it, (it gets turned inside out for all of you city-dwellers.)

If i start to talk about the ridiculous and unbelievable plot, its very possible i could rant for far longer than i'm willing to devote to this movie. It was atrocious. 'Nuff said.

Listening to this movie is about as bad as watching it. The crappy generic rock music every time the local kids hop on their dirt-bikes gets old. And when you repeat that same music for every scene a zombie bursts out of a ventilation shaft, you're only making it harder for anyone wanting to find something worthwhile about this film.

As to the dialog, wha' happened? The kid cant shoot his friend because "I lost my virginity to her man!" is not only the most ridiculous and strange thing ever to appear in a film, but its not the worst. The guy from E.T. (Peter Coyote), when asked why hes creating these zombies replies with, "For world domination! What else?" How can you explain a gigantic facility and a "nursery" for zombies as a bout for world domination? Whats more interesting is, he DOESN'T EVEN EXPLAIN how he's supposed to dominate the world with zombies.

The main character was a total wuss, and one of the supporting characters was featured using numbchuks, rappelling from a skyscraper, fighting karate style, shooting high-powered smgs with perfect aim, and hacking computers.

Please, waste your time on this movie. It'll make you appreciate competent actors.

I saw this movie on the Sci-Fi Channel the other night. I think the fact that this was on cable television speaks volumes on what kind of movie this is. I think it was better than most "original" movies that pop up on late night television; it still does not make up for how bad this movie became. It's hard to believe that this is a sequel to a movie that was originally released theatrically.

This movie has just about everything corny from bad acting to Nick-at-Nite humor. The writing by William Butler was absolutely dreadful, and even a Jack Nicholson-like performance by the cast could not have made his writing appear any better. William Butler was just all over the place.

Dirtbikes, machine guns, kung-fu are some of the stupid things about the plot. Is this a horror film or an action film with some zombies? None of the characters take anything seriously in this movie. A group of high school kids know everything and there is no reason to be afraid. None of them were fazed by the fact that zombies were eating their friends and fellow classmates. Its like "Eh, whatever." and they move on to the next action sequence. A 7 year old child with a flame thrower. A little blonde girl beating up zombies. If children aren't afraid of these things, then why in the hell should I be?! Come on.

Everything about this movie was going through the motions and that comes across quite clear after viewing this movie.

I can see why many DVD distributors passed at this movie. If they get lucky, they can maybe get a deal with Anchor Bay or Elite Entertainment.

The only reason why I give this movie a 3 is because of the special effects. I appreciate that cable television probably showed more than they should have, but this movie is a joke anyway so why get worked up about some blood and brains. The special effects were the ONLY thing good about this movie.

I was really impressed with the atmosphere created by the first ten minutes in Chernobyl. The grim surreality of the actual setting perfectly set the mood for living death.

Unfortunately, the film plummets from that point. The two-dimensional characters and talentless cast are forgivable--no one rents a zombie flick for Shakespearean depth--but is basic continuity too much to ask from the fourth installment of a series? Or how about some black humor, which made the first two films stand out from vanilla zombie flicks? After the Chernobyl opening, there's no reason to waste the next hour of your life. There's not even a titty flash to wake you up. Peter Coyote was a near-relief from the rest of the dreck, planting his thumb firmly in cheek as if to say, "Yeah, I know: this film is runny crap and I apologize, but I have gambling debts to pay off by Thursday or they'll break my kneecaps. But hey, dig my impression of a James Bond villain." Lots of people gave this film a 10 rating. Don't be fooled--they must be friends and family of the film-makers. "Dawn of the Dead" deserves a 10; the original "Return of the Living Dead" an 8 or 9. But this movie has next to nothing going for it.

THIS is what we waited for? THIS is what we've been given after more than a year of hype? I can't believe how bad this was! It's not funny, it's not scary, it's not even "so bad it's good", it's just "so bad it's really bad"...

We are talking about some grade-z bad direction, I'm not sure what was worse: watching everyone don mining helmets to explore a research facility or watching 2 of the characters test their walkie-talkies while standing five feet apart in the same shot! No wait, the worst was the fistfight (?!) between the talking (?!) zombie and the human...or any scene with the girl in pigtails. Speaking of the characters, this movie has the most unlikable group of (horrible) actors you could possibly imagine. Most of them seem to think they are in a high-school play and overact accordingly, with ridiculously exaggerated expressions of (insert emotion here). The others can barely muster up enough inflection in their voices to break past monotone...and when they do, it's only at the end of the line, so everything they say sounds like a question.

I'm not usually one to speak too badly about films because it takes a lot of work to make one. In fact, I usually give more credit than is probably deserved and therefore end up liking (or at least not minding) films everyone else hates. I thought "House of the Dead" tried too hard but was mildly entertaining and found good points to "Cry_Wolf"...that should pretty much put my movie viewing into perspective.

With this film, there just isn't anything to speak highly about. Originally, I gave this film a rating of "1" but changed it to a "2" after seeing part 5. I didn't think it possible, but part 5 is worse than this one. As a matter of fact, the only positive thing I can say about this film is that it is slightly more bearable than part 5 and I guess that's worth something.

I thought it was hysterical when they put a preview for 'Land of the Dead' with this movie...it's like they couldn't make it look bad enough on it's own, they had to give us something for comparison!