 | |
List Price: $14.98 | | Label: Lions Gate
Salesrank: 44460
Released: March 21, 2006 |
| Our Price: $3.47 |
| Used Price: $1.73 |
|
MPAA Rating: R (Restricted)
Media: DVD |
|
Editorial Review:
A growing zombie infection overtakes an isolated university campus. Hoping to stop the spread of the infection and end the zombie p lague, a secret government agency is sent in to find "Patient Zero," the orginal zombie from which the infection started, and create an antidote. Once on campus, agency operatives Nightingale (SAW II's Emmaunelle Vaugier) and Ellis (Ed Quinn), find the entire uni versity has been completely overrun! Immersed in a giant zombie battle, Nightingale and Ellis discover some of heir fellow agents h ave their own plans for the zombie DNA.
House of the Dead 2: Dead Aim Reviews:
Starts well, shame about the ending. 
2009-05-11 - Continuing on from where "House of the Dead" left off, the zombies of Isla del Meurtos have made it to the US mainland and have overrun a university. It is now up to a team of soldiers and scientists to deal with the problem, and in the process to collect a sample of "first generation" zombie blood that might hold the key to a zombie vaccine.
The good news is that "House of the Dead II" is a vast improvement on the first "House of the Dead" film (and I didn't hate the first one). The script is, for the most part, way better, and "House of the Dead" director Uwe Boll (aka the worst director of all time) has been replaced by Mike Hurst. The first half hour of this film is absolutely hilarious: a woman goes on a blind date and to her date's dismay, turns out to be a zombie hunter; soldiers are using photos of Paris Hilton for target practice; and there is a good section of the film devoted to essentially making fun of college students. Once the military gets in on the act, however, the film loses a lot of its sense of humour. That's not to say it becomes unwatchable. It's actually a pretty decent B-grade zombie film with lots of action and plenty of gore. It's only at the end where this film really falls down. I don't want to give away the ending, but suffice to say that it renders the film that went before it completely pointless. The film is enjoyable up until about 5 minutes before the end, which is why I gave it 3 stars, but the ending alone is enough to make me never want to see it again.
Awesome! 
2009-05-10 - Cinematic masterpiece. This movie embodies everything that is wonderful about Hollywood. Watching this movie opened my eyes to the world for the first time. If you haven't seen it, get ready to live.
NOTHING MORE THAN AN INFERIOR RESIDENT EVIL: APOCALYPSE... 7 OUT OF 10
2008-12-12 - Despite the fact my title has a more negative feel to it, I did enjoy House of the Dead 2 on a moderate level. It was nothing special, nor is it very memorable considering it's the 21st zombie movie I've watched. I will agree many of the other reviews; this movie is better than the original. But I have a guilty secret; I actually thought the first movie was enjoyable for its stupidity. It wasn't that great, but I didn't hate it like most people... somehow.
WHAT IT'S ABOUT: This movie has a B-Movie vibe to it when it comes to story. The story opens with an epic squirt-gun fight involving dudes dressed like soldiers and hot chicks; some of whom were topless (Truly epic indeed). When one girl leaves she gets hit by a car by one of her professors, who in turn kills her, takes her body back to his lab and tries to bring her back from the dead and manages to succeed. But, he gets bitten and the zombie infection spreads all over the university and around town. Two people; Ellis and Nightingale; along with a team of soldiers must go to the university and find the original zombie (Patient Zero) who was infected, take a sample of the blood, and try to develop a serum to combat the zombie infection before the university gets blown to hell by a missile.
MUSIC: I have to admit the music from the first movie was better, this movie doesn't bring anything new in terms of music and isn't that great.
ACTION: At least this sequel doesn't shy away from gore factor like the first movie. It's loaded with gore and the zombie makeup actually looks decent. However, during certain parts of the movie bothered me during certain scenes. Like for example: when they try to open a vent, they can't and instead Ellis cuts open a corpse, rubs the blood on himself to get the zombies to believe he's a zombie, runs out, the zombies believe he's a zombie, opens the vent, and the other two get through. Now wait a minute. If the zombies believed he was a zombie, then why didn't the other two cover themselves in blood and just get their destination instead of having him go open vent which took like two minutes? That would have made more sense, and they wouldn't have wasted as much time before the missile gets shot at the school. Other problems include: How were those two characters not bitten at all even though they got cornered by groups of zombies by simply using a switchblade? This movie has other little inconsistencies as well, but I don't want to get into them.
ACTING: The actors don't do very well at their roles and the script felt laughable at best. Loading this movie with topless scenes isn't going to make you like the female characters any better even though they suck at acting. The dialogue really doesn't feel all that believable. Not to mention, if a missile was about to be shot into the building you're in, would you stay and talk? Because I sure as hell wouldn't.
OVERALL: Only a rental, not really a buy. It's not a bad zombie movie, but it's just not that great. Too bad. But this movie screams for a sequel, though I demand a better script if there is a third movie. Like maybe Paul W. S. Anderson (Writer for the Resident Evil movies), hint, hint.
THE GOOD: Decent gore factor, decent zombie designs, the cheesyness, and perhaps the topless scenes.
THE BAD: The cheesyness, the story, the acting, the not-so-great music, and the military facts are wrong in certain areas (Why do you keep calling your female superior officer a sir?!).
Better than the first
2008-05-27 - Much better than the first "House of the Dead". This movie proves sequels can be better than the original, even if it isn't that good. I mean, it could NOT get worse than the first one. Contains all the requisite gore and blood of a zombie movie, has a plot and the acting is not horrid. For a TV movie this is a pretty ok effort. Somewhat following what happened in the first movie, a team of special forces (for killing zombies) infiltrates a college campus believed to be ground zero for the zombie virus. Their mission is to obtain a blood sample from patient zero in order to create an antidote. The film explains how the first one ties in to the current story and we even get one of the characters from the first movie (who had allegedly died, guess not).
Emmanuelle Vaugier seemed to have created a new acting method: the tired acting. Somehow she always appeared bored and tired, in every scene. Victoria Pratt is always a nice addition to every sci-fi movie and her acting was better than all the other actors. The movie presented situations that proved to defy logic: from being surrounded by zombies and not getting a single scratch, to zombies being electrocuted, yet will not die by a shot in the heart, and finally, the end (without giving it away)...honestly, how does one survive? Still, the movie was entertaining, better than a lot of zombie movies out there. I wouldn't mind watching it again.
One of the worst! 
2008-04-15 - Completely lame with supehuman characters, i mean come on 100 zombies on top of you literally and you escape using a pen knife......LAME!!! Stupid story, even worse if that's possible than the origional. People get swarmed zombies make eating motions/sounds then the "eaten person" rises as a dead person with not wounds.....laughable.
