House of the Dead 2 (2006)

Sadly Over-hyped

Crappy film

Blistering performances.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

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.

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

I used to work in a video store. I saw this title in the horror section and took it home as a free rental one night.This movie was truly awful, there is no redeeming quality about it, because it actually takes a well respected sub genre of film and just goes about destroying it. If the first film wasn't low budget enough then this film truly takes the biscuit, being housed (mostly) indoors and at night...therefore avoiding the scenic cost setting of the first film In the first 5 minutes of this film a college lecturer comically runs over an attractive student. Rather than be mortified, the lecturer half heartedly apologises and the girl mentions that despite being thrown across the cars bonnet (he sped up as he approached her) that there is nothing to worry about...after which he attacks her with a crowbar and kills her! If this isn't strange enough, he wants to perform an experiment upon her, bringing her back from the dead....and so feels the need to remove her clothing to do so.Soft core female nudity (and pubic hair) is rampant throughout the film and is, to be honest,the only real thing to hold the average male viewers interest...like the swimming scene in the first film...but even having said that this film goes from bad to worse with its bad character acting, crappy dialogue and absurd plot turns....why introduce a pivotal character who has survived 29 days from zombie attack only to kill them within 10 minutes....its just a very very bad film

Lets face it, with these sort of low budget horror flicks you can't expect a lot from them. one thing you can almost be certain of with low budgeters, is that the films will be littered with can't - act teens or failures, but don't get me wrong some low budgets turn out OK like Wolf Creek for example where a tiny $1,000,000 was spent, the more expensive horrors these days can be as much as $50,000,000 and more.In House Of The Dead 2's case, it didn't turn out OK. The acting was poor, the plot was simple and fairly silly, it was quite boring to watch and how many careless people can die from some brainless zombies?? The film was almost childish. I wish i could give some credit to the film but i am finding it hard to, the gore wasn't even that good! waste of my time ! - 3/10