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.
55 Reviews
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.
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.
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
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...
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Generic plot adds nothing to the genre
gabriel_sanchez20 March 2021
It becomes hard to get impressed when you wandered the dark corners of the zombie genre. After watching so many zombie movies, I think the zombie encyclopedia got exhausted. In the end, to me, most great zombie movies come down to the storyline evolving behind the gruesome fact than necessarily the zombies and any cool stuff they can do.
With such an infamous title, and taking his predecessor into account, I wasn't expecting much from House of the Dead 2 (2005). Good decision.
House of the Dead 2 (2005) takes place after the events of House of the Dead (2003), which is surprising. The movie is so different that you need to pay attention to realize that.
Some recurring characters from the first movie are back here, which makes no sense. Notably, because they were clearly dead to me.
The AMS agency is a Government group specialized in the undead. It seems the AMS agency already existed before the events of the first movie. This is also nonsense. And it begs the question: how come a special agency that deals with the undead have not made a special combat suit yet? They just go around with their body exposed, screaming "bite me!" Ludicrous.
Speaking of nonsense, the scientists are looking for the first generation of zombies to get a sample of their blood. The idea is that only the blood from the first generation can provide a suitable cure. OK, nothing new here, but they clearly get the sample from dead zombies to test if they are from the first generation. Why not do that all the time? Nope, eventually, they try to get the zombie's blood when they are still alive and kicking, posing a serious threat.
The climactic event is laughable. I can imagine the people portraying the zombies holding their laugh. I know the producers were trying to build tension, but the event was lame. The zombies are just holding the main characters without trying to bite them. The zombies were clearly ferocious beasts a while ago, so why are they just holding them now? Cringy.
Expected plot-twists add nothing to the story. You know what is lurking after every scene.
I would only recommend it if you are a die-hard fan of zombie movies and if you are on a quest to watch trash.
I'll give it a 3 because, at least, you want to know the ending.
With such an infamous title, and taking his predecessor into account, I wasn't expecting much from House of the Dead 2 (2005). Good decision.
House of the Dead 2 (2005) takes place after the events of House of the Dead (2003), which is surprising. The movie is so different that you need to pay attention to realize that.
Some recurring characters from the first movie are back here, which makes no sense. Notably, because they were clearly dead to me.
The AMS agency is a Government group specialized in the undead. It seems the AMS agency already existed before the events of the first movie. This is also nonsense. And it begs the question: how come a special agency that deals with the undead have not made a special combat suit yet? They just go around with their body exposed, screaming "bite me!" Ludicrous.
Speaking of nonsense, the scientists are looking for the first generation of zombies to get a sample of their blood. The idea is that only the blood from the first generation can provide a suitable cure. OK, nothing new here, but they clearly get the sample from dead zombies to test if they are from the first generation. Why not do that all the time? Nope, eventually, they try to get the zombie's blood when they are still alive and kicking, posing a serious threat.
The climactic event is laughable. I can imagine the people portraying the zombies holding their laugh. I know the producers were trying to build tension, but the event was lame. The zombies are just holding the main characters without trying to bite them. The zombies were clearly ferocious beasts a while ago, so why are they just holding them now? Cringy.
Expected plot-twists add nothing to the story. You know what is lurking after every scene.
I would only recommend it if you are a die-hard fan of zombie movies and if you are on a quest to watch trash.
I'll give it a 3 because, at least, you want to know the ending.
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.
Well no Uwe Boll at least
shalimar-429 October 2017
Well no Uwe Boll at least That is a guaranteed improvement over the 1st in this "series"
Thankfully this one i not a Canadian production like the original was.. but it's bad... bad and more bad regardless of where it was filmed... The writing is virtually non-existent.. acting skill.. wait.. more like anti-skill. This was so beyond bad even the worlds best actors could never save it..
it's worse than most "Made for TV" crappy B movies so often found being broadcast.. especially at strange times of the day (6am "scary movie time anyone?).. and AMC in their infinite stupidity actually aired this crap earlier today right after the original.. (see my insane review of that one once it's approved.. it's intentionally insane)
I won't include spoilers here as I rarely do.. and there's simply nothing really to spoil with this movie.. it's horrible crap done on a budget so low I think the worlds cheapest dog food probably cost more per bag than they spent on production per day.
Suffice to say it's garbage.. skip it.. save yourself the mental anguish.. and know that as bad as this is.. it's infinitely better than the original.. the fact UWE BOLL is not involved is a guarantee of that alone..
I never played the video games for either of these btw so I can't comment on the quality of the source per se there.. but given the stitched in bits in both films I suspect they are no better than the films of the same names..
if you want to waste 2 hours or so of your life with no redeeming qualities at all skip this.. find a hallmark channel drivel movie.. it'll be better! This movie is more suited for use as a sadistic punishment by forcing the ppl needing to be punished to watch it.. and for those that are even more in need of punishment the original is in order!
For the rest of us with any sanity.. stay away!! Far far away.. there is no lack of bad zombie flicks out there than are better than this even though they are bad as well.
Now I've suffered through this and the original today.. I'm questioning my own sanity and I think my youngest son's idea of hitting his head on the hardwood floor might actually be preferable!
Seriously.. I'll never get back the time wasted on these movies today.. but at least I can try to save some others from the pain and suffering I have endured in the name of IMDb!
Thankfully this one i not a Canadian production like the original was.. but it's bad... bad and more bad regardless of where it was filmed... The writing is virtually non-existent.. acting skill.. wait.. more like anti-skill. This was so beyond bad even the worlds best actors could never save it..
it's worse than most "Made for TV" crappy B movies so often found being broadcast.. especially at strange times of the day (6am "scary movie time anyone?).. and AMC in their infinite stupidity actually aired this crap earlier today right after the original.. (see my insane review of that one once it's approved.. it's intentionally insane)
I won't include spoilers here as I rarely do.. and there's simply nothing really to spoil with this movie.. it's horrible crap done on a budget so low I think the worlds cheapest dog food probably cost more per bag than they spent on production per day.
Suffice to say it's garbage.. skip it.. save yourself the mental anguish.. and know that as bad as this is.. it's infinitely better than the original.. the fact UWE BOLL is not involved is a guarantee of that alone..
I never played the video games for either of these btw so I can't comment on the quality of the source per se there.. but given the stitched in bits in both films I suspect they are no better than the films of the same names..
if you want to waste 2 hours or so of your life with no redeeming qualities at all skip this.. find a hallmark channel drivel movie.. it'll be better! This movie is more suited for use as a sadistic punishment by forcing the ppl needing to be punished to watch it.. and for those that are even more in need of punishment the original is in order!
For the rest of us with any sanity.. stay away!! Far far away.. there is no lack of bad zombie flicks out there than are better than this even though they are bad as well.
Now I've suffered through this and the original today.. I'm questioning my own sanity and I think my youngest son's idea of hitting his head on the hardwood floor might actually be preferable!
Seriously.. I'll never get back the time wasted on these movies today.. but at least I can try to save some others from the pain and suffering I have endured in the name of IMDb!
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.
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.
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.
Such a let down
jacobjohntaylor116 June 2017
This movie is so awful 3.8 is overrating it. This is a 2. This movie has an awful story line. Some of the acting pretty bad to. It is not scary. The first movie of House of the dead is very scary. And this is a big let down. Do not waste your time. And do not waste your money. Do not see this movie. It is a an awful movie. Do not see it. It is a big pile of pooh. This movie is pooh pooh. It is not a good movie. It is a pooh pooh movie. A pooh pooh, pooh pooh. It so stinky it stinks. See the first movie of House of the dead. Do not see this. It is a big pile of pooh that is really stinky.
Great entertainment!
jellyneckr11 February 2006
Without question, HOUSE OF THE DEAD 2: DEAD AIM is one of, if not the most unwanted sequels of all time. The original HOUSE OF THE DEAD was universally panned by both critics and audiences, and is widely considered one of the worst horror flicks ever made by genre fans. So why a sequel? My guess is that the filmmakers figured since the first one was so hated, this time they could do a House of the Dead movie the right way in an effort to redeem themselves. If indeed that was their intent, they succeeded. HOUSE OF THE DEAD 2: DEAD AIM is everything the original wasn't: scary, decently acted, and well directed. Director Michael Hurst was clearly the right man for the job. Some may argue that the action scenes were directed too straight, but I am actually thankful they were considering that almost every action sequence in action pictures these days are severely over edited and overly stylized. While the directing was admirable, the screenplay wasn't as good. There's lots of funny dialog and a considerable amount of character development for this type of movie, but towards the end, the story gets bogged down in clichés and characters start saying such obvious statements as "this is not good." My only other complaint with 'DEAD AIM' is for the first 85 minutes or so the pacing is perfect yet for the remaining ten minutes, it refuses to end. It just drags on, taking its sweet time to get to the end credits sequence. So it may not be perfect, but HOUSE OF THE DEAD 2: DEAD AIM is nonetheless great entertainment that should satisfy video gamers and horror fans, especially if they have low expectations after seeing the original. My rating: 7/10.
Utterly ridiculous!
HeshNZ24 January 2007
I am furious! It has been a while since the last zombie movie I've watched so I was really looking forward to watching a good ol' gory zombie movie. HoTD2 was a major disappointment. A reasonable story but awful acting, filming, dialogue, and nauseating clichés and punch lines. I didn't even see the first one which is supposedly worse than this one...now I am curious about how bad could that one have been! The film is full of mistakes and goofs. Who on earth analyses DNA using a blood sample!? Why are these "special forces" who "have been to hell and back" fight like spoiled 6 year old girls? We see ferocious zombies who would take a bite at any chance they get then hundreds of them that wave their arms at our two "heroes", take them down to the ground, then let them go without even a scratch. I could go on and on about this but life is too short and I have already wasted a couple of hours watching this pathetic movie which is an insult to the movie industry.
Sticky Fingaz
xredgarnetx30 October 2007
When one of the stars of a movie is named Sticky Fingaz, you should know enough to stay away. Stay away. HOUSE 2 is just more of the same, this time with zombies overrunning a college campus (man, how that must have saved on money). As usual, the "zombies" are given no direction so speak of, and provided very little makeup or costuming. They look like the zombies in one of those endless Italian zombie cheapies from years ago. Which is to say, they don't look like the kind of zombies we know and love from George Romero and Dan O'Bannon zombie flicks. The folks battling the zombies are all nonactors who get to shoot guns and do little else. Some who have written here feel the sequel is slightly more focused than the original. All I have to say is I'm glad the sequel's director did away with the 360-degree pan shots that helped to ruin the first movie. HOUSE 2 is still just more of the same, which means a lot of nothing happens for 80 or 90 minutes. There is one set piece, involving soldiers tussling with a zombie football team, that might at least have been funny. It's not.
It's funny
sehdeepak17 January 2021
It's pretty simple. . .
zephyr-12322 January 2011
A college campus becomes infested with zombies due to an experiment gone awry and professional zombie killers descend on the campus to take care of the problem. It's basically a teenage boy movie. There's the generous use of the "f" word, the countless bad sex jokes and many naked boobs. Oh yea, there's also zombies. Much poor dialogue, silly scenarios, boring plot line. As far as the zombie genre goes, it's certainly no "The Walking Dead" or even "Shaun of the Dead" (it makes lame attempts at humor).
I'm pretty tolerant of various bad movies but this is one of the few where I really wish I could have the 1 1/2 hours of my life back. You really needant bother with this one.
I'm pretty tolerant of various bad movies but this is one of the few where I really wish I could have the 1 1/2 hours of my life back. You really needant bother with this one.
"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.
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!
Bad rip off of a bad movie
gothicgoblin133426 May 2006
It's one of the worst movies ever made, seriously, I mean, I can't stand any of the material that they have in this film is so disgustingly stupid in a bad way it makes me want to vomit, vomit and defecate from my eyes. I honestly don't know why they made this terrible film and who could have made this but...THE SCI-FI CHANNEL ORIGINAL!! Or, as I may say, non-original. We all know that House of the dead is one of the worst movies ever made, and this movie...well, it was so bad that not even Uwe Boll could make this film. Even zombie fans and fans of the game will hate this film, so beware of this film for it is so horrible and so terrifyingly stupid it shall leave your head up your ass for such a long time, it's almost as bad as a romantic comedy! So, that means it must REALLY be bad, it must really be horrible. They tried to make a movie, and they failed.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
