House of the Dead 2 (2006)

Simply A Masterpiece

hyped garbage

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

There are only four reasons to dislike this movie: 1) you presuppose that any B movie, particularly one made for the Sci-Fi Channel (or "Syfy," as it's now known) couldn't possibly be good, 2) you're closed minded, 3) you have some sort of mental deficiency, as evidenced by the fact that you like Uwe Boll, 4) you're a freaking idiot. Because anybody who knows anything about action and / or zombie movies couldn't possibly dislike this film.HOUSE OF THE DEAD 2: DEAD AIM is B movie master Mike Hurst's unrelated sequel to Uwe Boll's godawful video game adaptation. There "house" in question is a bunch of frat / sorority "houses" (ha ha), and there are a lot of undead, requiring a crack team including gorgeous and talented Emmanuelle Vaugier (sp?) to go in and stop them. And like all good action movies, it's that simple. It sets up during the opening credits. It totally understands what it is and the genre, hence Sid Haig himself and a dry and appropriate sense of humor - not Michael Bay styled out of place crap. The production design is fantastic. The action is actually exciting. It is the movie that the previous film should have been, had Uwe Boll not directed it. And I absolutely love it.I won't go much further into it than that, because honestly, I haven't seen it in a minute. I just wanted to weigh in on the gang of idiots who somehow think that this is a bad movie. Either we watched different films, or the world is really full of lemmings. My experience favors the latter, so I felt I had to speak up.If you're a true action movie fan, do yourself a favor and watch this movie. It's really well made, really fun, and really worth your time. If you find a way to dislike it, ask yourself if your dislike is based on the movie or your idiot friend. And then watch it again.-AS http://www.rottentomatoes.com/user/id/900752177/

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!

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.

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