Truck Month Textbook Trade In Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc $5 Albums Fire TV with 4k Ultra HD Mother's Day Gifts Shop now Amazon Gift Card Offer TL256 TL256 TL256  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Fire, Only $39.99 Kindle Paperwhite AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Spring Arrivals in Outdoor Clothing SnS

Format: DVD|Change
Price:$22.45+ Free shipping with Amazon Prime
Your rating(Clear)Rate this item

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

HALL OF FAMEVINE VOICEon October 20, 2005
This movie, and I use that word loosely here, carries the title of Day of the Dead mainly in an attempt to lure in fans of George Romero's "Dead" films. Day of the Dead 2: Contagium, is in no way, shape, or form, associated with the legendary horror director, and is said to be a "tribute". This "tribute" is basically amateurish film making at the very worst, with horrible acting and editing, and the blood and gore effects are incredibly fake looking. The story, or lack there of, attempts to tie into the storyline of Romero's films, but it makes no sense at all. Now I know this crew had little to work with, but amateur horror movies of the past, such as the classic original Evil Dead and even the Dead Next Door, have proven that you can do a lot with a little. The fact that Anchor Bay, which has given us great Special Editions of the aforementioned films and even Romero's Dawn of the Dead and the real Day of the Dead, would release this is mind boggling, but I guess everyone is into cash-in's these days. All in all, Day of the Dead 2 is beyond bad, and it should definitely be avoided by everyone.
0Comment|91 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on September 25, 2005
Oh dear! After a slightly entertaining first five minutes (the inept special forces team and least gave me a few laughs as they 'contain' a hospital with their rather pathetic skills), the movie degenerates into a talkfest with dull characters doing amazingly dull things - but do we have an exciting finale? Well no! No no no no no. A few people falling on others and pretending to eat them. The lead characters doing nothing in particular. The lead bad guys doing nothing in particular. A few messy looking zombies that are ineffective because - gasp, the things they are doing are so tension free, relatively goreless and frankly dull.

I'm sorry, folks, but the crime of dullness has been committed . . . this movie is found guilty on all fronts.

I know. You're going to watch it anyway because it has zombies. But I tried to warn you, I really did.
0Comment|19 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on December 5, 2006
On the back of the DVD case there's a bit that states the following...'Part prequel, part sequel, and a total, gut-ripping, gore-spewing homage to the original'. After watching Day of the Dead 2: Contagium (2005) a more applicable statement might have been `Part prequel, part sequel, 100% unadulterated rubbish' least in terms of the film trying to be an entry into George Romero's original `Dead' series. Written and co-directed by Ana Clavell (Creepshow 3), the other director being James Glenn Dudelson (Creepshow 3), who's also listed as the producer, the film features Laurie Baranyay (Intoxicating), Justin Ipock (Grave Situations), and Stephan Wolfert. Also appearing is Steve Colosi, John Freedom Henry (American Skin 2: Eagles Gathering), Julian Thomas, Samantha Clarke, Joe C. Marino (Hatchetman), and Andreas van you can see, for many of the performers this was their first feature, and it shows much of the time.

As the movie begins the year is 1968 and we're at a Ravenside, a military installation somewhere in Pennsylvania (interestingly enough there happens to be palm trees in Pennsylvania, something I didn't know. I did, however, know there were palm trees in L.A., where the film was actually shot). Anyway, something bad is going down (beside this film), resulting in zombies running around, and the military makes the scene, killing everything on sight. One man escapes with a thermos containing a whirly, twirly vial, but he gets shot and the thermos is lost in the underbrush. Fast forward some thirty-seven years and we see a group of schmucks (inmates at an asylum that just happens to be located where the military installation was so many years prior, at least before the army blew it up) and one of them finds the thermos, believing it to be some sort of treasure. I'm not going to bother going into specifics in terms of the various character (as it's not worth the effort), but as you can guess, one of them manages to open the thermos allowing the vial to fall out. After doing so it releases these magical, glowing, Tinkerbell spores that attach themselves to a handful of people present at the time. Subsequently these individuals get sick and start shedding their skin, along with developing oozing scabs. The symptoms clear up, but guess what? Those affected are now walking, talking zombies, capable of cognizant thought and also sharing a symbiotic relationship in that what happens to one, happens to all (if one bumps his/her head, the others feel it)...the facility is eventually quarantined as the guy heading up the place seems to know what's going down and decides he wants to see how things play out (scientific curiosity, I suppose), but the stinky brown stuff hits the fan as things get seriously out of hand given the extremely contagious nature of the virus released from the aforementioned whirly, twirly vial...

Do you ever watch a film and start thinking about how the money spent in making said film could have been better spent? This is one of those kinds of movies (they should have just given me the money to fund my Catholic high school girl beach volleyball program). I think one of the biggest mistakes with this film, besides it being made, was the filmmakers attempts to insinuate the feature within George Romero's `Dead' continuum, especially since it felt apparent to me they had little intent on adhering to much of what those of us familiar with the series have come to learn about the undead in general from Romero's classic films (Romero's name isn't in any of the credits, so I doubt he had anything to do with this stink bomb). The situations played out in this film were more akin to the Resident Evil films than anything else, at least in my opinion (there's a lot of mutation elements thrown about). Had they not tried to attach their project to the `Dead' franchise, I think perhaps the film would have played out a little better, but not much. Normally I try to find at least one positive aspect in a movie but I was hard pressed to do so here, primarily because the story was so, damn boring and the characters strictly two dimensional. Even the ten minute opening sequence, one that should have been exciting as it featured army men fighting the undead, was completely lifeless (no pun intended) and devoid of any, real fun. The film then drags along for next hour and ten minutes until the last twenty minutes or so, when some zombie action kicks in (it's during this time things get visceral, but by then I had lost much of my interest by this point). There were quite a few specifics I despised in terms of this film, some of the main aspects being the following...

1. The mental patients in general...I've seen real, live loonies before and the people acting all crazy here seemed just that, regular people trying to act crazy. Hey, let's walk oddly with weird hairstyles and sit around and rock back and forth with stupid, simpleminded grins on our faces. Don't we appear crazy?

2. Near the middle an affected doctor does an Internet search in terms of learning about the vial, and he does get a response from someone, a civilian, who knows quite a bit. Later on, after the hospital's been quarantined (and supposedly locked down), the dude with the information just shows up in one of the day rooms so that he can dump a huge, steaming load of exposition in our laps. How in the hell did this guy even get in? Also, given what he knows, it seemed completely idiotic that he'd even show up, my point proved once he meets his end.

3. There was some gunplay throughout, but never once did I see empty shells being ejected from various weapons or any other indicators that the weapons were actually being fired (smoke, muzzle flashes, etc.) other than the associated sound effects, which were obviously edited in during post production. This may not seem like a big deal, but when a film bores you stupid, it's not unusual to focus on the trivial flaws more so than if you were truly engaged in the plot. By the way, I don't think some of the firearms used in the opening sequence existed at that particular period of time, but then I'm no weapons expert.

4. Zombies don't talk, at least not in my book. They make guttural moans, groans, and growls, and they may grunt out the occasional word or two ("Brains!"), but they don't stand around discussing with each other about their situation, trying to fathom the changes they're going through.

I'm sure there's more, but that's what I came up with off the top of my noggin. All in all I thought this a generally worthless experience, one that lacked any respect for the franchise it's trying to leech off of, and worthy of a single star out of five.

The picture on this Anchor Bay Entertainment DVD release, presented in widescreen anamorphic (1.85:1), enhanced for 16X9 TVs, looks decent, and the Dolby Digital stereo audio comes through well. There are some extras including an audio commentary track with writer/co-director Ana Clavell, producer/co-director James Glenn Dudelson, and cinematographer James LeGoy, along with a `making of' featurette and trailers for other Anchor Bay DVD releases like Day of the Dead (1985), All Souls Day (1997), It Waits (2005), The Evil Dead (1981), and Demon Hunter (2005).


By the way, the people who made this film are also behind Creepshow 3 (2006) so needless to say my expectations for that film have been lowered significantly after witnessing this abomination.
11 comment|15 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on October 19, 2005
Don't de fooled by the title, this movie has nothing to do with any of the Dead Films. This movie is about space zombies that have a higher thought process than the reqular run of the mill zombies. They have a telepathic link to each other, morph into spacelike creatures after eating human flesh, and make regular zombies by biting and killing people. If I was George I would be seriously pissed off for this movie being related in any way, shape, or form to his series. I did give this film two stars for at least being a somewhat creative prospective towards the zombie genre. Honestly though if you want to make a film don't cling it to the title of someone elses work unless you know what you are doing. That's one reason this movie is pissing so many off. Cheesiness aside.
0Comment|7 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on October 18, 2005
I don't think gratuitious nudity would have picked this up to two stars. Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad....
0Comment|8 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on October 18, 2005
Sometimes a bad movie can be "fun" if you know what I mean, but this is so bad you can't even laugh at it. Mostly I felt sorry for the people "acting" in it. Sad, sad, sad. I'm glad George Romero had nothing to do with this. Not even worth a rental.

0 stars out of 5.
0Comment|7 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on October 18, 2005
Even as I huge fan of George Romero & Sam Raimi (both playing a part in many of the films released on Anchor Bay)I have an ability to endure some really stupid stuff and still be like Wow. I venture to say that this movie is 100% grade A Carpola. I mean yeah George Romero had nothing to do with this film but the fact that it was realsed on Achor Bay the same studeo that released the original versions "Dawn of the Dead "& "Day of the Dead" and dared to use the Title "Day of the Dead 2" as well as called itself "Homage" I expected so much better. This movie is so bad it borders on Camp, if only it had been intended too.However for your Zombie Experts this is a fun movie to break out with at a get together for a few good laughs but hardly as good as "Shaun of the Dead". The only scarey thing about this film is knowing how much you spent on it & the idea that Romero hasn't filed a copy-rite lawsuit yet.This movie is lucky there wasn't a -5 to choose from.The real "Good" news is after seeing this movie "Showgirls" isn't so bad anymore.
0Comment|9 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
VINE VOICEon February 14, 2006
It's a pretty ballsy move to make a low budget zombie film and call it Day Of The Dead 2. Expectations will be high based solely on that, and the disappointment will be greater if the movie is mediocre. And what's with the title anyway? Why make a "sequel" to a part 3 of a four part series? It sounds as silly as Making an Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom Part 2. Romero fans will either be excited to see this or just shake their heads and walk away. But you can't help but be a bit curious about the film. After all, it has claimed to be both a sequel and prequel to Day of the Dead. Hell, even the coverbox art is very close to Day's. I was one of those who took the plunge, after all I'll take a bad sequel over a remake anyday. What does this film have to do with Day Of The Dead? Doodly squat! I did become kinda angry that someone would just make their own zombie movie and try to pass it off as a direct tie-in to Romero's stuff. That's rather cheap. Who knows if maybe in the future someone would actually make a fairly decent sequel to Day? Now they can't coz some schmuck has used up the title on their crap! If the film had just simply used the title Contagium, people may not love it, but would be easier on it. Plotwise, there's a vial containing the zombie virus found on the grounds of a mental institution(it survived a military raid on a hospital in the 60s). The vial's opened, the virus infects our four leading characters, and a good portion of the film is their slow transformation. In the end, zombies have overrun the hospital and mankind looks doomed. Well, a film claiming to tie in with Day Of The Dead manages to break the rules set forth by Romero. Zombies talk and have a fairly large degree of intelligence. They have their memories from their life. The infected heroes don't get all ugly and decomposed because we're supposed to like them. The zombies have some sort of collective conscience where they can all hear something that just one zombie hears. Or one gets shot or slapped, the others experience it. The slap scene is funny coz all the other zombies' heads snap to the right. It kind of reminds you of the dancing zombies in the Thriller video. The FX are actually decent, the acting as good as to be expected, and the story isn't all that bad, it just needed to be it's own movie, coz what we got here is a really low attempt to cash in on Romero's name.
0Comment|5 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on October 13, 2005
This movie was absolutley horrible. Like watching a soap opera. Bad acting, totally unoriginal, and gore? WHAT GORE?!? Now poor George Romero has to live with the fact that this film is concidered as "paying homage". Yeah right. I'm not going to talk about this movie at all cause there is nothing redeemable about it. You'll agree with me once you see it. Get Land Of The Dead and Undead because they are WAY better released than this stinker. This was a total cash in. Now I'm going to to try and cash in....look for my DVD of this on ebay. Skip this hardcore!
0Comment|8 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on January 5, 2006
So I just finished watching this. It was sort of entertaining but compared to Day of the Dead it wasn't good. The acting was bad, the story was fair, but lacked some explanation. The only real good part was the gore. Cheesy, yes, but cool none the less. At least the "actors" weren't the pretty boys that star in most modern horror films although I presume that's beause of the budget. Rent this one for the hell of expanding your zombie movie knowledge but it is mediocre at best.
0Comment|5 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

Send us feedback

How can we make Amazon Customer Reviews better for you?
Let us know here.