Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

Pacionsbo Absolutely Fantastic

Cleveronix A different way of telling a story

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

bazmitch23 They pretty much copy a lot of things from the first movie. We have Thom Mathews and James Karen playing the exact same characters (only with different names), they get infected and recite lines from the first movies.There's even a scene where Thom's character attacks his girlfriend in a church. Just like the flippin' first movie!Another thing I hated about this film was that half and hour into the film when all Hell breaks loose, we have the main characters SCREAMING and SCREAMING and SCREAMING and SCREAMING and SCREAMING! OH SHUT UP! As if Americans weren't loud and annoying already!The worst character in the film is Brenda. She whines and complains about EVERYTHING! And she's a ginger!The zombie make up is dreadful. None of them look convincing. The make up effects in the first movie weren't the greatest, but they were better looking than the ones in this film.And the movie was just simply boring and uninteresting. The first movie was real campy fun. This one tries to follow the formula, but fails.And the whole electrocuting the zombies to kill them at the end was just stupid. Also, the first movie showed us that you couldn't kill the zombies at all.I've watched the documentary on the Return of the Living Dead Blu-ray, which was more entertaining than this film. And everyone said that the script was lousy and the writer/director didn't give a crap about the film what so ever and only made this film for the dough. And I thought Michael Bay didn't care.Overall, just a boring, uninteresting sequel that decays just like the living dead. I can see why this only got a 0% on Rotten Tomatoes.And yes, the Michael Jackson zombie was just stupid. Even the writer/director didn't want to film it.

tomgillespie2002 If you're a fan of the cult horror film Return of the Living Dead (1985), then chances are you've watched this lazy sequel, only to be left wondering where the last 90 minutes of your life have gone. The plot surrounds another lost toxic barrel, containing the chemical gas that will awake the living dead. An obnoxious child witnesses the birth of the zombies after the gas is accidentally released, and the town is soon overrun by seemingly indestructible, brain-eating zombies. A couple of gravediggers robbing the dead are caught up in the midst of the zombie outbreak, and with the boy and his family, try desperately to survive the onslaught.If the plot sounds extremely dull and familiar, it's because it is. The first film was a very amusing, and often quite clever little movie, bursting with ideas and scenes of pure lunacy brought to life by a cast who look like they're genuinely having fun. Part II obviously knows this, and rather than trying to expand on the originals quirky charm and develop the universe, director Ken Wiederhorn, who ended his relatively short career in television, chose to simply re-hash the first, involving similar scenes and situations, and even bringing back some of the actors. What the film becomes is almost pure comedy, aiming at a teenage audience (although the humour is for infants), and lacking the fun horror and gore from the first. There's nothing that even comes close to the limbless female zombie demanding "braaaiinnnss!" from the first.What we do get is a wise-cracking severed head with the voice of a finger-snapping black woman, a little boy hero who I was praying to be brutally murdered, and a zombie dressed as Michael Jackson doing the Thriller dance (yes, really). It's such a desperate, pathetic attempt to humour an audience that was most likely getting into each other's pants in the back row, and I fail to see how this would amuse anyone apart from those who are entertained by jangling keys. Even James Karen and Thom Mathews, who were very funny in the first, look uncomfortable with the crap they are given to work with. It's just one boring, cringe- inducing 90 minutes, made worse by the fact that this is a missed opportunity, given the quirky charm of the first. One fellow IMDb reviewer put it better than I can, so I quote - "not funny, not campy, not scary, not good."www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

Anonymous Andy (Minus_The_Beer) More brains? Not exactly. This light-hearted -- if a bit dim-witted -- sequel to the 1985 cult classic "Return of the Living Dead" has a hard time fitting the mold it so desperately crams itself into. Like a young child trying on his father's clothing, "Return of the Living Dead Part II" can't help but come up looking small by comparison. Its attempt at the sort of humor that jived so well in the original falls mostly flat, save for some shock-induced laughter derived from hearing a young child curse so much in one film. It's the sort of thing that happens when you swap the genius of Dan O'Bannon for the guy who directed "Meatballs 2."To its credit, the film is host to some pretty gnarly guts and gore, the sort of stuff that would make George Romero proud. It also helps that the cast is mostly likable, featuring mildly familiar faces of the time such as Suzanne Snyder, Thom Matthews and James Karen (the latter two returning from the first film as different characters) as well as perfectly able newcomers such as Marsha Dietlein as the prototypical girl-next-door genre-standard and Michael Kenworthy as the foul-mouthed rugrat. The film isn't particularly well-written and kind of meanders around without a point, but is worth following to the end thanks to its cast and characters.In spite of its flaws, "Return of the Living Dead Part II" is a relatively entertaining affair that is best taken with expectations lowered and tongue planted firmly in cheek. While it's not a patch on the original, it's at least light-years beyond the fourth and fifth installments. Fans of '80s horror will find themselves enjoying it in spite of their better judgment while the rest will leave it for dead.

leonardo leme As one would expect, the sequel is way worse than the first movie. Because the infection occurs in the same way as in "The Return Of The Living Dead", there is no surprise effect. It still is a fun movie and can be enjoyed if you don't have high expectations about sequels.I found two main problems besides the plot: the acting and the make-ups. The actors, specially the kids, are not good at all. Brenda (Suzanne Snyder), for example, doesn't look scared at all, despite the fact that she scream the whole movie. In the other hand, most of the living dead look like old people or are just painted blue or green (except on some close up scenes). That could have been much better if they followed the example of their first movie.If you liked the first movie (and I don't see how one could unlike it), you should watch this one too. Just don't expect it to be a very good movie.