I watched Return of the Living Dead Part II hoping for something on par with its gleefully fun predecessor. Let’s see how that worked out, shall we?
|
Original
|
Sequel
|
|
|
|
- A cast filled with young adults trying very hard and some genuinely good actors, like Clu Glulager.
|
- James Karen, a lot of fun in the original, returns along with Thom Mathews in – confusingly – completely different roles… having a lot less fun. The major role is played by an untalented thirteen year-old – you’ll (futilely) spend the film hoping that zombies will eat him.
|
|
|
- Cringe-worthy, hokey slapstick, plus a half-decent Michael Jackson “Thriller” gag.
|
- Invigorating ‘80s punk soundtrack, featuring The Damned.
|
- Awful, generic ‘80s synth pop soundtrack, featuring Robert Palmer.
|
- Revolutionary zombie designs – speedy, intelligent zombies plus the best zombie ever, Tarman.
|
- Somehow the zombies have gone back to stock designs as brainless shamblers. An inferior version of Tarman does appear, before being unceremoniously pushed off a cliff by the aforementioned thirteen year-old.
|
- Ambitious, pushing the limits of its low budget.
|
- Uninspired cash-in. Looks like a cheap student film.
|
|
|
- Sluggish pacing and editing, plus the screenplay recycles plot points wholesale from its precursor.
|
- Highly recommended! (Rating: 181/200)
|
- …Don’t bother. (Rating: 45/200)
|
Like this:
Like Loading...
ccpopculture 
While the first one is my favorite movie and the sequel isn’t nearly as good, I still think it’s kind of fun and better than a lot of other zombie flicks.
I admit, I haven’t actually seen that many zombie films. This isn’t the worst film I’ve ever watched by any means, but it’s just so much worse than the original that I think my high expectations aggravated my disappointment. I think if you take out the child actor and speed up the film a good deal it could have been decent…
Excellent post, man – great format!! This sequel SUCKED but it’s still better than 4 & 5 – whatever you do – DON’T attempt them. They will leave you broken and sad. And maybe even crying in the closet.
Haha I don’t think I can take another average zombie movie. I see you left out number 3 there – it’s supposed be okay, right? I’ve heard it’s very different but decent in it’s own right…
Number 3 isn’t too bad – don’t go in expecting miracles : )
Oh, and thanks re: the format! It’s actually really difficult to get tables to look half-decent on WordPress (or it was for me, anyway) so I don’t know if I’ll do it again any time soon! Always trying to do something a little different within the constraints of 200 words, though.
Linnea Quigley’s bood for the win!
It’s actually really weird, I think, that the first film was totally exploitation – Quigley nude or half-nude for most of the film, gore everywhere – and then the sequel is really tame and, like, almost a family zombie film, what with the awful pop soundtrack and the terrible child actor. I don’t really understand why they thought people would want something less gory and over-the-top and with no fan-service at all (unless you count the aerobic video scene, I guess). Normally horror sequels are the total opposite, pushing the boundaries of nudity and violence because they can. Weird.
Haha bood, I meant boobs 😀
The sequel was just a waste of time.
I just read “bood” as “bod” with a weird accent… 🙂
Haha 😀
I would much rather watch the original. Well not that I would actually choose either one if I was in the mood for a good zombie film. 😉
Thanks for the comment – not a fan of the original? It’s not the best zombie film I’ve ever seen, certainly (that’s probably Night of the Living Dead – a classic for a reason), but it’s definitely up there for me! Just the right mix of genuine horror and over-the-top ridiculousness.
Pingback: Halloween II (1981) | ccpopculture