Return of the Living Dead Part II (1988) Reviews

Return of the Living Dead Part II (1988)
Member Rating:  
A virtual remake of its predecessor, Return of the Living Dead (1985), which itself was a tongue-in-cheek rip-off of director George Romero's Night of the Living Dead (1968), this follow-up adheres strictly to a gore and gags formula. Jesse Wilson (Michael Kenworthy), is a young boy being bullied by thugs from the neighborhood when all of them discover a sealed drum containing a zombie corpse. The release of a gas from the container reanimates the dead in a nearby graveyard, thus releasing an army of the undead, which mindlessly crave living human brains. As Jesse tries to contact the military to put a lid on the situation, the zombies are dispatched through a variety of gruesome methods. Two stars of the first film, James Karen and Thom Mathews, return in essentially the same parts, but with different names, as their characters were previously slaughtered. Followed by a third entry in the seires, Return of the Living Dead 3 (1993). ~ Karl Williams, Rovi

 Read More


Starring:
James Karen, Thom Matthews, (more)
Director(s):
Ken Wiederhorn
Theatrical MPAA Rating:
R
Format(s):
DVD
View All Versions to rent and buy
 
 
 
 
 
 

Average Ratings

(12 member reviews)  

Member Reviews

Laura P.

And it was a zombie who said it too! So ya know I got confused. I was like what the f#$k did that zombie just say?! Blood: 1/2 Cheese Factor: 5 Acting: 2 Overall: 3 An okay sequel, I guess. But really if you've seen the first film you've basically seen this film. ALthough if you do rent this film watch for the Michael Jackson zombie! Good fun.

Yes   |   No


Kimberley S.

This movie was bad. Cast members from RLD-I were recast as different character, or where they? they acted the same Zombies are disapointing. There is one zombie actor who reappears over and over again to the point it's comical. I guess he was the only stuntman in make-up? You'll have trouble seperating this from #1 in your memory - so better to just watch #1 again.

Yes   |   No


Richard R.

This is a weak sequel that tries to capture the fun combination of horror and humor that was used in the original genre classic. It is fun but not nearly as much as the original, and simply tried to relive the same film over again. The make-up effects are good but don't leave as much of an impact as they did in the first film. It seems that this time around, they totally missed the mark because they tried too hard to make the same film again.

Yes   |   No


John M.

This is NOT the one with the naked punk zombie chic (pt. 1), although it virtually has the same cast. Call me petty, but crappy campy zombie movies should have some nudity. This one does not so it is less than worth my time. However, it IS a zombie movie so I can't say no to it completely.

Yes   |   No


Shawn D.

This was an allright sequel. The first film is definitely way better, but a lot of the same elements that made that one good were still here. This just overall is a little flat, and lacks the awesome ending the original had, and not quite as many laughs. I would recommend watching it once but dont go in with too high of expectations. My favorite part is that the same two actors who were workers and unleashed the plague in the first one, play basically the same exact characters here, and they even turn to each other and mention something about it. That was good for a nice hard laugh, but overall this was kind of flat.

Yes   |   No


Andrew B.

Not even as close as the original. There is too many characters and they do some stupid things. The beginning of the movie was really boring and the kid in this movie was a horrible character/actor. Skip it!

Yes   |   No


Refugio M.

Even when you turn on the director's commentaries, you are bored to death. The Director himself admits that there were a lot of problems with this film. The movie is supposed to be a horror-comedy, which makes it incredibly UNFUNNY even when it tries to be so. The dialogue is very childish. The acting is even worse. I only rented it because I am a fan of the zombie franchise. The only good thing about this film is once again the tar man from part 1. The steals the show once again with just a VERY short appearance on the film, just like he did on part 1. If you are looking for an actual comedy, you might as well just skip this movie and watch the "Scary Movie" series.

Yes   |   No


Vincent S.

Nice widescreen transfer, however the music was re-scored poorly. The original score is on the french track. So this tells me that it wasn't a legal issue with the music. So why not give us an origainal theatrical release track? New music had nice stereo effects, but annoying. Where's my Monster Mash end credits (just to name one)? I would have gave a better rating if it was not for this issue.

Yes   |   No


Fanchon R.

This is one of my favorite movies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I love a ZOMBIE!.. scares me to death!

Yes   |   No


Corey P.

It's like the first one, bad acting and lots of cheesiness, but its to be expected. If you liked the first one, you'll like this one although the music isn't as good.

Yes   |   No


 
 
 

BY MAIL

Monthly Subscription
NEW! 7 - Day Rental
No subscription required. Usually ships in 24 hours.
 
Buy New  $9.99
 

IN-STORE

 

What's Your Take?

Add to FavoritesIn Favorites  |  Share:     Email to a friendShare on FacebookShare on Twitter
    YOUR REVIEW
    WRITE A REVIEW
     
    1000 
     
    Member Reviews
    Read all (12)
     
    Laura P.

    And it was a zombie who said it too! So ya know I got confused. I was like what the f#$k did that zombie just say?! Blood: 1/2 Cheese Factor: 5 Acting: 2 Overall: 3 An okay sequel, I guess. But really if you've seen the first film you've basically seen this film. ALthough if you do rent this film watch for the Michael Jackson zombie! Good fun.

    Yes   |   No

     
    Kimberley S.

    This movie was bad. Cast members from RLD-I were recast as different character, or where they? they acted the same Zombies are disapointing. There is one zombie actor who reappears over and over again to the point it's comical. I guess he was the only stuntman in make-up? You'll have trouble seperating this from #1 in your memory - so better to just watch #1 again.

    Yes   |   No

     
    Richard R.

    This is a weak sequel that tries to capture the fun combination of horror and humor that was used in the original genre classic. It is fun but not nearly as much as the original, and simply tried to relive the same film over again. The make-up effects are good but don't leave as much of an impact as they did in the first film. It seems that this time around, they totally missed the mark because they tried too hard to make the same film again.

    Yes   |   No

     
    Read All 12 Reviews
       

      Quick Links

      Email Exclusives

      Find Us Online: BLOCKBUSTER Blog - BLOCKBUSTER Widgets - BLOCKBUSTER RSS FEED - BLOCKBUSTER Facebook Page - BLOCKBUSTER Twitter Page - BLOCKBUSTER Wiki

      FIND MOVIES

      ALL MOVIES

      Popular | # | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z

      ALL ACTORS AND DIRECTORS

      Popular | # | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z

      BLOCKBUSTER CORPORATE

       

      BLOCKBUSTER name, design and related marks are trademarks of Blockbuster L.L.C. © 2012 Blockbuster L.L.C. All rights reserved.

      Portions of Content Provided by Rovi Corporation. © 2012 Rovi Corporation.