Who payed the critics

Very Cool!!!

The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

First of all, I must say that I am more than baffled at how this movie could get to bear a title like "Day of the Dead 2: Contagium", as it is nothing in the likes of the George A. Romero classic "Day of the Dead". They have nothing in common, aside from having zombies in them. And in fact, then this 2005 movie is a slap in the face to the original 1985 movie.That being said, then of course I had to watch it, because I am a zombie aficionado. I didn't even know that it existed before coming across it by sheer random luck on a visit to China back in 2005 or 2006. I have watched it twice since then; once when I purchased it, and once in 2016, as I just had to check if it was as bad as I initially remembered it to be... And it is!The story in "Day of the Dead 2: Contagium" takes place at Ravenside military hospital, where a lethal bacteriologic weapon gets out of control and turns people into zombies. Half a Century later, people at the facility finds a closed vacuum flask which holds a mysterious container inside. Once opened, the residents become exposed to a DNA altering substance.Right, well the story was mildly adequate, albeit it wasn't anything impressive in any sense. It had the right intentions, but just lacked conviction and execution. And directors Ana Clavell and James Glenn Dudelson were just fighting an uphill battle here.The effects in the movie just scream low budget to the core. And most of the times the effects just came off as being fake and laughable. And unfortunately so was the zombie make-up. It just didn't really work out all that well. And a zombie movie suffers a terrible blow when the effects are not in place.Another thing that made the movie come off more ridiculous than it had to was the flying specks of light when the container was opened. What was up with that? It just brought the movie down to a very laughable level. As did the thing with the collective mind and shared physical trait. Why would a group of people see and feel the same things just because they were exposed to a chemical? That would mean that all zombies would essentially see all the same things. No, it was just so illogical.The acting in the movie was as to be expected, adequate enough for what it was at this level of movie-making."Day of the Dead 2: Contagium" is by no means a noteworthy addition to the zombie genre. And if you do enjoy zombie movies, then you should stay well clear of this movie, as it do no justice at all to the 1985 Romero "Day of the Dead" movie, nor does it bring anything memorable to the genre. And I just can't fathom how this movie got to bear the "Day of the Dead" title.

This movies IMDb rating doesn't do it any justice at all, I was honestly expecting one of those shot on hand-held digicam, straight to DVD movies that there are so many of these days but this is so much more. This film is well shot, well acted, well directed and most of all has a completely original plot twist. OK lets get the obvious question out of the way, why is it called Day Of The Dead 2? I really don't know, it doesn't have anything in common with Romero's films other than zombies and it's certainly not a sequel. Very strange. After a great start in which the story builds it then slows down a lot, the early-middle part of the movie moves at a zombie walking pace. It sadly does affect the film at this point but it's all very watchable and the acting and storyline keeps interest levels up. I'm not going to spoil the plot twist but please just stick with it, I had thought that the best of this movie was in the opening sequence but I'm so glad that I stayed the course. The last act picks up the pace again and there are some delightful treats for zombie fans, fantastic make-up and most of all convincing, old skool slow moving zombies. Why can't Hollywood remakes stick to these rules!? I really wasn't expecting this at all, I was fully ready to take this film apart but it's made with a real sense of fun and good ideas. If the middle was more entertaining then I could easily give a higher rating, what it does do though is make the end of the movie worth waiting for. It gave me a feel of the 70's Spanish/Italian zombie movies in as far as pacing and plot, but this is way better than most of them. I can only think that the lowly rating for this film is from Romero fan boys who take offence at the use of the name. I too don't feel they needed to or should've been able to use the name but please look past that and if you're a zombie fan you will enjoy this.A superb cheap thrill with no social commentary, just a sense of fun and a reason to get some great zombies on-screen. What more do you want!!??

I've watched this film mainly because of curiosity, because most of the people say it's bad without properly explaining why, but I think that there is no movies which would be all bad, there still must be something good about it. Actually it wasn't that bad. The biggest mistake that makers of this film did was to call it Day of the Dead 2 (probably because to attract more audience). As sequel to Day of the Dead it sucks, but it's still good as just a zombie movie. There was some blood, graphic violence scenes and humor. The idea was quite good. This movie was interesting to watch, if it would be boring, I probably wouldn't watch it to the end. I understand why some people were disappointed by it, but it wasn't all bad.

Day of the Dead 2 (2005) BOMB (out of 4) If I could I'd give this sucker a double BOMB rating. The next time I hear a horror fan complain about remakes I'm going to wack them upside the nose with this film. This in-name-only sequel to the George Romero film is without a doubt one of the worst ever made and for the life of me I can't understand the entire point of it. I'm sure they called it what they did to cash in on the Romero film but the movie doesn't try to connect one thing to the previous movie. The film contains some of the worst acting outside a 1st grade play and the story is downright confusing and stupid. There's some nice gore effects but they aren't worth sitting through this thing for.