🔔Alerts
Login to get notifications!
🗨ī¸Forum

🎞ī¸Movies & TV


🌐Junk

🔍
Search keywords
Join➕ Now!   or       đŸ”Ŋ Forgot Password?

Mar 2018
OK, I'm not a complete moron (a half moron, yes) so I gather most folks don't like that the scales tip more toward comedy this time around, and that, after the absolute classic the first is, that chances are a sequel was just gonna pale in comparison.

But hear me out (read me out)

I've made it very clear (annoyingly so, I'm sure) that I'm a ROTLD fanatic. I think about that movie or some facet of that movie at least once a week. However, ROTLD 2 means nearly as much to me, but perhaps more for nostalgic reasons than anything. It was the first horror movie I ever saw in the theater. It scared the everliving piss outta me. I didn't see the original until a few years after that, but the way I see it, part 2 has always been a great companion piece to the first. Ok, I realize I could come off as being bias.

I watched it a few nights ago so that's why I'm writing this. I still love the movie. It has a lot to like in it and when I see people bashing it it does leave me scratching my head.

For starters, I think the movie is actually a bit creepier than its rep suggests. Yeah, there are some pretty hokey comedy bits thrown in, but when the film does want to scare you, I think it does an admirable job. Tarman 2.0 surprisingly outdoes the original Tarman, lookin' like an animated glob of molasses from hell. Another part that kinda sends a chill down your spine (if you allow it to) is when a zombie tries to trick our cast of characters into "coming to the hospital" but is outed upon answering Harry Truman after being asked who is the current US president.

Special fx, blood, zombie make-up and pus are better than ever, and perhaps in some ways even ickier and more elaborate than the original. But of course, that doesn't necessarily make the movie. It's just icing on the cake. Musical score? If we're talking the original score and not....whatever the shit we hear on the WB DVD is...is memorable, distinct, lively and with loads of personality. This is no dull score. Music can make or break a movie, in my opinion.

The pacing is nuts. Seriously, it's some of the zaniest, wildest, most delerious pacing in any movie ever. Broad claim, but I think it's true. This bad boy starts with a bang almost immediately and never lets up. The scene where our cast of heroes all first meet up at Jesse's house, deal with the decapitated zombie head ("get that damn screwdriver, OUT of mah head!"), go to Doc Mandel's house (best character in the movie) to get his car and play hot potato with a zombie's severed hand is exactly what I'm talking about: it's so over the top and fun, it tickles my movie-loving pickle in all the right places.

I'm not expecting to change anyone's opinion, just voicing my own and some of the reasons why I think this sequel is rather underrated. It isn't bad. It just isn't the original. The re-casting of Thom Matthews and James Karen in different roles was always a neat touch, despite the fact that Mr. Karen was given better lines (and probably better direction) as Burt in the original. Linnea Quigley (and her, um, quiggleys) are sorely missing, but we have one of my favorite ultimate 80s chicks Suzanne Snyder instead playing the bitchy hair metal girlfriend lookin' like she'd rather be on the set of the new Whitesnake video. The music is pretty good too, with some Robert Palmer tunes, a great opening song by Julian Cope that really sets the tone, and a cool party remix of Monster Mash to close out the film. Anthrax even sneaks in, though you'd have to have a good ear to catch their ode to Cliff Burton being snuck in.

All in all, love, love, love it.


🚸
avatar
sfpx says:
#2, Reply to #1

Mar 2018
It's certainly a witless, innocent form of comedy (the 80s were pre-cynicissm) but Doc Mandel really has some great lines, and his delivery is ace. He also played Jerry's dad early on in Seinfeld.


🚸
avatar
sfpx says:
#11, Reply to #9

Mar 2018
Znep totally went there. Came back around again, too.


🚸
avatar
sfpx says:
#10, Reply to #7

Mar 2018
I'm on the fence about part 3. In some ways, it's a good film insofar that it tried something different and, in the uncut version at least, it's pretty gory. But in other ways, it just reeks of 90s straight-to-videoness - that chasm of time from about 1993 to 1999 where horror sucked mostly, and it just looked cheap and bad and 90s. There's 80s cheap, which is good, but 90s cheap...ugh. I just don't like it. It's kinda hard to describe, but it just feels off. When there's poor CGI being used for fire, instead of, you know, like actual fire, things have really hit rock bottom.


@ am
You have reached the end of Trash Epics.