El regreso de los muertos vivientes: Danza macabra

After the last one ROTLD 5 sounded bad.In fact it is bad.It is just another recycling of the classic first film.But it seems that the mythos have been trashed this time around.Since when do regular bullets kill the Trioxin Bunch?I can except that in a Romero movie.But seriously this is the ROTLD Series!

The Only plus here are the exceptional Make-up EFX.The Zombies looks pretty good and Imaginative.As for the locations you can tell they filmed this in some part eastern European.

Action-wise.No one here is really engaging or memorable.Bad Lines.Bland Acting.Recycled characters for a Wes Craven Teenybopper flick.It is fun to watch Peter Cyotoe slum it again for a paycheck..

Not recommend.Even on a minimal entertainment level.

This is a truly hateful movie, towards fans of the series and zombie fans in general. The ROTLD movies have often pride themselves on being the "true" story of Romero's NightOTLD and have been usually fun to watch for the humor and effects. This one has neither, nor anything that truly ties it together with the past sequels. The only thing this movie is full of is stupidity; pure, undiluted stupidity.

Having found one of the familiar 'zombie' tanks, that just happen to be lying around, a group of college students take it to their campus labs in hopes of understanding what it is...so they use it in making a drug called "Z"(...Ha...ha...). What follows is menagerie of plot holes and thoughtless actions, which are the only way the plot, which is deader than any of the 'zombies' in the film, is able to move along.

As for the reason I mention 'zombies' is because unlike the previous movies, these 'zombies' CAN die from head-shots, or even getting their ears punctured. They smell when they turn, pretty much instantly, even though they aren't really rotting or can sweat. We also have 'zombie' rats that can't tell a real brain from plastic one on an anatomy figure. Then we have a line of up people just meant to be eaten; not batting an eye the panicking people, hear or see the 'zombies' coming, or able to even fight back, to help spread the plague.

As for the 'zombie' drug, it has a random release time depending on weight, age, and other factors of the buyer, which we learn about a quarter into the third act. So even though the drug has been in circulation for maybe week, and consumed countless times by annoying DJ and the dealer, we don't get any 'zombies' until near the end of the second act. Which also gives us time for a bunch of time with the truly despicable characters of the film.

There is not even a single thing laughable in this movie. It tries to be funny, thinking that oblivious characters or ironic T-shirts are humorous, but ultimately falls short of the punchline with both ankles snapped off. It does manage a statically impossibility ability to not make you laugh at the sheer stupidity of anything.

If you are a fan of zombie movies, never watch this one. It's not even 'so bad it's good', more like 'so bad you will be buying a new TV because you'll have put your fist through the screen'. If you find a copy, I implore you to burn it to ashes, never spend a dime on it, rented or otherwise.

I've seen lots and lots of zombie flicks. From the original Night of the Living Dead to WW Z. I prefer the slow walking zombies to the faster ones. This movies has some chuckles in it. The premise is the same; breasts and brain craving zombies. I did like the drug made from zombie fluid thing, it's a new wrinkle. There have been such a glut of this genre. From indie to Hollywood, due the success of The Walking Dead (which I find only marginal). I've always wondered were are the obese, limb missing or any other handicapped zombies. Overall if you want too watch a zombie movie while searching around the internet, this one will do.

Man, there are gonna be some seriously ticked-off fans. I mean, I'm a fan of the first 3 films (mostly 1 and 3) but I'm talking about the "die-hards" who are gonna be even more ticked than me because after 2 years of "in-the-making", THIS is what they come up with.

Sci-Fi channel can make all of the bad movies-of-the-week that it wants but making sequels to cult favorites like "Return of the Living Dead" is, well, they should really just know better.

As if part 4 wasn't bad enough (and it was awful), we get treated to something even worse: part 5. Having absolutely no redeeming qualities, it essentially plays like a 2-hour demonstration of what not to do when making a movie. Not even once does it rise to "so bad it's good" status as it's clear the writer and director aren't aware of ANY of the rules to good "bad movie"-making...such as this one: "Plot holes can exist as long as there is enough action to distract the viewer from focusing on them,"

The makers of this film apparently think every viewer has the IQ of a coat hanger because the plot holes come fast and steady from the beginning through to the end. Within the first ten minutes, we find ourselves asking: "Why is it that some of the high-school students in the P.E. class look to be about 30 years old?", "Where did the note about the guy's uncle come from?", "How can the main character have lived in his house for years (judging by the dust in the attic) without ever knowing about that secret room?" and "What exactly did Peter Coyote do to deserve this?" and then later, my favorite: "What high school lets unsupervised students use syringes on laboratory rats?" Meanwhile, we get mostly bad dialogue scenes instead of action (or camera work, atmosphere, good music, good dialogue scenes...really, take your pick), to go with these glaring questions.

Believe me, I'm not nit-picking. I normally don't mind plot-holes in otherwise entertaining movies. If I was able to overlook them while watching "House of the Dead", I'd say I'm pretty forgiving. I don't think a movie has to be completely in sync with reality, but come on, at least make an effort!

Here, it's obvious that someone was just too lazy or too inept to fix them...and that is just one problem that needs fixing! What about the fact that the zombies not only talk, but when they do, they sound just like...humans?! (Well, actually, that was more the case in part 4. Here, they only really talk when the opportunity for a lame one-liner presents itself.) Still, what about the fact that they feel pain? Or that they run (but only when convenient)? Honestly, I think this was made by people who have never seen a single zombie flick. If you don't agree, then explain the makeup effects because, let me tell you: gray face powder and latex cheekbones do not a zombie make.

Like I said, fans are gonna be ticked and die-hards may well storm the Sci-Fi Channel HQ. They would have been wise to change this to a stand-alone film instead of a sequel, but as it is, maybe "Return of the Living Dead 5: Dig Your Own Grave" would have been a better title.

Why..........why............why..........were these two movies made? Why did you get Fangoria to write an article that made these movies seem worth watching? The article was better than the movies. What were you thinking being somewhat reputable as B-movie writers, directors, and actors claiming in Fangoria that "Bill (Butler) wrote the Rave script dealing with the fans directly." What fans? We zombie fans aren't such a hard-to-please bunch, but I think that "the fans" would be offended to be in any way linked with this piece of crap and that other Necropolis disaster. These two movies made me saddened in general, but fortunately, Land of the Dead was being re-released in an unrated director's cut a couple of days later and the interview with Mr.Romero reaffirmed my love for good directors committed to bringing us, the fans, quality zombie film entertainment. Thank-you for listening.