Return of the Living Dead: Rave to the Grave

If you thought that the Return of the Living Dead series couldn't get any worse than the pointless third sequel, you'd be right. While this is still an awful, stupid mess; at least it's a (slight!) improvement over the first of the 2005 offerings; but of course, that isn't saying anything. Quite why someone has had the bright idea to resurrect a series that was never massively popular anyway is anyone's guess; and the fact that the resulting movies are a complete waste of film stock aptly shows what a bad idea it was. The subtitle, 'Rave to the Grave', should be enough to put any sane movie-goer off seeing this film...but anyway, this time the stalwart bunch of teens that always inhabit this kind of movie are having fun getting stoned off their faces with a new drug. 'Z' will get you high...but it will also turn you into a brain eating zombie. It doesn't take long for the whole school to be infested with zombies; and the rave that they've all been looking forward to may well turn out to be what it's name suggests; a rave to the grave.

Ellory Elkayem, the genius behind Eight Legged Freaks, is in the director's chair for this film, and gives us a tour-de-force of forgettable direction once again. The film uses dreary nu-metal trash for its soundtrack far too often; as if the rest of the film wasn't enough of a turn off on its own. The zombie design is nothing to write home about, although in fairness; it's not the worst I've ever seen. There is a zombie in the movie that seems like a nod to the first zombie in the original movie, which would have been nice if this film wasn't a pointless load of crap. The reason why this entry in the series is ever so slightly better than the third sequel is because it takes in more of the humour that the Return of the Living Dead series is notable for. The humour isn't funny really; but at least the film acknowledges its roots somewhat. Most of the cast from the fourth film return, and basically do what they did in that one; i.e. fail to make an impression. To be honest, I can't believe I wasted time on this after wasting time on part four. My only advice where this film is concerned is simple; ignore it!

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.

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.

This is a horrible, horrible movie. Do not watch this if you're looking for quality. If however, you are looking for something to laugh at, this might be a good pick. There are some genuinely ridiculous elements, some quotably bad lines, and some comically low-budget special effects. And there are breasts. It is 86 minutes of brain-hungry lab rats, cheerleaders getting bitten in the butt, and ambiguously foreign bad guys that end up dressed like female vikings. The fact that the climax takes place at a rave, and that the movie came out about five years after rave culture effectively died out, makes it even more campy and off-target. I had a hard time deciding whether to give this movie just one star, or all 10. I believe it is a success because it does actually achieve something. It's easy to make a film that is mediocre, say, four or five stars, but you know there's something special when it's really this bad.

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.