Day of the Dead 2 - Contagium (2005)

A Bad Zombie Film...

I received this as a Christmas present in 2005, which is 3 years ago, and how long it's been since I watched it. I watched about 2:00 AM Christmas night, and as I watched it, I realized that it sucked. It had nothing to do with Romero's Zombie flicks at all whatsoever and was probably a cheap cash-in on his franchise! There was a part that was disgusting to me when all the patients were sitting around eating, then they all throw up on each other, and they are still eating! If you love Romero's Dead series, PLEASE, DO NOT WATCH DAY OF THE DEAD 2: CONTAGIUM!!! August 6, 2008

One star is being kind

I have to say that I am never one to really listen to reviews but everyone that has had a negative review for this film is RIGHT. Thank God I only rented it. What a stinker! I actually watched this film on fast forward (level 3). It really is bad; from the acting to the editing. Honestly and truly do not waste your money on this film unless you are having a theme movie night like we do here called "You can spread it on crackers movie night". August 1, 2008

Going out on a limb here... But not gonna lie.

I know my five star rating is a bit extreme. Was thinking four, but then... hell I might as well get my point across. And that is this:

IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR DAY OF THE DEAD 2 ... look elsewhere.

However, if you're looking for a quaint kinda odd, but disarming flick called "Contagium" ... well you found it. Taken as a "Dead" film seems to spit in Romero's eye, but as "Contagium" (Which I refer to it as) it's a breath of fresh air in a genre which one man (Romero) has held with an iron fist since the 1960s.

I know I know. I'm definately in the minority here, but I gotta be honest. Not really as bad as everyone here makes it out to be.

It takes a hit immediately by being an obvious cash in on Romero's fame. That seems to have doomed this movie from the start.
But who here would have gone out of their way to see an unknown film named Contagium?

Actually I probably would have, given the cover art. As I'm into everything zombies and strive to see every movie (good or bad) in that genre.

I actually feel kinda bad for this movie. I'm not sure who / what was responsible for the name switch (or just associating it with Romero's Dead movies) but it really damaged the whole thing. Kinda a bummer these actors (most not even professional) have to now be maligned for being associated with it.

Not that I'm condoling the lame cash in. That sucks. And it did irreprible damage, as pissed off kids excited to see a new "Dead" movie and confonted with this took to the internet in a rage.

(Of course it was also a brilliant marketing scheme. Bad publicity is still publicity. Despite what they THINK about it, people sure TALK about it...)



So. I take this movie for what it is.

And suprisingly the plot wasn't even that bad. It was kind of ... good. It may not have been explained all too well throughout the movie, but it was interesting and most importantly DIFFERENT. They didn't just go for the safe Romero formula, they made it unique. I think with a bigger budget, script and plot hole fixes, professional actors, (and maybe different direction ... or at least help) that this movie could be really really good.

Even if you hated this, and don't think it could EVER be good, you at least have to admit it changed up the whole concept of "zombies" a good deal.

And look at Romero's movies while you're at it. Not exactly a killer plot there either. At least this movie went for (and partially suceeded) in an explanation.

The whole idea of a zombie outbreak at a mental institute is actually pretty cool.

And characters. Yea, I'll admit some of the acting could be improved. But you can really only act as well as the script is written, can't you?
I actually liked most of the acting. And remember, the main characters WERE mentally ill.

The character Vikky (the mean latino heroin addict who kept tryin to screw over all the other characters) was hilarious.
I couldn't help liking them, honestly.

As for special effects... well. You saw the movie too. I'm not gonna lie to you. I really think that most of the 9 million went... but I'm guessing they went toward make up / costumes. Because most of THOSE were actually pretty good. And that stuff isn't exactly cheap.

I mean, you think they were using non-functioning guns for the fun of it? And really, for a movie with no blank amunition, and no squibs and exploding blood packets, they actually did a decent job.

So all in all I give this movie a pass.

I might even buy it sometime (It can't be more than like $1.00 on Amazon)

But.

I'll get some white tape. And tape over the Day of the Dead 2 part, and just write "Contagium"
July 14, 2008

do not buy

I have to tell you, about 20 minutes into the movie, I ejected it and threw it out, I hope that the guys who made up this garbage turns into zombie's overnight and get clipped in the head May 30, 2008

Simply Awful

This isn't a good sequal to DAY OF THE DEAD.
This isn't a good horror film.
This isn't a good film.
This is stupid.
This is boring.
This is awful.
Everyone associated with this mess should be ashamed of themselves, the "directors" in particular. It is a cheap looking, poorly made, amateurish atrocity that is an insult to horror fans everywhere. April 12, 2008

More reviews at Amazon.com ...