Day Of The Dead 2: Contagium (DVD, 2005)

First off, I know I'm gonna get ragged over this review......

Okay, today I watched one of the DVD's I bought in a Horror Lot of 6 movies:

Day Of The Dead 2:Contagium

Now this is the first time I've seen this flix. The reason is
simple, when it first came out I saw the box & surprised
that it even existed and realized George Romero's name wasn't on it at all. Eventually, I saw the Internet reviews universally panning this movie massively. I kept reading.....it's a prequel/sequel yet neither, Romero had nothing to do with it or endorsed it, and what, the zombies talk?!!? So, I forgot about it until two years later. Now.

But maybe it was the low expectations going in, but.....
I actually liked this movie!

Okay, wait a minute, I can see why so many hated it though.
First, yes there is NO real way to have the "Day Of The Dead"
title connected to this. NO WAY! This was either a shame on
Anchor Bay or the filmmakers to think they could have gotten away with this. Maybe the filmmakers are innocent and the distributors are to blame trying to cash in on the success of Romero's films after it was completed. Nope. On the slateboard in the behind-the-scenes, it clearly shows "Day Of The Dead", so everybody's to blame on that screw-up. If this was released as just "Contagium" I think the reviews would have been alot kinder.

Second, there's alot of things in the movie that disobey common
Undead/Zombie rules. Like communication, mental-links, and that
silly device that infected the original six in it's present day. But
if this was brought in to a movie which had NO ties to Zombie classics like "Day" or "NOTLD" it would be perceived as original. With the "Day" title, it seems blasphemous. In fact with these changes it sort of reminded me of ANOTHER franchise of horror movies....

Which is Third, this doesn't rip-off "Day Of The Dead" as much as "RETURN Of The Living Dead"! Now THIS is what the movie should have been a sequel to. The virus spreading airborne, zombies talking, not knowing you're dead already, the military being so involved....did the filmmakers just title it wrong? This movie would have been a welcome addition to the "Return" family, and probably would have been more well received than it's own Parts 4 or 5. In fact, I would say personally, I enjoyed this better than those two "Return" sequels! I might even go as far as saying I enjoyed it more than Romero's own "Land Of The Dead", which was released just a few months earlier!

But look, the movie is flawed, no doubt. But it's far from being the worst Zombie movie ever made. It ranks mediocre, a solid C to be precise. The acting is middle of the road, the gore/effects are middle of the road, and the story's about the same too. But actually, I can't remember I've seen a Zombie movie take place in a mental institution before, so that gets a small thumbs up on that one. But what killed this to so many horror fans is simply it doesn't live up to the legacy of Romero's Dead series, and never should have tried. But I think that if they did the right thing & released it on it's own without connection, we'd all say that it was "Okay, worth a rental, but not too memorable" and that's far from what's been said about it today.

Overall, I'd say get past the title and give the DVD a spin. Don't expect Romero/Zombie gold. If you like the genre in general and have an hour or two to kill, it's worth a watch. It's not the best, but it's not the worse either.

My expectations were not very high, to say the least, as I put "Day of the Dead 2: Contagium" into my DVD player. But to my surprise, when it was all said and done, I was actually entertained with this film!

The premise of the film may not be much different than what usual zombie flick connoisseurs are use to... a strange virus sickens everyone who comes in contact with it and they eventually turn into blood-thirsty creatures. But what is unique about this film is the fact that the so-called zombies don't have an actual transformation from living to undead. Some of them are able to retain their life-like personalities and still speak and act like the living. It's not until they get a taste of human flesh that they begin to give in to the primal zombie urge for blood.

I was confused with some of the plot, however. The film is not perfect, there is no explanation of what the alien-like object that magically releases colorful specks of light into the air actually are. And the movie jumps from 1968 to present day with again, no real explanation of how we got to today. And the film moves too slowly to when the undead start wreaking havoc amongst the residents and employees of the insane asylum. Get to the good stuff already!

I could easily identify with each of the main characters, they are all developed enough to allow for each to be independent of the others. The special effects are reasonably gory, nothing over-the-top, which gives the film a bit more of a realistic feel. The Special Features section of the DVD was an added bonus, giving an extra half hour of the making of the movie and interviews with the directors and cast, which gives the viewer some more insight into the film.

Overall, in the zombie movie foodchain, I give "Day Of The Dead 2: Contagium (2005) 4 out of 5 Bites. I rank this one above "Land of the Dead" (2005) and below "Return of the Living Dead" (1985).

Product Details:

Actors: Julian Thomas, Justin Ipock, Laurie Maria Baranyay, Stan Klimecko, April Wade
Format: NTSC, Widescreen
Language: English, Russian
Aspect Ratio: 1.66:1
Studio: Anchor Bay
DVD Release Date: Oct 18 2005
Average Customer Review:
ASIN: B000AQ69RM

DVD Features:

Region 1
Keep Case
Anamorphic Widescreen - 1.85
Additional Release Material:
Audio Commentary - 1. Ana Clavell - Writer & Director/James Dudelson - Producer/James M. LeGoy - Cinematographer
Making-Of - 1. THE MAKING OF DAY OF THE DEAD 2: CONTAGIUM

Taken From The Zombie Memorabilia Website: ARCHIVES OF THE DEAD

I'm a huge Romero fan and zombie fan. I knew he nor anyone connected to the original Day had anything to do with it, but figured what the heck? I like zombies and the prce was right. Well... I like the premise and the opening gave me hope. That was it though. After that, it all falls apart. I'm not quite sure what a "sequel" to Day has to do with telling us why Night of the Living Dead happened. The acting ranges from adequate to horrible. I can accept bad acting, but this took more than I was able to give. The effects are ok and the zombie makeup was fine. Though I think "Zombie Class" consisted of someone saying "do this" and walking around like Karloff in Frankenstein. Which happens a lot in zombie movies. I hate to totally trash this movie, because I think it starts well and had good intentioins. I was curious, which is why I got it. I'll give it one point for trying. 1.5/5

I LOved Nothing about it, and I hated everything about it. The movie was so BAD that I couldnt even watch more then 20 minutes of it. I bought it, as Most people do, because IM a HUGE Fan of Zombie Horror. I have almost every Good movie out, and when I came across this one, I'd never heard of nor seen it before. However, SEEING the words "Day of the Dead" was enough to convince me that It was on the same level as every other Romero Movie. HA, stay away, it has nothing to do with Romero or His style, OR his movies. The person who made this should be castrated for even attempting to fool the followers. What a horrible movie, the acting was HORRIBLE, the Plot was no existant, the "FX" was kindergarten, the actors looked embarrassed to even be there...it was the worst movie I'd ever seen. And I saw quite a few, but this one took the cake.