MovieChat Forums > House of the Dead (2003) Discussion > It wasn't that bad, not that low budget ...

It wasn't that bad, not that low budget either. Who liked it?

posted 16 years ago by Flowbeer
20 replies | jump to latest

This film was okay. I noticed some people seem to hate it, I would not be one of them. I just think that most of us that are older, and who grew up watching films like Dawn/Day of the Dead, Zombie & Return of the Living Dead, are just 'jaded', I guess. I mean, we've seen it all, there really isn't much more a director can do to Shock us anymore, is there?

I think that this film was aimed towards a younger generation, gamers & ravers, if you will, since it does take place during an island 'rave' party and I think it's based on a video game (like I should know this!).

There are no spoilers here, I'm just not sure if I'm giving much away, because of course, Zombies emerge from the jungle and start attacking the horny teenagers, per usual!! I don't think that's a 'spoiler', I think that is only 'Logical' in the sense that horror movies always seem to follow this path!!

The gore is awesome though! I mean, they spent a LOT of money on the special effects! It may even rival 'Dead/Alive' in terms of body count and creative kills, yet it still remains....a 5 out of 10 star movie! It doesn't suck, but it doesn't blow you away either. I found it for $2.99, so do I really have any reason to be angry about that? It's worth seeing once...in fact, I can even see it being a 'classic' on someone else's list of favorites. Probably someone under 30, for sure, but hey, we all have to get into Horror films some time, right?

5 out of 10 *'s = Average Zombie fare

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] steelysunshine 9 years ago

Yes, it was that bad. I love bad movies too. I almost like Manos: Hands of Fate, but it has a few issues that should have been overcome like scenes that have no part in the actual story. If you have seen the movie you know what I mean. I even like Birdemic: Shock and Terror. I like The Room even though it was not the terrible horror movie that I was led to believe.

This was bad and I figured out why when I responded to another post. It's bad because it has unlike some other movies I mentioned some great ideas in it. But, they were so poorly executed it's tragic. The swimming zombies- great idea. The name of the movie- yet not really set in the house is it. The video game music- over used but it was a good idea. There should have been other music mixed in though, to create tension or to be a contrast to the murder and mayhem. The action being on an isolated island good- expecting cell phones to work huh?

I haven't seen the whole thing yet, it's dull and I need some breaks between the scenes that somehow while containing a lot of action and fast paced techno music are less exciting to watch than drying paint and I know this because I have actually watched paint dry.

[–] mikebourkefan 9 years ago

I liked this but never played the game

1. good gore
2. some Ellie cornell ass kickings, she was the badass cop
3. female nudity
4. clint howard was funny

Rob Zombie is one of the greatest directors today

[–] lianzantoro 9 years ago

Bad, but no worse than hundreds of other b-horror movies. Could have used more nudity. More Clint Howard. More Clint Howard nudity. Etc.

Why did the priest have such a young-looking booby?