Customer Reviews

House of Dead

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(11)
3 star:		(13)
2 star:		(9)
1 star:		(125)

 

 

Uwe Boll is a director who pushes the boundaries, and makes viewers ask themselves serious questions. Specifically, he pushes the boundaries of just how wretched a movie can be, and makes viewers ask, "Why is this guy allowed anywhere near a camera?"

"House of the Dead" is the perfect example of this, as the first of Boll's still-going stream of video-game adaptations. Put simply, this movie is a perfect example of everything that is wrong in video-game adaptations, zombie movies, and trashy action movies in general.

A gang of twentysomethings are planning the Rave of the Century, and for some inexplicable reason, they decide to have it on a remote island called the Island of the Dead (ooh, foreshadowing! Subtle!). The boatman warns a gathering of eight young people that they are all utterly doomed, but when they show him the money, he takes them anyway.

But when they get to the rave site, they find that someone has wrecked it and is presumably lurking nearby -- and they find a mysterious house in the woods. Of course, they go inside. And then they are attacked by hordes of zombies, who are at the beck and call of an evil creature living in the House of the Dead -- an immortal conquistador. (Oooookaaayyyy....)

No, it doesn't make sense, and it never STARTS making sense. You know a movie is doomed when it doesn't make sense from the get-go. Why would they host a rave at a campsite... on a remote island... with only a few people? That's pretty brainless, even for a low-rent game-adaptation/zombie flick. But sadly, the illogic isn't the worst thing about it. Boll is.

To be honest, Boll could not have made a worse movie if he had tried. He inserts bits of the video game, seemingly at random, and tries to make up for the limp plot with lots of Matrixy slow-motion and spinning camerawork. If that doesn't make you sick to your stomach, the dialogue will: "You did all this to become immortal. Why?" "To live forever!"

And the action scenes are the worst -- not a single fight looks real, and the zombies are distinctly unscary. At times it reminded me of King Arthur's fight with the dismembered, blood-spurty black knight... except Boll is utterly serious. He's also serious when he has our spoiled brats suddenly turn into hardened swordsmen, capable of defeating an ancient conquistador.

Want a decent zombie movie? Try the wittier cult movies by people like Peter Jackson and Edgar Wright. "House of the Dead" isn't witty -- it's witless, from start to finish.

Uwe Boll is a director who pushes the boundaries, and makes viewers ask themselves serious questions. Specifically, he pushes the boundaries of just how wretched a movie can be, and makes viewers ask, "Why is this guy allowed anywhere near a camera?"

"House of the Dead" is the perfect example of this, as the first of Boll's still-going stream of video-game adaptations. Put simply, this movie is a perfect example of everything that is wrong in video-game adaptations, zombie movies, and trashy action movies in general. And despite the label, the funniest thing about this edition is that Boll thinks he can salvage this disaster.

A gang of twentysomethings are planning the Rave of the Century, and for some inexplicable reason, they decide to have it on a remote island called the Island of the Dead (ooh, foreshadowing! Subtle!). The boatman warns a gathering of eight young people that they are all utterly doomed, but when they show him the money, he takes them anyway.

But when they get to the rave site, they find that someone has wrecked it and is presumably lurking nearby -- and they find a mysterious house in the woods. Of course, they go inside. And then they are attacked by hordes of zombies, who are at the beck and call of an evil creature living in the House of the Dead -- an immortal conquistador. (Oooookaaayyyy....)

No, it doesn't make sense, and it never STARTS making sense. You know a movie is doomed when it doesn't make sense from the get-go. Why would they host a rave at a campsite... on a remote island... with only a few people? That's pretty brainless, even for a low-rent game-adaptation/zombie flick. But sadly, the illogic isn't the worst thing about it. Boll is.

To be honest, Boll could not have made a worse movie if he had tried. He inserts bits of the video game, seemingly at random, and tries to make up for the limp plot with lots of Matrixy slow-motion and spinning camerawork. If that doesn't make you sick to your stomach, the dialogue will: "You did all this to become immortal. Why?" "To live forever!"

And the action scenes are the worst -- not a single fight looks real, and the zombies are distinctly unscary. At times it reminded me of King Arthur's fight with the dismembered, blood-spurty black knight... except Boll is utterly serious. He's also serious when he has our spoiled brats suddenly turn into hardened swordsmen, capable of defeating an ancient conquistador.

As for this edition, you know it must be a spectacularly worthless pile of tripe if the studio acknowledges that a horror movie can only work as supposedly "sidesplitting" comedy. Specifically, it would work as a full length episode for MT3K, with all the mockery they can muster.

Unfortunately putting out a mildly edited "Funny version"/director's cut shows that they have no idea why the original was so funny -- it was because the people involved were all dead serious, and no amount of after-the-fact adjustments can change it into "Shaun of the Dead" or "Dead Alive." It apparently has different takes, cut dialogue, pop-up commentary, and even more footage spliced in from the original game -- which is like putting a band-aid over a bazooka-related injury.

Want a decent zombie movie? Try the wittier cult movies by people like Peter Jackson and Edgar Wright. "House of the Dead" isn't witty -- it's witless, from start to finish.

I gotta say a lot of people hate Uwe Boll,I looked it up on the internet one day and saw the thing to sign to make him stop doing movies, when I saw it I just laughed!I don't know much about house of the dead, but I liked the movie, story, especially the action which I thought was cool so overall I enjoyed every bit of it.

The thing is if you like Uwe Boll check out his movies if not?Stay away from them and stop complaining!

To be honest there isn't much there to talk about.
The characters were flat, the effects were cheese and theres even a scene where you can see the spring board that a zombie jumps off of. And did anyone see the plot? I sure didn't. Even the gore is wrong. I mean, blood isn't pink last time I checked. This movie is only worth watching if you're with a group of your friends making fun of it. DO NOT spend money on this film.

I thought this movie was some what realistic and seeing how the directo said he had certain zombies run and others kind of slack behind based on the time of death, so that was a plus, and Tom Savini was in the extras along with ROMERO! The best part in this movie was not in the movie itself but in the extras where George was talking about his new movie he's trying to make to follow up Day of the dead. But the gore was mainly in the zombies, you get to see there heads blow up and and blown away, but there were some cheesy "matrix" scenes that didnt quite fit. Lastly, YOU DIDNT SEE ANYONE GET KILLED (any humans that is), they always cut away and on to another scene. Its worth renting.

Simply, this "movie" sucks. Whoever actually thinks it's cool must have a mental problem. This "thing" basically is a disgrace. If any of you guys EVEN consider about renting or even worst, buying this trash, i really have nothing to say but wish you luck to go through it because u WILL DEFINITELY need it!!!

The $2.24 price tag and 195 bad reviews convinced me that this was the flick for me. Being the consumate horror fan that I am, I actually enjoy some of Hollywood's more feeble attempts. This film did not dissapoint. The only thing that DID disappoint was that it was not as bad as some of my fellow reviewers would have you think. I mean in it's defense it:

- made it made an attempt at a plot (sort of)
- contained ample gratuitous T & A
- had lots of shooting, gut spraying, explosions etc.
- had great sound (6.1 kicks butt)
- attempted "matrix like" fight scenes

They even left room for a sequel with a jiggling zombie lady. I think that my fellow reviewers who "claimed" to be bad horror movie affectionado's were merely posers who secretly desired an Evil Dead II or Return of the Living Dead. So if you really do appreciate a good bad horror movie at a great price, House of the Dead may be what you're looking for. So go ahead. Time to climb down the stairs into the dark cellar with only a flickering candle to light your way.

Because one star is much too high a rating for this bomb.It was so bad I dont know where to start.The movie was bad enough but all during the thing scenes from the video game were put in (I give up trying to figure out why).Terrible special effects--the zombies were given tattered clothes and some eyeshadow and that was the extent of their zombieism -if you will-"just keep the zombies mostly in the dark and do quick camera shots and who will notice?"--seems to be the attitude of the director.And somehow the group of sexed up teens on the island became expert marksmen and did stunning judo kicks etc all in a matter of a few minutes after being attacked.Nothing like a poorly madeup zombie to bring out the Green Beret in all of us I guess.
Jumbled storyline of a slaveship and weird experiments and a lot of action taking place in the dark and ,oh the game footage,make this one of the worst pieces of crap Ive seen. Rent anything else in the horror section---over this "dead" dog.I can promise you anything you get will be better than "House of the Dead".

Basically the other nearly two hundred reviews sum this up. Im only adding to it cause i need to vent my feelings on this movie some where. If you are a horror fan and taking the effort to look up this review you are probabely going to see this film anyways but understand this is everything a horror film shouldn't be. It like a present wrapped in glossy wrapping paper and the size of a sport car but it turn out to be a sack load of cows dung.

Im gathering the director who also produced it is behind most of this tradegy as i don't feel a real love for the games series coming through and it a hack foreign director making a hack American film.

What you have here is a nice concept wrapping bad acting, poor expostion, poor pacing and a film that gets as stale as the monsters it poorly excutes. A film about zombies should at least make the zombies scary.

But the acting is what got me. Tis bad and i dare anyone not to watch the first 8 min and not get a sinking feeling that their about to waste abother 82 min of their life.

Rent 28 Days Later or Dawn of the Dead (2004) to understand a good zombie film.

As a horror fan do not support this film, as a general film goer, avoid at all costs !

This movie is based upon a successful computer game, bits of which are edified into the film at various sections to underline the point. The result is the worst editing I've seen since "the Banana Splits". O.K., so this type of movie must be seen as tongue-in-cheek anyway, but even when you don't take it seriously this is still all quite lame. The characters are papers thin, and the action is pretty incoherent. Only Prochnow adds a touch of class to an otherwise struggling movie, perfectly cast in his role as a veteran smuggler. In summary, whilst some good bits and pieces are in here this movie ends up as much less than the sum of its parts.