BA_Harrison The best things about monster movie C.H.U.D. were the creepy critters - all rubbery claws, snaggle fangs and glowing eyes - and the juicy gore (at least in the Director's Cut). C.H.U.D. II: Bud the Chud does away with the creatures, the C.H.U.D now resembling bargain basement zombies with painted faces and joke-store teeth; it also replaces the blood and guts with terrible '80s comedy, making this a serious contender for worst sequel in horror history (yes, even worse than Return of the Living Dead Part II).Brian Robbins stars as obnoxious student Steve Williams, who accidentally loses the cadaver intended for his biology class. So what does he do? He convinces his pal Kevin (Bill Calvert) to help him steal a replacement body from the Winterhaven Disease Control Centre. What the lads don't realise is that their new stiff is actually a frozen C.H.U.D. called Bud (played by Gerrit Graham), the result of a military project to create reanimated super-soldiers who just happen to have cannibalistic tendencies.A really dumb script full of lame humour and dreadful performances all round (Robert Vaughn giving a career worst as military top brass Colonel Masters) go to ensure that this film is utterly cringeworthy from start to finish. Freddy Krueger himself, Robert Englund, has a blink-and-you'll-miss-it cameo as Man in Trenchcoat Walking with Trick-or-Treaters; and he's the best thing about the whole sorry mess.1.5 out of 10, rounded down to 1 for the dancing zombies and the killer poodle.

Wizard-8 I did see the original "C.H.U.D." movie years ago, but it's been so long that I hardly remember a thing about it. But that didn't hurt any chances of misunderstanding this sequel, because it's a sequel in name only. While I can't compare this sequel to the original, I can safely say that sequel or not it's extremely lame. The movie makes the tragic mistake of trying to be extremely goofball and comic in nature. This doesn't work, because every character comes across as an idiot, and it's hard to give a darn about characters when everyone acts extremely stupid. The movie should have gone the route of "The Return of the Living Dead", which did have plenty of laughs but also enough serious moments to give it some smarts.Come to think of it, I guess the goofball approach COULD have worked had the humor been extremely funny, but it isn't. The level of humor is extremely juvenile and simple-minded, and it didn't make me laugh once. But the movie doesn't just miss with the humor, but also with the horror angle. For the life of me, I don't know why this got an "R" rating - the very limited blood and gore is at a PG-13 level. (There's also no nudity or sex.)The movie doesn't just miss when it comes to horror and laughs, but with basic storytelling. It's easy to see why the screenwriter used a pseudonym. There are a significant number of moments when plot developments come across in an unclear fashion, and even individual scenes sometimes come across in a garbled fashion. (Though it's possible the blame for these story faults might be due to the director's incompetence.)You may be wondering if there's anything of merit to be found in this sorry sequel. Well, as Bud the Chud, Gerrit Graham does give it his all; he really tried to wring some laughs out the lame script. It's a futile effort, but you do have to admire him for giving it his all.

bowmanblue I like to think that I knew what I was getting when I decided to watch 'Chud II.' I knew it was an old horror film from the eighties with minimal budget and no big name actors. I expected it to be a little bit tacky and a lot cheesy. I've watched and loved such (bad!) classics such as Critters, Ghoulies, Killer Klowns and Chopping Mall – all of which were – technically – awful, but still incredibly enjoyable in a 'so-bad-it's-good' kind of way.Sadly, Chud II does not even fall into that category. It's not awful; it's just a bit dull really. It doesn't have the budget to be overly horrific (or even a little scary). Instead, it tries to be funny, but somehow that just doesn't work. It's about a couple of teenagers who steal the military's last Chud (or 'zombie' as we know them) and accidentally unleash it on the town.Therefore, everyone in the way gets bit and subsequently turned into yet more hungry flesh-eaters. So the story isn't that original, but, if it was handled a little bit better, it might at least have been fun. As it was, it just felt forced and something trying desperately to be really funny and failing at ever point.There are plenty more classic eighties horrors out there which are much better than this. Stick with one of those.http://thewrongtreemoviereviews.blogspot.co.uk/

Zoe Howard All i can say about this title is they obviously never saw the original film. The story is gone letting it run with a night of the living dead wannabe comedy routine done 80s style. And thats its one redeeming factor. the comedy. If you like slapstick horror then go ahead and check it out. if you are looking for something more serious i highly recommend you pass this one over. The overall suffering of this film is a lack of a well written script. If you are a fan of the first one i recommend you avoid this one. It will only disappoint you. The closest i can come to a compliment is how the film was shot. Granted i saw a full screen version of the film so the screen composition is a little different. Z