roland-spindler A rare case of the sequel surpassing the original.Admittedly - in this case this was not too hard. "In 3 Tagen bist du tot" was a formulaic teenie slasher that only genre fans will find entertaining. Part 2 however is a completely different animal. It is not a rehash of the same plot. Part 1 merely provides the back story for part 2 to unfold a gripping suspense thriller.It's not Shakespeare, mind you. The story is not exactly intellectual and you still have all the classic horror shock effects and lots and lots of gore. On the other hand the setting is so down-to-earth that it becomes almost believable at times.The final half hour is what transforms this movie from "good sequel" to "really good movie". A horror movie usually makes you guess who the bad guy is. This one makes you doubt who the good guy is. Terrific! If you liked part 1, then definitely check out this one. If you did not like part 1, still check out this one. The only excuse I'll accept is that you don't like horror at all.

dschmeding I haven't seen the first part of this movie which I guess is glanced upon in the back story of the main character Nina here. Anyway, there is nothing that closely connects the plot to the title because no one dies in 3 days except for the viewer to whom the movie feels to drag on for that eternity."Dead in 3 days Part 2" is a real bad case of lazy story telling. Main character Nina was in some psycho-killer action which got most of her friends killed (I guess thats part 1 right there). Now that the killer was found dead she is haunted by visions of her friend Mona who suffered through the experience with her. We never really know why Nina decides to go look for her friend Mona except for some random lame ghost flashbacks and imaginary cellphone calls but she leaves home to look for Mona just to stumble into her strange family who happen to be a bunch of psychotics themselves.Now if that is not stupid enough she meets the girl who helps the psychos right on the bus to Monas hometown and then stumbles into her again to be invited for a sleepover with more random flashbacks. We never learn why she has blood on her hands when she awakes just as we never learn why the suddenly appearing cop (whos sole purpose is saving Nina from being shot or freezing to death although he was either captured or beaten senseless minutes before) seems so fond of following her from Vienna up to some damned mountain town. Up to here the movie seemed endless already because the storytelling is unbelievably slow and random. Since the movie is even 110minutes long that was just half of it because now Nina walks up to the mountain house of the psychos on her own (although being warned by the sleepover girl and blood on the floor of Monas house) to end up in a messed up family covering up for their sexual pervert son who seems to have killed some girls.Spoiler Alert.... little Nina takes them out one after another since most of them are obviously idiots who seem to be asking for it. There is some rough head bashing and neck stabbing with a lot of nothing happening in between and when everybody's dead not only sleepover girl crashes into a deer and dies but also an incredibly stupid twist reveals that Mona was dead from the beginning. Its a joke that someone made this random script into a movie and then even decided on stretching the non existent plot to 110 painfully slow minutes. While technically the movie was OK I felt that several effect scenes with subjective steady cams and long crane shots felt totally out of place and like they did it just for the fun of it. Total waste of time and money!

Coventry Even though I only watched the original "Dead in 3 days" less than two years ago, I already have few to no recollection anymore on what that movie was about. I remember a mundane and extremely rudimentary teen-slasher flick, and the only thing that made it remotely special was the fact that it was the very first Austrian-produced slasher. Needless to say my expectations for the sequel weren't set very high, but I nevertheless wanted to be there for the screening at the annual Belgian Festival of Fantastic Films because I'm always in the mood for some mindless teen-slashing entertainment. Well, the least you can say is that writer/director Andreas Prochaska attempted to do something completely different rather than to just resume the basic principles of the first movie. Instead of a formulaic slasher sequel, "Dead in 3 days 2" turned out a formulaic backwoods survival thriller. The title (which used to refer to a foreboding mobile phone message) is completely irrelevant now, only the main actress of the previous film returns, ambiance and setting are entirely different and it's plainly put just a poles apart dissimilar film! Two years after the traumatizing experience that killed most of her friends, Nina rudely wakes up one night with a voicemail message from her best friend Mona; begging Nina to come and safe her. She courageously returns to the secluded region in Tyrol but hasn't got a clue where to begin her search. The slowly unfolding trail leads to a family of savages living isolated in the snowy and picturesque mountains. The first hour of "Dead in 3 days 2" is very slow and uneventful. Prochaska clearly intends to build up suspense and mystery, but it seemingly goes nowhere; especially because everybody waits for the masked killer to pop up again. Nina's long and fruitless pursuit of her friend in peril is quite boring and derivative and I caught myself admiring the postcard-like landscapes rather than to develop sympathy for the suffering protagonist. Luckily enough the extremely violent and turbulent last half hour compensates for a whole lot! In a span of less than 15 minutes, we're suddenly treated to a series of sickening murder sequences and a few moments of genuinely nail-biting suspense. The denouement is nowhere near original – let's face it: we've pretty much had it lately with butchering inbred families of weirdos – but the concept undeniably remains exciting to look at. If you seek raw, uncompromising and nihilistic violence, the climax of this movie certainly won't disappoint. If you're looking for an innovative, intelligent and unforgettable European horror movie, look elsewhere although I have to admit the final end-twist was a pleasant surprise.

Superunknovvn ...in that sequels are always a little worse than their predecessors. "In 3 Tagen bist du tot 2" is a desperate attempt to repeat the success of part 1 by cashing in on the title. Other than a few characters returning, this movie has nothing to do with the story that it is supposedly continuing (the most glaring omission being the fact that no one in this movie ever gets a text message saying that the receiver of the message will die within the following three days).Fair enough. If they got an interesting story to tell, why not use an already popular name to sell it, right? The problem is that the story isn't very interesting at all. The first half of the movie is extremely tedious, the second one is filled with clichés. There are hardly any surprises at all. How many more times are we supposed to jump at the old trick where something terrible appears in the mirror from one shot to the next? How often do we need to see a steadicam-around-the-waist-shot à la Aronofsky?On the plus side, though, director Andreas Prochaska does get a few things right again. The cinematography is beautiful and Prochaska really knows how to elaborate on the creepiness of old cottages in the mountains, right down to the harsh sociability of a meal of speck and Schnaps or some old soccer stickers on the wall. As he did in part 1, Prochaska presents the Austrian countryside as a place where horrible crimes could take place (made all the more believable by current events such as the abduction and abuse of Natascha Kampusch or the Fritzl family).In the end, "In 3 Tagen bis du tot 2" may not be the most memorable horror movie, but it is another honorable effort at putting Austria on the horror-map. If it helps to create an interest in the genre among Austrian movie financiers, I'm all for it.