Paul Magne Haakonsen While this is officially the third movie in the "Return of the Living Dead" line, then it feels nothing like the previous two. Brian Yuzna veered so far off course with his direction and personal touch that it stopped being a "Return of the Living Dead" movie and just turned into another typical Yuzna-produced monster movie.That being said, don't get me wrong, because it is still en enjoyable movie in its own right. Just don't expect a "Return of the Living Dead" movie as per se.The special effects were good, as you would expect from your average Yuzna movie, and there were some really great zombies to be seen in this movie, just a shame that they were only there for the last 10 minutes of the movie.Melinda Clarke really carried the movie quite well and almost singlehandedly. And her transformation into that undead creature was nice, however Yuzna managed to sleaze up the movie unnecessarily with the nudity throughout the movie.Surely an entertaining movie for what it was. I just don't consider it to be in the spirit of the "Return of the Living Dead" franchise. And it is not a movie that is a must own for a zombie aficionado.

gavin6942 Having recently witnessed the horrific results of a top secret project to bring the dead back to life, a distraught youth (J. Trevor Edmond) performs the operation on his girlfriend (Melinda Clarke) after she is killed in a motorcycle accident.Apparently when this film came out, it was something of a flop and received mixed reviews. I remember it differently, though by the time I was familiar with the movie it was already out on VHS, so I can't speak to the theater crowd. I felt this was a strong sequel, perhaps even better than part two. Sure, it goes off the track a bit, but that is part of its strength -- it dared to go in a new direction. And looking back now (2015), we see that it comes across even better compared to the awful things following it.Leading this project was Brian Yuzna, who is best known for his work on "Re-Animator", "Bride of Re-Animator" and "Society". Yuzna's work is hit and miss, but he is a horror master to his core and this film is lucky to have him. Writing and producing is John Penney, who is probably less well-known. Penney started his career as a film editor, with his first job being an assistant editor on "The Dorm That Dripped Blood" and also worked on the original "Return of the Living Dead". He ought to be better known, as he has worked in horror for over thirty years now...

Boba_Fett1138 Being not the biggest fan of the Return of the Living Dead-series, I of course did not have high hopes for this one. But as it turned out, this movie was not all that bad. Its change of settings and approach to the concept work refreshing and more entertaining than was the case in the first two movies but at the same time it still doesn't succeed in becoming a good movie as well.I honestly quite liked the movie for its first part. It was silly but it was entertaining nonetheless. Contrary to the first sequel, this movie wasn't just a simple rehash of the first "The Return of the Living Dead" movie, that has now become a sort of a cult-classic. This movie is actually having some new ideas in it, which is the foremost reason why I still rank it a bit higher than the first sequel "Return of the Living Dead Part II".But no, as it turns out in the end, this movie is also only just half good itself. And quite literally really. I often have this problem with Brian Yuzna movies. It's as if he's saying half way through; well, I gave you a good first half. I gave you a story, I gave you characters. Now it's time to let things go crazy and let me do my own thing! It's as if the movie is giving up half way through, or as if they ran out of its script and ideas to work with. The last 30 minutes or so of the movie are just too silly and seem out of place with the rest of the movie. I honestly would had preferred it if the movie had just ended after 1 hour and the last 30 minutes never existed.I have yet to see a Brian Yuzna that I like completely. He's a director that often comes in to a horror-series after it's already an established name and brand. He did this most notably with the Re-Animator-series.On a more positive note about this movie; I quite liked its effects. It was over-the-top but quite nice and gruesome looking. There maybe is not as enough gore and blood as you would expect but when the movie does go gory, it does it rather well.Not really a movie worth recommending but then again, this is how I feel about every Return of the Living Dead movie made.5/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

ctomvelu1 If I have not used this term in past reviews of ROTLD III, then let me state it here: this amazing sequel to the all-time horror classic is downright Wagnerian in tone. For those of you under 30, "Wagnerian" won't mean anything of course. For the rest of you ... The year is 1993 and our beloved government is still experimenting with a gas that it hopes will turn transform the dead into super soldiers. When a young man's girlfriend is accidentally killed, he lays the gas on her to predictably tragic effect. Unlike the original, this second sequel is not so much a comedy as a dark character drama. The ending is right out of a Wagner opera, to boot. The acting and special effects are above par for the genre and the gore is way over the top -- although a much more subdued scene where the reanimated girl cuts herself to ease her undead pain is so well done as to be unsettling to watch. She also is both horrifying to behold and oddly sexy at the same time. Considering the crap that was the first sequel, this second sequel represented a major comeback for the series. Unfortunately, it has been all downhill since then, thanks to a couple of lame made-for-TV followups..