(For an explanation of what these posts in October are, see the parent post.)

Synopsis

A heartbroken teen decides to revive his recently deceased girlfriend with Trioxin, the same chemical that rose the dead in the previous two films.  But upon revival, his girlfriend suffers from an insatiable hunger for… something.  Can she keep the hunger at bay with constant pain, or will she give in?

Opinion

Unlike the previous two installments, Return of the Living Dead III makes no attempt at humor, but rather establishes a unique question any fan of the Living Dead movies eventually asks:  If you revive the deceased immediately after death, are they ok?  Can they function normally?  Can they communicate?  If so, what would they say about how it feels to be dead?  It’s easily the most introspective movie in the series.  One very positive selling point of the story is the main actress Melinda Clarke, who puts everything into every moment she can and delivers a harsh but authentic performance of what it must be like to go through something unfathomable like this.

Unfortunately, the movie is hobbled by its budget.  The effects are very good, but most are not believable.  This is no slight against the filmmakers — the effects are amazing given the budget they had to work with.  I just wish they had a bigger budget.  More money would have given us better effects and less filler.

An exception to the above are the amazing practical effects regarding Melinda’s character’s piercings in the last third of the film, as the character tries to keep the hunger at bay using pain.  They look great, and some are very creative.

Recommendation

It’s a solid B movie.  If you know what that means, you’ll either really want to see it, or really want to avoid it.  It delivers exactly what is promised.