The first movie was just awful but one year later the makers came back with a more polished effort in part 2 (the saying "you can polish a turd but it's still a turd" springs to mind!). Probably less plot here, more focus on action. And there's plenty of that. They have upped the gore & to be fair, given the micro budget, they have done a reasonable job. Lighting & production values are improved, sadly the acting hasn't. We still get gratuitous shower scenes but here, be warned, we get a guy playing with erect penis!

The story of "Meat Market 2" involves a scrappy pack of neo-punkers and their vampire friend as they struggle to survive in a post-apocalyptic wasteland lousy with the wandering,bloodthirsty zombies and few resources to get by on.I haven't seen "Meat Market",so I can't compare that film to its sequel.Still "Meat Market 2" is clearly influenced by Italian zombie and post-apocalypse flicks.The film is loaded with tons of gore and maggots,but the violence is not as bloody as I expected.In fact the gore scenes are quite cheesy and amateurish.Still I liked grisly make-up of several zombies.The acting is atrocious and the story is highly influenced by George A.Romero's "Day of the Dead".On the other hand,I'd rather watch "Meat Market 2" again than endure the garbage of "Zombie Brigade" or "Oasis of the Zombies" one more time.So if you like low-budget splatter mayhem give this one a try,but Brian Paulin's "Bone Sickness" is a much better zombie film.

Everyone is entitled to his opinion like the dude who posted the first comment, but I couldn't completely agree with him for trashing this movie. I purchased this film and the sequel when the director himself was selling them before he got distribution. There were parts of the film that were disturbing so as a soldier's penis being ripped off by a zombie and eaten, as well as a doctor having sex with rotten human flesh and a group of humans eating human organs for dinner! But beyond that, it is an okay film. What do you expect since it is a low budget flick? (The director spends an average of $2000 on his projects and lives in Canada.) Regardless, the film isn't completely bad. But isn't that what we like? You can't expect to get Shakesphere out of a gore flick zombie romp, now could you? What was this dude (the other reviewer), thinking? That it was going to be actually good when it was made in someone's backyard!? The first film was better and not as vulgar, but for effort I give the director a 5 out of 10. (And no, I am not his friend.)

More than a year has passed since "Meat Market". The zombies have grown in number since we last saw the gang. The plot is not TOO shabby, yet it seems to take a secondary place to the gore. Blood, brains, maggots & grue are the order of the day in the low-budget splatter fast. And I for one am more then fine with that.My Grade: 3 and 1/2 out of 4 bloody machetesDVD Extras: 2 commentaries (Director & "bad guy"), Behind the scenes (about 18 minutes), trailers for this film as well as Binge & Purge, an interactive game (win and get 19 minutes of footage of "El Diablo Azul" acting like a third-rate "Triumph, the insult comic dog" at what looks like possibly the worst comic-con that I have EVER seen) , and still gallery