|Page 13 of 15:||       |
|Index||141 matching reviews (255 reviews in total)|
Mena Suvari is a sweet decent actress. she shone in several 90's movies, whether they were comedies, or erotic dramas, but here she tries her hand at a horror flick. Did she do well? I can say, that maybe she personally was not bad, but the movie itself is a mediocre attempt to make yet another zombie kill film. They are aplenty, they run, kill, eat, attacks, roar, yell and do frighten... There is nothing new, and all the clichés are here galore. That was not a really poor film, but so predictable, so obvious, that yawn appeared soon, and ReWind button became a Must. Sad but true, the movie drags along and never grabs our real attention. Can be viewed once and then very quickly forgotten
It was only inevitable. Someday, somebody somewhere would remake the
third film in the legendary zombie saga helmed by George A. Romero.
First, there was Tom Savini's directorial debut with a remake of "Night
of the Living Dead," which was a load of nostalgic fun for genre fans.
Then, Zack Snyder spun the genre on its head with his "Dawn of the
Dead" remake that helped usher in a new generation of zombie flicks (as
well as a long-awaited return to the genre from Romero himself in "Land
of the Dead") and now here we are, for better or for worse, with an
update of "Day of the Dead".
Unfortunately, it's for the worse. Director Steve Miner, who himself has a respectable track record with films like "Halloween H20" and "House," seemed like an okay choice for the job, yet the end result is a film that is sloppy and unprofessional on nearly each and every front. In this version of the film, the military -- which includes Mena Suvari in a career-killing role sporting unflattering fatigues -- is brought in to quarantine a small town after an outbreak spread by a common cold is turning its citizens into the living dead. Along for the ride are Ving Rhames -- not reprising his role from the "Dawn of the Dead" -- and Nick Cannon, as a wise-cracking, albeit, irritating force to be reckoned with.
The film was originally intended for theatrical release but was shelved for a few years before seeing the light of day, and it's easy to see why after witnessing the mess that it truly is. The CGI is downright awful, and is rivaled only by the pathetic excuse for acting from Cannon and some of the lesser known actors who portray the teenagers. There are some twists on the original that, while hardly effective, are at least admirable. Bub, the lovable zombie from Romero's original, is transformed into Bud, a love-struck vegetarian zombie. Unfortunately, this whole bit is so silly you can almost hear the sound of palms hitting faces behind the scenes. To his credit, Miner puts on a fast-paced show that keeps the pain to a minimum. At the very least, zombie fans will find some cheap thrills in this "Day of the Dead" redux, but serious horror fans and George A. Romero enthusiasts need not apply.
This is one of those movies which will make you go "what the hell", "oh
come on", "you didn't see that??", "he was right there!!".
Poor story, poor acting, frustrating logics... This is just not how you make a good movie. Watching this movie will not make you happy. It's easy to compare it with Dawn of the Dead, of course. These two movies should have about the same budget, but you can easily see where the talent went. Makes you wonder sometimes, how these really poor stories even make it to a movie. You'd think there are some people around to put a foot down, but... Not in this case, apparently.
This movie will make you more frustrated than satisfied. It will not stimulate your intellect in any way. Stay clear, even if you're a die-hard zombie fan. Dawn of the Dead is a really great alternative, and as is happens, one of the best zombie moves ever made, remake or not.
What the heck?? This is a cheap cash in on the success of the million
times better remake of Dawn of the dead. To be honest I liked the
remake far better than the original while in the case of Day of the
Dead its the other way round. First of all the movie doesn't have many
resemblances with the original except for there is soldiers and zombies
in it. None of the claustrophobic eerie feeling in the underground
complex was captured in this movie. It reminded me like a total rip-off
of dozen other horror movies... the whole quarantined town thing was
there a million times, the running zombie thing is a new hype that is
getting annoying and was taking too far in this one with jumping
zombies crawling the ceiling.
Honestly... you have seen each of every scene in this movie before... what totally killed it for me was the idiotic vegetarian zombie idea which doesn't even help the plot and that they ended the movie with some survivors escaping and suddenly a screaming zombie face appearing before the credits.... PLEASE NO ONE EVER DARE DO THIS AGAIN!! I hate it... its one of the cheapest and brainless horror clichés.
Sure, the acting was okay and effects also were OK although some of the CGI blood squirts looked incredibly fake. But this movie is so empty of any new idea or feeling of the original movie that I can just call it a real cheap cash in on the hype that rapes the name of one of the best zombie classics (at least for me). Somebody should make a law that forbids movie remakes... its getting unbearable, especially when the remakes are totally different movies.
According to Jeffrey Reddick's bio (the writer), when he was 14, his
manuscript for a "Nightmare on Elmstreet" prequel was turned down
because while he had a "fertile imagination, his stories lacked
structure." Things apparently haven't changed.
"Day of the Dead" is a series of video game-esquire episodes capped by an incredibly illogical and predictable ending. It all begins with a bunch of kids making out in some kind of abandoned farmhouse or warehouse or other nondescript building and then jumps to a road block where the military is keeping people from going anywhere. Huh? What? Did I miss something? Like a set up or a first act? Anyone could have read the script and realized it was going to be a narrative mess. Except, it appears, the producers and director who went ahead with this mish mash of blood, gore, and tired lines.
The effects are also pretty lame with lots of cheap CG stuff and bad makeup.
All in all, don't bother. It's not good to appreciate or bad enough to laugh at - it's just plain mediocre.
When I had seen the Dawn of the Dead remake a few years back, I was thrilled for a follow up to that style of remake because that movie (dawn) was a perfect reflection of today's times just as the Romero original for its day. But when I had seen the coming attractions for Day of the Dead, my emotions were killed by a jagged rock called "disappointment" because it went nowhere near the Romero original (which will always be a disturbing classic)! So being bored and in need for entertainment, I rented the damned thing and what I think is, even the brave heroic antics of the very cute Mena Suvari can't even save this movie. The movie should be called Night of the Dead since most of the horror began at night and generally ending during the next day break. Also you have way too much CGI in it to the point that the effects were very cheaply done, and zombies crawling on the walls like roaches a million miles per hour. Oh, not to mention that if they wanted to throw CGI in there so much, why haven't they shown the graphic transformation (face wise) of an infected person with a bloody nose and white pupils to a green pigmented, green toothed, maniac covered in boils and open soars and it seems that they tried to cover up a lack of good dialog with gore and murder (which was also cheaply done). As opposed to the original, what (in my opinion)makes the movie such a classic is that you have the inner turmoil of the characters who all interplay with one another in a very bad situation. And despite the on going Romero style of slow zombie movement, I must say that even "Diary of the Dead" was better (zombie wise) because it shows that despite the dead slow and sluggish movements, they can still creep on you in droves making them very dangerous. Also, for me, I already know who's the true deviant in the movie as opposed to the decoy, but then again, wouldn't you be suspicious of a Dean Kane stand in dressed for a night discotheque madness amidst a zombie invasion in hick town, USA? The only good parts for me (humor wise) was when the amputee Rhodes was crawling on Mena's character in the air shaft, barking and when Nick Cannon's character (Salazaar)entered the bright lighted lab said "it looks like a puffy video". Perhaps, in the science of expressive art, the movie still holds true to the reflection of these days and times, nothing but cheap interaction and mega fast over kill for a flash second of a cheap thrill.
I have a few issues with this "remake". As a remake, you want to
preserve a similar storyline, yet update effects, dialogue, and
characters. The characters names that were kept had no connection with
their origin (aside from being in the military of course). Bud (a.k.a.
Bub) is given a bit of a back-story, but could've been written out all
together. The underground bunker only becomes relevant in the last 30
minutes of the movie. Worst of all, the origin of the virus is
What about the stars of the movie? Of course, the undead. This is when you have to forget you're watching a Dead remake. As in the Dawn of the Dead remake (which I enjoyed), the zombies can run. This adds to the terror, yet believable enough to keep you entertained without completely taking away from the original series. In Day of the Dead, they also jump, repel, and scale walls and ceilings. Transitioning to a zombie is a bit ridiculous. One minute you're carrying on a conversation, then you kinda zone out for a few seconds, and *poof* your eyes turn white, skin's already rotting, and you're looking for food (unless you're a vegetarian).
I kinda liked the actors. Mena Suvari isn't a great female lead. Ving Rhames plays a military version of his Dawn character, but was underused in this film. Way too many teenage characters. Credits even got the lead character's name wrong and didn't bother putting in the names of some of other characters in the credits. Dialogue was fairly cheesy and storyline was lazy and kinda predictable.
Why a rating of 4? If you remove the Dead name from the movie and market it as just a zombie movie, it's a good B-movie. Plenty of kill scenes, if not a little over the top. Makeup was pretty convincing. A good movie to watch at 2 in the morning when the bars close.
As for the climax ending... turn the movie off. You can come up with a better one by using your imagination.
Yes you may find the concept of zombies to be 'silly', but you can at
least still see genuinely interesting ideas within the subtext of
zombie classics from the likes of Romero.
Unfortunately, Day of the Dead fails at both style and substance. It's not a remake of the Romero film of the same name...more a re-envisioning. And after watching this, I can't help but feel a pointless one at that.
The story is lame and the characters are a bit rubbish. In particular, the character of Nina had me rolling my eyes. She couldn't decide if she was scared or without fear...it grew immensely annoying.
Yet the character of Salazar grew through-out and turned into quite a likable character, particularly due to Cannon's genuine acting. Outside of that, the acting proved inconsistent. Sometimes I was genuinely impressed by Suvari; at other times, not so much. But this is due to the lacklustre script. Like the story, it proved flat.
The music was nice (yay), lots of shaky-cam (neigh) and the make-up/props were not too bad (meh).
At times, I actually felt like I was watching Left 4 Dead: The Movie (a compliment, I suppose). But I advise you stick to the game, and I advise Romero fans to look elsewhere too.
This was going to receive a low 5, but the ending annoyed me so much that it had to get a 4. There's nothing new here for zombie fans.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This is a re-make in the loosest sense possible but thats a blessing
really because it shouldn't be associated with any of Romero's work
What the film has going for it is tangibly threatening zombies - nu-zombies as it were, the kind that run and bite and even jump, made them seem like they could easily over-run the town. Their abilities made the scenes of carnage and chaos seem quite authentic and disturbing. Mena Suvari does well as the soldier trying to get out of the disaster, reacting the most appropriately and believably through out. This is where the good points end.
The rest of the film is just a giant cliché, padded with over the top, needless "Look at what we can do" special effects. Steve Miner obviously didn't get the memo about token black comedy characters being phased out in the late 90s. All the characters act more like they're playing a game of paint ball then trying to fend for their lives against hordes of vicious, fasting moving monsters with whole-heartedly pants dialogue littering every scene. The zombies act more and more inconsistently through out the film, the 'friendly zombie' is poor beyond words and the zombie soldiers who ran out firing their guns actually made me laugh.
Its not a crime that this is a bad film, its a crime that its a bad film bearing the Day of the Dead's and George Romero's name which will no doubt entice people to watch what is essentially a very poor knock-off.
I was excited when I first saw this DVD. After all, Snyder's "Dawn of
the Dead" was a taut, chilling and darkly humorous retelling of
Romero's (arguably) second most famous zombie tale. Plus, Ving Rahmes!
I was thinking that Ving's cop character from "Dawn" somehow survived
and made it to the "Day".
Then I watched it. Sigh.
There were some okay aspects that make this at least an average "zombie flick". The titular undead citizens were genuinely creepy (the brief scene in the hospital where one crawled on the ceiling stands out) and the action/gore sequences were entertainingly over the top.
The problem is, the title of this movie shouldn't have been "Day of the Dead". Perhaps "Nose Bleed" or "Project: Wilfire". Aside from a few cannibalistic corpses and an ass-hole military guy (Cough!! Nick Cannon!! COUGH!!), there is VERY LITTLE that connects this to the original 1985 original.
Don't get me wrong; I'm all for well-done "re-imaginings" (Battlestar Gallactica anyone?). With this straight-to-DVD release, though, it almost seems like the filmmakers made a zombie movie and somehow got a hold of the rights to Romero's movie in order to sell copies. Maybe I'm wrong.
One thing I do know. Romero it ain't.
|Page 13 of 15:||       |
|External reviews||Parents Guide||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|