|Page 3 of 15:||            |
|Index||143 matching reviews (260 reviews in total)|
On a horror website I frequent, many people posted derogatory comments
about this film. The site's owner said that the worse people insulted
the film, the more people are likely to part with their hard-earned to
see it. Such is the strange world of horror websites. Well, with that
in mind, I'd like to wholeheartedly recommend this absolute flippin'
The narrative, framed in a style that some would consider 'poor', 'amateurish' or 'atrociously bad' I consider to be a learn-by-example of unparalleled genius. It challenges our conceptions of what makes for good cinema, or even 'entertainment', and offers, instead, a story-structure and pace that allows one so much interpretation. As a viewer you will look deep inside yourself, back and forward through time, out of the window, in your pockets... Pretty much anywhere but the screen while it's on. SUCH is the profundity of the Day Of The Dead 2008 experience.
The performances are, in a word, acting. There are many other words that could be used, but I think the director should be applauded for making use of people from the 'special communities'. Their unique interpretations of emotional responses are brave, their struggle evident in every laboured motion and word. It almost brings a tear to the eye, especially when comparing this to the original D.O.T.D. which relied so heavily on such conventional approaches to acting. These are the kind of challenges we should confront ourselves as viewers of high class cinema.
Scares? Well, in the original, we had the hands coming out of the wall, Dr Tongue, the amazing Rhodes death scene, the metaphorical, regan-era cold war tension between science and military, the oppressive gloom of the miles of underground tunnels filled with the groaning dead. This version does away with such things, instead employing a cast of utterly lovely photogenic models barely out of their teens. Surely this, more than anything Romero has ever done, reminds us to be cautious of our collective attitudes towards the increasingly disposable nature of society, how living for now, and only caring about image and asthetics will surely come back and bite us. The lack of gore just reinforces the fact that beauty is only skin deep and looks fade with age... or infection from a zombie bite. In this one, the zombies can also climb on walls and stuff. Which is also brilliant. And not at all rubbish.
To summarise, this is the best film ever made in the history of all existence and should be experienced by everyone at least one thousand times. In NO WAY is it a cynical exploitation of focus group, corporate demographic mentality, created entirely for audiences of pubescent, text-speak, MySpace idiots who will whoop at any bright colours and loud noises like a bunch of hollering sub-cretins in dire need of having some real life punched into their vacant, teenage, mouth-breathing faces.
Yes, please see it. You wont regret it.
First off, if this movie claims to be a horror movie -- it is
dead-fully wrong. It is a large combination of other movies all packed
into one. Resident Evil, The Fog, AVPR, and more. I could not help but
to laugh at the fully predictable "Zombie hiding locations" or the
cheesy dialogue. They type casted Nick Cannon and gave him lines that
2Dimensional-ize black males within film and bring shame to their
culture and use of slang. The pacing of this movie is also of in that
it seems like it was shot by multiple directors and 2nd and 3rd units.
The cinematography was well done, but the director's choice in using a
shaky "Hills Have Eyes II" shooting style dropped the suspense factor
down to zero. More importantly the zombies in this film have brought
shame to all other before. They can climb up walls, on ceilings, jump
10+ feet in the air, but cannot catch our main characters when they are
right next to them.
A combination of bad dialogue, super-zombies, poor direction, predictability, and stolen scenes from other movies. This movie has been one of the worst movies that I have ever seen.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
After watching this film I felt compelled to write a short review so that other zombie-film fans wouldn't have to sit through it. To connect it in any way to Romero's 1985 masterpiece is heresy and as far as I could see, the only connection was a zombie called Bud who retained some human-like behaviour. The effects were not that bad and there were some good set pieces but they couldn't distract from the overall mess of clichés that the film was. With most of the action happening at night there was very little of the original's feeling of apocalyptic disaster and the total lack of anyone to care about just added to the frustration of sitting through a film that isn't fit to bear even a nod to Romero's work, let alone claim to be a remake. The only thing worse than sitting through this film would be to be told that someone credited you in it as an influence.
The best excuse people can come up with for this trash, is that critics
just don't like it because they can't stand someone trying to replace
Romero's previous work. The remake of "Dawn of the Dead" was actually
very well received overall by Romero fans. As a staunch Romero fan, I
can say I liked the "Dawn" remake. Many of us did. But what Steve Miner
did with the "Day" remake was just bad film making. Miner is so much
better than this, he blew a sure thing with the remake recipe, and
trashed "Day". Yes, I'm mad Miner remade a Romero film but the real
issue is that it's simply bad film making. Do you punks get it?
This movie is an insult to Romero and to intelligent horror fans. The highest overall rating this deserved was possibly two stars. There were no redeeming qualities what-so-over. I've lost what little respect I had for Rhames for his participation in this film. Cannon's performance fortifies societal stereotypes of African American men; what an insult his character was! Suvari's performance was disgusting. Every one of her lines was delivered in the same flat, oh I'm such a beautiful tough chick with brains, delivery. She's an idiot, I'm not impressed. And I don't think she's hot! She's a fool.
I wonder what Romero thinks of this garbage? I know what I think. It was horrible from beginning to end. A brain numbing experience that had me continually checking my watch. How did they even get the green light for this project? I consider it a Cardinal Sin that Miner took the "Day of the Dead" production name and attached it to this monstrosity! Miner owes Romero an apology. He owes the world of film making an apology. He owes horror fans an apology. The real shame here is that much more talented production professionals and actors would have been happy to remake this film, at least good enough to have it shown in theaters, not straight to DVD. Probably the biggest disappointment of the year for me.
Well, I finally got to see this. And I wish there weren't a self
imposed rule against expletives, or I'd write a message filled with
them and my anger at this piece of crap still wouldn't be sated. Not
even close to being a remake of a much better film, it is a raping of
much better films title. How they got two decent actors (Mena Suvari,
who I guess has no career any longer and Ving Rhames, who sleep walks
through his ten minute cameo) is beyond me. A stupid-fest from
beginning to end, I can't think of one positive thing to say about this
garbage simply because even it's short running time felt like five
hours. I won't point out all the mistakes, someone did that in an
earlier message, I will say that if I were George Romero, I'd want to
hit someone for the credit: BASED ON DAY OF THE DEAD BY GEORGE ROMERO.
I'd like to meet the idiot who read this terrible script and said,
"Yeah! This sounds GREAT!" I will point out some of the stupider things
that were slightly missed in earlier critiques. 1 - We never find out
why the hell Mena's gun isn't loaded. "It's complicated." Oh, unlike
the script which was just STUPID? 2 - The bit with the spear. Nick
Cannon killed like ten creatures (I refuse to call them zombies) with a
saw medic taped to a crutch! 3 - Why, why, why in all zombie movies
(but a Romero one) is there one idiot who says, "No, they may not
turn." We've seen an ENTIRE town turned in like 8 minutes and this guy
won't turn? PUH-LEEZE pass the barf bag. 4 - Bud, BUD the vegetarian
Zombie? Oh I think I'm gonna heave... 5 - Zombies running around
shooting guns? Sorry, but zombies are either morons (like most) or can
think (return of the living dead), which leads to: 6 - No consistency
among the zombies. Either they are fast or they aren't. Either they
think or they don't. Either they suck (like here) or they are great. 7
- The lead zombie... they tried to have a reason for them. But viruses
don't just mutate over night. And Pat Kilbane... guess his career after
Mad TV is really over.
Sigh... that's enough I guess. Just a crapfest (and boring at that) from beginning to end. A bad, bad, bad movie. And on a final note, I will NEVER forgive the far superior 28 series for introducing the idea of fast zombies. To paraphrase Indiana Jones, "I hate fast zombies, Jock. HATE EM!" And to paraphrase Doctor Zachary Smith, after sitting though this trash, "Oh the pain... the pain!"
AVOID AT ALL COSTS! Not even recommended for the Zombie completist.
Day of the Dead (the original) is a good movie. Day of the Dead (the
remake) is a piece of unwatchable trash which has nothing to do with
the original. It's more cheaply made than a super 8 movie shot by a
How can everything in a single movie suck so bad? The story, the effects, and especially the actors (if they are actors, that is.) The zombies, for some reason, develop super-powers allowing them to walk on ceilings and run at amazing speeds. How stupid. Even more ridiculous was the short blond's idea to keep the zombie soldier with her...why? WHY?? Because she likes him? Because he follows orders? What? I guess this was the attempt to re-use the Bub character from the original. But that character had a purpose to exist. This movie doesn't!
What was the point of calling this movie Day of the Dead? Obviously, as with Diary of the Dead (which is worse than this one), George Romero is making a final effort to cash-out his name and zombie franchise for a few extra bucks. There's nothing wrong with that, but when fans of his old movies get screwed out of their time and money because of this lame trash, that's ripping people off.
This movie is a fraud. Do not watch.
I don't even want to waste time writing a review for this
um...film/amateur play, or home made movie maybe?
But due to rules on IMDb I suppose I better waste some space on here
like the saying goes, 'If it ain't broken don't fix it'.
Steve Miner is a good director, remember the Friday the 13th films just some of his classic works. this remake of the great 1985 George Romero classic, in my opinion has raped the title to the point of no recovery. Shocked that even the zombies can't act, and who the hell was the casting director.
Oh please Hollywood or whoever it is that has gone trigger happy on remakes, just put down your nostalgia gun and come up with something original, gee's next thing they will be remaking Jaws, oh what's that I heard you say, they already have started on that project no, no save me I am drowning in crap movies.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Wall climbing, bullet dodging ninja zombies that blow up if they catch
fire and a friendly vegetarian zombie... Wow, that's all I can say.
Wow. I cannot believe how this movie is named Day of The Dead since it
has _NOTHING_ to do with the original, why not name it "Night of the
ninja zombies" because that's exactly what it was, ninja zombies
killing everyone in a town at night. I'm not really sure if anyone of
the crew had ever seen the original before deciding about remaking it.
And what about the hopeless attempt to add Bub to the movie, a friendly vegetarian zombie... Wow, I didn't see that one coming. The acting was pretty much awful and the dialogue wasn't any better.. And why was Ving Rhames in this one since he was in a different role in the remake of Dawn?.. Oh wait a minute, of course, this piece of **** has nothing to do with the trilogy except for the name.
The only point goes to the zombie make-up and the gore, both of which were acceptable at times.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I rented this movie because it 'took place' in Leadville, CO. I mean, who wouldn't want zombies in Leadville, if you've ever been there, you understand where I'm coming from. The creaters of this movie have made it painfully obvious that they have never been anywhere near Leadville Colorado. Apparently timber line holds no meaning for them. Last time I was there, it didn't take half an hour to get across town. The dialogue was also pretty cheesy. I was pretty fond of Bud's character. I mean who wouldn't be fond of a lovable vegetarian zombie. All in all though, the characters lacked depth, I wouldn't have felt bad if they'd all died. In fact, that would have been pretty pleasing. All in all though, I wasn't impressed, I'd rather watch resident evil any day. :-)
I agree with George A. Romero with the concept of fast Zombies are stupid. Zombies should rely on stealth over speed, since a decomposing corpse's legs would fall apart if they ran as fast as the zombies in this movie. I also found the crawling on the ceiling a bit much. If you think about, if you came back from the dead wouldn't you be a little stiff? You would think they would have a little rigor mortis setting in. I'm a bit of a Romero purist on this issue. I found the writing for this movie horrible and hardly very interesting at all. I also hated the remake of the "Dawn of the Dead". However, I enjoyed "28 Days later" and "28 weeks later" since they were not really Zombies. Because of this I will let them slide. I actually enjoyed those movies.
|Page 3 of 15:||            |
|External reviews||Parents Guide||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|