Day of the Dead - Dark Publications

Location: Home » video » General » Day of the Dead

Similar Items:

•	George A. Romero's Diary of the Dead
•	Aliens vs. Predator - Requiem
•	The Mist (Two-Disc Collector's Edition)
•	Cloverfield
•	I Am Legend (Widescreen Two-Disc Special Edition with Digital Copy)

Editorial Reviews:

Product Description
Studio: First Look Home Entertain Release Date: 12/30/2008 Run time: 87 minutes Rating: R

Customer Reviews: Read 87 more reviews...

2 out of 5 stars

Very low quality writing, directing, editing, acting, and SFX artistry. . . but, still watchable February 18, 2008
25 out of 31 found this review helpful

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

'Day of the Dead' (2008)

In comparison to the original. . . there is none. No characters are the same. The setting is completely different. The plot is entirely different. The only similarities this film has to the original is a title and a couple character names. Even though Dr. Logan is now a 35 year old hospital physician.

Without comparison. . . the SFX were horrendous. . . decapitation and head explosions looked like something from '96. 1896. Even back then it would've probably been pretty bad. The zombies look like utter morons running around. Their arms flail all over the place (yeah, that makes sense for a dead guy, flailing arms like a chimp). And. . . they can climb on ceilings and walls like Spiderman. Yeah. I kid you not. It looked like something out of Resident Evil or House of the Dead or whatever that one wicked video game is.

The acting is pretty awful. Even from (and especially from) the adorable Mena Suvari. Ving Rhames, the only shining light I had for this movie, is gone within the first 40 or so minutes and ends up playing a mockery of a zombie. Nick Cannon, or *cough* Salazar (trust me, he's no Antone DiLeo), plays an over-the-top moron jerk for most of the film.

As you watch, look closely at the military personnel. And find me one that actually knows how hold a goddamn gun. I mean, yeah, these are National Guardsman, but still. . . they DO see combat, so they should probably learn how to operate their equipment. Also, someone should tell Mena. . . bangs are a big no-no in uniform. The military requires you to clip those back. Especially when they're covering your eyes, you blithering idiot.

As far as actual film-making goes, the writing is stiff and contains a pretty good amount of outward spoken monologues. You know how much I hate that. Remember The Wicker Man remake? That's what I'm talking about. (Girl walking alone in Woods: "It's so over! Huh? What's that?") Seriously. I believe it was Syd Field who said that, in addition to unintentional humour, outward-spoken inner monologue is the biggest mistake a writer can make. Guess what else this film had. The direction and cinematography, too, are fairly bad. Though it might be the fault of the editor, as the cuts are almost unwatchable at times.

I'm writing this review as I watch the last 15 or so minutes. So, correct me if I'm wrong (but, as a Romero fanboy, I don't think I am), but the bunker was a PRETTY important setting in the original right? Well, guess where they've just arrived. Yeah, the military bunker. With 15 minutes left.

- - -

So, the rest of this will be my old 'Credit 2 Credit' review, my thoughts as it happens.

Awesome line: 'Some people have a natural immunity to specific viruses.' Now, can someone please explain to me exactly how one's body would develop a 'natural immunity' to a man-made, unnatural virus? That is just a totally ridiculous statement.

Wow. So much for conservation of ammo. They just put about 200 rounds into this ghoul and it's still standing. That's preservation, folks! Preservation of the dead, that is! Dr. Logan's death was kinda cool. I'll give them that. You knew it was going to happen soon, but that was actually a good way to go. Me likey.

Does anyone else hate slow-motion death scenes? Seriously? They're so melodramatic and remind me of something from a freaking daytime soap. "Sarahhh, runnnn!" Doesn't get much more lame than that, to be honest.

So, this fire plan is okay, I guess. I mean, it does what it's meant to do, but does no one notice the one smallllll problem with it? The fact that they're well below the Earth's surface in a CLOSED nike site? So when large amounts of fire course through the tunnels, I'm pretty sure they'd have a bit of a problem. . . breathing. Suspension of disbelief doesn't extend to lack of oxygen, sorry.

But hey, at least they get to ride home in style. Who wouldn't want to drive away from a zombie invasion in a pimp G Wagon?

Wow. That ending shot. . . is like a less scary, much lamer version of those scary maze games online. Sad.

- - -

Well, it's over. Finally. The film, though terribly made, with almost no cinematic value, including very low quality writing, directing, editing, acting, and SFX artistry. . . was still watchable and held my attention long enough to get me through it. So, for that, 'Day of the Dead' (2008) receives:

4/10

-AP3-

1 out of 5 stars

Travesty to see one of Romero's classic titles treated in this manner May 21, 2008
25 out of 27 found this review helpful

I honestly don't want to waste my time with this but I too have watched this film. I do enjoy George Romero zombie flicks and after watching this I thought this was a joke. More disappointed actually cause all I got was some rookie director coming up with a 'remake' of one of the master's well known title and jacking it all up. A rookie in the sense of trying to capture the dark, gritty, viciousness of the zombie epidemic as envisioned by Romero in his earlier films. Steve Miner has directed episodes of Dawson's Creek, (which explains some of this film's truly boring dialog and Ken and Barbie type characters) and Smallville (which has effectively turned Superman into a soap opera).What Miner has done here is show us that he can capture all of the plot lines, and zombie behavior previously shown in a dozen zombie flicks, put Mena Suvari (of American Beauty) in the lead and make a horrible horror movie.

While this film might appeal to young folks who don't understand the art as developed by Romero, those who do will undoubtedly turn away from this one after the first half hour. It only takes that long to get an idea of the poor characters. Suvari plays an army Corporal (who carries a gun with no bullets. Why even pull it out?) Ving Rhames has a small part, perhaps wise enough to not stick around. Suvari's character is remarkably calm in the face of danger despite her seemingly bad decision making. The rest of the cast are like refugees from a Dawson's Creek episode. Nick Cannon (Mariah Cary's husband) plays the part of the bad a.., machismo Army Private, and while not giving a particularly good performance, due in part to the horrible script, Cannon does manage to bring some charisma and toughness to the character.

The zombies seem to do extraordinary things one moment (like crawl on ceilings and run real fast-like the Dawn of the Dead remake), but when it comes to attacking the lead actors they seem inept. This picture doesn't do any justice to the zombie film genre. It ranks down there with the very low budget. The title was used to possibly draw attention to it's existence, nothing more.

4 out of 5 stars

Coulda Been Worse? January 15, 2008
24 out of 34 found this review helpful

Let me just say right up front I went into watching this movie expecting to hate it after reading all the other bad reviews around the net. I'm a loyal & avid fan of the original & love all of Romero's other "Dead" work (the original "Dawn" probably being my favorite). To my utter shock this movie actually wasn't that bad. Granted this movie was definately not without it's faults, but at least a rental is definately warranted. Much like the case of the "Dawn" remake, had they just called this something else I think this would've gone over alot better. The movie only loosely has anything at all to do with the original & even than you don't see it until the very end of the movie. I'm not gonna go into plot really as not to spoil anything for you,

Now for some of the things that bothered me about the movie:

A) The "outbreak" comes from a virus that people catch like a cold.
B) This movie unlike the original takes place at the beginning of the outbreak, seems to only last about a day, & seems to only effect this one small Colorado town.
C) Zombies crawling on ceilings is a little ridiculous
D) The cover of the film shows a zombie vomiting, no where in the film does this happen. It's a stupid cover for a film that people are already expecting to hate; why not dress it up a little & spark some interest
E) I hated the way the zombies change, one second they're perfectly normal & normal looking, the next they're blistery, open soared & rotten looking
F) I hated the amature hour CGI used for alot of the head shots, it reminded me alot of "Wild Zero". While that movie was great, their film was meant to be silly.
G) It was really stupid that zombies hide their victims, A) Why do zombies care who finds them? B)Why didn't these corpses zombify? Stupid, stupid!!

Now for some of the things I liked about the movie:

A) You get the same fast paced zombies like in the remade "Dawn", these ones seem alot more vicious & energetic though
B) For the most part I liked the cast (even Nick Cannon)
C) The story wasn't horrible, just watch it as a zombie movie & not as a "Day Of The Dead" remake (which isn't all that hard to do cause they're really not all that similar).
D) Other than the CGI work the film seemed to've had a decent budget, the practical effects were all great, pretty much the only thing you have to worry about being in CGI is blood spray, head shots, oh ya & fire. The fire scenes are worse than the head shot scenes (just an FYI)

In the end, just go into this expecting to hate it (the cover helps) & you might actually get a kick out of it. I actually don't regret watching it. Just watch the movie for what it is. It's no "Shaun", "Dawn", or "Land", but it's definately far better than "House Of The Dead 1&2", "Day 2-Contagion", or "Return 4&5". Really though after looking at what I just wrote that's still not saying much.

1 out of 5 stars

Awful, needless remake March 14, 2008
20 out of 26 found this review helpful

You knew it was coming. After the surprise success of Zack Snyder's surprisingly good Dawn of the Dead remake, a remake of Day of the Dead didn't seem all that far off from happening. Well, now it's here, and it is indeed an awful, needless remake of George Romero's flawed 1985 classic. The zombie outbreak is caused by a virus that gets passed around like a cold, which is a nice twist in itself, but really doesn't get used to its full potential. The zombies themselves do all kinds of crazy things, from crawling on walls and ceilings to leaping around like Spider-Man. It should be noted that Day of the Dead isn't scary one bit either, and a majority of the gore effects (mainly the CGI head shots) are pretty bad, and the acting (from Ving Rhames, who is not reprising his role from the Dawn of the Dead remake, as well as Mena Suvari and a barely watchable and annoying Nick Cannon) is atrocious. There was potential here, with veteran horror director Steve Miner (Friday the 13th 2 & 3, Halloween H20) and writer Jeffrey Reddick (the Final Destination films) at the helm, but alas, Day of the Dead is an awful zombie remake that is a waste of film more than anything else. Alll in all, if you're a fan of the original or in zombie fans in general, you'll probably check out the Day of the Dead remake regardless, but don't say you weren't warned.

2 out of 5 stars

This flick would still be bad even if it wasn't a remake. April 29, 2008
10 out of 11 found this review helpful

I didn't even come into this riding the coattails of the remake. I came into this completely open minded. If this was called "Zombie Terror in Colorado" it would still be close to garbage. What started out so well ended up being more trash entertainment. I don't believe in so bad it's good. I only believe in bad. And that's what this is. The idea of the zombie virus traveling airborne was a good idea. But it wasn't used to it's full potential.

The gore is the only reason to see this movie once. It looked good at first but got old fast. The acting was ok but the writing was so ridiculous at times it made me want to turn the damn thing off. And I just don't feel zombies with Spiderman like reflexes, such as wall and ceiling crawling. Or zombies like Rambo mixed with Commando. That isn't cool, it's just plain stupid. And the characters behaved unrealistic at times. I would give examples but then spoilers would be added. Only die hard zombie buffs would come away liking this one. I don't think Day of the Dead is total garbage, it's just barely missing the gray.

Powered by Associate-O-Matic

T-shirts, Posters

Pentagram T-shirts, bags, etc...

Gothic Posters