You have to be logged in to comment! If you don't have an account register now for free! Your account allows you to post comments and reviews, upload videos and images, access or our forums, write personal blogs, and maintain your profile.
Posted By: Incinerated at 3:16am, November 8, 2009
What a horribly sucky zombie movie. I recommend disregarding any of the user reviews claiming this is "good." This is bad. It may literally be the dumbest zombie movie ever made. Dialog here is beyond stupid. The director and editor need kicked in the groin because in trying to intensify the film, they decided to speed up the film EVERY time a zombie is on screen. This is done in the crappiest of ways and looks like a car chase out of a silent film. It's that bad.
The gore is the only thing resembling quality here. It's mostly CG, but somehow manages to look almost-ok in a stupid movie like this.
So, the facts are the movie sucks. All is not lost, though. Once everything completely hits the fan (35 mins in at least), the horrible script becomes laughably enjoyable. Incredibly gay lines, and the craptastic acting they demand to be uttered, save this movie. Unintentionally funny, but not good at all.
Posted By: DarthVader_85 at 3:31pm, November 3, 2009
eh. it was... interesting. Don't expect a "remake" of Romero's original. It's a different movie with the same name. It's your average zombie movie, with an interesting type of zombie. If you don't like fast zombies, stay away. But if you don't mind it's definitely worth a watch. The action is pretty good, and the gore is decent too, although it's a lot of cgi, it still looks decent enough. It gets old after a while, but still seems to entertain. **(semi-spoiler ahead)** And then at the end you get almost a resident evil type zombie boss.
Like I said though, this isn't a remake at all. It's not Romero, so don't expect it.
For a rainy day or a night with friends, the movie is good, but regular in all senses and for some moments, it's "so bad it's good"
Mena Suvari looks great and so AnnaLynne McCord, but there's nothing else to remark.
Posted By: riotsquid1408 at 1:21am, September 20, 2009
it was pretty good
Posted By: nkyphantom at 10:39pm, September 6, 2009
after the asylum i can't believe u think this is better then diary of the dead this is garbage compared to that i mean come on this aint romero. ok i did like how the showed u bud as a human then as a zombie i give them props for that.
Don't watch this in hopes of getting a remake of the original. Watch this as a new movie. I think a lot of people are letting their emotions get involved because they see something blasphemous. Honestly, this wasn't that bad. In comparison, this was a TON better than Diary of the Dead. I found it to be rather enjoyable and entertaining. It is even better than Land of the Dead. Sure, there are changes that I would make to it, but is was pretty good. Hell, I'd take this movie (story, gore, make-up fx, acting, casting, etc) over the Resident Evil franchise any day.
Pure crap! With all the money Hollywood has floating around they could've at least done some justice to Romero and shot his original script for Day of the Dead that was turned down because it would've cost too much to make. This movie was pure shite!
a new level of awful there is nothing redeeming here just avoid avoid avoid nick cannon aswell here deserves special praise for proberly the worst performance i have ever ever ever seen
This is not a masterpiece by any means but it was entertaining and fun to watch! Good gore action, heads being sliced off and being blown off. The eye bit was horrible as well!I loved the yellow tinted look, it was fun, it wasn't meant to be in competition with George.A.Romero's Day Of The Dead, it was just trying to be another zombie film and it worked! However I didn't like the way the zombies possessed some form of intelligence they should be killing machines!
This was so disgustingly bad I nearly projectile vomited like that zombie on the cover (SPOILER: THAT NEVER HAPPENED IN THE MOVIE). How DARE they call this Day of the Dead?
Did anyone notice that the film just sped up every time the zombies were on screen? Couldn't they have just hired fast actors?
And a vegetarian zombie... come on... was he the ONLY vegetarian in the ENTIRE town?
A bad remake as far as the original goes,But still found myself enjoying some of the new twists on the zombies.The matrix zombie was pretty dumb,But not as bad as Nick Cannon.It's worth checking out for laugh but watch with low expectations.Still better than MTV vampire movies.
I enjoyed this movie enough to buy it after watching it the first time... With the budget this movie has it was good, gory, and kept me interested... Considering what they had to work with this is decently gory zombie film and a good watch for a fan.
This movie was really disappointing. I couldn't work out if it was meant to be a serious zombie movie or not: one minute it seems like the director is (unsuccessfully) building up the tension, and then he just messes it up with some half-baked joke or slapstick. If you like the good old-fashioned Romero films, stay away from this, coz it'll probably just annoy you.
Being a huge fan of zombie movies, I decided my first review should be this terrible remake. With the market being over saturated with zombie films lately its hard to find good genre defining films. This one, is not one of them. The story line has nothing to do with the original other than, The Military is involved. and later on they do "train" a zombie. On a good note, the effects were decent, and the gore effects were great. But this isn't something that I would buy or rent. Sadly, I do own this, because being zombie enthusiast I am I try to get my hands on zombie films aplenty. This is definitely only for the hardcore zombie fan, even if its just to piss you off. And yes, there is a zombie that crawls on the ceiling :(
Writers need to get more of an imagination, do something different if ur gonna remake a classic. I thought this movie was ok, but could have been sooooo much better. Why call it "Day of the Dead" when everything happens at night? Doesn't make sense to me, also Nick Cannon was annoying as shit, I was hoping he'd die first. Ving Rhames sould have had a way bigger part in the movie and that vegetarian zombie was just retarded.
Some reviews for this movie say it was a good movie. I thought it was not good. Coming off off the remake of dawn of the dead and that being a great remake this movie wanted to do the same thing and take the thunder and get people to love it. I am not saying it was horrible but... I have seen way better remakes. This movie made me mad on the fact that they have super hero zombies that crawl on walls and can super jump to roofs. I want zombies which even if they run they are not able to jump high or even crawl on walls. It had a different idea of the movie and rhodes was not done. Joe pillato was a great bad guy in the original and should have had the same ideas as the original if they could remake it one more time and follow the story of the original and just update graphics they should be fine. All in all it was alright but not a classic.
Posted By: vegeta13613 at 10:55pm, February 5, 2009
No where near as good as the remake of Dawn of the Dead, but quite a bit better than that horrible Land of the Dead. Somewhat entertaining. Watch it, then forget it. 5/10.
Nick Cannon is in it which ruins it by itself. The second stupid part was zombies running on the ceiling and the walls. I understand this is supposed to be a remake but there is nothing about this movie that is like the original. Romero should not have given this director permission to destroy a classic.
Posted By: AshWilliams95 at 6:09am, January 26, 2009
The remake of dawn of the dead was one of the best zombie movies I have ever seen and the remake of day of the dead was pretty good. First off the storyline was awesome, small town ravaged by a flu that turns them into flesh feasting zombies. The dialogue was alright, no classic one liners or awesome catch phrases. It was stupid at times but for the most part it wasn't so bad. The acting was average, no stand outs and some of the characters were annoying and why the group kept a restrained zombie friend, I don't know.
The zombies were kick ass! The fact that they could run hell fast and climb across ceilings and walls was a interesting feature for a zombie flick. Some of the zombies looked bad ass and there was one really smart scientist zombie that pwned the ass of the humans. The cgi was just disgusting and does not belong in a zombie movie, except for the explosions if they are done really well. Most of the special effects looked fake and dull and when the zombies burst into flames from molotov cocktails that scene made me want to cry. THE CGI WAS TERRIBLE AND THE WORST PART OF THE MOVIE. You could tell that this remake had a pretty low budget. The vegetarian zombie was just ridiculous and plain stupid. Yea I know a vegetarian zombie.......what were they thinking?
The action was pure awesome, the chaos scenes in the hospital looked like a brutal, bloody mosh pit with blood and guts flying everywhere. The tension was ramped up to extreme and the whole movie was filled with extreme gory action packed moments. The build up to the zombie outbreak was great.
The ending was bad, if I had of directed the remake I would not have put that ending in. Overall the remake for day of the dead wasn't bad, actually it was pretty damn good. The action was awesome and so was the gore, I did have a lot of problems with the rest of the movie though, such as:
Pathetic cgi.
Vegetarian zombie.
Annoying ass characters.
Bad ending.
I give day of the dead remake a 8/10
Posted By: gorehound62 at 6:19pm, January 23, 2009
where to begin. this was quite possibly the worst movie i have ever seen. whoever had the bright idea of putting nick cannon into a horror movie, let alone a remake of a classic romero film, should be put out of the movie industry permenantly. the poster simulates my reaction to this abomination called a movie. awful. terrible. a complete waste of my life.
Posted By: GRUDGE4life at 3:48pm, January 21, 2009
wow!! some of the other people who gave reviews need to remember that there is no clear definition of a "zombie"... so if you mind go cry somewhere else. i really liked this movie and thought it was pretty good for it not being directed by Romero himslef
Posted By: andrewautopsy at 2:27pm, December 20, 2008
This movie was poor, the only person i like was Ving Rhames, only because i adored him in the Dawn of the Dead re-make and i kind of like Mina Suravi? I think thats how you say it.
This was a movie what didnt keep true to the original. The underground thing was amazing on the original! Thats why it worked so well. This movie had zombies on ceilings? What the hell.
I did not like this movie at all.
If you want to ask me questions on horror movies please do! Im on bloody-disgusting all the time.
Posted By: dan_madge at 10:34am, December 11, 2008
I thought this actually might not be bad cause the Dawn remake was quite good. I was told how shite it was but I still thought I'd check it out. I wish I hadn't, because its really, really shit. The zombies are crap looking, they look as though they were animated in stop motion (and badly at that). The special effects are awful. And yes, the zombie crawling along the ceiling like spider man was just plain fucking retarded. The acting was pish aswell, mainly due to the nerdy guy who got bit in the hand, the 'hip gangsta' dickhead and that fat fucking disgusting mess of a human being who was the DJ. And not to mention Ving Rhames, who seems to be only able to play one character in every film he's ever been in. VEGETARIAN ZOMBIES?!?! What in the name of sweet suffering fuck?? I actually paid £3 to rent this pile of shit. D'oh.
No. Its not great but is is somewhat good. Compared to the original it is trash. But I don't compare films especially remakes when you have the original to always go back and watch. This movie is a set your mind on zero film, its just chaotic with some funny moments, good zombie carnage and gore. Its better than most DTV zombie films. Definitely not for everyone.
Posted By: paulcav151 at 8:35pm, November 10, 2008
Fast zombies that can climb the walls and crawl on the ceiling, jumping out third story windows to attack...And Mena Suvari and some other hot chick to boot! What is there not to like?
Posted By: Butterkeuh at 12:34pm, November 1, 2008
stupid movie.
Posted By: stewietantrum at 12:42am, October 17, 2008
I'm a zombie fiend, so of course I had to watch this one. And it was a little disappointing. Not terrible, but it's a movie that you really only need to see once (if you absolutely must).
I don't understand how they were able to use the title Day of the Dead, though. It really wasn't a remake. The only real similarity to the original was that it dealt with the military during a zombie outbreak. That's it. No underground bunker, no Bub, just the military.
Posted By: WinterRaven at 11:38pm, October 12, 2008
I rented this thing out of Redbox for a buck. I was impressed with the idea that these things didn't stagger around like they were drunk but rather could run, climb, even drive and shoot guns. I was also taken back by how they changed into Zombie's this time out. Not the best movie I've ever seen but I was glad it wasn't a total waste of my buck. LOL.
Posted By: MrHorrorfest at 5:57pm, September 24, 2008
Plain out stupid. But, we all have our opinions.
Posted By: TehFuryman at 12:02pm, September 21, 2008
So I stumbled across this movie while I was messing around on IMDb.com and got curious as to if they were ever going to make a sequel to the Dawn of the Dead remake which I loved.
Now, while this can't entirely be considered a sequel, you still have the new generation of zombies that run rather than shamble after their prey. In addition, however, these bastards can crawl on walls and ceilings as well. I was a little unsure at first when I heard about it but once I actually saw it, it worked well to me.
Again: It's not a sequel. The movie starts out showing a whole new outbreak of some airborne infection that puts the victims into a catatonic state. During what appears to be 30 or so seconds, their system shuts down and they reanimate into a flesh hungry zombie. The movie doesn't quite stay true to the original movie of the same title to really be called a remake. It could be called one in the sense you have Captain Rhodes (who in this one, isn't as much of a jerk as he was in the original), Dr. Logan and an adaptation of the zombie Bub (only in this one, his name is Bud). Alot of people knock Nick Cannon's performance in this saying it ruined the movie. I disagree. The guy knows how to add humor at the right moments and how to play a good hero. He can also play a good...well...jackass (he has a few moments in this where you're just like "God, you're an ass.") The cause of the outbreak and how it's discovered is an interesting little piece of the story. The gore factor and special effects are decent and it even has it's moments that make you jump. All in all a good film. It's no masterpiece to give an Oscar to, but it's a masterpiece in the horror and zombie genre. If you enjoy zombie movies with a decent story (that doesn't have to be perfect) and don't mind it pretty much jumping right into the violence while it still develops the characters, I recommend this movie. Watch it with an open point of view and don't expect it to be exactly like or even too close to the original. It's not. It has it's similarities and that's about it. If you're as big of a zombie fan as I am, you shouldn't be disappointed.
Posted By: Lyssa284225 at 5:42pm, September 20, 2008
Awesome
Posted By: RedSabbath at 11:17am, September 20, 2008
After the surprising quality of the 2004 Dawn Of The Dead remake, it was just inevitable that some other filmmaker would come to put their own vision on another of George Romero's zombieworks. This time his third chapter would get the treatment in 2008's Day Of The Dead. But unlike '04's Dawn sticking close to the original vision, Day takes the phrase "reimagining" to a whole new level.
Honestly, aside from a few of the original surnames used, this movie is nothing like the original 1985 Day Of The Dead, From it's location, to it's plot, to the Zombies themselves, this film could have been called anything. In alot of ways it reminded me of that other abomination 2005's Day Of The Dead 2:Contagium, with it's connection to the original in name only. But just for a second let's look past the title, and see if there's a good movie in there somewhere, shall we?
DOTD08 takes a new and fresh look at the world of Zombies, but in a more quickened pace. Apparently in this day and age, we don't have time to wait for zombies to dig out of their graves. Hell, we don't even have time for people to die! That's because in DOTD08, the zombies aren't dead. Huh? Nope, it's another one of those "Contagium In The Air Virus" stories we've seen before. Where? Maybe Nightmare City? Demons 1 and 2? 28 Days/Weeks Later? YES, that last one! In fact, this film's premise will remind you of those last films. No longer do we have to wait to get bitten or plain old die, it could happen to anyone in this town at anytime. Talk about a case of ADD filmmaking!
The cast has a few familiar faces that do an adequate job here, including cutie-pie Mena Suvari, stereotypical Nick Cannon, and a phoning-it-in Ving Rhames (possibly playing his brother that he established/mentioned in the previous remake...maybe). But looking at the Zombies themselves, they do give a fresh outlook on the genre that gives mixed results. First, they rot instantly. From the moment you freeze-up from the virus to the time you awaken hungry for flesh, you look weeks dead in an instant. Also like 28D/WL you gain superhuman strength causing great ability to jump high and even climb ceilings....
(I wanna interupt myself right here: Alot of reviewers of this film have mentioned ad nauseum about some "Zombie Spidermen" in the film. I want to debunk that right now. There is one scene, lasting 3 seconds, where one zombie, ONE, jumps up, breaks his arms and legs through the ceiling, hangs on to the underneath rafter beams, grabs hold of the next group, moves one space like a jungle gym, and then falls on his victim. THAT'S IT! This comment has bothered me since I've seen the movie because I envisioned an army of wall-crawling nightcrawlers due to these comments. It's just not so.)
....and boy are they flammable! Overall, the effects are pretty damn decent and do keep your eyes busy. But if you're looking for any social commentary that Romero or even DOTD04 provided, forget it. This is just Zombie carnage, and honestly not much of that to begin with. Director Steve Miner, who gave us some great Friday The 13th and Halloween sequels, had provided us with a decent Zombie movie, but like Contagium before it, is cursed to panning by using that established name in vain. But if you can Fast Forward through the title sequence never to see the name, you might enjoy this film better. Comes with some decent extras and a commentary that gives the film just too much credit. Recommended to any fan of the 28 series who thinks a frantic, running zombie is better than a lumbering one (have you guys ever heard of rigormortis?), this will help kill an hour and a half while increasing your desire to see the true 1985 film that inspired it.
(RedSabbath Rating:7.0/10)
Posted By: zombiefan09 at 10:56pm, September 15, 2008
It's very different from the original, so try to be open-minded about it. It's good that they use some of the original names like Sarah, Capt. Rhodes, Salazar, Dr. Logan, and Bub. (Who is renamed to Bud in this one.) Some parts remind me of 'Planet Terror' Also in this one, Capt. Rhodes didn't have too big a part and wasn't corrupt like in the original. Dr. Logan is a lot younger but very selfish, and Salazar is black and has those funny one-liners. The zombies are pretty cool. There are a lot of new characters, and some characters from the original have been taken away. Most of the movie takes place at night and they don't get to the underground missile silo until the end of the movie. This one has a lot more action than the original, but I still like the original better because of the gore effects!
In the small town of Colorado, a virus has been spread. The military has been called in to help with the quarantine, and help people throughout the town. Later, the virus spreads even more, and some people take refuge in the hospital, and the radio station. If you love zombie flicks, I highly recommend DAY OF THE DEAD!!!
Get ready again for the darkest day of horror the world has ever known!!!
This was the most horrible zombie film i have ever seen. Since when can a Zombie jump onto the ceiling and crawl around. Um they don't. They gave the zombies superhuman strenght, in which if you read anything on Zombies, you know that this is not true. It was the most unbelievable zombie movies I have ever seen.
Wot da fuk!!! This has to be the worst zombie film EVER, have said it before will say it again ZOMBIES DO NOT RUN!! I cant even run that fast!! Not one good thing to say about this film, and to call it day of the dead is just a poke in the eye for any fan of the original.
Posted By: StrangeJorge at 12:09am, August 4, 2008
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM I DONT KNOW WHAT TO SAY THIS WAS BLOODY,GORY AND FUN BUT IT ALSO WAS STUPID, ABISMAL AND NON SCARY IT WAS LIKE IF YOU THROW THE ORIGINAL TO THE TRASH.
"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." --rhob1960, imdb.com
What's with these hyper fast zombie people? Not satisfied with Zombies being able to run as fast as Olympic Athletes, the Director decides to speed up the film to make them faster.
Sorry, but the faster the zombie, the more it looks like actors with make-up on.
Usual cast of pretty looking soul-less actors - and they weren't even the zombies!
No character development, no emotional engagement.
This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Nick Cannon should get back in his drum line and leave zombie flicks alone. Mena Suvari was dreadful. The effects were weak, I wasnot a fan of the "matrix zombies" Overall, this movie should be skipped. If you are thinking about watching a newer zombie film. Diary of the Dead or Automaton Transfusion are a much better bet.
The movie was kind of stupid in some scenes like when the zombie bud is a vegetarian and looks at the Mena Suvaris characters ass because he likes her was really dumb.But beside that it was really good,scary,disgusting,bloody and gory so i think people doesnt apreciates a good movie like the halloween remake and as for the ending i almost shit my pants it was so fuckin scary.
I also think this was probably one of the worst remakes I have ever seen. Yeah I too think it was worse than the remake of The Fog and didn't think such a thing was possible. Considering the source materials it should have been much better, instead it's painfully slow and dreadful to watch. This one is as forgettable as Diary of the Dead.
WTF??
steven miller is an idiot for turning such an amazing 1980's movie into such a crapfest. full of terrible f/x and even worse acting this movie will certainly bore you into sleep before the main zombie invasion!! pass this movie at all costs!!
if you like cheesy movies with a retarted ending then pick this one up, i still don't understand how i set through the entire thing.
Possibly the worst remake I've seen -- and yes, I've seen both "One Missed Call" and "The Fog"! I found no entertainment or any otherwise redeeming qualities in this -- despite there being gallons and gallons of blood thrown everywhere every ten seconds, I just thought it was boring. And not in a "I'm desensitized" kind of way -- more in the "I've seen all of this before... and done better" kind of way.
Yes, this movie is as bad as everyone is saying. This movie kills brain cells!!! Absolutely dreadful. Highlights include a mysterious infection that is spread "randomly" over an entire town with no contact. Some are infected some are not. Before the infected "change" they in unison have the momentary look of constipation. Zombies who can crawl on the ceiling and a peaceful vegan zombie. Cant beleive this was made by the director of HOUSE and a couple Friday the 13ths.
This movie really, really sucked. I couldn't figure out if it was actually a serious movie or a lame spoof. Don't waste your time unless CGI gore and make up is your thing.
And what is with superhuman strenght zombies!!! Bah!
Do yourself a favor and watch Lucio Fulci's Zombi or Romero's original Day of The Dead or if you fancy something silly Shaun of The Dead or Return of The Living Dead are your best options.
I really enjoyed this movie. People keep saying its not like the original, but who would want to watch, like Rob Zombie has said while makin Halloween, The same movie. I, as other people excpected it to suck and it kinda did but for the most part it was really good, jus like the Dawn remake. But wat this movie couldve been better with out Nick Cannons sarcastic acting, but he did go out as somewhat of a hero. In the end it was a good movie.
Sorry kids, but I DISagree with the other reviews. I expected it to suck too, and was pleasantly surprised that it didn't. The acting was fine (yes, even Nick Cannon!!) and the effects better than the DOTD remake. Yes, some of the wall climbing was over the top, but the story was story was solid and coherent. I loved the "disappearing Doctor" scene toward the end. All in all, much better than expected (and MUCH better than the BD approved "Automaton Tranfusion). Ignore the hype, ignore the tacky packaging, ignore the "remake" aspect and "the need to feed" tagline and enjoy. Well worth seeing. I love a good Zombie flick and I enjoyed this one.
When I heard that a remake of "Dawn" was planned, I was leery, considering George Romero wasn't involved. Turned out I actually liked it. When I heard someone wanted to remake "Day," I was again apprehensive, but not so much.
Should've been.
Like the "Dawn" remake, the zombies in "Day" are runners; unlike that remake, this "Day" doesn't even come close to mirroring the original. There are a few elements which fans of George's classic will recognize, but to be honest, don't bother watching this movie expecting some sort of remake.
Or just don't bother watching in the first place. If you want to, maybe wait until it's on cable, or at least use a coupon when you rent it.
It's a passable zombie flick -- the effects are okay, the acting's not too bad, most of the characters are decent, the lighting gave a sickly and dire feel, and much of the direction seemed all right. However, the fast editing came off as more of a gimic, and the slow-mo was entirely unnecessary. And Ving...well, let's just say he's not in this as much as you'd think, and that's probably a good thing for him AND his fans.
The zombies...yeah, they bite, but not in the fun way. I let the one skittering across the ceiling pass, since there was something for him to grab up there, and it happens so fast that that in itself is rather creepy, but the one that later pretends he's Spidey on a wall -- um, no. Just, no.
Tossing out a little benefit of the doubt here, but their appearance to me was more of a nasty infection than decomposition. Still happened too fast for my taste -- at least in "Planet Terror," the quick change is plausible. Here, it's just *poof* you're a zombie, now off you go.
Two more irks: this film brandishes Romero's name far more than it deserves, and most of this "Day" happens at night.
However, the biggest disappointment for me was trying to include the less aggressive zombie. Bud was an okay character, but he has nothing on the charm that will forever be Bub. If you haven't seen the original, you need to. It may not be the greatest film ever, but Bub is arguably one of the best characters in cinema.
Overall, I'll probably watch it again, but doubt I'll add it to the collection. I'm just kinda "meh" about it.
"...not unwatchable..."
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.
As for the DVD extras, I only watched the alt ending -- Nick has a great line, but personally I prefer the ending they went with. It's cheesy, but I still liked seeing him be honourable. I usually watch the "making of" segments and whatever else is available, but this time I just didn't care if I did or not.
this movie wasn't as bad as people keep saying... it did suck, yes, but it was not unwatchable. i had nothing to do so i rented it and watched it. the film did suck for the most part but if you are bored and have nothing to do check it out.
I will have to agree with what has been posted already. The first scene when a zombie jumps straight up and clings to office ceiling tiles in the hospital should have been the first clue that this was going to be bad. The rest of the movie went straight down from there. Some of my personal favorite bad ideas in this movie are when Nick Cannon grabs a machete in the gun store and holds it up and says “By the power of grey skull”. The next is, and I believe this is a first. A vegetarian zombie, what the? , that’s like having a vampire who wont drink blood because he suffers from Hemaphobia (A fear of blood).
One of the bonus features on the DVD is an alternate ending. You have to sit through 10 minutes of the same bad plot ending as the first one except you are treated to Nick Cannon popping out a door and riding off with the others. I guess the control group who saw this the first time thought that Nick Cannon surviving was a bad idea. On this I agree. Best to avoid this altogether as I could not recommend it to anyone.
Well, I've just seen the remake of George A Romero's Day of The Dead and I have to say it was pretty disappointing. I have seen almost every zombie flick out there and this one doesn't come close to the original in ANY way except it's name. While the zombies are MUCH faster (even faster than the believable remake for Dawn of The Dead), their speed is not the most upsetting part, their ability to move like "Spiderman" is what completely takes away all of the film's credibility. Also, the rate of change was way too fast. There is a moment where the infected are in a trance (which is a new twist - very nice), but then they are suddenly rotted away and adorned with "super" powers. I bought the DVD as I do with most new movies, but I don't think I would ever watch it again - except maybe for a laugh. Rent it at a one dollar DVD machine just to say you saw it - other than that - don't bother. I'm hoping Diary of The Dead fairs better.
Ok, I've seen this. I wasn't expecting much, but even then, I was dissappointed, especially considering the cast and director. ALL of them, including Steve Miner, should've known better. Even if this movie hadn't been attached to Romero's Day of the Dead, I still wouldn't have liked it. And it's not the fast zombies. That doesn't bother me. It's that these aren't even zombies at all. They can all use weapons, easily, there is a leader who can think, a vegetarian zombie, and if nothing else, they climb the ceilings. Seriously, that's ridiculous. I'm not a zombie snob; i don't mind watching a crap movie every once in a while. However, it just wasn't fun for me. There was no way of knowing who would turn, as the virus was airborne and then determined by who got bitten. Okay, so it's hard to track anything. Also, the zombies immediately rot, which doesn't make sense. And they explode, buffy style, around fire. Overall, it was a terrible mistake for everybody; i can't even say watcht it for the hokiness because it's just that bad.
THE HORROR HYPE METER Excited to see this movie? Rate it here!
