Day of the Dead Reviews

Page 1 of 85
TheDudeLebowski65 TheDudeLebowski65
Super Reviewer
½ May 30, 2012
The remake of Day of the Dead is one of those films that just don't cut it. This is a poorly constructed film that is a mess from start to finish. Helmed by veteran horror director Steve Miner, Day of the Dead is a boring, awful film with no redeeming qualities. People have told me to avoid this film, now after seeing it, I understand why. Poorly acted and poorly directed, this remake is horrible and is a slap in the face of the original film. The cast deliver poor performances and quite frankly are miscast in their parts. As far as this remake is concerned, it suffers the same fate as others, and it doesn't live up to the original. Steve Miner is a capable horror director, but with Day of the Dead, he fails to deliver something watchable. The film is clumsy, silly and stupid. There are no redeeming factors within the film. Day of the Dead just belongs on the very long list of remakes that fail to match up to the original in every respect. If you're looking for a good zombie flick, you won't find it here. This is an awful remake of a classic film, one that is so poorly conceived that it's not even worth checking for the sake of seeing how bad it is. The horror factor is absent, and the film relies on a good dose of blood and gore, which ultimately doesn't pay off. This film fails to deliver what horror fans really want. Stick with the original, as this plays out like every other remake, and it makes you appreciate the original film that much more.
FiLmCrAzY FiLmCrAzY
Super Reviewer
February 5, 2012
I quite liked this zombie horror flick! I love zombie movies as a whole and although this isnt the best in storyline and direction it is still verymuch enjoyable!
bbcfloridabound bbcfloridabound
Super Reviewer
October 24, 2011
This is one of the best Zombie films that I have ever seen. Enjoyable right from the start. And I'm not a Big Nick Cannon fan but in this movie he seems to say just the right things at the right time to bring laughter into the film. Some real good Gore and special effects. Not one to pass up and would be a great Halloween Film Festival Movie. This is not your typical teenager zombie crowd movie, its much more then that. I have never given a zombie film 4 stars but this one deserves it. 4 Stars
garyX garyX
Super Reviewer
½ March 13, 2008
A collection of survivors and military personnel try to escape from an outbreak of a deadly virus in a small town that turns the inhabitants into flesh eating creatures. My God, there are so many things wrong with this film I don't know where to start. For one, it is NOT a remake of Day Of The Dead. It has so little in common with it, it might as well call itself a remake of 28 Days Later or Resident Evil; in fact the crappy script was like watching a 90 minute videogame cut scene. Mena Suvari (along with the rest of the cast for that matter ) has no presence whatsoever, with only Ving Rhames showing any charisma at all and I felt duped by his name being attached to it because he is hardly in it. Not to mention the fact that the "zombies" can now crawl up walls as well as run around like berserkers as if they've all been bitten by radioactive spiders so it's actually far more like a vampire film than a zombie film. A sense of humour would've helped, especially since it expects you to swallow the concept of a vegetarian zombie (a VEGETARIAN f***ing ZOMBIE??) with a completely straight face. It does have enough blood and guts to stave off boredom, but despite the rather impressive remake of Dawn, this isn't even close to being in the same league. But at least it's better than the unforgivably atrocious remake of Night Of The Living Dead.
YodaMasterJedi YodaMasterJedi
Super Reviewer
March 21, 2011
three stars
Carlos M
Super Reviewer
May 29, 2010
Here is what happens when a third-rate director remakes a George Romero zombie film: he subtracts any social-political subtext and throws in cheap scares, stupid dialogues, cute but cheesy actors and, worse, a vegetarian zombie in love.
Summer W
Super Reviewer
April 18, 2010
I saw the cast and thought, "how bad can it be?" Well, Ving Rhames was in it for about 5 minutes collectively, and Mena Suvari was disappointingly bland. Nick Cannon was a giant stereotype, and everything else was just lame. The screenwriters and director basically took a big turd, wrapped in in a pretty package stamped "George Romero," and tried to sell it to the public.
FilmFanatik FilmFanatik
Super Reviewer
February 13, 2010
Yuck.
Michael G
Super Reviewer
½ November 25, 2007
Jesus, this sucked. I mean, I wasn't expecting a goddamned thing out of the remake of Day of the Dead, but director Steve Miner somehow managed to deliver less than nothing. I feel like I should hunt this turd burgler down and make him keep taking me to the movies until I see one I finally like as reparation. The very few elements, nods or whatever to previous Dead movies were a fun distraction from this steaming pile but I actually had to fight myself from shutting this off and watching my DVD copy of the original Day of the Dead. The acting was terrible. Stephen Hawking could hold a gun with more credibility than Mena Suvari can even if Nick Cannon does the token wise-cracking black dude pretty well. Not a good thing, by the way. This movie's answer to Bub ("Bud") was a joke, more so than the explanation for him. The fidgety direction, the bad CGI, the awful awful zombies, the blasphemous ending and the fact that the Sex and the City movie probably qualifies as more of a remake of Romero's Day of the Dead than Miner's... "vision" all add up to create a trainwreck you can see from a mile off that should be avoided at all costs.
Jason S
Super Reviewer
October 15, 2009
Your basic zombie movie but with a little more "huh?" added. This time around it's a virus that get released upon an unsuspecting town and it's up to a couple military folks and some teens to save the day.
I didn't like that the virus makes people look like decomposed zombies in a matter of seconds. I also didn't like that they gained super human strength and speed and were masters of wall jumping.
They also dropped a lot of questions about the main girls sorted past but never told us what the deal was with any of them. Basic lazy writing.
It's a basic flick and was somewhat entertaining to watch. I suggest watching the original.
deano deano
Super Reviewer
½ September 28, 2009
I don't care if this re-imagined of George A. Romero's zombie classic is "disappointment", but I liked it at the first time I ever saw zombies has new incredible abilities and heroine Mena Suvari in action.
While the gore isn't as good or as extensive as Romero's film there's a fair amount of blood, decapitated heads, rotting zombies, gory bites, a few severed limbs & mutilated bodies on show. The special effects vary from good prosthetic make-up effects to poor CGI computer ones. Day of the Dead goes for action set-pieces rather than scares, tension & atmosphere which won't please lovers of the original but there you go.
James A
Super Reviewer
August 31, 2009
A zombie movie that makes the last few Romero films look like amazing. Half a star added for Nick Cannon's Puff Daddy remark.
Chris G
Super Reviewer
April 19, 2009
A small Colorado town is hit by a REALLY bad cold in Day of the Dead, the terrible re-make of George Romero's third chapter of the original Dead saga. This waste of 90 minutes is about a virus that causes people to have a nose bleed and turn into obsessed killing machines, eating and chomping and running around like a National Geographic special in hell.

Dear lord, this movie is horrible. After the very good remake of Dawn of the Dead this film feels like a nice warm piss on your head. What's even more confusing is the fact that Ving Rhames is also in this film, the only reason being to screw people into believing that this is a sequel to Zack Snyder's remake. Even more amazing is that Mena Suvari is in this which goes to show that she must have the same agent as Cuba Gooding, Jr. The rest of the cast is your basic B-movie faces and new faces trying to make get their big break.

The story is basic Romero only that zombies can shoot guns and they stop to allow our heroes to cut off or bust apart zombie heads. The Bub character from the first film is represented by a vegetarian private- that's why he doesn't eat people. Yes, I'm fucking serious. The effects are high school level, the story is run, stop, zombies, repeat. Oh, here's something to gross you out. The only gross thing is that I paid a quarter to see this shit. Directed by Steve Miner, who is too good to interview about his early work on Friday the 13th Parts 2 and 3, yet directs this cess pool that makes those two films look like the first two Godfather films.

This film is shit. Pure shit. It's so shitty that kids will be putting this DVD in a paper bag and setting it on fire at peoples front doors this Halloween. Trick or treat.
Martin B
Super Reviewer
½ July 19, 2008
Every bit as bad as you think. A shameless attempt to cash in on the success of the Dawn of the Dead remake (probably the best zombie movie ever and FAR superior to the original). They take the same approach of the fast zombies, as opposed to the "zombie shuffle," and even cast Ving Rhames (not as the same character), no doubt to try to fool people into thinking it's some kind of sequel.

But it's just what you'd expect from a direct-to-video release (I can't believe they ever even considered a theatrical run) - low budget, horrible effects, terrible direction, and a cast of has-beens and nobodies. But I will give it this: it starts off pretty fast, and keeps going full steam all the way to the end. Not a good film by any measure, but if you're looking for cheap horror you can laugh at, then maybe it's worth a view.
_kelly .
Super Reviewer
March 23, 2008
Revised rating: from 3 to 2. Definitely a movie that demonstrates why piracy is good for the industry: another way to filter the junk.I can't say this won't become a guilty pleasure of mine, but I can say with extreme certainty that this is no more a significant movie for the zombie genre than say....Return of the Living Dead: Rave 2 the Grave. It's just an action fest; and if all you want is a zombie shooter, watch Resident Evil: Apocalypse, Land of the Dead, or the 04 Dawn of the Dead remake because this is just gratuitous without being focused or trying to accomplish anything. If you want gratuitous and self-indulgence that accomplishes something, watch the first Return of the Living Dead, any Fulci zombie movie, or the modern tribute Planet Terror. What is wrong with this movie:The zombie makeup: the zombies turn into blistered ugly things immediately in a way that is more akin to Argento's "Demons" than a person who has become infected with a zombie-ish strand. The makeup look for the faces is a uniform aesthetic, but unfortunately it is a very poor aesthetic design concept.-Zombies with super-powers: again, these creatures are more reminiscent of "Demons" or "Dead Alive" than even the "28 blah Later" series or the 04 Dawn remake. These zombies can instantly leap like Spider-Man, bash barricades like the Hulk, cling to vehicles like treefrogs, and even dodge bullets Matrix-style. It is absurd and quite unscary.-The zombie "intelligence" factor. These zombies can fire weapons, drive cars, and use stealth like Solid Snake to capture their victims. The filmmakers have to the gall to do another "Bub" but they don't have the sense to give him characterization and a clear plot purpose because they're too busy firing uzis at hyperzombies. -No time spent developing our human survivors, or at least not any effective attempts. The younger brother and his girlfriend are on the right track in terms of characterization needed. Everyone else is under-developed because the movie is obsessed with showing nothing but zombie violence. Clocking in at a mere 81 minutes, too many opportunities to build characters we don't want to die are dismissed as quickly as the zombies overrun the town. The more I muse on this movie, the less I like it. But I am of the school that would prefer a zombie story that focuses more on the people trying to survive and, by doing this, reveals some interesting facets of human nature. I agree with Roger Ebert that "Land of the Dead" should have been a social drama set entirely inside Fiddler's Green with only the occasional mention or glimpse of zombies and Romero would have made a more resounding film. I whole-heartedly agree. These zombies run 50mph in the other direction, and they don't even give a scare like Snyder's version did.
thefog1331 thefog1331
Super Reviewer
April 12, 2008
It has some pretty good bloody FX but other than that it's a piss poor, half assed excuse for a zombie movie that has only a tiny bit of resemblance to Romero's far superior film.
I have to admit though I laughed quite a bit but that's not really a good thing considering it was during the high drama moments.
Brian D
Super Reviewer
½ February 29, 2008
Well what can i say about this remake........hmm.
Crap and shit.Some nice ideals but put into a complete mess i a fillm.
What a shame.
Jacob P
Super Reviewer
½ October 6, 2011
A rather "corny" part of the Dead series, with that sort of B-movie style. Another thing I didn't like: In the original 1985 film, is the most fun, gruesome death scenes of all time, where Captain Rhodes gets torn to shreds by zombies. A classical scene in cinema history. Yet, in this one, all I get is Nick Cannon screaming for help in the distance, unable to see anything. A shame. But it was still fun. Not the best, however.
Cameron W. Johnson Cameron W. Johnson
Super Reviewer
½ October 27, 2012
Okay, so this is supposed to be a sequel's loose remake that actually serves as a story reboot and doesn't pertain to the loose remake of a sequel that preceded the sequel upon which this film is based? ...Oh man, I am so confused, and it doesn't help that this film, like the re-imaging of "Dawn of the Dead", features Ving Rhames and is scored by Tyler Bates, though maybe I can break the confusion by thinking about how this film is distinctive because Zack Snyder's "Dawn" had a plot that actually had some resemblance to that of its source material's, whereas this film has pretty much nothing to do with the film it is reportedly a rema-oh, I'm sorry, I mean re-imagining - in ever since of the word - of. Oh yeah, and another thing that seperates this film from Snyder's "Dawn" is the fact that Snyder's "Dawn" was actually good. No people, calm down, I didn't mean to say it like that; I meant to say that Snyder's "Dawn" was actually bearable, because this film is nothing short of a disaster of, well, zombie pandemic proportions, which is a shame, as I would expect better from the guy who directed "House", as well as "Fridy the 13th... Part 2", "Friday the 13th Part III", "Soul Man", "Wild Hearts Can't Be Broken" and a couple of episodes of "The Wonder Years", "Dawson's Creek", "Smallville" and "The Ex List". Wow, I'm really starting to notice a lot more the fact that this installment of the "Living Dead" series actually had the "guts" (Pardon the pun) to get Nick Cannon as a tough guy, which is almost as depressing as the cameo by Vanessa Johansson. "The fact that she's in a cameo in a tremendous failure of a really bad remake really does remind you that she's not as successful... or as hot, or as talented, or as tasteful as her sister", I said with a reference to a film that came out a couple of months before "The Spirit". Either way, the point is that what really shocks in this film is its incompetence... as well as other things, for although this film is an absolute mess, it's not without a few strengths.

Patrick Cady's cinematography, on a general level, is really nothing to write home about, being a touch blandly generic in its plain bleakness, yet the fact of the matter is that there is a certain bleakness to the film's visual style that fits the tone, certainly not to where it ameliorates the film's tonal effectiveness all that much, but just enough to be commendable, as well as rather complimentary to certain aspects that do particularly up intrigue, or about as much as the intrigue can be upped. The film is just so incompetent that it is hard to feel all that much resonance, yet if anything is going to come the closest to getting a rise out of you, then it might very well be the action sequences, which aren't necessarily spectacular, yet are stronger than this film deserves, being with reasonably well-concieved staging and choreography that creates a kind of engaging freneticsim, made all the more, well, nifty, by the one thing that this film actually does deliver on: gore. Gratuitous extremely over-the-top gore sequences in other "Living Dead" films had the misfortune of being married with substance, to the point of feeling more discomforting than cool, but with this film, there's no substance, only style, so it actually has to deliver on the over-the-top in the violence department, and quite honestly, as much as I hate to admit it, this film does deliver on some crazy, messed up imagery and memorably cool violence, complimented by the effects, or at least most of them. Certainly, the digital effects are shoddy, with a good couple of practical effects coming off as a touch off-putting, yet on the whole, this film's practical effects are buyable and rather unique in their nifty nastiness. I know it sounds as though I'm stretching to find a compliment for this film, but really, this film is so very reliant upon the commendable action, and while the strength in this film's being so action-packed goes undercut by the ineptitude, as well as not all that potent to begin with, it is there, and it is undeniable. Of course, really, it's not like this film needs action to dissipate tedium, for although this film is anything but an enjoyable watch, whether it be because it is so very frenetic or simply because it's just so ceaselessly amusing in its ridiculousness, the film is never truly boring, which isn't to say that there isn't enough blandness to actually, to one moderate degree or another, tone down the bite of the overwhelming incompetence, and it is for this reason alone why the film is simply really bad, rather than absolutely unpalatable "Spawn" garbage. Of course, make no mistake, this film is really, really bad garbage with undeniable strengths and misstep diluters, but no real redeeming value, just consistent incompetence, or at the very least, chessiness.

The film is certainly six different kinds of cheese in the writing and directing departments, yet its technical faultiness sure makes for some corny moments, with just about every decent effect going followed by a glaringly shoddy one, with the digital effects being particularly ceaseless in a faultiness that launches you clean out of the film, or at least out of a sense of consequence. Still, the technical faults don't do as effective of a job at repelling you from compellingness as, of course, the acting, for although there are a few certain passable performances (Don't worry, Ving Rhames fans, your boy is just fine for his under 10 total minutes of screentime, and plus, Ian McNeice makes for an undeniably show-stealingly charming dirtbag), on the whole, most of the secondaries and even a few primaries fall flat at nearly every turn, and embarassingly so, with little in the way of acting presence, as well as either coldly overdone or awkward line delivery, which isn't to say that I can see it being easy to keep away from awkwardness when handed this film's dialogue. One of the keys in the film's downfall as an absolute disaster, Jeffrey Reddick's screenplay is an embarassing onslaught of incompetent mistakes, with dialogue ranging from mediocre to dreadful, as well as far too many cheesy set pieces that go far too far over the top, if not simply fall flat. These errors lay blunt blows to the film and slow down steam tremendously, yet what aids in the total dissipation of steam are errors in the bigger picture of writing, as Jeff Reddick's story goes riddled with an endless barrage of cringe-worthy cliches and artificial-feeling character types, as well as quite a few moments in plot and character action that are questionable, if not just plain all-out farfetched. The film's story structure is tainted in its basic layout, and is just as disconcerting in its bumpily heavy-handed plot progression, with little exposition and limited comfort in the flow, which feels rather forceful and blunt, and it's made all the more glaring by there being just as much, if not more incompetence within Steve Miner's direction than in Reddick's writing. Director Steve Miner battles back boredom through decent action direction and a frenetic atmosphere, fueled by a degree of inspiration, - misguided though, it may be - while topping things off with enough of a hint of blandness to lightly lessen the sting of the ineptitude, and really, those are the best things to be said about Miner, because just about every other area in this film's direction is nothing short of a disaster, with certain stylistic choices going awkwardly overemphasized (Seriously, what is up with the screen randomly flashing yellow from out of nowhere?), and storytelling donning an atmosphere that goes packed with overbearing unsubtlety and is empty of substance and, for that matter, thrills, thus making for an uncompelling thriller that's not even thrilling. Mistakes are endless, and many really do have to be seen to believe, with what few strengths there are going undercut at every turn, yet still staying just alive enough to make clear some sort of ambition within Steve Miner that is so unworthy that it ultimately comes off as more self-congradulatory, meaning that this film has the nerve to bombard you with incompetent move after incompetent move, only to turn around and feel too good about itself, when really, at the end of the day, it's an embarassingly bumbler of a messy disaster that ultimately stands as bland enough to be forgettable, yet sadly not forgettable enough.

At the end of the long awaited titular day, the film has a certain style to it that stands decent, yet not as undeniably commendable as many of the action sequences, which are frantically choreographed, packed with nifty gore - complimented by certain high points in practical effects - and break up a certain blandness that is indeed bland enough to ever so slightly diluted the sting of the ineptitude, yet ultimately go easily overpowered, for although the film has a few strengths, it goes all but comprised of relentless flaws, with technical value faulting about as much as the acting, though not as much as the writing, as Jeffrey Reddick turns in a script plagued with cheesy dialogue and set pieces, as well as shoddy plotting riddled with cliches and heavy-handedness, made all the worse by Steve Miner's overstylized and atmospherically cold, yet still somehow rather arrogant direction, thus leaving Miner's "Day of the Dead" to die on its feet as a tremendously messy disaster drenched in incompetence and exceeding blandness.

1.5/5 - Bad
Andrew C. Andrew C.
Super Reviewer
November 10, 2011
Damn right insulting to the original Day Of The Dead. Unfunny and just filled with cheap jumpscares. Save your money on this one. Now if you'll exucuse me, I need to wash my brain with soap then watch the original Day Of The Dead.
Page 1 of 85