For a while, I could not see what the fuss was about George A. Romero's third installment in the 'Dead' series, for quite a few years. I considered it my least favorite of the lot (until Survival, maybe Diary too but I have a soft spot for that), but in retrospect I think I was a un-fair in some of the departments I criticized.
The thing about Day of the Dead is that it tends to grow on the viewer looking to allow it to, especially as time goes on and the 1980's carry a different flavor than, say, in the late 90's. And I saw that the dialog came off weak (at least weak when compared to others), the characters didn't have the strength and need to really care about them like in 'Dawn' and 'Night', and the music just flat out stunk. Years later and many more repeat viewings around friends who loved the film, I grew to like it, and by now (this is many years later) I find that some sequences top even those in Dawn of the Dead. Marking it as still my least favorite of the 20th century 'Dead' films doesn't mean it's bad at all.
Actually, there is a certain style and sense of humor that tends to somehow work better with more time given with the derangement and over-the-top methods amid the dark atmosphere- the "camp" of the series, or at least the cartoonish aspects, stay fresh as ever. And the zombies look magnificently, as Tom Savini creates a kind of masterpiece of make-up, alongside future notable make-up man Greg Nicotero. To say that the zombies are the real stars of the film (in particular the infant-like 'Bub', played in a very good performance by the actor) is almost an under-statement. When Romero brings it on, he does bring it on well, and does go for broke in topping his wild, outlandish, and shockingly funny climax in Dawn of the Dead. So, in other words, I do enjoy it more after seeing it a few more times over the years, and I definitely don't see it as a C- movie; far from it, it's actually, in its own camp-art way, a great achievement.
The thing about Day of the Dead is that it tends to grow on the viewer looking to allow it to, especially as time goes on and the 1980's carry a different flavor than, say, in the late 90's. And I saw that the dialog came off weak (at least weak when compared to others), the characters didn't have the strength and need to really care about them like in 'Dawn' and 'Night', and the music just flat out stunk. Years later and many more repeat viewings around friends who loved the film, I grew to like it, and by now (this is many years later) I find that some sequences top even those in Dawn of the Dead. Marking it as still my least favorite of the 20th century 'Dead' films doesn't mean it's bad at all.
Actually, there is a certain style and sense of humor that tends to somehow work better with more time given with the derangement and over-the-top methods amid the dark atmosphere- the "camp" of the series, or at least the cartoonish aspects, stay fresh as ever. And the zombies look magnificently, as Tom Savini creates a kind of masterpiece of make-up, alongside future notable make-up man Greg Nicotero. To say that the zombies are the real stars of the film (in particular the infant-like 'Bub', played in a very good performance by the actor) is almost an under-statement. When Romero brings it on, he does bring it on well, and does go for broke in topping his wild, outlandish, and shockingly funny climax in Dawn of the Dead. So, in other words, I do enjoy it more after seeing it a few more times over the years, and I definitely don't see it as a C- movie; far from it, it's actually, in its own camp-art way, a great achievement.