Day of the Dead (2008 Video) User Reviews

"You gotta shoot them in the head." Not too bad as long as you don't expect a remake of Romero's original.

[poolandrews · 5/10 · 17 February 2008]

Day of the Dead is set in a small Colorado town which has been quarantined by the US Military due to a flu like disease sweeping the town, assigned to her hometown army soldier Sarah (Mena Suvari) takes her mother to a medical facility set up to treat the townspeople a lot of whom seem to be suffering from the flu like symptoms. It's not long before the situation takes a turn for the worse though as those infected start to die & come back as flesh eating zombies, Sarah leads a small group of survivors as they fight for their lives against hordes of flesh eating zombies & try to escape to safety...

Directed by Steve Miner I would imagine many horror fans will be horrified by Day of the Dead. Lets start at the beginning shall we? A filmmaker called George A. Romero made the ground breaking Night of the Living Dead (1968) which changed the face of horror films literally overnight, he then made one of the greatest films ever in it's sequel Dawn of the Dead (1978), then he made a brilliant third film in the trilogy called Day of the Dead (1985) before an OK fourth Land of the Dead (2005) & more recently a fifth film in the series Diary of the Dead (2007). Right, Night of the Living Dead (1990) was remade to great effect, Dawn of the Dead (2004) was next to be remade to fun if unspectacular results & Day of the Dead was initially given a sequel called Day of the Dead 2: Contagium (2005) which wasn't a sequel at all & was terrible & that brings us bang up to date with this Day of the Dead which is touted as a remake but in reality isn't anything of the sort. The script by Jeffrey Reddick is more akin to something that I would have expected to find on the sci-fi channel rather than a reworking or re-imagining of one of the greatest zombie films of all time, in fact George A. Romero isn't even mentioned during the opening credits which gives you some indication that this Day of the Dead is a million miles from his. Gone are the brilliant character's replaced with a almost entirely teenage cast with even the army soldiers are fresh faced teenage recruits, gone is the oppressive atmosphere, biting social commentary & sense of gloom replaced with lots of 28 Days Later... (2002) shaky camera hyperactive shrieking zombies attacking from all angles as well as Resident Evil (2002) style genetically created virus's that infect a small town turning everyone into zombies & gone is Tom Savini's ultra realistic gore & zombie effects to be replaced with CGI blood splatters. Having said that if you take Day of the Dead on it's own terms then I don't think it's a bad way to pass 90 odd minutes at all, the character's are mostly likable & good looking enough, although the gore doesn't compare to the original there's still a fair amount of blood, there's more action in this at the expense of story though & above all I thought it was quite fun & for what it is pretty entertaining. So shoot me.

Director Miner did actually have a Hollywood career at one point with films such as Friday the 13th Part 2 (1981), Friday the 13th Part III (1982), Halloween H20: 20 Years Later (1998) & Lake Placid (1999) to his credit, he does alright here & despite some shaky camera moments Day of the Dead looks pretty good & is competent if nothing else. 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.

With a supposed budget of about $18,000,000 Day of the Dead is well made but does have that slightly cheap made-for-video look about it, it looks OK but won't last long in your memory. Shot in Bulgaria to keep the cost down even more. The acting isn't great, it's alright & the largely teenage cast are attractive enough. Having been in the Dawn of the Dead remake Ving Rhames also appears in this as a much toned down Captain Rhodes one of the few direct references to Romero's original, Nick Cannon is the obligatory rapper involved.

Day of the Dead if under any other mundane title such as Virus of the Dead or Dead Rising or something that has nothing to do with Romero's original would stand a good chance of being a well liked fast paced zombie horror, unfortunately by saddling itself with the Day of the Dead name it made a rod for it's own back as it could never come anywhere near Romero's original. Taken for what it is I liked it, as a remake of one of the greatest zombie films ever it's a travesty.

A Disappointing Excuse For A Romero Remake

[srjr87 · 3/10 · 14 February 2008]

Like many of you, I got really excited when I heard about this film. After the incredibly good effort that was the Dawn of the Dead 2004 remake, this film is an extremely cheap attempt to cash in on the name. It's extremely important to keep in mind that this film it's not a remake as much as it's a by-the-numbers zombie/infected flick with a fancy name on it.

The film stars Mena Suvari and has a short cameo by Ving Rhames. While I'll watch anything with Mena Suvari in it - even "Loser" - this is a stretch. While Suvari does a decent job with a flat, lifeless (no pun intended) script, the other actors are incredibly stiff, awkward and unconvincing. Rhames plays basically the same character he played in the Dawn of the Dead remake, although he only appears for the first 15 minutes or so.

The film itself is extremely boring and the action and special effects are haphazard. I can honestly say that I've never felt so bored during an action sequence before. The "climax", if you can call it that, runs on for about 5 minutes more than it should. Even worse, the film doesn't even attempt to redeem itself by being a tad funny.. it tries, but fails with flying colors. The script is absolutely ridiculous, not even making relative sense in the world of the film.

If you've ever wondered what "vegetarian" zombies eat, feel free to watch this movie. If you want to see a new spin on Romero, wait for Diary of the Dead to come out in wide release by the man himself. I'm giving this one a three for Mena Suvari alone.

A Fun Romp Through the Land of the Dead

[jmbwithcats · 5/10 · 9 June 2008]

A Film by Steve Miner. Now let's begin there. I honestly like Steve Miner. He's directed Soul Man, Friday the 13th parts 2 and 3, as well as producing the original and The Last House on the Left. That's not a bad resume. That aside, he hasn't done anything worth noting in about 20 years+.

Screenplay is by Jeffrey Reddick who wrote all the Final Destination screenplays, so that can't be too bad right?

Let's talk casting.

Mena Suvari (American Beauty, Spun) Nick Cannon (Drumline) Michael Welch (Joan of Arcadia) AnnaLynne McCord (Made quite a splash on Nip/Tuck last year) Ian McNeice (HBO's Rome) Ving Rhames (Mission Impossible)

Altogether not a bad looking cast.

So that in mind, we start the film...

We begin our journey on a lighter note typical of the '80s slasher flicks, in an abandoned barn in Leadville, Colorado. Full of candles and horny teenagers, and there's nothing wrong with that. One couple decides to explore the rather creepy barn.

The movie actually starts out alright. Decent directing, acting, dialog if it keeps up like this, it might not be such a bad movie after all... but lets keep watching... where angels fear to tread...

First lets discuss spider monkey zombies. Now we have become so accustomed to Romero's slow moving zombies that the atmosphere has been set in stone for the standard, but I see nothing wrong with trying new things in horror, in fact I long for it. Now this isn't the first time fast moving zombies have been done, but it was probably the best explained of the type out of the ones I've seen.

The first few kills are fantastic, and holy the zombies were pretty scary, and in all honesty I haven't been scared of a zombie in a long time.

But the show must go on, even if it goes on like spider monkey zombies on crack.

If you want this to be just like the original, go watch the original. I have yet to read one decent complaint about the movie.

The faces decaying rapidly through the change was really unique, I don't think I've ever seen that used before so I thought that was pretty cool.

I actually enjoyed the movie for what it was. It had good pacing, took liberties, and took zombies into a new direction which is pretty hard to do these days. I've seen a lot worse. A whole lot worse.

I love how the people who can't let go of the idea of walking zombies thinks walking zombies is more realistic, like any kind of zombie can be realistic.

If this movie had not been called Day of the Dead I guarantee it would have been better received, because die hard fans expected it to stay true to Romero's zombie mythology which it did not do.

And though this was not adhering to Romero's preconceptions, it had a few things going for it. It brought it's own ideas to the table which worked. Such as the people going blank just before turning. As the last particle in the blood stream switched them on. I thought that was rather realistic, and a nice little piece of detail. The action was fairly non stop with good pacing. And in all honesty it was far more enjoyable than Diary of the Dead. A movie that turned out to be a huge disappointment, as was Argento's latest installment, "Mother of Tears". The two horror masters have taught a new generation well it seems.

Now not to downplay Romero, the original Night of the Living Dead is a classic that will likely never be topped. And the mood of the original Dawn of the Dead is intensely scary, but for a direct to video movie it was pretty good.

Now the idea of "When there's no room in hell, the dead will walk the earth", was never intended to be true. It is the religious reasoning to unreasonable things. But we also must conclude that there is a scientific explanation as well, and zombie movies these days attempt to take the genre in a direction of the more realistic explanation.

And it isn't specific to the horror genre either. We see how it worked for Ang Lee's Hulk and Nolan's Batman, we must be able to appreciate it here as well.

For all the differences between this and Romero, the one that stands out the most in my mind is the lack of political and philosophical importance which Romero is famous for including in his films. And while I respect that in a film, though this remake lacked that angle entirely, it was at least enjoyable.

If only it hadn't carried the name Day of the Dead

[undeadmachine669 · 1/10 · 13 April 2008]

Steve Miner, as a director, isn't bad. He directed my favorite entries in the Friday the 13th series, Halloween: H20, and Lake Placid. None of these movies are Oscar worthy, but they are all good, fun horror films. What he was thinking when he directed the Day of the Dead redux is beyond me.

A small Colorado town is overrun with the living dead, following a flu like virus that has swept across the land. As soon as the virus kills someone, their skin immediately decays and they become superhuman beasts. These zombies don't just run (a modern zombie element which has caused a lot of controversy in recent years) they jump, shoot weapons, and somehow manage to crawl on walls and ceilings. At the forefront of this super-zombie apocalypse is Mena Suvari (who phoned in her part) and Nick Cannon (who should have) as well as a few other meaningless characters. People die, things explode, and an hour and a half of your life is wasted as you watch this deplorable film.

Honestly, if this film had carried any moniker other than the classic Day of the Dead, I would have given it a bit higher of a rating. I'm thinking 3 or 4, mostly because some of the make-up fx are pretty nifty. Instead, the filmmakers decided to take everything Romero created and turn it on its head. Experimentation is a good thing, but not in this case. This should not be called a remake...or even a reimagining for that matter. It has nothing to do with the original film, aside that there are zombies involved and the military has a presence. I say, pull it from the shelves now, and send it out retitled. George Romero really shouldn't have to put up with this nonsense anymore.

Oh dear oh dear oh dear

[johnd-78 · 2/10 · 12 February 2008]

In the case of this movie, re-making Day of the Dead means stealing the title and some character names.

Its truly awful. There plot is non existent, the acting poor and the characters inconsistent. The zombies look quite good, but are more like rabid humans. This is one of those zombie movies that changes the characteristics of the zombies to suite the scenes. Mostly its just rabid, insane 28 days later type movements. Oh but they can sometimes walk on walls and ceilings (how? why?). Oh and listen to radios and understand what is being said. The Bub character is ridiculously used in the plot. One of the soldiers is infected, turns into a zombie, but they decide to keep him around and drive around with him in the car, because he might be useful. Thats right, they pile into the back seats and he is sat in the middle of them. Zombies throwing themselves at the car, everyone screaming, but the one I am sat next to? No problem! The final scenes are just ridiculous and I felt that at this point they had run out of ideas so they made it up as they went along. One line summed the whole movie up for me. They discovered that one of the scientists who worked on the project that started the virus has now become a zombie and is in the complex they are in. A colleague of his says 'If what you said about them retaining some of what they were is true, then we are so f*cked'.

shares nothing but the title with the original

[crustysaltmerchant · 1/10 · 23 July 2009]

Dear God what the hell were they thinking? Let's take the final instalment of a trilogy, the first two parts of the trilogy have already been re-made successfully by keeping very close to the originals, and give it a completely different story! Instead of a small unit of military men and scientists trapped in an underground bunker occasionally testing on zombies we have a small town turning into zombies by some weird virus. However as bizarre as the dead coming back to life is it's nothing compared to the dead climbing on ceilings upside down and running about and leaping 20-30 feet in a single bound all done with the brilliance of a "my first cgi kit" seriously the cgi in this film is awful. If you can't do it well then don't do it! the gore is very poor indeed and the casting is incredibly poor with Danny Cannon stopping just short of saying fo'shizzle at the end of every sentence because he's a bad ass gangsta pimp army man. this is nothing short of an abortion of a film and should be ignored by all fans of the genre.

This movie is just plain bad, remake or not

[LoneWolfAndCub · 1/10 · 3 July 2009]

When I started watching this movie I was a tad worried, it being a remake of one of my favourite zombie movies of all time, however, I found myself kinda enjoying it. That is, until the zombies came out to play. Really, what were the cast and crew thinking when they were making this? Nothing was done well, even the presence of Mena Suvari could not save the movie from the dregs of shoddiness. Bad CGI, wooden acting, zombies with super-human abilities, a lazy script and clichéd characters all contribute to make this "remake" a mess. I mention remake that way because it bears very little similarity to George A. Romero's dark, violent, claustrophobic 1985 film. The nods to the original include character's names, one line spoken by the main character and the last 20 minutes being set in an underground bunker.

Day of the Dead opens with four teenagers in the woods doing what any teen in a horror movie would be doing. Meanwhile, the army have got the city quarantined due to a flu outbreak (although we know it is so much more than that). Corporal Sarah Bowman (Mena Suvari) is put in charge of three younger soldiers (although one disappears after a minute introduction). She takes one of the them, Bub (Stark Sands) to pick up her sick mother and take her to the local medical centre. Along for the ride is her younger brother Trevor (Michael Welch) and his girl Nina (AnnaLynne McCord). When they arrive at the hospital, all hell breaks loose when the virus is unleashed and turns most of the town into zombies. From here on the movie is a standard action/horror flick with the survivors going from one place to another trying to find shelter.

First things first, the zombies in this film are stupid creations. I do not know who thought that zombies should be able to not only run, but climb walls and ceilings, jump out of two-story windows without damage, drive cars and shoot machine guns. These were like super-zombies that for some reason decayed massively when they turned, but lost no strength. No explanation was given for these zombies except for the fact it was a biochemical weapon (surprise). Not only were the undead unbelievable, but they were CGI...and bad CGI at that. I have never seen so much digital blood and gore, it was poor and only added to the straight-to-DVD feel. The entire cast were bad, Mena Suvari looked like she just needed the money as her performance was dull and by-the-numbers. Nick Cannon should never be allowed to act, but he was not assisted by the dumb script with some appalling one-liners ("by the power of grey skull"?) and rather confusing scenes of civilians becoming master gunman in mere seconds.

Basically, this is a bad movie whether you consider it a remake of Romero's film or a standalone zombie flick. It is not even "so bad it's funny," it is just bad. Sure, it is not the worst movie ever made and it is fast paced enough to never become boring, but there are so many other zombie movies out there that Steve Miner's Day of the Dead should be at the bottom of the need-to-see list.

½/5

A disgrace to the original

[srmathis17 · 1/10 · 15 April 2008]

The reason this movie sucked royally was not because it didn't have the potential to be a good movie it was mainly casting. I don't understand why mainstream Hollywood horror movies cast ridiculous people in roles that don't fit them. The casting of Rhodes was absolutely dumb considering Ving was in the Dawn of the dead remake so it confused everyone into thinking that he survived or something of that nature. Also, if you want a sure shot at ruining your movie just cast Nick Cannon in any part and he will say ridiculous lines like "by the power or gray skull" or some random curse word when he kills his hundredth zombie because apparently he is a super zombie killer as soon as the outbreak occurs. He was quite possibly the worst actor i have ever seen and i just don't understand why he was even cast. The same thing happened with Busta Rhymes in Halloween Resurrection when he said "Trick or Treat Motha F*@#*$." When these dumb lines were barked out by these no talented actors the entire movie lost all credibility in my eyes. Granted both of these movies are not that good but at least would have been watchable if these no talented ridiculous actors were cast. It is just a recipe for disaster with respect to a horror movie.

Now for the movie itself, i literally feel like the only redeeming factor in the whole film was Mina Servari (excuse spelling if its wrong) because she was the only actor that i believed deserved credit. I think Ving was just looking for a quick pay check and the rest of the cast i don't think have any experience and thats all this was for them. I don't blame them for taking the roles because they probably didn't know this crap fest was going to be as bad as it was considering the success of the Zack Synder remake of Dawn of the Dead. The zombie's in this film must have been bitten by radioactive zombie spiders because they develop powers very similar to spider-man when they turn. My brother and I laughed out loud as the chaos happened because it was a mockery of any zombie film ever made.

I also want to point out that i very rarely will comment on films because it is almost pointless, but this film was one of the biggest let downs in all of the movies I have ever seen. I am an avid Romero fan and this did nothing but make a disgrace of his life's work.

Amphetamine Zombies

[Silberfalke · 7/10 · 24 July 2008]

Well, the only big mistake of that movie was to pretend to be the remake of a classic, when it was not. That must have disappointed and angered a lot of people.

Actually "Day of the Dead" is a highly entertaining Zombie-Flick that delivers everything one expects: good trash, gore, humor and well-known main-actors who act, well, lets say "okay"...

The story is not really important, as we saw it dozens of times (Virus, Transformation, Out of Control, group trying to escape,....and so on) and there were elements of "Resident Evil" and "28 Days/Weeks later" as the "life to death transformed" corpses behave the same hysterical way as the sickos from London, only that Americans must be way much hungrier as these zombies are feeding on flesh. And how....

Anyway: "Day of the Dead" was fun, a little thrilling, entertaining and better than a lot of other genre-movies BUT somebody in the marketing-department blew it up by having the idea to sell it as a "Romero Remake".

Some Zombie should bite this person....

Wait...Have we stooped so low?

[murdock50136 · 1/10 · 12 February 2008]

As an avid zombie film buff I feel sick to my stomach after watching an hour and a half of worthless film. Everyone associated with this production should truly feel uncomfortable with the direction of their careers. I knew it was going to be bad after a zombie scaled a hospital ceiling for no apparent reason other than being some type of crazy generation x zombie...not to mention zombies later on poking air conditioner ducts with crutches and floor sweepers (apparently not blessed with the gravity defying before mentioned wall crawling) in order to get at non zombie flesh crawling to safety.

You have to wonder about the makeup of a person who sits down to write a script like this. Better yet those who read this nonsense and throw millions of dollars around in order to make sure it happens. Was it that they truly could not tell a difference between this script and dawn of the dead remake script. One being decent while the other, well, read my first paragraph...

Simply put, this is pathetic. If anyone who took part in the production of this reads this, please look in the mirror and ask yourself was this the reason you got into film. Though you will always have the Day of the dead remake on your resume maybe its not too late to do something worthwhile and memorable...good luck.

I love Zombie movies, but NOT this one

[terrywunder · 8 December 2007]

I saw the screening for Day of the Dead in LA in September... I wanted my money back, but i didn't even pay for the movie.

Cardboard acting, completely ridiculous character traits that defy all sense of realism (Marines do NOT act like that, ever), and very odd casting that didn't work out (Mena Suvari and Nick Cannon? Come on). Also, there was definitely no style to this movie at all! Dawn of the Dead had style, Grindhouse (although not a Zombie flick, but of a similar genre-style) was greatly stylized, Sin City was exciting visually as well, but this movie could have been shot in daylight outside of LA over a weekend. It had no "Feel" to it. I love Zombie movies (James Gunn's Dawn of the Dead, awesome), but this one was true Hollywood schlock and a big disappointment.

Who ever thought a ZOMBIE movie could be Boring?

Day of the Dead(2008)

[robfollower · 8/10 · 29 July 2020]

It's such a fun zombie movie, I'm amazed it didn't get a full theatrical release.

Ving Rhames, Nick Cannon, and Mena Suvari star in director Steve Miner (Friday the 13th Part II, Halloween: H20)'s remake of the apocalyptic gore-fest that originally concluded George A. Romero's zombie trilogy back in 1985. A small American town has been infected with a deadly virus, and the military is determined to contain the sickness by establishing quarantine. When the situation spirals out of control and the infected residents develop a taste for human flesh, the military and surviving residents must band together to battle an enemy whose goal is not simply to kill, but to consume as well.

Not Really A Remake . Not Really Great Either

[Theo Robertson · 6/10 · 26 January 2010]

In my review of the original DAY OF THE DEAD I suggested if there was a better screenplay and better actors it would have been a very good film . As it stood it was the least of George A Romero's zombie trilogy . I didn't know that there had been a remake until it appeared on tonight's schedule on one of the minor ITV channels so I checked it out on this page and was pleased to see its budget was quoted as being 18 million dollars , along with a cast featuring actors I'd seen in other movies . Certainly this made me optimistic that this version - if not surpassing the original in every field - would at least have improved production standards

One warning sign appeared at the opening credits . " Produced by Boaz Davidson " a man responsible for bringing such disasters to cable TV stations and DVD stores as CROCODILE 2:DEATH SWAMP and SHARK ATTACK 3 . This didn't look too promising , especially when you don't see the name of George A Remero appear . Early in to the film something else became painfully clear and that is it doesn't sit anywhere in the continuity of the DEAD universe . The original film had the entire human race facing its ;last days as the zombies outnumbered them 400,000 to every human . Here the movie starts with the National Guard quarantining an area of Colorado . I had thought maybe we'd be watching something similar to THE CRAZIES but the more the story continues the more you realise that Romero's subversive and nihilistic hand hasn't touched the film and is a straight forward zombie horror

Taken on its own terms then DAY OF THE DEAD isn't too bad but neither is it great . Danny Boyle was accused of ripping off the original DAY OF THE DEAD with 28 DAYS LATER and since then horror movie producers have returned the favour by making every zombie run faster than Usain Bolt on steroids . The ones seen here can also jump around like Carl Lewis which makes them extremely formidable foes for the humans to battle . The film works best when the people at the hospital become zombified and attack the humans . Watching this happen is similar to watching the alluded to scenes of 28 DAYS LATER when Jim lies in a coma . Unfortunately - and perhaps understandably - the film is unable to keep up this pace and just becomes a long sequence of " How are our heroes going to get out of this one ? "

So in conclusion DAY OF HE DEAD isn't so terrible but isn't great either . Romero's lack of involvement is very much a mixed blessing . He's not a great director but it he is a very good ideas man and one had wished he could have contributed to the screenplay at least . As it stands this isn't a remake , or even a reworking of it , and anyone coming to it thinking it has something to do with the DEAD trilogy might feel a little bit disappointed not to mention cheated

Wait for Diary of the Dead

[fygall · 1/10 · 17 February 2008]

The director surely mustn't of been a big fan of this genre when he signed up for it. I just don't understand how somebody who has achieved the status of becoming a film director could end up spoiling a movie that could of been so good!

OK, so i guess he wanted to take a different approach to the Zombie movie. Maybe add to Zach Schnyder's good effort with DAWN. But to make Zombies able to leap 20ft and walk on walls and ceilings. I mean really!!! What were you thinking?!?! You've well and truly messed up big time and done nothing for you career. I apologise for sounding a bit harsh but millions of fans of this DEAD franchise expected a lot better to say the least. I was gutted from the first twenty minutes. The casting was way bad too. Who in their right mind would have Mena Suvari as an Army Corporal?? Ving Rhames does his best. Make up and special effects were extremely mediocre as well.

My advice, wait for Diary of the Dead. And see how a zombie flick is supposed to be made.

My Review

[joemamaohio · 1/10 · 2 August 2008]

Zombies have invaded a small Colorado town. The government has blocked it off, leaving the survivors to fend for themselves.

This is yet another boring zombie flick that follows the same predictable patterns with nothing new, exciting, or fresh. Unless you bring into account the fact that Mr. Mariah Carey (Nick Cannon) is in it.

The acting, as you would expect, is sub-par, and the only REAL thing going for the film is the makeup effects on the zombies...pretty darn impressive for such a low-budget picture.

Still, it's something to watch I suppose if you're totally bored and want to kill some time. Otherwise, I wouldn't suggest it.

Not the worst Zombie movie - but not the best.

[jedijarrod · 5/10 · 17 February 2008]

What's with the running? And now with the jumping and wall crawling? Okay so everyone says it's bad, but it's not that bad. It's just a zombie movie. I laughed a couple of times, and rolled my eyes a couple of times. Wasn't really scared though. There's no real looming claustrophobic terror there. It's more like the shock violence of 28 days later and 28 weeks later, that mixed some Aliens knock off, and strangely enough Scary Movie. The zombie effects are OK, bit like an episode of Buffy, and then there's the film effects like the beginning of Dawn of the Dead. It's no way as good as the new Dawn of the Dead, and is a bit of a let down, but it's just a zombie movie. It's strait to DVD, but I'd wait for the sales.

Complicated it's not.

[lost-in-limbo · 5/10 · 14 February 2009]

Remake of George Romero's original "Day of the Dead (1985)"… no way! How could you. Well I'll admit, I didn't mind Steve Miner's superfluously clichéd straight-to-DVD b-grade take, but it's far from a traditional scene by scene/scenario remake with the film only sharing the same title (even though most of the zombie action centres around night time), featuring zombies (who bestow very impressive psychical abilities like sprinting, leaping and thinking) and having a character named Captain Rhodes (played by the commanding Ving Rhames in nothing more than a support role). Really that's it, but also shares some common similarities to Romero's 1973 'The Crazies' (which a remake is on the horizon), as it features the US army posting-guard in a virus-infected small town turning the locals into blood crazy zombies. I don't seem to share much of the hate towards it (maybe hearing a lot bad things before hand to work in my favour as I didn't have expectations for it), although I agree it does have some dumb plot devices (mainly centring that of certain zombie soldier, but is it any worse than the 'Bub' creation in the original film?), but despite that and its formulaic patterns. I remained easily engrossed.

The talented Meni Suvari is agreeably sincere in the central role, but does feel a little miss-cast. Her turn is better than what the stereotypically thin material (and there's no social commentary here) and lazy script ("It's complicated") offers up. The performances are mediocre at best, but some do standout more than others like Nick Cannon as a macho gun-tooting soldier with a smart attitude, Stark Sands as the clumsy private and Ian McNeice as the town's radio DJ. As for Ving Rhames, he's wasted in what ends up as a nothing part for such an infamous character.

Director Steve Miner's orthodox, if tight handling is broken up by kinetic editing; flash camera tilts that keep on the move and jerky action placement (where surprisingly random stages manage to hold a certain amount of chaotic tension). At least the story gets right into it and at only 80 minutes it doesn't seem to sag much… well towards the end its persistent style wears thin and the ending was feebly done. Now the blood-soaked gore… naming its self under day wasn't good. While having moments of bloody carnage and some decent make-up FX, it's rather watered-down with over-the-top CGI taking over the show. The CGI wasn't bad, but it's no substitute for latex.

Sure it doesn't come close to the 'Dead' franchise (and as it stands it better off as a stand-alone), but for cheap, quick brainless entertainment it's adequately done.

Day of the Dead

[Scarecrow-88 · 3/10 · 8 April 2008]

A zombie virus, which signs are flu-like symptoms leading to severe nose bleeds with those infected having worm-like organisms which attack the brain cells(..created by biological scientists for the military), is spreading like wildfire through a little town in Colorado, and a small band of immune survivors try to outlast the raging, leaping, balletic hordes in pursuit of fresh meat.

Military soldier Sarah Bowman(Mena Suvari, who deserves better avenues for her talent)must find a way, along with fellow soldiers Salazar(Nick Cannon, the stereotypical black dude speaking gangsta and hip-hop, so that this horror film could somehow pull in the African American demographic)and amiable vegetarian Bud(Stark Sands), to escape the town hospital littered with zombies attacking their family members and medical personnel. While bodies pile up and the zombies feast feverishly, Sarah's brother Trevor(Michael Welch)and his hottie Nina(AnnaLynne McCord)find a radio station with the massive DJ(Ian McNeice), and a married couple, Mr and Mrs Leither(Robert Rais & Christa Campbell)holed up inside. Attempting to contact anyone across the airwaves, Trevor and Nina find a bloody napkin meaning that someone inside the station with them is infected with the virus. Sarah, Salazar & Bud, along with the sneaky, untrustworthy Dr. Logan(Matt Rippy)who might have knowledge on the cause of the zombie outbreak, will flee into the streets from the hospital in the hopes of finding a vehicle to drive..Logan informs the crew that he arrived in a taxi, lying because he actually has an SUV(..for which he drives off in leaving his mates to fight off a group of zombies coming straight at them). Behind the wheel of a jeep the three will appropriately hear Trevor's cries across the radio..if they are to make it through the night, they must find shelter, with one appropriately located in an abandoned Nike factory, which might just hold a secret facility for certain scientific personnel studying a biological weapon.

Not a remake in the slightest to Romero's film, Miner's uninspired, cliché-ridden zombie film lacks any depth whatsoever. Much of the bloody carnage happens hidden from the viewer. If a victim is attacked, zombies form a collective group over his/her body where we can not see the flesh eating. This particular film is heavily dependent on CGI effects which often fail to convince, and certainly lack the quality of Savini and Nicotero's make-up grue. The sequences which were the most groan-inducing to me were when Molotov cocktails were used to set fire to them. Many of the scenes where bullet-fire destroy zombie skulls CGI fails to generate the same shock value the squibs have on exploding heads and torsos in Savini's gore effects. To be honest, Miner's film, like "Resident Evil:Extinction" will find a nice home on the Sci-fi channel where these kinds of films are made for cable all the time. I can see why this film never got a wider release..it simply fails to present anything worth noting. I think the only audience, a forgiving breed who love their sub-genre faithfully, this might find are the zombie fans. Ving Rhames is wasted as Captain Rhodes, although he gets some "zombie time". Stark Sands tries hard with Bud, somewhat modeled after Bub from the original Romero film, but this film fails to generate in that respect as well. Miner has some moments, particularly the hospital slaughter where the zombie go on a rampage, and Suvari tries, but this film is simply a failure.

Avoid this abomination

[jbrown-152 · 1/10 · 3 August 2008]

OK, how the heck did this even manage to make it to DVD? For anyone reading this who hasn't seen the movie yet, don't waste your money. It's a worthless piece of crap that defiles the reputation of the movie it's supposedly a remake of and the incredible director of that movie. First off, I don't care what anyone says about the cast, they suck. Even Ving Rhames' acting sucked, and he was probably the only high-budget actor they had in the film. Nick Cannon butchered the movie with unnecessary profanity, dimwit humor, and a scene in which he grabs two pump-action shotguns with the purpose of dual-wielding them in combat. The zombies were doing things that is not even possible by humans(such as crawling along a ceiling). The so called special effects were on par with movies released by the sci-fi channel(and that is not saying much). And the ending looks like it was taken from some foreign car advertisement(the characters driving a vehicle in the background and a zombie jumps up out of nowhere, trying to shock the viewers.) The whole plot of the movie seems like it was ripped from the script of Resident Evil and combined with a "few" elements of 28 Days Later. In reality, I have just one question for the producers: What the hell were you thinking when you made this abomination? The only reason I gave this horrible excuse of a movie a 1 rating is because "0" wasn't an option. Pass this one up people, it will only give you a headache later.

Nothing Like Romero and Cartoonish, but Still Fun

[w00f · 7/10 · 24 November 2008]

Other reviewers are absolutely correct when they say this flick has nothing to do with any of the George Romero movies, and it's not exactly honest to use the name of one of those films. The only things in common are the names of some of the characters (including the best-known zombie from Romero's original) and the military theme, albeit vaguely so.

Acting? It's OK. Nothing special. Special effects? Variable; some are good, some are not so good. Plot? Fuggedaboutit; zombies eat people, people blow up zombies, and that's about the extent of it. Turn off your brain for this one.

While Miner's "remake" has none of the style or finesse of the Romero films, it's still an enjoyable enough zombie action shoot-'em-up and watch the heads fly movie. If you're looking for a Romero-like movie, pass this by. If you've got an hour and a half to kill and enjoy a video nasty now and again, you might like this one.

If this were meant to be a comedy it would be 5 stars

[derceto-3 · 1/10 · 4 August 2008]

This board is full of ranting and complaining already, so I won't add to the pile, and it's taking a lot of effort to restrain myself from doing so. I quite simply spent the entire movie laughing at how pathetic and worthless this film is. The dialog and sequence of events in this movie were nothing short of comical. To think that everyone involved in this production were trying to make a serious horror film is down right baffling. This movie scores an F- in every single imaginable category. A waste of eyesight and a waste of hearing. Instead of spending 80 minutes watching this travesty, you may consider cleaning your toilet or something along those lines. I'm sure it would be more entertaining than this mess. Not the "worst" movie I've ever seen, but is that a redeemable quality? Not by a long shot. View at your own risk.

pathetic

[Esken · 12 February 2008]

This is one of the worst zombie-movies ever made i think. And i've seen many of em. I actually used to respect Steve Miner for his contribution to Lake Placid, Halloween and Friday the 13th 2+3. But this is by fare the most painful thing i've seen from him. Don't't talk bad about Uwe Boll's house of dead if you praise this. It's just as bad. Crappy acting from mediocre actors. And why on earth did Ving Rhames do this film? He's already done a zombie remake. "Dawn of the dead" which is a great film. Zack Snyder the director is of the new age. Miner is outdated in the horror-field. It's the new generation of directors job to make these films now. Look at The hills have eyes. Great film, great director. Look at the sequel. A script from Wes Craven, German director. It stank up the whole industry! It's a shame to say it, but maybe these guys should think about making other stuff? I am a big fan of Craven, but i'm also a big fan of horror. And these old guys aìn't giving it anymore. Day of the dead should have been a first-time director's job. Someone young and hungry for success. Miner is a great TV director. Hss made a lot of good shows. Stick to that.

I can't say how disappointed i was when i saw this. I love the original. Which had great gore. This remake was an embarrassment. cgi gore through the whole thing. If your making a zombie-movie. Make sure you can finance the gore first. That is what those movies are about.

To all. Stay clear of this very low quality film from an outdated director, bad actors and a pathetic production.

Sorry guys...

George A Romero Fans....

[grimacinglummox · 8/10 · 27 February 2008]

... Are the people condemning this movie, no doubt. This obviously is a sequel to the remake of Dawn, (04). The characters are likable. The storyline, isn't the best or worst, I've seen. The effects are superb.

Mena Suvari, does a very decent job of carrying this movie. Fast Paced, action oriented. I'm sure Lot's of hungry zombie fans will enjoy this newest re-make in the zombie genre.

I was very pleasantly surprised, while viewing this one. Whilst not the best, certainly not the worst either.

I'll watch it quite a few more times.

I recommend giving it a whirl, before handing out heavy handed judgements against it. Don't be fooled folk's.

Approach this as a stand alone title and it is not bad. DO NOT EXPECT A REMAKE OF THE CLASSIC

[tculinarian · 6/10 · 11 February 2008]

I agree with those who are are lamenting the fact that Romero's name and classic film title are attached to this. With that being said: As its own movie, this is not bad. It is kind of a new take on the zombie classic. The zombies were more supernatural (I will not spoil anything. Just do not expect the classic zombie prototype) than usual but I found myself enjoying the movie way more than any of its recent peers. There was a lot of suspense and non-stop action that made the movie worthwhile. If you are looking for a remake of the classic you will be horribly disappointed, so do not do it. I will not go into the many, many reasons why. Just take my word for it and go in with no expectations. You just may enjoy yourself.

What a waste of time

[kaput450 · 3/10 · 26 April 2008]

I give this piece of crap a 3 for cool head explosions and the big fat DJ guy. Otherwise this is a huge waste of time. No zombie rules are followed and everyone gets zombified way too quick. I had to keep watching it until the end because it was so rediculas. I did not like anyone in this movie and it would have been great if they all died. I have to keep saying things about this to make the quota but please avoid this show at all costs. My favorite quote in the movie was "Bleach kills almost everything" Everybody who has ever seen a zombie movie knows that bleach will not cure a zombie. Low rent piece of junk. I want my free rental fee back. Thats how bad it is!