Day of the Dead
(R, 1:25:56, Released 2007)
| Genres: | Mystery & Suspense, Horror |
| Release Date: | Apr 1, 2008 |
| DVD Release Date: | Apr 8, 2008 |
| Starring: | Ving Rhames, Mena Suvari, Nick Cannon, AnnaLynne McCord, Christa Campbell, Michael Welch, Stark Sands, Pat Kilbane, Taylor Hoover, Matt Rippy |
| Directed by: | Steve Miner |
| Synopsis: | 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. ~ Jason Buchanan, Rovi |
| Full movie details |
Day of the Dead provided by Hulu.com
Refresh
It sounds awfully quiet in here... Be the first to say something!
My Rating:
| All of Flixster: | (5236) |
My Friends' Reviews
Log in to see your friends' reviews.
Other Top Reviews
-
June 1, 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.
-
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!
-
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
-
May 24, 2011
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.
-
March 24, 2011
three stars
-
February 26, 2011
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.
-
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.
-
February 13, 2010
Yuck.
-
November 18, 2009
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.
-
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. -
September 29, 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. -
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.
-
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. -
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. -
April 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. -
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. -
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. -
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.
-
October 6, 2011
I got this movie from a local store, and am glad to say it was exactly as I hoped it to be. A nonstop gorefest of just blood and zombie mayhem. Although, it is a rather "corny" part of the Dead series, with that sort of B-movie style. But the acting was good, and so was the pacing. Another thing I didn't like: In the original 1985 film, is the most fun, gruesome death scenes of all time, where Captian 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 and enjoyable to watch. Definately one of the best zombie films.
-
July 19, 2008
This movie should not be made at all. The worst part of this movie was the script closely followed by the direction. The original movie was a sequel and built on what had come before it. The only bright point in this thing was Mena Suvari, she did a pretty decent job.
-
November 11, 2010
If I were George Romero I would have sued to keep the name "Day Of The Dead" off this movie so that my name wasn't attached to it after I screened this junker. Romero has done some pretty bad movies recently, trying to stay creative with the zombie genre, but to allow this "remake" of his 1985 movie (when he was doing some REALLY good stuff) is just horrible. Everything from writing to directing to cinematography is terrible.
It's not even scary. Between the director and cinematographer, they couldn't develop one scare. In Jaws, Spielberg spent $100,000 of his own money reshooting a single scene because he didn't get the reaction he wanted when they were screening it. Day Of The Dead just flounders through what is supposed to be a scary, yet turns out sad, movie.
They did get some decent actors when someone thought this garbage was going to be released in theaters. They didn't, however, get an actor whom could carry a mess of a movie like this. Mena Suvari is decent at acting, Nick Cannon is by no means a good actor, but he is entertaining, and Ving Rhames is a guy I like to see in film. He has a smaller part here, but this would have blown even if he had a more prominent role. There are a few other actors who would look familiar, but you wouldn't remember their names.
This Day Of The Dead remake is horrible. Even if you see it airing on TV for free I'd recommend you keep clicking. -
May 10, 2010
This is a mildly entertaining remake of George A. Romero's "Day of the Dead"(1985), it's about a town overrun by zombies during a military quarantine. It's one of the worst zombie movies I've ever watched, not just because of it's obvious low-budget [the special effects were kinda dodgy] but because of the weak writing [by the "Final Destination" franchise writer Jeffrey Reddick] and the lame directing by Steve Miner ["Friday the 13th Part 2", "Friday the 13th Part III", "Halloween H20", "Lake Placid"]. Decent performances by Mena Suvari, Nick Cannon [even though his character is almost a walking stereotype in some parts], Ving Rhames [even though dies way too soon, sorry for the SPOILER], Matt Rippy, Stark Sands, Michael Welch, and AnnaLyne McCord were not enough to save this sad excuse for a horror flick. Overall it's such a waste of time that I almost didn't waste my time typing a review for it.
-
October 19, 2009
Just plain awful re-imagining. Waste of Bud, bad make-up (with immediate turning complete with sores on face), lack of consistency with turn time, zombie-ish virus not in tune with Dawn re-imagining, immmediately becoming super-zombies pouncing , dodging bullets, setting traps, using guns, olympic sprinting, and my favorite.... spider walking on the ceiling. Hey lets use some 28 Days Later mix in a tiny bit of Day and get some used to be name actors who think this will be like the new Dawn in popularity and make a bad excuse for a zombie film that is a crime to use the Day of the Dead moniker.
-
July 27, 2009
Not sure if this was a remake of the 1985 version or a stand-alone movie, it was pretty entertaining.
This one featured the fast-running zombies, which I really didn't like at first, but then grew to find them funny. They were similar to Infected from 28 Days Later. Even the whole cinematography used the speeding-up techniques, but here it looked rather fake, whereas in 28 Days Later it looked realistic.
Nevertheless this movie had plenty of gory action and had an element of black comedy to it, so I liked it. If this is a remake then I prefer this one to the Dawn of the Dead remake. But it didn't really seem like one, since there were no similar characters to the original and the plot was different too. -
July 24, 2008
It was different from the original movie. Not quite as good, but some scenes made me jump! The Zombies were ok, but what's with the super Zombie strength??? But all in all, it was amusing.
