User reviews

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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....

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.

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.

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.

Zombie movies are more popular than ever since the beginning of the new Millennium, and we particularly notice an undeniable revival of George A. Romero's legendary trilogy of the dead. The Man himself released two more genuine sequels to his own franchise ("Land of the Dead" and "Diary of the Dead", which can't live up to the older movies but are still very much worth checking out) and no less than two of the three original classics already received modern makeovers. Actually, they aren't prototypic remakes to be honest. Zack Snyder added a lot of personalized style and ideas to his interpretation of "Dawn of the Dead" in 2004 and, well, to link this straight-to-video reworking of "Day of the Dead" to Romero's legacy would be blasphemous and a complete disgrace. This isn't a remake of the brilliant 80's milestone, but a mundane and inconspicuous splatter B-movie that simply needed an eye-catching gimmick in order not to dive into oblivion straight away. So what they did here was steal the title and borrow a couple of story elements from Romero's film (like the obedient zombie and the underground laboratory), but otherwise this is just a lame and uninspired zombie movie like there are thirteen in a dozen nowadays. Nearly the entire population of a small Colorado town overnight becomes infected with a hideous virus that causes their bodies to rapidly decompose and inflicts an insatiable hunger for human flesh. The army is called in and young soldier Sarah Bowman, who's from around the area, discovers a link with scientific experiments that took place in an abandoned factory nearby. There's absolutely nothing original about "Day of the Dead", unless you consider a vegetarian zombie to be innovative. To me, that was simply the most ridiculous and embarrassing moment of the entire movie. The CGI-effects look horrible and this is yet another film that doesn't comprehend that zombies need to move slowly in order to look menacing! The rotting cadavers here run faster than African athletes and, for some reason, they can even walk upside down on the ceiling! I mean, were they actually trying to make the movie look stupid? Just trying to imagine Mena Suvari as a hard-boiled and stern army girl is already impossible and, even though his name parades on the DVD-cover in thick bold letters, Ving Rhames' role as Captain Rhodes is hardly more than a cameo. That was perhaps the biggest disappointment of all, since the Captain Rhodes character of the original movie is one of the notorious "bad guys" in the history of horror. This is by far the worst thing Steve Miner ever got associated with. Otherwise he's the respectable director of several modest competent horror movies, like "Friday the Thirteenth Parts 2 and 3", "Warlock", "House" and "Lake Placid".

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.

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.

... 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.

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.