Day of the Dead Movie Review

Posted by Robert Fure (robert@filmschoolrejects.com) on March 31, 2008

Day of the Dead

Today we have another entry into the overflowing category of “unnecessary remake type things.” Now, I can call this 2008 edition of Day of the Dead directed by Steve Miner a “remake,” completely, as a good number of things have been changed. Basically, it’s an origin story of sorts for a zombie outbreak, using the same location and characters as the original Romero version.

This flick will be heading straight to DVD on April 8th and stars Mena Suvari and Nick Cannon. Great cast, right? Ving Rhames is also in the movie for a few minutes in an underhanded trick of somehow trying to convince you this is related to Zack Snyder’s Dawn of the Dead. It’s not. Nor is it close in quality.

Day of the Dead follows a flu-like outbreak in a small Colorado town. Those who are not naturally immune to the new virus quickly degenerate into super-fast zombies who, like tradition, can only die from having the head destroyed. Our small group of survivors consists of a few National Guardsmen (and women!) and a few straggler survivors, most of whom are related. Soon the group has found the the origins of the virus’ and the results will terrify you! If you’re terrified by boring and predictable things.

AnnaLynne McCord (Nip/Tuck) is also in the film and she’s got a hot body. I needed to throw that in there. Production wise the movie is a bit surprising. I expected a true low budget pile, but filming in Bulgaria must have freed up some dollars. There are lots of ridiculous gun fights, a huge number of extras, lots of equipment and gore. As a straight to DVD movie or Sci-Fi Channel quality flick, its about as good as you’re like to find. Take that as you will.

The film over relies on CGI to fill in head explosions and blood, which to me was very obvious and distracting. I always thought practical effects were cheaper – and I know they always look better. But special effects wise it was ok.

The worst part of the movie is what they did to the zombies. Sweet lord. These are without a doubt the fastest zombies on film. One of them jumped like 16 feet. Another one climbed on the ceiling like he was Spider-Man or something. Pretty ridiculous and not cool with me or, really, anyone in the audience.

I was able to speak with writer Jeffrey Reddick and it was very interesting to hear the screenwriters perspective. He constantly referred to early drafts and his reluctance to take on a remake project. Much of what was on screen that, to put it bluntly, sucked, wasn’t his fault, he said. Which is to be expected but he indicated that in his drafts there were no super zombies that could run at super high speed or climb walls and that many of these choices were taken out of his hands. I believe him. Don’t blame the writer!

So, should you watch this? Sure, if you’re a zombie fan. Its slightly above average zombie fare, but I can’t recommend purchasing it or anything. Not bad, but definitely not great.

Grade: C+


Read more articles by Robert Fure

« Previous Article | Next Article »

Related Topics:

DVD Reviews, Movie Review, , , ,

Related Reading:

Your Ad Here

Comment Policy: No hate speech allowed. If you must argue, please debate intelligently. Comments containing selected keywords or outbound links will be put into moderation to help prevent spam. Film School Rejects reserves the right to delete comments and ban anyone who doesn't follow the rules. We also reserve the right to modify any curse words in your comments and make you look like an idiot. Thank You!

  • Ok, here's my litmus test, Robert:

    Was it better than Land of the Dead?
  • James Gabbitas
    By comparison alone this was Biblical! If you beleive that everything contained within is truely awful. OK cast. But bears no resemblence to the original (army inclusion only). Nearly all major characters related (inbreeding as the reason perhaps) but no some quasi i came back for absoloutely no reason whatsoever is the premise. LOL - you won't do that ever. Compared to this Land of the Dead was shakespearian in it's execution.
    Sorry But terrible film, zombies faster than drive through WTF!!!!
  • Hm... Tough question. Honestly I was quite bored with Land of the Dead. Thought it was a bit of a let down. Go into "Day of the Dead" expecting nothing more than a cheap-o zombie flick and you'll be pleasantly surprised. I can't say its "better" than Land of the Dead, but I may have enjoyed it a touch more, sad to say.
  • Fair 'nuff. I didn't think Land was all that good, either, but it more or less satisfied my craving for zombie goodness. Any zombie movie even marginally better than that is "ok" by me.
  • Scanain
    Hmmm..

    Wouldn't really allow this film to carry land of the deads suitcases. Not that either are great movies, but land of the dead is watchable.

    I found this remake slow (other than the zombies) with painful dialogue which the actors were clearly uncomfortable with. The plot is dated and nothing really like the original. Wouldn't have known it was a remake but for the name.
  • Rob
    Robert -

    Great review and dead-on (no pun intended). Aside from a few neat gore effects, this movie was a total mess. The great thing about the original Romero films was that they weren't designed to appeal to the 'tween/teen crowd: the leads were adults and stories carried some weight. This remake is devoid of any real plot and the casting is ridiculous. Mena Suvari is a good actress, but totally miscast as an aggressive army officer and Nick Cannon give us the same, old tired schtick as the angry young black guy. YAWN...
  • Ok, it lost me at "Mena Suvari.... as an aggressive army officer."

    Sounds like I should skip right to Diary when it comes out on DVD.
  • I didn't think Mena's character was supposed to be "aggressive." She was waifish and her attempts at being in control were laughable, but not deal breaking. Like I said, straight up zombie cheese served CGI style. It wasn't a waste of time, but its not something I'll watch again, unless drunk, with friends. And someone else puts it in.
  • Mike Mc
    First off, Steve Miner would have done good to do this as sequel to Dawn. With about 3 details relating to the original the 10,000+ details are missing. This is not a remake or any kind. I thought Dawn 2004 was just ok. Now after seeing this "remake" Dawn 2004 is a masterpiece. As a Zombie movie done on its own it might have passed with a c+ but calling this Day Of The Dead it gets an F for originality and 0 for effort. Can't blame the acting because nobody could save this one.
blog comments powered by Disqus