Day Of The Dead Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
1920x1040 | 8134.86 MiB | 1080p | |
|
608x320 | 689.67 MiB | divx | |
|
320x176 | 345.09 MiB | ipod | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
D-Day Is Coming
When the world is overrun by the flesh hungry dead a small group of survivors head to an underground military bunker in a last ditch effort to stay alive.
| Luke Sexton | Zombie |
| Nick Cannon | Salazar |
| Pat Kilbane | Dr. Engel |
| Brian La Rosa | Man in the Woods |
| Ian McNeice | D.J. Paul |
| Isaac Meisenheimer | Fire zombie |
| Robert Rais | Mr. Leitner |
| Jeffrey Reddick | Deputy |
| Ving Rhames | Captain Rhodes |
| Matt Rippy | Dr. Logan |
| Stark Sands | Bud Crain |
| Hugh Skinner | Kyle |
| Steve Miner |
4.40 out of 10 (1545 votes)
Visitor Reviews
great when taken on its own!!!!!!!!!
posted on 28 Aug 2009I keep reading all this rubbish about comparing it with the past greats. It was obviously never intended to be another chapter of those great movies. I am some what taken back by the behavior of the black soldiers as my son is in the marines and would never behave that way. But then I have to remind myself that the producers are just trying to add a little silliness to the movie. Anyone can clearly see that it wasn't intended to be a movie that depicts something that could happen in real life. Such as the remake of "Dawn of the Dead", which gave a great feel of possibility. I also think naming it Day of the Dead brought on a lot of the criticism as many of us loyal to the remakes and originals are waiting for the sequel to the remake of Dawn of the Dead. If they had just named it something that made it its own then I think attitudes would have been far different. I personally loved the movie once I observed it on its own merits. The special effects were great, (accept the burning zombies that explode, seemed tacky and cheaply done), the super jumping zombies were unique and the climbing the walls zombies were also a surprise. Over all I really liked this movie. My only wish is that someone would make a movie that would show mankind fighting its last great fight. DawnOTD remake was great but why can't we see the military and people in general banning together for an epic battle to save their cities and countries. What, you mean no one thought of just getting into tanks and rolling over the bastards. Something as epic a battle as seen in the "Lord of the Rings" trilogies. And how about some more realism such as only the freshest zombies can move fast, as they rot they should naturally begin to slow down. All that aside, I really would suggest every zombie fan see this at least once and make up their own minds. If you want action, great sound and video quality, all covered in blood. This should do it for you!!!!! Personally I hope they make a sequel.
Probably the worst zombie movie I'll ever see.
posted on 26 Aug 2009I'm surprisingly forgiving of zombie movies. I enjoy the Return of the Living Dead movies on a certain level. I didn't even mind Children of the Living Dead. But this movie is on approximately the same level as House of the Dead.The problems with this movie aren't limited to just the script, which is pretty poor. First of all, Nick Cannon's character has slipped into self-parody. Second of all, there are threads created that are never resolved, and not even in a likable way. Notice all of the references to her gun being unloaded, and that "it's complicated?" This is not funny to use it as a gag. It's not a joke - it's just poor writing. The bigger problem is with directorial choices. Steve Miner has directed some fun movies, (notably Warlock and House) but he appears to be trying to channel Uwe Boll's style with this one. Immediately after leaving the hospital, there is a fight sequence that involves randomly changing up slow motion and fast motion. This is both irritating to watch, but absurdly comical as well. It's hard to take the dead as a threat when they are acting like they limp, but are moving about 1.5 times as fast as normal humans. After the group finishes off a slew of dead, the zombies from the hospital all decide to simultaneously jump out of their respective windows to attack our heroes. If this were a musical, I would probably think this was a good directorial choice. But it's a horror movie, and some semblance of realism goes a long way to making it scary.There are lots of silly things like this throughout the production.I watched Flight of the Dead, and didn't feel as bad about that movie as I did about this one.Perhaps the movie would be more acceptable with a different title? The movie has two things to do with the original. First, they have some of the same character names. Second, there is an underground military bunker. But for some reason, the bunker reminds me more of Resident Evil than Day of the Dead.Part of the reason that the original was titled Day of the Dead is that the plague has reached a point where the dead are the dominate species. This movie deals with what appears to be an isolated outbreak in a Colorado town.I don't think I could say enough to persuade people that this isn't worth seeing. But that isn't true. It is entirely worth seeing, since it makes us feel like we could make a movie.(Note - I only rated this two stars because I've got a soft spot for zombies of all types, even spider-man ones.)
What's Romero got to do with anything?
posted on 24 Aug 2009Zombie 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".
Dead, dead, dead
posted on 18 Aug 2009First of all, this is not a remake of George Romero's "Day of the Dead". This is an entirely different story altogether. A weak story & script. Poor dialogue and mediocre acting. I'm a fan of horror films and loved both Dawn of Deads and Night of the Living Dead but this is unoriginal in every way. There is nothing unique here. Just a trite, run of the mill zombie action flick with nothing to say. Mena Suvari....she must not have been able to forget that there were camera crew standing 2 feet away from her. She never looks scared and her acting is emotionless. The best acting came from Nick Cannon as Salazar. He has the best lines and did the best job with his character. Also, the interviews on the DVD are poorly done and it's embarrassing to watch the actors talk as if this is something new and exciting. I felt bad for them. Skip this!
What a disgrace to Romero
posted on 16 Aug 2009This movie had a lot of potential, since it is a remake of a Romero movie. The problem is that they did an absolutely terrible job. The "Zombies" in this movie are fast, semi-intelligent (they were using mops to poke holes in the ceiling to get people out of ventilation ducts), organized (when the main characters first leave the hospital, 5 or 6 "zombies" all jump out of windows at the same time), they can jump like 30 feet (while on the second floor a "zombie" jumps from the ground floor to the window) and they can hold on to ceilings (again referring to when they are in the air ducts). While it was somewhat entertaining, it is a terrible "zombie" movie and should be avoided.
Not NEARLY as bad as you have heard.
posted on 06 Aug 2009First of all, let me state my position on zombie movies. I do NOT think that George Romero is a God. I think zombies that run are FAR scarier than the lumbering ones that you can easily escape from. I think the remake of Dawn Of The Dead is not only superior to the original, but the best zombie movie ever made. Finally I think that the remake of Day Of The Dead has been unfairly dumped on, but is so far superior to the boring-as-hell original (directed by Romero) that it's not even funny. Director Steve Miner has crafted a fast moving, atmospheric, gore filled zombie flick that has not gotten the support it deserves. Not a follow up to Zack Snyder's Dawn Of The Dead, it takes place in a tiny Colorado town where the Army is trying to quarantine the town's inhabitants. Mena Suvari is an army corporal, who just happens to have grown up in that very town. She's assigned a few new soldiers, including Nick Cannon, to secure help secure one of the towns checkpoints. There is a cold-like virus loose in the towns that, when it kicks in, rots human flesh, and turns the people infected into zombies. Zombies that, like in the Dawn remake, run like track athletes. The movie starts quickly and never slows down. There's no shortage of zombies, so trying to escape from the town proves to be every bit as difficult as you'd expect. The zombies are also different in the way that they retain some of the intelligence and personality they had when they were alive. So we get scenes like a platoon of dead soldiers coming at survivors, wildly (perhaps uncontrollably) firing their weapons. It's also the first time we get a bit of zombie cannibalism, as they turn on one another. Mena Suvari gives a good performance in your typical tough chick role. Plus she looks really good in Army green. Ving Rhames turns in a cameo as her superior, not a reprise of his Dawn Character. The biggest negative about the movie is Nick Cannon. Although I don't think it's necessarily his fault. The character is so stereotypical, it's borderline insulting. He plays the put upon black man that rants about all the things white people do, and has no shortage of attitude and street slang. Why does the black man's character have to be so degrading to the black man? We even get typical mispronunciation of words that must sound "street", even a few "aights" thrown in there. He almost singlehandedly brings the movie down. Fortunately there's a lot more going on. Like I said, the movie never stops moving. The survivors never get a chance to take a breath, as every place they think is safe, is quickly overrun. There are some great visuals here, topped off by several zombies leaping from the upper windows of a nearby building in an attempt to feed on our heroes. Director Steve (Halloween H20, Lake Placid, Friday the 13th 2 and 3) is horror veteran and knows how to keep things rolling. Lots of action, lots of gore, and good scares. I don't know what the problems were with this movie that kept the studio from releasing it theatrically, but it's a shame they didn't support it. Go ahead and rent it, you will be pleasantly surprised. I was.
Really?
posted on 04 Aug 2009All I can say is, "Really?" People, please quit turning Romero's work into this crap. The Dawn of the Dead movie was done well, it was a decent budget, decent conversion of the script, decent acting, and was pretty entertaining. The main thing about it; besides budget, script, and actors, was that the most engrossing and thrilling part of Romero's work; the feeling of survival in isolated, outnumbered, globally terrifying situations. People enjoy watching a movie about survival in this element, you constantly wonder what you would do in the situation. Day of the Dead was not the same kind of movie at all, the original was a heck of a lot better and it was kind of lame. They used the same crummy cheap horror movie equations for this movie they use for all of the really bad, mass produced, bargain bin horror videos made for a quick buck. They are kind of an insult to anyone's intelligence, there's the cliché "young persons making out in a shack in the woods and hear something and get attacked while you only hear noises then see blood then cut scene" scenario, the "person who wanted to get away from her small town only to find out she missed it and wanted to save it" scenario, I could go on and on but it was not at all what Romero wrote about. Please, just make your cheap, crappy, cliché horror movies but leave Romero's zombies out of it, just keeping using the vengeful ghost or teenagers in a cabin for a weekend plots.
Those expecting a remake of the original will be greatly disappointed.....like me
posted on 02 Aug 2009***SPOILERS AHEAD**** Why was this named Day of the Dead other than to cash in on the history of the original? It has no resemblance (other than character names) to the original and comes across as a 28 Days Later ripoff rather than a Day of the Dead remake/homage.....Let me break it down.In the original Day of the Dead, the zombie epidemic was in full force, in this "remake", the "zombie" epidemic/virus outbreak is just starting. (?).....In the original, the characters spent the majority of the movie in an army bunker, in this they spend 5 minutes at the end of the movie in some sort of lab in the woods. (?) In the original, the zombies are slow (from decay, etc.), in this, they are superfast and can run on the ceiling (but can't jump up to a ventilation vent cover?).........In the original, the zombies are killed by a shot to the head, in this they can be killed by heating them up like popcorn until they explode. Maybe the "rage virus" does this to you.The characters had no resemblance whatsoever to their original counterparts.....since everyhting else had changed, why even use the original names. The character of Bud was totally misused and quite frankly stupid in this movie (vegeterian zombie wont eat meat or the women he loves, yet a mom zombie tries to eat her children)....no consistency whatsoever.I guess since Rhodes was a racist in the original, they had to make him a black man to be politically correct in this one.......dumb, dumb, dumb.Acting was sub par (Nick Cannon acting like a bad ass is a joke, looked like Urkel with a gun) and the effects were Sci Fi channel at best (high budget sci fi channel movie)......On its own, and by a different name, this would have been in the top 30% of the slew of direct to video zombie flix hitting the market, but as a DOD remake, it does not even come close to filling those shoes.....it doesn't even try them on.
don't wast your time.
posted on 25 Jul 2009There's nothing to watch on this thing. I got a copy of it at Texas Frightmare a couple months ago, and man it stinks. Is it a remake of the original? If so it is the worst remake ever. first off they try to explain it as a viral infection and then it goes into an underground base. STUPID. and whats going on with the wall crawling zombie?!?!!! (yelling cause IMDb won't allow me to caps) spider zombie?!?!!! dumbest thing ever and i hate it. i hate this movie. it stinks. my dog carl and i were playing catch and i pretended it was a stick and threw it. he wouldn't fetch the DVD.
Not the worst Zombie movie - but not the best.
posted on 21 Jul 2009What'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.
just saw it
posted on 21 Jul 2009i read some of the comments here for this movie b4 i watched it, i am glad i never go by what critics say i always judge a movie myself, and dear lord this movie was intense i have seen all the classic ones and the remakes from the beginning night of the dead day of the dead dawn of the dead etc... and after watching this one i can't even begin to describe it, it was amazing the special effects very very awesome and scary as all hell, i jumped up many times the end made my heart beat super fast it was simply amazing true fans will feel the same way i did, outstanding job this is a must have DVD for me as soon as it comes out on DVD
Better than most of the zombie flicks.
posted on 19 Jul 2009Director Steve Miner (Halloween H20, Lake Placid) releases a modern-day remake to George A. Romero's Day of the Dead. Day of the Dead (2008) focuses on certain characters, both civilian and National Guard that are trying to escape a small Colorado town, infested with flesh-eating and brutal zombies. Most of the zombie flicks, such as the original Dawn of the Dead and it's remake, 28 Days Later, and Night of the Living Dead never explain where the mutation came from and why did it start in the first place? This movie explains where the disease came from. Certain scientists hid themselves inside of a bunker underneath the town, testing this disease known as "Project Wildfire" which could help the troops capture the enemy without any struggle. However, something went wrong. The experiment went awry, and the town turned into zombies.The actual story dosen't sound like much, but it will do. Remember, this movie went straight to video, so do not expect some big blockbuster hit as the 2004 remake of Dawn of the Dead starring Ving Rhames and Sara Polley. Even if this is only a video release, I still have to say that I rather enjoyed it. It wasn't the best, and it certainly wasn't the worst. You do not need extensive amounts of nudity and language to make movies. The suspense and the violence can help a horror movie more than everything else combined. Most people will not like this movie because they are not giving it a chance. Watch Day of the Dead (2008) and you will not be disappointed.
Psycho Crazy Zombies
posted on 19 Jul 2009I really don't know what other people were talking about, but it was really good. I absolutely love ZOMBIE movies, when I seen the trailer it was OK looking, but when I seen the movie it wasn't cheesy,it was actually scary, if it can make you jump then it does its job. Some things were unbelievable like a military quarantine but the military are not wearing mask to help prevent getting sick. In the remake of dawn of the dead the zombies ran, but these Zombies run super speedy gonzales fast, and do other unworldly things (but guess what Zombies are unworldly, and you can do anything in movies) So what I suggest is give the movie a chance, hell I like it, you might too.
Not bad at all
posted on 17 Jul 2009I'm not a big horror film buff so unlike some people who comment I can't really compare it to the 'classics'. That is probably a good thing since it meant that my enjoyment of the film wasn't hampered by seeing how well it measured up to standards set years ago. I watched it for what I think it was trying to be - a film that makes you jump in some scenes and make your adrenalin pump in others between the odd gross out. For me it did that. My only real criticism is that the ending seemed rather abrupt and anti climactic. While I won't spoil the ending it just didn't seem a satisfying conclusion to such a fast paced movie. I was waiting for the twist of the 'it's not really over' moment which was only really done in a token way.
Awful Awful Awful
posted on 11 Jul 2009Frist I never post on IMDb first time, but I had to for this.Plain and simple awful movie for a so many reasons... but I'll just name a few.- Awful acting - Awful storyline - Awful characters - Awful one-liners - Awful ending ... I can keep on going.What the ...... were they thinking when they made this flick, it's 2008 and you would think that they would have learned from previous zombie movie disasters. The thing that gets me is that they obviously had the money, it wasn't a low budget movie as far as special effects go etc... but the movie itself is just ugh.I got to like 80% and couldn't watch anymore... if I only knew or listened to other IMDb members I wouldn't have wasted an hour or so of my life watching this.The only thing that this movie had going for it is GI-Jane is pretty cute -- that's it.Do yourself a favor AVOID IT.
WAY better than Diary of the Dead
posted on 11 Jul 2009I was anticipating George A. Romero's Diary of the Dead for so long. As a HUGE fan of Romero, after watching Diary, I was EXTREMELY disappointed to say the least. I'm not even going to get into it because that's not really the subject matter here.However, I was pleasantly surprised at how the Day of the Dead remake made me yell out, "awesome!!" quite a few times during the film. After seeing all the negative comments and the 4.4 stars on IMDb, I wasn't expecting much. But it had a lot more of what I wanted out of a zombie flick than even Mr. Romero put on my plate for Diary. Even though this had nothing to do with the original, except for the names of the characters, I still give it a 2 thumbs up.
George A Romero Fans....
posted on 11 Jul 2009... 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.
Day of the Dead... or Resident Evil remake?
posted on 09 Jul 2009I have a few issues with this "remake". As a remake, you want to preserve a similar storyline, yet update effects, dialogue, and characters. The characters names that were kept had no connection with their origin (aside from being in the military of course). Bud (a.k.a. Bub) is given a bit of a back-story, but could've been written out all together. The underground bunker only becomes relevant in the last 30 minutes of the movie. Worst of all, the origin of the virus is explained.What about the stars of the movie? Of course, the undead. This is when you have to forget you're watching a Dead remake. As in the Dawn of the Dead remake (which I enjoyed), the zombies can run. This adds to the terror, yet believable enough to keep you entertained without completely taking away from the original series. In Day of the Dead, they also jump, repel, and scale walls and ceilings. Transitioning to a zombie is a bit ridiculous. One minute you're carrying on a conversation, then you kinda zone out for a few seconds, and *poof* your eyes turn white, skin's already rotting, and you're looking for food (unless you're a vegetarian).I kinda liked the actors. Mena Suvari isn't a great female lead. Ving Rhames plays a military version of his Dawn character, but was underused in this film. Way too many teenage characters. Credits even got the lead character's name wrong and didn't bother putting in the names of some of other characters in the credits. Dialogue was fairly cheesy and storyline was lazy and kinda predictable.Why a rating of 4? If you remove the Dead name from the movie and market it as just a zombie movie, it's a good B-movie. Plenty of kill scenes, if not a little over the top. Makeup was pretty convincing. A good movie to watch at 2 in the morning when the bars close.As for the climax ending... turn the movie off. You can come up with a better one by using your imagination.
Honestly, A Very Bad Movie
posted on 07 Jul 2009I truly enjoyed the George Romero zombie flicks and am very disappointed when some rookie director comes up with a 'remake' of one of the master's titles. A rookie in the sense of trying to capture the dark, gritty, viciousness of the zombie epidemic as envisioned by Romero in his earlier films. Steve Miner has directed episodes of Dawson's Creek, (which explains some of this film's truly boring dialog and Ken and Barbie type characters)and Smallville (which has effectively turned Superman into a soap opera).What Miner has done here is show us that he can capture all of the plot lines, and zombie behavior previously shown in a dozen zombie flicks, put Mena Suvari (of American Beauty) in the lead and make a horrible horror movie.While this film might appeal to young folks who don't understand the art as developed by Romero, those who do will undoubtedly turn away from this one after the first half hour. It only takes that long to get an idea of the poor characters. Suvari plays an army Corporal (who carries a gun with no bullets. Why even pull it out?) Ving Rhames has a small part, perhaps wise enough to not stick around. Suvari's character is remarkably calm in the face of danger despite her seemingly bad decision making. The rest of the cast are like refugees from a Dawson's Creek episode.The zombies seem to do extraordinary things one moment (like crawl on ceilings and run real fast), but when it comes to attacking the lead actors they seem inept.Suvari's character wants to keep a colleague-turned-zombie around amongst the fleeing survivors. Why? She barely knew the guy.This picture doesn't do any justice to the zombie film genre. it ranks down there with the very low budget. The title was used to possibly draw attention to it's existence, nothing more.
I expected worse.
posted on 28 Aug 2009The movie didn't do much with my emotions, I didn't care about what happened to any of the characters. I didn't find it scary or exciting, but I wasn't bored either. This is not a movie about the undead. There aren't people coming back to life, people turn into these things because of a flu that turns them into flesh craving super strength creatures. The cast did well and the story was interesting enough to keep my attention. I'm assuming that the Army and the one zombie that doesn't crave human flesh are the reasons this movie is called "Day of the Dead" because that's the only thing I can relate between the two. Not bad for a movie that hasn't been in theaters, most movies that go straight to DVD are like this one. People who are into zombie or zombie-like movies might want to see it just for the hell of it, but don't expect something as amazing as 2004's "Dawn of the Dead".