Own the rights?
96 out of 121 people found the following review useful: A long-time sufferer of the "Alien 3 Syndrome", 7 September 1999 Author: Robin Warder (r&pwarder@gbd.com) from Orangeville, Ontario, Canada
"Day of the Dead" is a film that is an unfortunate sufferer of the "Alien 3 Syndrome". And, no, I don't classify those that are affected by the syndrome to be disappointing final entries in a trilogy. To suffer from "Alien 3 Syndrome", you must follow two exceptional films, and the entry that has preceded you must be so exciting and action-packed that when you dare take a grimmer, more deliberately paced approach to your material, you will become universally reviled, with many people failing to notice that you have more than your fair share of merits on your own. In fact, "Day of the Dead" has a LOT of merits - even more than the film that its syndrome is based on. While it doesn't quite approach the greatness of "Dawn of the Dead", it is still an intelligent, first-rate horror effort and stands as one of the best genre films of the 80s.In this final entry of George Romero's "Living Dead" trilogy, the walking dead supposedly outnumber the humans by a ratio of 400,000 to 1. Twelve people who have devoted themselves to studying and wiping out the zombies hole up together in an underground missile silo, and for all we know, these could be the last twelve living humans on the face of the planet. Most of these people don't capture our sympathy like the foursome who holed up in the shopping mall in "Dawn". Half of them are gung-ho soldiers who seem to take great pleasure in threatening the scientific team, and Romero spends much of the first half focusing on the bickering and intense conflicts between these people. In fact, for over an hour, the hordes of living dead get very little screen time, as the story focuses on the tension between the characters, and the efforts of an off-the-wall scientist to train a captured zombie named Bub to act human. Compared to its predecessors, this long section of the film may seem slow and talky, but it is always interesting and, for the most part, effectively performed by its unknown cast. Besides, it all eventually leads up to a corker of finale when the zombies finally invade the compound, and most of the humans become showcases for the brilliance of Tom Savini, who outdoes even himself in the gore F/X department.While most of this material is very grim, "Day" ironically has the most hopeful, upbeat conclusion in the trilogy - which, alas, is its only major shortcoming. The quick transition to the final scene is so abrupt and unexpected that the audience feels cheated, leaving the impression that the production ran out of money before the whole climax could be filmed. Indeed, Romero has often expressed his unhappiness about being underfunded for this project, which prevented him from creating a truly definitive final chapter for the trilogy. But while "Day of the Dead" may not quite be the ultimate finish to one of the greatest trilogies of all time, it is still a very satisfying conclusion (at least until Romero gets funding for his long-rumoured "Twilight of the Dead"). It may not be popular among everyone, due to many unfair comparisons to its superior predecessors, but on its own, it is about as good as horror films get.
86 out of 104 people found the following review useful: Incredibly under-rated, 29 October 2005 Author: cyber-turnip from England
This is one of the most under-rated films ever. It was practically doomed to cult-status from the word go. Basically, George Romero wrote a script and took it to a company to get it funded. They like the script and offered George 7 million dollars on the condition he would make the film R rated. George however refused to compromise so they only gave him half that, 3.5 million dollars (next to nothing for a movie) to film an Unrated film -this was because an Unrated movie wouldn't make too much money back. This led to the script being completely re-written so it could be made on the budget. Most of the elements from the original Day were worked into the recent Land of the Dead. Unfortunately, not many cinemas were willing to screen Unrated films as they were too much hassle and not many people would go to see them. Even more unfortunately, 1985 saw many big R rated horror films being released which attracted all the attention away from Day. Many critics and fans complain about this movie, calling it the worst in the series. This is far from the truth. Most people who don't like this movie judge it purely on technical details such as the standard of the acting or the music. Considering the budget, everything in this film is amazing. I personally thought the music completely worked in the film too and some of it was incredibly effective. And the make-up and special effects were incredible, even by today's standards. This film has the best zombie make-up ever, period. For people who don't mind B-movie standard acting, or few locations and other features of low budget movies, you should definitely give this film a try. It's continues with the social messages of society we see in all of Romero's movies. This time it's a mix of how the military basically take control and cock stuff up and (in the style of Lord of the Flies) with no policing, people turn into monsters. Along with the bleak view looking at how easily our society fell apart. The opening of this movie is incredible and very atmospheric. This film also features the greatest zombie ever: Bub. He's friendly, and uber-cool. Trained by scientist Dr. Logan to not eat people. Believe it or not, this film is the closest a movie has ever been to making me cry (if you've seen it I'm talking about when Bub discovers a certain someone's body in the freezer). I don't know what that says about me but whatever. This movie is also the only film I have seen which managed to make me jump with me watching it on the small screen (very, very start with the arms coming through the wall). The film plays off it's sense of claustrophobia well to make it what is probably the scariest in the Dead series (though that still isn't saying much). By the way, Gorillaz, an amazing band seem to love this movie as they have sampled sound clips on several of their tracks including "M1 A1" and "Hip Albatross". They've done the same thing with the original Dawn of the Dead too. Too anyone who has seen 28 Days Later..., 28 Days Later... is a Day of the Dead rip-off! I'll go into that when I get round to reviewing 28 Days Later..., for now, just take my word for it. Not that 28 Days Later... is bad by any means though, but Day of the Dead is still way better. Finally, Day of the Dead actually tries something new with the genre. It would have been so easy for Mr. Romero to simply show a few survivors in a bunker hiding from zombies for most of the movie; instead he mixed in the ideas of experimenting on and training the zombies. He's a magnificent director. In short this movie surpasses it's predecessors "Night of the Living Dead" and "Dawn of the Dead" and both films set the bar incredibly high. It has the best story, make-up, atmosphere, character development, is scariest and is generally the best of the 3. It's also better than it's sequel "Land of the Dead".
62 out of 74 people found the following review useful: Another zombie classic from Romero. Highly recommended!, 5 April 2004 Author: Infofreak from Perth, Australia
'Day Of The Dead' is one of the greatest sleepers in the history of horror movies. A flop when originally released almost twenty years ago, its reputation has slowly increased over the years, and now is generally regarded as a classic. I certainly underestimated it for a long time. In my opinion Romero's 'Night Of The Living Dead' and 'Dawn Of The Dead' are two of the greatest horror movies ever made, but I always thought that 'Day...' was a bit of a let down. But after watching it again for the first time in several years (via the highly recommended double disc "special edition" DVD) I must humbly eat my words. This is a GREAT movie! Romero and special effects Tom Savini do wonders on a limited budget, and the movie is full of suspense, a claustrophobic atmosphere and plenty of gore. It probably flopped the first time around because it's so bleak, but now that's one of its strengths. Interestingly Romero features a strong female protagonist (Lori Cardille) and a strong black supporting character (Terry Alexander), something not all that common in horror movies. Both actors give good performances, the soldiers led by Rhodes (Joseph Pilato) are all suitably ultra macho and deranged, and it was cool to see John Amplas ('Martin') in a supporting role, but the two stand out performances are by Richard Liberty ('The Crazies') as Dr. Logan (who the soldiers refer to as "Frankenstein"), and Howard Sherman as Bub, the zombie he has tamed. The sequences between Logan and Bub are just terrific and add a whole new level of pathos to the movie. The only negative comment I can make about 'Day Of The Dead' is that it brings home the depressing fact that George Romero hasn't made a truly outstanding movie in close to twenty years. I really hope he makes his long threatened fourth Dead movie 'Dead Reckoning' and that it turns out to be his masterpiece. But whatever happens he has already carved his name out in horror history as the creator of three classic zombie movies that just get better and better as the years go by.
59 out of 83 people found the following review useful: Another George A.Romero's masterpiece., 27 February 2001 Author: HumanoidOfFlesh from Chyby, Poland
The living have lost the war and now the dead have taken over.A small pocket of survivors consisting of a military and scientific team staying in a secure underground bunker doing research,trying to find an answer to why the dead are walking,and also trying to find any other survivors,but without much success.The sequence of events that follow ultimately lead to their self destruction.Plenty of gore including usual gun-shots to the head,decapitation,amputation,bodies ripped apart,entrails eaten,throat rippings etc.The special effects by Tom Savini are truly outstanding and these scenes where Dr Logan(Richard Liberty)tries to train a zombie are simply amazing.If you love gore you must see "Day of the Dead".Highly recommended.
31 out of 34 people found the following review useful: "Dark Days, Bright Nights", 19 September 2004 Author: dee.reid from United States
The third film in George A. Romero's immensely popular "Living Dead" trilogy is by far the bleakest and most complex film the director has ever worked on. "Day of the Dead" received a lot of negative press upon its release in 1985 - people picked apart unsavory characters, OVER-acting from a no-name cast, and outlandishly gory special effects that only Tom Savini himself could be proud of.But none of this makes it a bad experience really, does it? I don't think so. For the reason that I usually detest zombie flicks, I have worked up a fondness for the works of Romero and over the last two weeks have separately watched each film in his trilogy."Night of the Living Dead" (1968) virtually defined a new genre of horror movie-making and basically set the standards for the many zombie flicks that would follow in its footsteps. Next up to bat was the most praised film in the trilogy - "Dawn of the Dead" (1978) - which was more of an action film than a horror movie and was nothing short of epic. Then came "Day" in 1985, which got the tongue-lashing that I described earlier.However those that did like it, praised the Savini effects, its complex, plot-driven characters, and satire. While "Day" is certainly a step down from "Night" and "Dawn," "Day" is more of a claustrophobic horror movie and that allows it to stand on its own as a fitting end to Romero's trilogy. It's more in sync with the tension of "Night" than it is with the adrenalin-laced action, zombie-slaughterfest that was "Dawn."A team of civilian scientists and a loose army unit clash with each other's motives after they have taken shelter at an underground military base from the hordes of living dead that storm the surface above. The civilian scientists aren't seeking to eradicate the zombies like the soldiers are hell-bent on doing, but are instead trying to get to the bottom of what is causing them to be what they are.In doing so, they need live zombie specimens, which are held captive in a maze of dark underground tunnels where they're corralled like cattle. We later get what is one of the most profound and moving experiences in the entire trilogy with "Day," when we see one zombie, nicknamed "Bub" by one particularly eccentric scientist, who eventually learns what it means to be "alive," so to speak."Day of the Dead" obviously isn't a perfect movie, but is more or less a fitting conclusion to one of the most daring film trilogies in the horror genre. It may be best to not watch "Day" thinking it'll be anything like "Dawn" just because it has military men blasting away mercilessly at the living dead. Zombie slaughter is few and far between and much of the first hour of the film is clashing dialogue between the characters.The darkest day in the world - "Day of the Dead."9/10
32 out of 39 people found the following review useful: Very gruesome and claustrophobic zombie movie., 4 October 2003 Author: Aaron1375 from Alabama
In 1985 this zombie movie virtually went by unnoticed except for many Romero fans. It was virtually dead a week or two after it hit the theaters. Many attribute its failings to the other many horror films released that year including "Re-Animator", "Fright Night", and "Return of the Living Dead". All these movies were R though and day was not. Romero stuck to his guns and made a very gory movie. Unfortunately, when dawn was released there were still many independent theaters, but by 1985 the chains had taken over and one thing chains do is not show movies like this. So it went by unnoticed and those that did notice it usually had nothing good to say about it other than the zombies looked really good. So suffice to say, I wasn't expecting much when I bought this movie except the zombies would look good. However, I am happy to report that I was very pleasantly surprised. The movie mainly takes place in an underground facility though there is the scene at the beginning in the town. I wish there were more scenes above ground as the one there is, is very well done. In the underground facility there is a lot of bickering between some scientists and some army guys who look and act nothing like army guys. Then again who knows how long they have been down there so people are bound to crack. There are also a couple of guys who may be army, but act like civilians and definitely have cooler heads than the rest of them. There is also a doctor who is trying to teach the zombies how to be more docile. All the wildness and arguing eventually leads to a major meltdown which leads to of course zombies penetrating the base and this leads to a very good gory finish. Not quite as good as Dawn, but not as far off as I was lead to believe this movie is very entertaining.
28 out of 37 people found the following review useful: Dark and morbid climax to the Dead Trilogy, 13 June 2005 Author: The_Void from Beverley Hills, England
The third part of George Romero's masterpiece; The Dead Trilogy, is the darkest and most compact of the bunch, and while it never reaches the awesome highs of the previous two, it still stands on it's own as a more than passable zombie gorefest. Speaking of gore; this film has oodles! Because the film is darker and more unpleasant than the other two, the gore hits home more. Whether it be the nasty experiments of a man nicknamed "Dr Frankenstein" or the now legendary splatter soaked finale, you can always be sure that this film will have something up it's sleeve to shock and/or disgust you! The way that the trilogy has panned out is rather good, and George Romero has obviously put some thought into what would be the consequences of the events of Night of the Living Dead. This film takes into account the idea of humans not being able to co-operate with one another, which makes the people in the movie just as big a threat as the zombies. We follow 12 humans that are holed up in an old World War 2 bunker, and we see the threat that the humans cause themselves with the conflict between the scientific and military interests.Romero has shown his inventiveness with the make-up effects throughout this series. In Night of the Living Dead, the zombies were hardly decayed at all. By Dawn of the Dead, they were more bloody and more decayed, and by the time of this film; it would seem that effects guru Tom Savini has been given free licence to create some of the most disgusting effects ever to be seen in a zombie movie! The often green and white skinned living dead walk around with dried blood caked to their carcasses, limbs and jaws missing; you name it, these zombies have it! Naturally, it's the make-up and gore that are the stars of this movie, and the human stars take a back seat. It's a good job that's the case as well; as the actors here aren't up to much. This is almost a benefit to the movie; however, as it gives it that low budget feel that many movies fans, such as myself, love. There are some elements of the movie that don't work - seeing the talking zombie always makes me cringe - but on the whole, this is an invigorating and inventive zombie flick and while it isn't as great as the previous two; it's still pretty damn good.
17 out of 22 people found the following review useful: The third film in the "dead" series., 31 October 2004 Author: Captain_Couth (sirjosephu@aol.com) from Sacramento, CA
Day of the Dead (1985) was the third film in the "Dead" series. For awhile this was going to be the last chapter until recent events have changed the mind of the series creator George A. Romero. Whilst it was going to be a huge budgeted venture for Romero and Laurel Films, a small budget and a few extras limited the scope of the director's vision for this film. But like all good film makers he made do with what he had around him and made a dreary and depressing film.Society is dead. Zombies have overran the living and the survivors can only be found in very small numbers. One of these groups are bunkered inside an old underground bomb shelter. The survivors inside this subterranean military installation have been divided into three groups: the soldiers, scientists and civilian employees. Stress, sexual tension and a dire situation have split the group even further apart. The dead have been growing in numbers outside and dwindling supplies have made everyone desperate. But within the base their is some order. But what will happen with that collapses?The third film of the series is not as great as the second film but it's a good film. Performances from the actors may be uneasy and the tight budget restrains the director's vision but it still succeeds as a very frightening and depressing horror film. Savini and company have made the gore more realistic and nauseating. Gone is the cartoonish blood and cheesy gore effects. State-of-the-art splatter effects have been included adding a whole new element to this awesome trilogy. I have to strongly recommend this film. If you love the first two, you'll definitely enjoy this this installment of the one and only trilogy of cinema!Highly recommended!
26 out of 40 people found the following review useful: Good tension and sick gore with only a few failings in the plot and the failure to paint a convincing Armageddon, 24 May 2004 Author: bob the moo from Birmingham, UK
Months after the first dead rose from their graves, the world has seemingly become overrun. Deep in a storage bunker in Florida, a group of soldiers and a group of scientists have formed an uneasy alliance in order to try and discover something that can help reverse their spread. However Dr Logan is not making the progress that the soldiers require and Captain Rhodes becomes increasingly impatient and erratic as a result. Things continue to worsen as the zombies gather above and Logan's work gets more worrying.Having seen and enjoyed (if that's the word) the remake of Dawn, I decided to re-watch the three originals on their own values. While I had seen the other two before, this was the first time I had seen Day and assumed that it would be bigger than Dawn was (in the same way as Dawn extended the ideas from Night). In that regard I was a little disappointed to find that the film stayed on a rather small scale and didn't manage to really convince me that the world was actually over on the surface of the earth. However this is not to say that it is not a good story in itself, because it is, albeit very different from both Night and Dawn. To me it lacked the social commentary that was to be found in Dawn but it is still tense, gory and gripping. The claustrophobic nature of the bunker and the battling characters means that tension is easily created even when the zombies are distant and seemingly pose less of a threat than the humans do to one another. The film is a little weak at points – the medical experiments are given too much time and the character of Bub is not clear as to his reasons for being included as much as he was. I didn't like the idea of Bub, the film didn't seem to know what to do with him other than using him to fill out the story – Logan's progress with him seemed such a waste of time that, even if that was the point, it didn't work.When the gore comes it is very hard to watch and a little sickening at times – bodies are ripped into and ripped apart in full bloody colour – as a horror it succeeds because I was looking a way quite a lot of times! Even though Shaun of the Dead has made fun of these slow zombies recently they still manage to be very effective here – I personally find them scary as they are relentless and simply wish to kill. True, the fast ones are scarier but these ones are too. The cast are more than just victims and are reasonably well drawn and acted. They have to be engaging or else the tension between them wouldn't work and, while hardly totally real people they still are good enough for a horror movie and they are not just fodder to rip apart – even if they are clearly penned as 'goodies' and 'baddies'.Overall this is not the best of the trilogy but it is still a good horror film. The tension between the characters creates as much of a threat as the zombies do – even if some of the plot isn't that good. It all builds well to a gory finish that really only lacks teeth because both the film and the actual ending both fail to really show just how bad things are and never convinces that the world has come to an end in the way that the whole trilogy suggests it has.
20 out of 30 people found the following review useful: Great Conclusion of a Trilogy, 19 November 2004 Author: Claudio Carvalho from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
A group of stressed survivors, composed by soldiers and civilians, share an underground military bunker surrounded by an increasing number of zombies. When the commander of the base dies, the tyrannical Capt. Rhodes (Joe Pilato) occupies his spot and the friction with the team of scientist reaches an uncontrollable level. Meanwhile, Dr. Logan (Richard Liberty), the leader of the scientists, develops a kind affection to the zombie Bub (Howard Sherman), showing signs of insanity. Sarah (Lori Cardille), the helicopter pilot John (Terry Alexander) and their alcoholic friend William (Jarlath Conroy) are the only lucid persons, being threatened by the rest of the survivors and the zombies. 'Day of the Dead' is a great conclusion of the George Romero's trilogy. Yesterday I watched it again, maybe for the fourth or fifth time, and I found a very claustrophobic story, having excellent nasty special effects. My vote is seven.Title (Brazil): 'Dia dos Mortos' ('Day of the Dead')
Add another review
