Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

There was a remake to day of the dead....and damn was it good. I can't believe I missed it.

A Film by 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.

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 (Nip/Tuck) Ian McNeice (HBO's Rome) Ving Rhames (Mission Impossible)

It's not really like the original, sept for some fan service names and such. With little treats for hard core horror fans. (the army base is on Elm street). Not only are the zombies fast, they are spider monkey like. sound's bad, but it's not, honest. A sode effect of the virus is "quick rot" and that's acrually quite good as well. The dialogue at times can be...rough though. They movie is good with lots of throwbacks to other movies like Zombi 2 by Lucio Fulci. (the one with the zombie fighting a shark).

I give it 4 out of 5 sexy marks when compared to newer zombie films like "Zombies of mass destruction" It is lacking any social insight though that doesn't bother me a bit. As I watch a zombie movie to see zombies. Check this movie out. It's a gem.

I would hope your being sarcastic in recomending this steaming pile of gak.
Next to Uwe Bolls House of the Dead,the re-make (if you can call it such) is one of the worst zombie films I've seen in some time.
Perhaps it's due to the fact that I enjoyed the original Day of the Dead so much...but I absolutely loathe this film.

Really? I think it stands up better than Land of the dead and diary of the dead. It's a hell of a lot better than Zombie strippers, and the piles of gak that are the Ziongate Return of the dead series (rave to the grave.) I'm a big Day fan myself, but this movie is still good, for a zombie flick.

FITZZ wrote: I would hope your being sarcastic in recomending this steaming pile of gak.
Next to Uwe Bolls House of the Dead,the re-make (if you can call it such) is one of the worst zombie films I've seen in some time.
Perhaps it's due to the fact that I enjoyed the original Day of the Dead so much...but I absolutely loathe this film.

Qouted for maximum truth.

FITZZ wrote: I would hope your being sarcastic in recomending this steaming pile of gak.

Citing the director as the same who did Soul Man, Friday the 13th pts. 2 & 3, and, lets not forget, Halloween H2O, I can only conclude that he must be sarcastic.

sexiest_hero wrote:Really? I think it stands up better than Land of the dead and diary of the dead. It's a hell of a lot better than Zombie strippers, and the piles of gak that are the Ziongate Return of the dead series (rave to the grave.) I'm a big Day fan myself, but this movie is still good, for a zombie flick.

Have to disagree with you,at least concerning Land and Diary of the Dead,while those two film certianly aren't Romero's finest works (not by a long shot),I'd say they are both vastly better than the Day of the Dead remake.
Now..I will strongly agree with you about any and all off the "Return of the living Dead" films as I dislike the whole "Brain eating" zombie sub-genre.
As for zombie strippers..saw it once...shook my head and attempted to forget in exsisted ...If I want to watch a film with Jenna Jameson ...I can think of much better ones

This movie was horrible.

HORRIBLE.

Fast zombies? Ug. Spider monkey zombies? Whatever.

Any time that you start giving zomibies abilities or rev them up, then you really don't like zombies because you're trying to get away from their basic concept. Simon Pegg (Shawn of the Dead) said it best, "Death is a disability not a super power."

Honestly, if you can't makes something slow and relentless scary, then you really don't know how to tell a good story. Since you can't tell a good story, you have to distract the audience with a dog and pony show (See: 'SPLOSIONS!!!!).

This film was pure crap when it came to character development- I didn't give a damn about any of them. Because I didn't care about the characters, I didn't care what they did or if they were in danger or not; there was no tension in movie at all.

Diary of the Dead was also horrible- extremely low production value and the only character that I cared about in the smallest of ways shot herself in the head within the first 15 minutes of the film. Not only that but you had zombies hiding, zombies playing dead (no pun), and a LOT of other inconsistencies in the rules they set up. To top it all off, you have an Amish farmer with dynamite? Really? REALLY? Wildly stupid. So, lets compare scenes: the hospital scene in Ep 1&6 of "The Walking Dead" tv series, or Diary of the Dead? Worlds apart.

I've watched a crap ton of zombie films and I'll throw out the ones that I think are good:

NoTLD and the 1989 remake by Savani
Dawn of the Dead (NOT the lame ass remake for above reasons).
Fido
The Walking Dead tv series
Day of the Dead (original)
Zombi 2 (Italian)
Shawn of the Dead
The Dead Diaries (British)
Return of the Living Dead 1 & 2 (especially 1)

There are other films that often get lumped into zombie films because marketers are morons and don't know how to sell something. These are NOT zombie movies (the infected are NOT DEAD), so I'm putting this in before someone muddies the water-

28 Days/Weeks Later

I absolutely agree with Moopy on most of his points,I really see "Fast Zombies" (in most cases) as a product of "CrashBoomBang..Microwave Movie making",with the exceptions being 28 Days/Weels Later ( but as noted,those are NOT true zombies) ,Dead Set (which I personally enjoyed a lot...despite the running zombies) and the Dawn of the Dead remake (despite it's numerous faults I actually liked it...even though I entered the theatre wanting to hate it).

I'll also fully agree that Diary of the Dead was an extreamly weak Romero film,it's attempts to submerge the viewer from POV filming failed and most of the characters were incredibly unlikeable and dull (with the exception of the girl who shoots herself and IMO the film instructor).

And finally ...concerning Moopys list of films..all good,with the exceptions of the Return films...those zombies not only run,but talk...can't be killed by destroying the brain,only eat brains ( I hate that)...and are IMO...the worse thing that's happened to the genre.

Moopy wrote:
NoTLD and the 1989 remake by Savani
Dawn of the Dead (NOT the lame ass remake for above reasons).
Fido
The Walking Dead tv series
Day of the Dead (original)
Zombi 2 (Italian)
Shawn of the Dead
The Dead Diaries (British)
Return of the Living Dead 1 & 2 (especially 1)

No love for Pet Semetary?

Does this count as a zombie movie? It has zombies, and it's a movie. I say yes!

As much as I love Romero's work (and god I do). He has a habit of trying to make me feel sorry for his zombies. I hated the Original Damn of the dead Biker gang scene, I'm glad it got cut in the remake. I used to hate fast zombies, but I can tolerate them now a days. A wise person told me "Romero mad a movie, not a bible. I loved 28 weeks even when I went in wanting to hate it. The Military was trying to help instead of rape women for once, like in 28 days (Hated that.)

I loved Rotld. The zombies retained a little of themselves. They had creepy lines. Everybody caught on to the "Brains!!" because it was gold. It hurts to be dead, I can feel my body rot." sticks with me after all these years.

I like the more "evil" zombies D&D style (you have to hack them down) rather than the "Shoot the flashing red core" zombies for two reasons. People start becoming random head shot gods, and the zombies become weak and useless so you have to focus on some "bad guy" with the zombies only around to remove non-star cast members.

biccat wrote:

Moopy wrote:
NoTLD and the 1989 remake by Savani
Dawn of the Dead (NOT the lame ass remake for above reasons).
Fido
The Walking Dead tv series
Day of the Dead (original)
Zombi 2 (Italian)
Shawn of the Dead
The Dead Diaries (British)
Return of the Living Dead 1 & 2 (especially 1)

No love for Pet Semetary?

Does this count as a zombie movie? It has zombies, and it's a movie. I say yes!

No.

alarmingrick wrote:

biccat wrote:

Moopy wrote:
NoTLD and the 1989 remake by Savani
Dawn of the Dead (NOT the lame ass remake for above reasons).
Fido
The Walking Dead tv series
Day of the Dead (original)
Zombi 2 (Italian)
Shawn of the Dead
The Dead Diaries (British)
Return of the Living Dead 1 & 2 (especially 1)

No love for Pet Semetary?

Does this count as a zombie movie? It has zombies, and it's a movie. I say yes!

No.

Agreed, thats closer to demonic possession then zombies.


I personally like the running zombies, it was a fresh concept when it first came out. I do still prefer the slow shamblers, it makes them more scary because its to easy to under estimate them. Im of the opinion, that if a person is turned they should be able to move faster at first, and then over a short period of time become slower. But thats me

Hmm..Interesting question about Pet Semetary, The are reanimated corpse...so they fit that definition of "zombie",but according to the book the are reanimated through " Supernatural means" or "Possession"...so..I'd say more like Bruce Cambles "Evil Dead" than a "traditional" zombie.
I did like the film though,especialy the evil little kid.." Now I wanna play with you..."..Poor Herman Munster.

KingCracker wrote:

Agreed, thats closer to demonic possession then zombies.

Agreed. I put this in the same category as the Evil Dead and Deamon series. It's all subjective, but it feels right to me.

I actually liked Dead Set (own the DVD set) even though they were fast zombies. This was because I WANTED to know what was going to happen next and to whom. I liked the characters, so I swallowed my immense dislike for fast zombies and went with it.

I liked the very beginning and the end of the Dawn of the Dead remake, and this was because of the action. The whole waiting in the mall was dull dull dull, mixed up with a few stupid things like shooting an undead baby (why waste a bullet?) and a zombie zipping along on the ceiling pipes (marvelously stupid). Again, this boiled down to an movie that couldn't make down time interesting, and thus all the running zombies to make up for it. The special effects in the Dawn were terrific, but a movie shouldn't have to use special effects as a plot replacement. Star Wars Ep 1-3 was an excellent example of that- you can't CG good acting. Please don't let that analogy drag this off topic.

There was something about Return that caught my interest- it was weird enough and had it's own set of rules that made me buy into it, especially the first one. That takes a lot since I usually don't like intelligent dead, so it says something about the director's vision.

All that shows that some breaks in the rules are ok, but also that they are exception to the rule. I judge a great zombie film by a couple of criteria:

1. Do I care about the characters? Zombie emphasis of a zombie film is NOT ON THE ZOMBIES, it's on the people trying to survive a terrible event. If you have that, then I buy it, because lets face it- there's a growing glut of zombie films and most of them are crap because they forget this rule. Where's the story and why do I care?

2. Slow non intelligent zombies that look good. I don't care what caused it, and over explaining "the event" is often counter productive; showing how the magic is made often spoils the trick. Diary of the Dead had such horrible zombie effects that it really detracted from it. Dawn had great zombies but the running was horrible. Slow is best because relentless causes desperate situations that put our heroes in danger. Tension!

Fortunately there's lots of zombie books out there so I can my fix. Or at least try to, because just like crappy zombie films, there are a ton of crappy zombie novels. Hell if people want, I can give you a list of movies to avoid. My library is extensive.

@ Moopy.

I have to agree with you concerning your points on the Dawn remake...plenty of cringe worthy moments in that film..and the "flying zombie" was one of the worst..
I found the film to be one of those " gold and gak" movies...some really good stuff mixed in with some really bad stuff...

Also I strongly agree with you concerning the need for characters we,as the viewers, give a gak about (or at least connect with on some leval)....I think that the creation of good characters is one of the main reasons behind the success of The Walking Dead series.

biccat wrote:

Moopy wrote:
NoTLD and the 1989 remake by Savani
Dawn of the Dead (NOT the lame ass remake for above reasons).
Fido
The Walking Dead tv series
Day of the Dead (original)
Zombi 2 (Italian)
Shawn of the Dead
The Dead Diaries (British)
Return of the Living Dead 1 & 2 (especially 1)

No love for Pet Semetary?

Does this count as a zombie movie? It has zombies, and it's a movie. I say yes!

No Zombieland? What are you some sort of tree hugging hippy commie pinko latte sucking go go Nazi?

Wow Frazz...you take Zombieland love seriously don't you.

For the record,I did enjoy zombieland...
I thought it was a pretty funny "Zombie Comedy"...not as good as Shaun of the Dead or Fido...but still worth a watch..hell,I watched it again last night while painting up some Praetorian Vets.

Contrary to popular opinion, tweenkies do have a shelf life.

Frazzled wrote:Contrary to popular opinion, tweenkies do have a shelf life.

Do you know what they call twinkies in Mexico?..Los Submarineos...ya gotta enjoy the little things.

What are these? Snowballs? I hate snowballs!

Chowderhead wrote:What are these? Snowballs? I hate snowballs!

...See,that's what made Zombieland great...very memorable moments and characters you wanted to see make it...and lets not forget the Bill Murry cameo...that was gold.

"...Do you have any regrets?...
...No...well..Garfield ...Maybe.."

Frazzled wrote:No Zombieland? What are you some sort of tree hugging hippy commie pinko latte sucking go go Nazi?

I do love me my trees!

IIRC, the "zombies" in Zombieland could be killed if you shot them anywhere important. This tells me they aren't really dead, just horribly diseased, which would also explain why they're very fast.

I liked Zombieland because of the characters, but I think this movie falls into the "infection" movie categories for the above reasons.

Edit: Just rewatched it and it was a plauge that was like rabies- no mention of death (Time stamp 19:00), and most of the kills in the Pacific Playland scenes were chest shots.

Moopy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:No Zombieland? What are you some sort of tree hugging hippy commie pinko latte sucking go go Nazi?

I do love me my trees!

IIRC, the "zombies" in Zombieland could be killed if you shot them anywhere important. This tells me they aren't really dead, just horribly diseased, which would also explain why they're very fast.

I liked Zombieland because of the characters, but I think this movie falls into the "infection" movie categories for the above reasons.

Edit: Just rewatched it and it was a plauge that was like rabies- no mention of death (Time stamp 19:00), and most of the kills in the Pacific Playland scenes were chest shots.

Ahh..Right you are Moopy,there's commentary in Zombieland concerning the origins of the virus being some bizzare strain of mad cow disease contracted by "Patient zero" through eating a tainted hamburger.
And the "Head shot" rule also doesn't seem to apply...so I agree.."infected"..not "zombies"...though "Infectedland" doesn't have as nice a ring to it.

No one here liked 28 Days later? that was one of my favorite Zombie movies.

Sasori wrote:No one here liked 28 Days later? that was one of my favorite Zombie movies.

28 Days Later was a great movie and IMO so was 28 Weeks Later ,however..the "zombies" in those films weren't zombies in the "Walking Dead" sense of the word.they were living people who'd been infected by the "Rage" virus.
...Yeah,I know...I'm splitting hairs here...sorry.

Sasori wrote:No one here liked 28 Days later? that was one of my favorite Zombie movies.

Not really. It was way overhyped by the time I saw it, and I was not impressed. Evil military subplot was also a real yawner in my opinion.

Sasori wrote:No one here liked 28 Days later? that was one of my favorite Zombie movies.

As stated in my first post, 28 Days later is NOT a zombie film, it's an infection film. The Rage virus drove people crazy, but they weren't dead. Hell, most of the infected starved to death in the end of the first film.

The only reason it got "zombie" attached to it was because marketers didn't know how to do their job.

Moopy wrote:

Sasori wrote:No one here liked 28 Days later? that was one of my favorite Zombie movies.

As stated in my first post, 28 Days later is NOT a zombie film, it's an infection film. The Rage virus drove people crazy, but they weren't dead. Hell, most of the infected starved to death in the end of the first film.

The only reason it got "zombie" attached to it was because marketers didn't know how to do their job.

28 Days Later is clearly a zombie film. Civilization has fallen. There's a huge horde of unthinking monsters. You can become one by being bitten by one. Our heros struggle to survive, find other humans, but then have to fight the other humans. That is a zombie film in every sense of the genre.

Claiming that it's not a zombie film because the infected aren't already dead is like claiming Firefly isn't a western just because it takes place in space. It's still a member of the genre even if it does an unusual twist on it.

Grakmar wrote:

Moopy wrote:

Sasori wrote:No one here liked 28 Days later? that was one of my favorite Zombie movies.

As stated in my first post, 28 Days later is NOT a zombie film, it's an infection film. The Rage virus drove people crazy, but they weren't dead. Hell, most of the infected starved to death in the end of the first film.

The only reason it got "zombie" attached to it was because marketers didn't know how to do their job.

28 Days Later is clearly a zombie film. Civilization has fallen. There's a huge horde of unthinking monsters. You can become one by being bitten by one. Our heros struggle to survive, find other humans, but then have to fight the other humans. That is a zombie film in every sense of the genre.

Claiming that it's not a zombie film because the infected aren't already dead is like claiming Firefly isn't a western just because it takes place in space. It's still a member of the genre even if it does an unusual twist on it.

You seem to be confusing post apocalyptic films with zombie films.

Personally I liked 28 days later, it wasn't great but it was ok.