Day of the Dead (1985)'s comments

Do you want to let us know what you think? Just login, after which you will be redirected back here and you can leave your comments.

sushantv10

special effects/makeup really were awesome...

12 years 10 months ago

Necroyeti

I'M RUNNING THIS MONKEY FARM NOW, FRANKENSTEIN, AND I WANNA KNOW, -WHAT- -THE- -FUCK- YOU'RE DOING WITH MY TIME

12 years 2 months ago

Thief

Not as good as its predecessors; more slow paced and less eventful, but still quite solid.

14 years 6 months ago

greenhorg

Better than Dawn, and almost as good as the original. Best FX of the three. Possibly the best FX of any zombie movie I've ever seen, actually. Makes modern CGI stuff look really pitiful.

11 years 4 months ago

Alias

Hypothesis:

Night of the Living Dead is Romero's version of Beckett, Dawn of the Dead his Orwell and Day of the Dead his William Golding.

12 years 7 months ago

Personally I think it's about even with the first film in terms of quality of a movie. Dawn of the Dead was alright in its own way, but this feels like a completely different style of movie altogether, and I feel it works a lot better in many different ways. The pacing is a lot better, and the zombies don't look goofy and terribly unrealistic anymore (they looked pretty bad in Dawn, in Night of the Living Dead they looked fine because it was colorless). The effects are fantastic, the setting is pretty unique and Bub is probably my favorite zombie, that I can think of. A very memorable film, probably my favorite zombie film.

7 years 6 months ago

JimEastwood71

i thought it was better than dawn because it had more action, okay the conversation is not that good and sometimes too much, but dawn was just kinda boring + in dawn the zombies didn't look as real as this time around, and of course that zombie bub was just very cool.

14 years 5 months ago

Siskoid

An absolutely cracking opener and stellar practical gore effects, but Romero's Day of the Dead is mostly concerned with scientists and military personnel shouting at each other as the zombie apocalypse of the first two films extends to the point of no return for humanity. I appreciate the film exploring its own lore, and the subplot about the "trained" zombie Bub (created by a scientist called Logan - SOMEone was a fan of Wolverine's!) pays off pretty well, but for the most part, it lacked what we go to these movies for. The guy in charge has cracked so his actions (and acting) are way over the top, which makes him so one-dimensional, it hurts. Either that or he's the most quotable character in the movie. Taken as camp, it might work as a hang-out movie, but there's too much down time between zombie attacks for that. So a case of diminishing returns, I'm afraid, with Night and Dawn the superior instalments.

6 months ago

Shidan

I think it's the weakest of the trilogy, but still good.
I liked how each movie had a different tone, almost every characteristic of zombies and zombie movies that are now common, were made in these movies.

1 year 2 months ago

Warrison

i see so many part of this movie in more modern works. like resident evil and 28 weeks later...

10 years 4 months ago

Batnobbit

CHOKE ON THEM!!!

12 years 8 months ago

jktomas

Almost as good as Dawn, in my oppinion.

13 years 3 months ago

MathianSim

I concur with the "least of the trilogy" hypotheses

11 years 4 months ago

Idiotwind

The worst of the 3 dead movies. I hated the music and the dialouge was terrible. The only reason to watch it is because of Savini's special effects/makeup and the opening scene.

12 years 11 months ago

nicolaskrizan

Interesting and promising concept severely diminished by the B movie look and feel – I prefer the two earlier ones

http://1001movies.posterous.com/697

11 years 9 months ago