Day of the Dead: Laurel Communications/ Media Home Entertainment Rating: USA: Unrated/ UK: 18/ Australia: R
Few genre films can divide hardcore horror fans more than George Romero’s (Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead) 1985 zombie gut-muncher Day of the Dead. Its mere mention can inspire heated debates from zealots and opponents alike, impassioned arguments like those that often occur over issues such as politics and religion. So, what is it about this little low-budget film that inspires such vehemence on the parts of its champions and detractors alike? Most likely, it’s because of the film’s lineage.
Romero would unleash his own special brand of the walking dead on unsuspecting audiences back in 1968, with the release of his classic Night of the Living Dead. NotLD was an intense and horrific little film, one that brought the zombie out of the stereotypical jungle setting and deposited him in the heart of suburbia. It’s a bleak film, filled with a strong allegorical angle that made quite a statement on 1960’s America as a whole, and one that still has the power to unsettle audiences to this very day. In 1978, Romero would release his second zombie film, Dawn of the Dead—an undisputed masterpiece. Dawn’s worldview was even bleaker than Night’s, yet Romero chose not to totally overwhelm his audience with despair by including some poignant satire about consumerism run amok. Dawn is a dark film, but one that you can’t help but like because the characters are so interesting.
Now, jump ahead to 1985. Romero wants to make another installment in this series of films. As always, he eschews dealing with the Hollywood system—writing his own script, producing the film independently, etc. Day of the Dead is made, but reaction from the hardcore fans isn’t as overwhelmingly positive as one might have expected. Yes, Day continues to build on the themes established in the first two films. Yes, it features some of the most incredibly gruesome gore FX of all time. Yes, it’s certainly one of the most nihilistically bleak films ever made (up until the very end, anyway). So, why didn’t it work?
Day of the Dead ultimately falls short for several reasons, the most glaring of which is the lack of a good script. Day takes place sometime after the events in Dawn. America (and most likely the world) has been overrun by the shambling dead. A group of scientists and soldiers live in an underground Florida bunker—trying to figure out what makes the dead rise, and if they can be stopped. Much of the film takes place in said bunker—where the humans bicker endlessly amongst themselves as their situation becomes increasingly more desperate. Unfortunately, there’s not much zombie action (until the film’s climax), which is what horror fans want to see in these films. And while Night and Dawn both showcased the rising tension between the humans more than the out and out zombie carnage (that was the Italian’s forte), there were at least some zombie scenes to break up the monotony.
Also, the film lacks a lot of the social relevance that was so inherent in the earlier films. Day seems to have little depth to it—choosing to simply portray a bad situation, yet not make much of a commentary on it. This is really out of character with much of Romero’s work.
Now, to be fair, Day was plagued by money problems throughout its production. Romero could never get as much funding as he needed to get his complete vision on the screen—and it shows, as Day often looks like a half-finished film. And, to be honest, even half-finished in appearance, it’s still better than 90% of the genre stuff floating around out there. A lesser director would have never pulled the film off—so Romero definitely deserves credit for that.
Another major problem lies in the performances. Romero had gotten away with using relative unknowns in both of the earlier Dead films, but here it just didn’t work. Lori Cardille takes the lead role as Sarah, and she’s not awful, but like everyone else in the script, she’s overacting big time. Each scene with her and Rhodes (Joe Pilato) are little more than over-the-top shouting matches. Rhodes’ soldiers and Dr. Logan are even worse—hamming it up big time and turning their characters into little more than two-dimensional caricatures. Add in the stereotypical drunken Irishman and a laid back Jamaican, and well, you’ve got some pretty uninteresting characters to carry your film.
The film’s final major flaw is perhaps its most egregious (at least to zombie film fans)—the inclusion of "Bub". Bub is Dr. Logan’s "pet" zombie—one that he’s busy trying to train in order to prove that the dead can be domesticated. Bub is one of those mind-numbingly stupid creations that horror films sometimes come up with for either comic relief or as a cheap way to make an audience question their beliefs concerning who’s really a monster. Honestly, it’s a technique that should be well below a director of Romero’s stature, and most of us are appalled by the character. Zombies are monsters—creatures that rise up with the single-minded purpose of feeding on the brains of the living—not something that can be trained like a dog. By giving them any kind of humanity, they begin to lose their power to inspire fear—which is a big mistake in a film that’s supposed to terrify audiences with its portrayal of the flesh hungry undead. In short, Bub is almost the zombie equivalent of an Ewok—and that’s not a good thing.
On the plus side, Day of the Dead is basically gore wizard Tom Savini’s (Dawn of the Dead. Maniac) magnum opus as far as special FX goes. As the splatterific climax ensues (a climax that actually makes the rest of the film worth sitting through) you will see some of the most disgusting onscreen carnage ever filmed. Men are ripped in half, have their heads torn off, and are devoured while still living. If you love gore, you’ll love the final sequences of this film.
In the end, Day of the Dead is a good film—just not one capable of living up to its classic predecessors. Yes, it’s a film that’s lacking in a few key areas, filled with some B acting and flat characters, yet it still manages to frighten with it’s unrelentingly bleak view of the last days of humanity. While a lot of fans complain about the upbeat ending, I almost agree with Romero’s decision to go with it—the rest of Day is so nihilistic, so dark, that audiences needed some kind of hopeful note before leaving the theater. Day of the Dead is a film well worth seeing—just don’t go in expecting it to be as good as Night or Dawn.
The third chapter in the saga that director George Romero started in 1968 with NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD moves the story further along the timeline of ...More at Family Video
In this third and final shocker in the legendary trilogy from writer/director George A. Romero (Night Of The Living Dead, Dawn Of The Dead), a small g...More at Buy.com Marketplaces
Epinions.com periodically updates pricing and product information from third-party sources, so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it.
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.