Friday, November 28, 2008

Day Of The Dead

The new one. Just came out this year, or last year.

If you're expecting any sort of reasonable resemblance to the original, you'll be sorely mistaken. Pretty much the only similarities are the fact that Zombies are involved (well, sorta zombies. Not really the same as the classic Romero-style zombie), there're guns, and there's a military base involved.

And Ving Rhames is in it. Just like in the Dawn of the Dead remake. Playing a completely different character. I suppose that is sort of a given, since the two movies were made by completely different people.

The zombies were apparently the result of some sort of bio-weapons research or something. And they didn't really die before becoming a zombie. Just kind of got infected, got slowly bleeding-er, and then went sorta comatose. After a bit of that, their skin decomposed rather quickly, and they started to look rather zombie-esque. More of the running type of zombie, and less of the standard shambling type.

The point about the guns should be pretty self-explanatory.

And instead of having the entire story happen in and around a military base, like the original, the missile base showed up as the place they run to for shelter, and coincidentally happens to be the source of the plague, too. So there was none of that social commentary that the original had, such as the whole military vs. scientists thing...

Anyways, in terms of Romero Remakes, Dawn of the Dead is worth it. Day of the Dead, not so much.

3 comments:

Su said...

Sure, why not. Dawns and Days... shouldn't Day of the Dead be a sequel to Dawn of the Dead as Dawn is the precursor to Day?

Dan said...

Romero's original Day was the sequel-ish to Dawn. These 2 movies weren't connected.

Su said...

I would have to actually watch these to care I think. sorry.