p r e f e r r e d r e v i e w e r s :
 |
 |
|
You haven't selected any preferred reviewers. To learn more about customizing your experience, click here.
|
|
|
 |
 |
o t h e r r e v i e w e r s :
|
|
|
gamer27 [ 5.0 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
By far the worst of the Dead seris. It has the creepy premise to it and it's Romero touch, but lacks humor and a good plot. The scenary is bleak and dull which is an underground bunker. The acting is terrible. And there is alot of unnecessary gore. What I did like were the zombies, they were more realistic and creepy.
** out of ****
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DokBrowne [ 9.0 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
Why is this sequel so ill-regarded amongst fans? They complain of it being boring and talky, but that's exactly how I remember "Dawn", and I commend the pacing and acting here for its natural, unforced realism. They complain of its claustrophobic, repetitive setting being the result of Romero's low budget, yet "Dawn" took place in an equally limited amount of scenery. They complain that it's pretentious, but didn't "Dawn" do a lot of not-so-subtle commentating on cultural materialism? Not that I'm trying to bring down the much-heralded "Dawn", but I definitely feel that "Day" is a better chapter. The philosophy is more interesting (the Jamaican guy brings up a lot of good points about life and humanity, and the scenes where Dr. Frankenstein experiments on the undead are more compelling than anything from the first 2 "Dead" movies combined), the acting more memorable (the mad yet understandable Frankenstein, the bastard Lieutenant, the Jamaican guy, his wry British friend who must be Rowan Atkinson's unknown twin, and I'm in awe of Bub the educated zombie. That guy's performance was phenomenally realistic, especially what he does with his mouth. Seriously), the danger more palpable (you never known when someone's gonna get it, and this time there's a large enough cast to let Romero dispose of them without compromise), and the gore is truly Hall of Fame-worthy. Half a dozen of the goriest moments in all cinema can be attributed to this (including a shovel slicing a zombie head in half, the full size of a guy's eyeball being visible once a side of his face is torn off, a disembodied corpse with the brain still visibly intact, several stomachs getting pulled open like that biker's in "Dawn" only less chalky, a guy's scream getting high-pitched as his head is slowly pulled off, an accurate-looking limb severing complete with the difficulty of sawing machete through bone, etc.). This is hands down the goriest movie I've ever seen. I've been waiting to see something this inventively, awe-inspiringly graphic all my life. I am now a self-actualized paragon of human being
Honestly, this was a rather brilliant movie, the best in Romero's trilogy, and perhaps the finest zombie picture that has been made. What's everyone's problem?
(1-7 scale)
CAST/ACTING: 5
DIRECTING/ETC.: 5
SCRIPT: 5
ORIGINALITY/CREATIVITY: 5
TECHNICAL/VISUAL STYLE: 6 (a 10 for the gore)
EFFECTIVENESS OF GENRE (horror/zombie/sequel): 7
ENDING: 6
ENTERTAINMENT VALUE: 5
OVERALL: 44 / 56 points
AVERAGE: 5.5 / 7
GRADE: A-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Emmitt [ 6.5 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
Another one of a long line of Zombie movies I've watched. Its slightly above average,but didnt like it as much as Dawn of the Dead. Hard to explain the other movie was a little creepier and the Zombies were more believable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Weighted Rating | : 6.3 |
| No. Ratings | : 9 | |
| No. Reviews | : 6 | |
|
|
|
|