Le Jour des morts-vivants

The third film in George A. Romero's immensely popular "Living Dead" trilogy is by far the bleakest and most complex film the director has ever worked on. "Day of the Dead" received a lot of negative press upon its release in 1985 - people picked apart unsavory characters, OVER-acting from a no-name cast, and outlandishly gory special effects that only Tom Savini himself could be proud of.

But none of this makes it a bad experience really, does it? I don't think so. For the reason that I usually detest zombie flicks, I have worked up a fondness for the works of Romero and over the last two weeks have separately watched each film in his trilogy.

"Night of the Living Dead" (1968) virtually defined a new genre of horror movie-making and basically set the standards for the many zombie flicks that would follow in its footsteps. Next up to bat was the most praised film in the trilogy - "Dawn of the Dead" (1978) - which was more of an action film than a horror movie and was nothing short of epic. Then came "Day" in 1985, which got the tongue-lashing that I described earlier.

However those that did like it, praised the Savini effects, its complex, plot-driven characters, and satire. While "Day" is certainly a step down from "Night" and "Dawn," "Day" is more of a claustrophobic horror movie and that allows it to stand on its own as a fitting end to Romero's trilogy. It's more in sync with the tension of "Night" than it is with the adrenalin-laced action, zombie-slaughterfest that was "Dawn."

A team of civilian scientists and a loose army unit clash with each other's motives after they have taken shelter at an underground military base from the hordes of living dead that storm the surface above. The civilian scientists aren't seeking to eradicate the zombies like the soldiers are hell-bent on doing, but are instead trying to get to the bottom of what is causing them to be what they are.

In doing so, they need live zombie specimens, which are held captive in a maze of dark underground tunnels where they're corralled like cattle. We later get what is one of the most profound and moving experiences in the entire trilogy with "Day," when we see one zombie, nicknamed "Bub" by one particularly eccentric scientist, who eventually learns what it means to be "alive," so to speak.

"Day of the Dead" obviously isn't a perfect movie, but is more or less a fitting conclusion to one of the most daring film trilogies in the horror genre. It may be best to not watch "Day" thinking it'll be anything like "Dawn" just because it has military men blasting away mercilessly at the living dead. Zombie slaughter is few and far between and much of the first hour of the film is clashing dialogue between the characters.

The darkest day in the world - "Day of the Dead."

9/10

As a zombie aficionado is it impossible to not have watched the Romero zombie movies, especially as they are such big milestones in the zombie genre. And also as they are the zombie movies that has the most heart put into it, no pun intended.

This 1985 movie, directed by George A. Romero, is the third of zombie movies in his lineage of zombie storytelling. And it continues with the usual bleak world overrun by the living dead. Society has collapsed and the world is in disarray, with small clusters of people struggling for survival. But it is not the threat of the living dead that proves the only danger is the new dying world.

Romero does a great job at telling the story he has in mind, and it is presented in a very enjoyable manner, which makes his movies quite entertaining and watchable.

The story in the 1985 movie "Day of the Dead" is about a group of soldiers and scientists who have barricaded themselves in an underground bunker facility. Here they try to survive the dying world around them. Some scientists are studying the living dead in order to understand more about them and to control them, a study which does not sit well with the armed military forces.

Granted that this movie is from 1985, so the special effects and zombie make-up is a bit outdated by today's standards. But it still works fine though, and the effects are still believable. But in the Romero movies it is not the special effects that drive the movie, it is the story and the characters; the special effects just help to progress the story and add a visual imagery to the dying world.

The acting in "Day of the Dead" was quite good, and there is a very memorable gallery of characters in the movie. And there was even a very memorable zombie known as Bub. And they had managed to cast some good talents to portray the various role and characters. I must admit that I was surprised to find out that special effects master Greg Nicotero was in the movie.

I assume that you are already familiar with this 1985 classic zombie movie if you are a fan of the zombie genre. If you are not, shame on you, then it is about due time that you get around to watching it. In fact, watch all the Romero zombie movies, as they are important to the zombie genre.

I have watched "Day of the Dead" several times, as I have with all of Romeros movies, and it can sustain multiple viewings, because the story is so well-written and executed on the screen.

"Day of the Dead" receives a seven out of ten stars from me. This is a good, wholesome zombie movie.

Our rewatching of the original Romero trilogy comes to an end with "Day of the Dead" which is perhaps the most unloved of the three but has some of the best gore moments of the series and a legendary jump scare at the beginning.

With the planet all but lost, a team of scientists and soldiers have formed an uneasy alliance in a large bunker in Florida. Tensions are high between them though, with the soldiers bearing the bulk of losses, trying to capture zombies for experimentation. The situation comes to a head though, when it becomes apparent that chief scientist, Dr Logan (Richard Liberty) is more interested in taming the threat, than eliminating it.

In so many ways, this is the best film of the original trilogy. The acting performances are better than any that have gone before. Lori Cardille in particular is excellent as Sarah, one of the scientists and the lead of the movie. Joseph Pilato, who has a tiny role in "Dawn" has a much bulkier one here, with Rhodes being the chief antagonist. Tom Savini's effects are the best we've seen, with some of the disembowelment that occurs towards the finale being the most striking and still very much holding up 35 years later. The character of 'Bub' is perhaps the most effecting of the entire series, though I do have to admit the idea of the zombies learning is an uncomfortable one and I'm glad that most don't explore that idea.

Plot wise, it could be better though. Initially starting with a big scope, and showing a Floridian town destroyed by the outbreak - it sinks back down into the only real storyline zombie films have, that of man's intolerance of each other ultimately causing our downfall. This might have something to do with the increasing cuts to the planned story, that budgetary restraints forced on Romero. It's the bleakest of the films, demonstrating not just that survival is unlikely, but perhaps even undeserved would this really happen.

That bleakness though speaks to me, and I do enjoy the film. "Dawn" is still my favourite; the score and the location alone see to that, but "Day" isn't that far behind.

'Day Of The Dead' is one of the greatest sleepers in the history of horror movies. A flop when originally released almost twenty years ago, its reputation has slowly increased over the years, and now is generally regarded as a classic. I certainly underestimated it for a long time. In my opinion Romero's 'Night Of The Living Dead' and 'Dawn Of The Dead' are two of the greatest horror movies ever made, but I always thought that 'Day...' was a bit of a let down. But after watching it again for the first time in several years (via the highly recommended double disc "special edition" DVD) I must humbly eat my words. This is a GREAT movie! Romero and special effects Tom Savini do wonders on a limited budget, and the movie is full of suspense, a claustrophobic atmosphere and plenty of gore. It probably flopped the first time around because it's so bleak, but now that's one of its strengths. Interestingly Romero features a strong female protagonist (Lori Cardille) and a strong black supporting character (Terry Alexander), something not all that common in horror movies. Both actors give good performances, the soldiers led by Rhodes (Joseph Pilato) are all suitably ultra macho and deranged, and it was cool to see John Amplas ('Martin') in a supporting role, but the two stand out performances are by Richard Liberty ('The Crazies') as Dr. Logan (who the soldiers refer to as "Frankenstein"), and Howard Sherman as Bub, the zombie he has tamed. The sequences between Logan and Bub are just terrific and add a whole new level of pathos to the movie. The only negative comment I can make about 'Day Of The Dead' is that it brings home the depressing fact that George Romero hasn't made a truly outstanding movie in close to twenty years. I really hope he makes his long threatened fourth Dead movie 'Dead Reckoning' and that it turns out to be his masterpiece. But whatever happens he has already carved his name out in horror history as the creator of three classic zombie movies that just get better and better as the years go by.

It's a scandal that such a brilliant film as "Day of the dead" has been overlooked for so long, and still pretty much continues to do so. In fact, being an avid horror movie consumer and favoring zombie movies especially, it is only now that I've been lucky enough to get a copy of this. I'm so glad about that! "Day of the dead" is, to my mind, not only the best of all Romero's zombie flicks, but also in the top three of all zombie movies ever made. It has every single asset that I consider desirable for a zombie film to be perfect: a claustrophobic environment with little realistic ways out, characters pushed to the limits, paranoia, darkness (literal darkness as well as an obscurity, a density of word, thought and mindset that clearly reflects the apocalyptic world that they now live in), powerlessness, lots of quality suspense, and gore. Many of those elements are missing in an awful lot of zombie movies.

"Day of the dead" is also ahead of its time (1985) in special and makeup effects and, beyond that, in the general pessimistic mood that is now sadly a reality. There is nothing funny, redeeming, thrilling about the new world dominated by zombies; the heroes of this show do not make a point of killing zombies as if it were some sort of hunting expedition with lots of adrenaline. They are simply the last humans standing, a group of scientists and military who happen to have survived so far (how, and why them, is never told), and trying to live another day in an underground facility (which is one of the best settings ever devised in a horror movie). Some kind of science project or experiment is also taking place, with a Dr Logan leading it (great character, that one), but this doesn't leave for much optimism. Basically, the gray, primary, claustrophobic setting, the rivalry between the military and the scientific communities, and the sickness and nightmares that ail the heroes let us know early on that we're in for a gloomy tale.

"Day of the dead" is also worth watching because it introduces elements that are completely original in the genre, and have still (to my knowledge) either not been used at all, or have been so only recently.

My score is a resounding 10/10!