Artivels Undescribable Perfection

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Fatma Suarez The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

westerlund-147-949472 This is supposed to be a sequel to George Romeros Day of the Dead, which in turn was the second sequel to the classic Night of the Living Dead. I guess that would make it Night of the living dead 4? Or Dawn of the Dead 3? It is the only entry to the living dead series with a numeral in the title, which makes it pretty confusing. You might think that it would have some special relationship to Day of the Dead, but apparently it is supposed to be a prequel to the entire franchise, telling the story of how it all began. But why connect the title to Day of the dead of all movies? Even more, Romero doesn't seem to have been involved in any way. After watching though, I can say that it does not only have nothing to do with Day of the Dead, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the franchise at all.To describe the plot is difficult, because there isn't so much of it. It starts off at a hospital of some sorts, where the virus breaks out for what I guess is the first time. Apparently it came from some sort of a vial that belonged to a Russian bloke. The military shows up to take care of the situation, but one of the vials falls into the brush and disappears. Five years later, it is discovered by a group of patients of a mental institution and their doctor. Of course it gets loose again and starts too zombify everyone, and the quest for survival is on.This movie suffers from many things. The acting isn't great, and the way the characters interacts with each other doesn't feel natural or engaging. The characters themselves are fairly uninteresting, mostly because of the bad acting and because the script does not do a good job of presenting and developing them. The biggest problem however is the story, or what is supposed to pass for a story. Really, I have no idea what this movie was about! The point of the movie was supposedly to explain how the whole thing started, but I know nothing more after watching it than I did before. Why do we even need an explanation anyway? There is no point in explaining where the zombies came from. The Living dead movies have never been about "why?", but rather it has been about how we deal with it, what happens to us people when we face such extreme conditions. The series have also always been full of social commentaries, but here doesn't seem to be anything similar to what we saw in Night or Dawn, at least none that I could see. Were we supposed to worry about the characters losing their humanity due to the release of the virus? Propably, too bad I didn't care. It just becomes a bland mess of characters and insinuations we don't care about. Does it at least have some gory zombie action? Well... some, but it never becomes as chilling as in Night, as over the top and messy as in Dawn or as intense and nail-biting like in Day. It just comes and goes, and when it's over it's hard to even care. The zombies behavior is also weird and inconsistent with the rest of the series. In this movie, the zombies are still conscious of their personalities, and they talk too. Yes, talking, thinking zombies. Have these guys ever seen a zombie movie before? Also, this movie seems to insist that it is the virus that makes the corpses look all bloody, chewed up and decomposed. I thought it was because they, you know, used to be dead and chewed upon before they turned into zombies! It's bad enough when the story doesn't connect with the rest of the series, it doesn't even look or behave like a Romero-movie. It just makes me wonder why they wanted to make a sequel to Day of the Dead if they were not even going work within the same universe. All in all, this movie is pretty pointless.

chuckm76 This movies IMDb rating doesn't do it any justice at all, I was honestly expecting one of those shot on hand-held digicam, straight to DVD movies that there are so many of these days but this is so much more. This film is well shot, well acted, well directed and most of all has a completely original plot twist. OK lets get the obvious question out of the way, why is it called Day Of The Dead 2? I really don't know, it doesn't have anything in common with Romero's films other than zombies and it's certainly not a sequel. Very strange. After a great start in which the story builds it then slows down a lot, the early-middle part of the movie moves at a zombie walking pace. It sadly does affect the film at this point but it's all very watchable and the acting and storyline keeps interest levels up. I'm not going to spoil the plot twist but please just stick with it, I had thought that the best of this movie was in the opening sequence but I'm so glad that I stayed the course. The last act picks up the pace again and there are some delightful treats for zombie fans, fantastic make-up and most of all convincing, old skool slow moving zombies. Why can't Hollywood remakes stick to these rules!? I really wasn't expecting this at all, I was fully ready to take this film apart but it's made with a real sense of fun and good ideas. If the middle was more entertaining then I could easily give a higher rating, what it does do though is make the end of the movie worth waiting for. It gave me a feel of the 70's Spanish/Italian zombie movies in as far as pacing and plot, but this is way better than most of them. I can only think that the lowly rating for this film is from Romero fan boys who take offence at the use of the name. I too don't feel they needed to or should've been able to use the name but please look past that and if you're a zombie fan you will enjoy this.A superb cheap thrill with no social commentary, just a sense of fun and a reason to get some great zombies on-screen. What more do you want!!??

kurciasbezdalas I've watched this film mainly because of curiosity, because most of the people say it's bad without properly explaining why, but I think that there is no movies which would be all bad, there still must be something good about it. Actually it wasn't that bad. The biggest mistake that makers of this film did was to call it Day of the Dead 2 (probably because to attract more audience). As sequel to Day of the Dead it sucks, but it's still good as just a zombie movie. There was some blood, graphic violence scenes and humor. The idea was quite good. This movie was interesting to watch, if it would be boring, I probably wouldn't watch it to the end. I understand why some people were disappointed by it, but it wasn't all bad.

Elswet As a spin off of a sequel, this isn't bad. Not really. The premise may be ludicrous, but once one considers the source material this spins from, this story line seems quite logical, actually. We do tend to enslave anything we consider of lesser intelligence with stronger backs, so the idea of domesticating the zombies to perform manual labor tasks, etc. is not quite so strange.Considering the budget, this is not so bad, but I can say I am entirely thankful they did not continue with this line, and reverted back to the original "Dead" series.All in all? This is a franchise fan's movie. I won't say that casual viewers cannot enjoy it, but I generally would not expect it. It's bloody and visceral like the rest of the series, and not for younger viewers or the squeamish.It rates a 4.9/10 on the Movie Scale.It rates a 0/10 on the Romero Scale (It's NOT a Romero Film).It rates a 7.4/10 on the Splatter Scale from...the Fiend :.