Day of the Dead (2008)

Stick a fork in me because I’m done! And under 30 minutes, as well. I started watching Day of the Dead (a screening version of the movie) and trust me when I say this, don’t even bother with it. The original, while not as excited to you young’ns, is way better. I was done the moment I saw that zombie climbing on the ceiling. And can you ever call them zombies? Note how these creatures don’t even die. The body is suddenly taken over by a flu-like virus that then links to the living cells and alters the host - um, can any one say 28 Days Later? - and the transformation then alters the skin tissue, rotting away the flesh in a matter of seconds in front of witnesses.

I know that we live in an age where Hollywood has no creativity, but why butcher the names of really good originals? Have you all no decency anymore to leave the classics alone? I saw the remake of Dawn of the Dead last year because I was writing a zombie and Christ essay for my philosophy course and I thought it sucked. However, I think the fans of Dawn should be grateful to know that I watched the entire movie without turning it off. The movie was okay, I mean, it wasn’t the best zombie flick out there and the original was by far better. But Day of the Dead didn’t really have nothing to offer. I’ll probably wind up watching the rest of the movie because it’s what I do, but let it be known that you shouldn’t waste your hard earned cash to view the movie. That’s what friends are for.

Steve Miner should actually be shot. I believe he should be taken out back, blindfolded, a cigarette placed into his mouth and tied to a post. Let me do the shooting; I wouldn’t even have to think twice. As for the writer, Jeffrey Reddick, tie him by his scrotum from a red wood. Let him suspend in the air until the tender flesh rips off and sends him crashing down. If he survives, tie him to another tree, this one shorter, and beat him like a piñata.

[Edit:]

Okay, I just finished watching the movie so I can be fair on my review of it. While I was a little sketchy about the whole remake thing, I cleared my head while watching the movie. I’ve done this before, i.e. The Night of the Living Dead (1990) and Dawn of the Dead (2004). The remake for Night was entertaining because it seemed like they were trying to do a spoof movie., The remake for Dawn was disappointing, however, I did see that the writer and director were trying to give it some plot and moral. That’s why these newer zombie movie remakes are failing to meet up to their predecessors. Don’t believe me when I say zombie movies, like all movies should, are suppose to leave you with something in the end?

Like poetry, a movie should start in delight and end with wisdom. The original Dawn of the Dead gave use the fantasy of living within the walls of a mall. However, our greed, embodied by Flyboy, Steve, can turn a picturesque heaven into a demented hell. Materialism = evil, which is why I don’t like shopping at Wal-mart, but have to because everything else is either corporation or nonexistent. And while the purpose of the original Day of the Dead is up in the air - evolution, “perverted reason,” and violence are all noted - the remake only gives us a slice of morals: Don’t create new strains of viruses, period.

The movie failed to grasp the original’s message. Hell, Steve Miner (not to be confused with the baffling Flyboy of the original Dawn) said that he didn’t want the remake of Day of the Dead in anyway related to the remake of Dawn. That’s probably where he went wrong. He should have linked the two in one way or another because the whole vegetarian zombie makes as much sense as a vampire who (un)lives the same life style (anyone know the name of this B-movie, because I can’t remember).

The creatures retain a part of themselves before they transformed. So why is it that they don’t seem to be compassionate? Why is it they retain a part of themselves that is totally useless? Sure the whole not eating human thing from Bud was semi original; however the original zombie of intellect proved that human evolution was still continuing - or devolution, depending on what side of the spectrum you’re standing.

I don’t know, perhaps Kim Paffenroth would like to take a gander at this awful remake.

I should also note that AnnaLynne McCord’s character, Nina, was a little…um…how do you say, unstructured. First she’s the good girl - not at all like her character on Nip/Tuck, by the way - then the let’s-have-sex-on-the-couch-while-your-mom’s-sick-in-bed girl, to the Oh-my-god-my-dad’s-a-zombie-and-just-bit-off-half-of-my-mother’s-face girl, to the demanding girl, to the frantic girl, and back to the kick ass girl. She just wasn’t a stable character at all - and for those of you who are desperately want to see her breasts, she doesn’t come out naked at all in the movie. Not once, nor does anyone else in the film. Sorry, but horror movies are not about the nudity, even the bad ones. Watch a porn instead, buddy.

But the girl’s acting skills are slightly better on the FX drama, just not that great in the movie. Perhaps she doesn’t want to be typecast as a slutty girl all the time, and I respect that. Sorry to say, however, Nip/Tuck is where I saw her first, so she’s forever Eden the slutty girl.

Atonement

Last year I read Little Children by Tom Perrotta and then watched the movie based on the book. I did the same with Trainspotting - this, however, proved that not all books can successfully be adapted into a movie, though the movie was good.

[Note:] I liked the book by Perrotta, something a lot of people in the critic circle didn’t care too much about - Esquire, I believe, said the best way to read a Tom Perrotta novel was to watch the movie. I disagree. I like his writing. However, if you read the book, try not to say how much you like it in public. I was the victim of a lot of looks when I announced to my friend, rather loudly, that “I love Little Children!” Some book titles are best left unspoken.

This year, however, I’m going to read Atonement before moving onto the film. Jyg bought the book (movie tie in) for my birthday. Sadly, Hastings didn’t have the original cover anywhere in the store. It doesn’t matter, movie tie ins only make it look like the only reason you have the book is because you saw the movie. In any case, I wanted to read the book way before the movie existed.

Here’s what the back of the book says:

“On a summer day in 1935, thirteen-year-old Briony Tallis witnesses a moment’s flirtation between her older sister, Cecilia, and Robbie Turner, the son of a servant. But Briony’s incomplete grasp of adult motives and her precocious imagination bring about a crime that will change all their lives, a crime whose repercussions Atonement follows through the chaos and carnage of World War II and into the close of the twentieth century.”

I already got the movie, but I haven’t watched because I want to read the book first, as I had always intended to do. I started last night and I’ll try to finish it within a week, hopefully. I realize that I don’t read as quickly as I once did. I’m not sure why.

Vote for Harvey Dent

I got this message on my machine the other day. I don’t know about you, but I’m probably not going to vote for a two-faced politician like Assistant District Attorney Dent. But I suppose it’s all up to the rest of you. I will be seeing him this summer though, one way or another.