Sure, it's nowhere near the best zombie film in the world, but to say it's the worst?! have you guys only seen the classics or what? I can think of about 15+ other zombie films worse than this one... Change the film title = higher rating, I'd bet my life on that.
shareI gave it a 1 out of 10, not because of the name, because it was just pure trash & not an enjoyable moment in it.
Ive seen a lot of movies & there are worse films, but this cost $9m to make & I couldnt see where that $9m went.
[deleted]
I agree. There is a nugget of an interesting zombie movie here. It peaks its head out here and there. unfortunately being attached to the Romero classics far over shadows what may have been an ok B movie. It works almost from a sci-fi angle. kinda like Contamination. Either way Creepshow 3 is by far Taurus's worst abomination to a classic.
------------
Some call it arson, I call it fate.
"unfortunately being attached to the Romero classics"
Well after all the directors themselves are to blame for that so it's not really unfortunate. They asked for it.
It was an INCREDIBLY BAD movie. How they got funding for this is beyond me. Has NOTHING to do with the name. Infact, I forgot all relation DURING the movie, because they have so little in common. Then, I take it back out, and I'm magically pissed on a NEW level because of the name connection. Great.
shareThis film was so wank I couldn't bring myself to watch it all. The acting was as retarded as the characters. The opening was a joke, the idea was a joke, the directer was a joke, the quality was a joke. Why call it Day Of The Dead 2? Why oh why.
Screw $9 mill I could make a better film on $9. They MUST of spent the budget on acid or some shlt to even think this movie deserved to be released to the general public.
PURE JOKE.
I LOVE ZOMBIE films with a passion. This seriously hurt to watch. I would of had more pleasure tearing out my eyeballs.
For the good of the world please erase this film out of all our memorys and destroy all traces of this worthless craap.
TERRIBLE
-10/10
[deleted]
Well, I gave it a 4/10. The directors (in combination with the scriptwriters and editors, but I hold the directors ultimately responsible for that stuff) don't know how to tell a story very well, and the acting was pretty uniformly horrible--I usually only see acting that bad in films that are micro-budget, shot on video-camera crap with a two or three man crew. However, because I also rate on "technical" levels, this got a couple bonus points--the lighting, sound, cinematography, etc. were not incompetent. I also gave it a bonus point for having its "heart" in the right place; it seemed like they tried to make a decent film, they gave us plenty of gore (even if some of the make-up effects were horrible), this could have been an interesting story in others hands, etc.
I'm currently rewatching all of the Romero-related sequels and remakes over (and I include the Return of the Living Dead series in that, as it's basically an offshoot), and so far, Day 2 is certainly the worst of those, BUT, I haven't gotten to Diary, the 3d Night remake, the Day remake, or RotLD 4 and 5 yet, and I've never seen them before, either, so one or more of those could end up being just as bad or worse, and I agree that there are plenty of zombie films that aren't Romero-related (like the "Violent $h|t" films, for just one example) that are worse.
Is everyone in this house a total nutzoid or is it just me?
I kind of see your point.
It's like Halloween 3, which is a pretty damn good film. But cos it has the Halloween name and no Mike Myers, fans "hate" it.
However, this is just and outright bad film. No matter what it is called.
The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he is God.
[deleted]
[deleted]
No the plot sucked @$$.
share