Curapedi
I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.
StyleSk8r
At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.
silentbob-22185
A movie script about an unrelenting stalker can't be sold or produce. The only genius involved with this film was whoever came up with the idea to make the stalker, oh, I don't know? A Zombie. I mean, everyone loves Zombies at the moment!
How did this film not break box office records?
Please don't waste your time watching this movie. Unfortunately I did it for you.
sadakobayushi
I went into this movie with certain expectations. I really, really liked the original, so I didn't expect it to match that in any way. The previous remake was pretty bad, so I figured that this would be better than that one at least. That's... not how it worked out, unfortunately.For starters, the acting is astonishingly awful. I watch a lot of B-Movies, I'm used to bad acting, but nothing that was said in the movie felt right in the slightest; it was stilted and wooden like they were trying to channel too much intensity into every conversation. It wasn't even amusing like some movies acting, instead being painfully dull. I must admit, I skipped about five minutes halfway through because I realised that it was just going to be five minutes of unlikable characters talking angrily at each other. I didn't miss much.The special effects are sometimes decent, but most of the time it's high-pressure sprays that just look goofy. There was one bit where someone got dragged behind a counter and then the bloodspray shoots up from the opposite side of where it should. With characters like this, the least you could hope for is them satisfyingly getting munched on, and we didn't really get that. The makeup on the zombies is pretty decent, at least.The story itself is basically similar to the original, but without the intelligence, wit, or social commentary. Instead we get more characters doing stupid things because, well, that's how they keep the plot moving! They wander off, don't lock doors behind them, assume flimsy materials will hold back hundreds of zombies... I wouldn't expect them to survive a romantic comedy, much less a horror movie. I am astonished that they somehow survived five years between the opening and the main film.I saw a review that described it as "More Fulci than Romero." In fact, it was that comparison that intrigued me. The thing is, Fulci movies don't have great characters, or deep stories, but what they do have is satisfying gore and grue, an unsettling atmosphere, and music that's eerie and fitting. The only music from this that comes to mind is the end credits metal, which is already fading from my memory. None of it is notable in any way.Day of the Dead: Bloodline is no Romero. It isn't even Fulci, or Bava (I'm thinking Lamberto, but either works), or even Lenzi. It is a failure on just about every level that somehow, astonishingly, makes me wish I was watching the 2008 remake instead.And that's incredibly sad.
bland-kevin67
I watched this despite my wife's protests and the ratings on NetFlix because I have seen some pretty nice flicks which were lowly rated. This one was spot on! The movie made bad movies seem no so bad. I feel bad for the actors who are trying to make a name in Hollywood but also need to make a paycheck. The movie starts out as a flashback from a scene that is never referenced in it again! The directing seemed to be so juvenile that even a high school student film would fare better. Not sure if this could be called a remake since it lacks the story line of the original and the non sensical killing was moot. I'm glad the director was kind enough to limit it to 90 minutes.
