Literally seconds into the film, it's fairly obvious that this story will bear absolutely NO resemblance to the original "Day of the Dead". So why call it a remake? Well, my friends, that's why the world keeps shunning this film as an excuse to make money rather than a legitimate work of art.<br /><br />Cons: -The fact that Nick Cannon is alive and steps in front of cameras At least they cut that horrible "It's a bad day to be a zombie." line that nauseated us all in the trailers. (I think it was cut anyway I don't remember hearing it) -Some weak writing and performances.<br /><br />-Some pretty crappy effects here and there.<br /><br />-Some absolutely RIDICULOUS missteps in logic. I'm not the kinda guy who looks for things like that just so I can complain, but God damn. Zombies breaking right through windows, then seconds later, being stopped dead in their tracks by another window; zombies jumping at great distances & crawling on the walls and ceilings, but then not being able to reach a few characters peeking through an air duct; zombies' heads exploding because their bodies have caught fire, (WTF???)<br /><br />-Some absolutely HORRIBLE sound-editing.<br /><br />-The cliché "No. Don't shoot him. He's my friend." "BUT HE'S A ZOMBIE NOW!" "I don't care. I'll take care of him if I have to, but nobody else is allowed that privilege." Not only is this cliché present, but it's taken a little bit too far<br /><br />-One of the zombies didn't eat people He was a good guy He retains most of his humanity too. Why? Because he was a vegetarian in life. My response to this idea: No.<br /><br />-A happy ending... Are you kidding me?<br /><br />Pros:<br /><br />-Decapitations. A lot of them. Headshots and car impacts make for some fun as well.<br /><br />-Mena Suvari's cute.<br /><br />-Some effects were okay.<br /><br />-Directing wasn't too bad.<br /><br />-I actually really liked the cinematography.<br /><br />-The zombie make-up was decent. I appreciate it because it's elaborate and in such great numbers.<br /><br />-As with all of the screw-up direct spin-offs of Romero's "Dead" films, (this means all but Savini's "Night and Snider's "Dawn"), they tried to explain the outbreak. Their explanation here was actually decent, in my opinion. However, it shouldn't be there. That's not what George's movies were about. In his films, we didn't need to know how the outbreak started, it was all about how the survivors reacted to it. So I didn't know if I should put this point in the Pros or Cons list If this wasn't a remake of "Day of the Dead", which is what I choose to believe, then it would be a purely good thing.<br /><br />-But this film's most important Pro: Laughing at every single one of the Cons I've listed.<br /><br />This would be a mildly decent zombie flick if it weren't for the ending and the "Day of the Dead" name. Watch for mindless fun.<br /><br />6/10 on it's own. 1/10 as a remake. I'll give it a 4.5/10