>>211891678Correct. Good man.
Day of the Dead SUCKS, and /tv/'s wrongheaded affinity for it is is one of its greatest collective defects in taste. /tv/ Day appreciatiors shall always remain wrong. /tv/ looks at a turd and they see beauty where very little exists.
Despite a few redeeming qualities, Day of the Dead is in actual fact, and far and way, the worst of the original trilogy. The original crystallized the premise, and the sequel, the original Dawn (the best zombie film), apotheosized the siege concept which underpins the modern genre (the original film is a small siege). What is terrible about Day is the hamming and amateurish bitching among the main cast, and no, their situation doesn't excuse the amateurish delivery of the actors. Especially bad is the early scene in the conference room where the actors bitch at each other, establishing conflict. Equally stupid is the Snidely Whiplash "Bad Guy" who, although he can be argued to be a rational actor, nevertheless manages to come off as an asshole because that's just how bad his acting is, and that's just how stupid /tv/ are for liking him as a character. Nor is John Goodman sidekick any better. Nor is the weak swarthy "good guy" who somehow is the woman's boyfriend (what does she see in him?!). The official purpose of the lab is stupid (thus, so is its lead doctor). I cannot overstate that THERE ISN'T ANYONE WORTH LIKING. /tv/ only really likes the movie for its full-color gore, and they choose to ignore the crappy acting or worse, praise it. The Thing, by contrast, has both competent acting and gore to boot. I REALLY hate the acting in Day, and you should too. You should reject the idea that it is a good film.
Still, there's a few cool shots which /tv/ mistakes as markers for an overall good film: the dream sequence hands, the title screen itself, and the dread of the bus-sized lowered platform, delivering doom. All these are overshadowed by a rational viewer's lack of concern for the characters.