IMDb > Day of the Dead (2008) (V) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Day of the Dead
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Day of the Dead (V) More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Reviews from users who voted this title less than 4.5.
Reviews from users who voted this title less than 4.5.
Page 14 of 15: [Prev][9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [Next]
Index 142 matching reviews (259 reviews in total) 

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

A VERY pale shade of Romero.

Author: bluknight99 from United States
20 April 2008

I was excited when I first saw this DVD. After all, Snyder's "Dawn of the Dead" was a taut, chilling and darkly humorous retelling of Romero's (arguably) second most famous zombie tale. Plus, Ving Rahmes! I was thinking that Ving's cop character from "Dawn" somehow survived and made it to the "Day".

Then I watched it. Sigh.

There were some okay aspects that make this at least an average "zombie flick". The titular undead citizens were genuinely creepy (the brief scene in the hospital where one crawled on the ceiling stands out) and the action/gore sequences were entertainingly over the top.

The problem is, the title of this movie shouldn't have been "Day of the Dead". Perhaps "Nose Bleed" or "Project: Wilfire". Aside from a few cannibalistic corpses and an ass-hole military guy (Cough!! Nick Cannon!! COUGH!!), there is VERY LITTLE that connects this to the original 1985 original.

Don't get me wrong; I'm all for well-done "re-imaginings" (Battlestar Gallactica anyone?). With this straight-to-DVD release, though, it almost seems like the filmmakers made a zombie movie and somehow got a hold of the rights to Romero's movie in order to sell copies. Maybe I'm wrong.

One thing I do know. Romero it ain't.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

What a disgrace to Romero

Author: DrSeussFreak from United States
4 April 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie had a lot of potential, since it is a remake of a Romero movie. The problem is that they did an absolutely terrible job. The "Zombies" in this movie are fast, semi-intelligent (they were using mops to poke holes in the ceiling to get people out of ventilation ducts), organized (when the main characters first leave the hospital, 5 or 6 "zombies" all jump out of windows at the same time), they can jump like 30 feet (while on the second floor a "zombie" jumps from the ground floor to the window) and they can hold on to ceilings (again referring to when they are in the air ducts). While it was somewhat entertaining, it is a terrible "zombie" movie and should be avoided.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

What the?!

Author: Misfitfiend1989 from United Kingdom
17 February 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

When I heard that Day of the Dead had been re-made I was slightly sceptical as the original wasn't that enthralling. But I thought hey i'll give it another go, I shouldn't have bothered. Poor casting, poor acting, over use of special effects. And though I am not entirely sure but if this is supposedly a re-make there is very little if none left of the original. Poor film unless you feel the need to watch I wouldn't bother. Hollywood once again simply stealing old ideas that were not very good to begin with.

"In this terrifying remake of the George Romero classic, a group of scientists, military personnel and civilians find themselves battling for their lives against a plague of flesh eating ghouls. When a band of survivors seek shelter in an underground military bunker, they find themselves trapped with an even greater danger that lurks inside."

Even the synopsis doesn't make the film sound exciting apart from the use of the word "terrifying". Which the film is not. I think that to be fair this film is going to do moderately well at the box office as it matches the interest of stupid cinema and the audience been dumbed down. What a disappointment.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Steve Miner..... Why?

Author: tequila101 from Australia
14 December 2010

Steve Miner.... Why? Why would you pick on a Romero Classic and pick on it for something it's not.

Steve Miner does a really good job on Friday the 13th Pt. 2 & 3, Halloween H20 but when it comes to him remaking a George Romero Classic, it really sucks.

I have many problems with this film.

1. This remake does not follow the original plot and it has nothing to do with the original film. I'm not saying I wanted it to be a carbon copy of the 1985 classic but I didn't want it to jump off the train tracks and go into the bin.

2. Why, oh Why is it set at night time. It's called Day of the Dead and most of the film takes place at night time. I seriesrously don't get it.

3. Thinking to develop the Bub, Bud character was stupid because seeing him as a human at first sight and opening his back story is just not scary. The original Bub is must more frightening because there are references that he was human but he was unknown to be a human in the film and they just showed him as a Zombie which was great.

4. As the film continued on it just got more boring. At the beginning it was terrible, but when the middle and ending came I was just even getty about how this film went.

5. Why is the Doctor Logan character unlikeable. I liked the Original Logan character, he was calm, preserved, patient and always ready to help. Now we have a Logan who betrays the victims, a complete idiot and he's just rude. It's not the Doctor Logan I remember.

6. I wish that Steve Miner wouldn't have carried all of this crap into a hospitals etc. To be Honest I didn't mind the Zombies rioting in the hospital. That was the only watchable scene. Even if I say this, that isn't saying much though. He should have kept the entire situation inside the under ground tunnel with some different twists and turns.

7. The Captian Rhodes character in the original was selfish, high mighty, proud and despicable. In the remake we don't even see him that much and that really disappointed me.

8. Lastly, I want to point out how dumb the plot is. It's like we've got two different stories trying to nudge in. We've got teens being stalked by zombies and then we have another scenario of a road jam, traffic jam. I think Romero's plot is tones better.

Give the film a watch as I did but be warned. It is terrible. It goes up there with the Psycho & Black Christmas Remakes: Worst Remakes. And to be honest it is on the same level as Black Christmas, a classic that is remade, and then turned into something it's not. For anybody's sake stick with the Original. 4.3/10

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

First Look Does a Nice Job

Author: hutchinson_3 from United States
3 May 2008 the writing was awful, the characters' reactions unrealistic and cookie cutter...and the acting was pretty amateur.

But as far as actual filming, lighting, editing, and every other aspect of the film...for its budget it does very well.

My hat off to First Look Studios for that.

This film does not at all follow the original plot of Day of the is a B movie of B movies.

It is mildly entertaining. I mean I am a horror movie lover, and this really did nothing for me. The only really entertaining parts was when they started to actually thwart of the zombies.

If you got nothing else to it...maybe. And that is if The Evil Dead is not available.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

not good

Author: bcliciousus from United States
4 November 2009

This movie had all the potential required to be decent to great. It had money, good actors, a decent budget, and a good location. The problem is clear. First, the director swayed away from the original script of the original day of the dead movie. Sometimes it's OK to change the script a little as we observed in the Dawn of the Dead remake in 2003 which was AWESOME!. Second, keep your scenes simple. I think the director spent way too much time and effort trying to have elaborate scenes with dozens of zombies when he should have concentrated on quality scenes with one or two zombies. Third, never give your zombies supernatural powers, i.e. the ability to climb walls like spider-man or the ability to have super strength. I think that there is even a scene where zombies are being electrocuted, catch on fire, and continue to eat their victim while all this is going on. Fourth, spend more time with character development. Most good movies, horror or otherwise, spend at least the first 15-20 minutes of the movie trying to introduce the main characters, and then give you follow up information throughout the movie. This keeps the viewer intrigued throughout the movie. Fifth, always try to link sequels when you can. Ving Rhames was a key character in the 2003 dawn of the dead, and it would have been awesome if he had somehow survived the original zombie outbreak. Speaking of which. If this was supposed to be Day of the Dead, wouldn't this movie have occurred years after the original zombie outbreak or did I miss something. All and all this movie is classified as a missed opportunity for greatness.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 7 people found the following review useful:


Author: placebotonic from Slovenia
18 February 2008

Let's talk about the good things first: the director of photography did a great job, special effects guys did a great job... well, that's about it.

I found that a very annoying thing in this movie is that gunshots sound as if a silencer was used, it just doesn't sound right. Screenplay is threaded with deja-vu's, they use almost every "trick" in the book, that has been used ad nauseam already and they aren't even trying to invent new ways of selling it. Oh wait, "zombie love" actually IS something new, but trust me, it's not as exciting as it might sound. The acting was sub-average on most part, but often it was interrupted by Razzie award kind of acting, except the actors whom I'd nominate, wouldn't actually get a Razzie, because they suck too much to ever make a career to which a Razzie could make a dent. I mean, why kick a dead horse? There are exceptions in this movie though, but very rare and their attempt to rise the quality of the movie equals the attempt to improve the taste of rotten egg pancake by spreading chocolate and honey on it. Sounds better, but it's still completely revolting.

I would recommend this movie to anyone who intends to half-watch it. You know what I mean, watch it with a boy/girlfriend. I guarantee it will eventually redirect your/his/her attention away from the screen. For this alone, it gets a 4.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Don't shoot vegetarian zombies in the head

Author: Bjorn (ODDBear) from Iceland
10 April 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Why directly associate this flick with the Romero original? I guess it ensures a bit more money in the long run. Coming into this film as a remake is only going to make it suffer in comparison.

Funny thing is; Day of the Dead 2008 isn't all that bad for undemanding horror fans. It's chock full of decent grue, is very fast paced and violent as hell. The negatives, however, outweigh the positives. Mena Suvari is terribly unconvincing as a military officer and Nick Cannon is utterly intolerable, spewing some wince inducing lines that he must have come up with on the spot. The zombies are strange, to say the least, moving at ultra fast speed and even climbing walls. The editing is also quite annoying and the orange filter look is somewhat distracting. brainless entertainment on a slow night the film is OK. There is plenty of nitpicking if you want to go there; the Bub character from Romero's original seems to be present here in the form of Bud; a character who doesn't want to eat humans once he's zombiefied because in life he was a vegetarian (stupid!!!); the zip-zap change from human to ultra violent zombie in the space of a mere second; the supernatural abilities the zombies possess (huge jumps, ultra fast, wall climbing); the fact that once exposed to fire the zombies suddenly disintegrate...and how on earth do these characters realize from the get-go that shooting them in the head does the trick? And what crack shooters they are! Bammm, and they all hit the head, no matter the weapon!

Actually, that's more negatives than I thought. But anyway; I may have been in an unusually forgiving frame of mind when watching it. As a time filler for horror lovers Day of the Dead 2008 is OK. Nothing more

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Funny this is called "Day of the Dead" when nearly all the zombie action occurs at night.

Author: Aaron1375
1 October 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

You know, as a zombie movie it is not all that bad. However, I can not score this movie any higher as it makes itself out to be a remake of the Romero film of the same name. If this movie had simply been titled something else the one character of Bub and a few other scenes would have been considered tributes, instead they also steal the title and make for what is the most part a completely different movie. As if simply borrowing the title of one of Romero's classics would make people flock to see it. Then they throw in Ving Rhames to try and connect this film to the superior "Dawn of the Dead" remake. Here the story has a town full of people suffering from flu like symptoms. Cue the sinister music as you know what these symptoms will lead to for the most part. Though the end result was surprising to me at times as I have never known a zombie to do some of the things these did. Example, I have never seen a zombie shoot up to the ceiling and crawl on it for a time before, what exactly caused this outbreak one might ask, perhaps a radioactive spider was the source? We have our survivors as a boy and his gal, along with his sister and some other military dudes survive for a bit here. The gore is good and bad in this one as once the chomping starts it is fast and relentless, but sometimes it is computer generated which I absolutely loath. As I say in my summary nearly the entire film happens at night. They would have been better off calling this night of the dead or something. Zombie attack would have been alright as well, but they should have never tried to pass this one off as a remake. It does a good job at zombies being everywhere causing chaos, but nothing matches the scene in the beginning of the original day at the beginning of the film in the town where the guy uses a megaphone to try and call for survivors, but only finds a lot of zombies walking the streets. If it were called something else I would have perhaps given this movie a five or six, but thanks to the title I am giving it a four.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

At least it's better than Contagium and NOTLD 3D...

Author: Necrotard from United States
10 September 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

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.

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. --Some pretty crappy effects here and there. --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, (funny, but WTF???) --Some absolutely HORRIBLE sound-editing. --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… --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. ...No. Just no. --A happy ending... Are you kidding me?

Pros: --Decapitations. A lot of them. Headshots and car impacts make for some fun as well. --Mena Suvari is cute. --Some effects were okay. --Directing wasn't too bad. --I actually really liked the cinematography. --The zombie make-up was decent. I appreciate it because it's elaborate and in such great numbers. --As with all of the screw-up 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", then it would be a purely good thing. --But this film's most important Pro: Laughing at every single one of the Cons I've listed.

This would be a mildly decent zombie flick if it weren't for the ending and the "Day of the Dead" name. Watch it for mindless fun.

6/10 on it's own. 1/10 as a remake. I'll give it a 4.5/10 overall.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 14 of 15: [Prev][9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
External reviews Parents Guide Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history