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 5 of 15: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [Next]
Index 143 matching reviews (260 reviews in total) 

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

my worst movie

Author: adebisi-vzt from Croatia
19 January 2012

this is my first comment on IMDb, and i posted it because this is the WORST movie i have ever seen....and i have seen a lot of movies...i love horror movies and i watched a many bad ones but this wan was so bad that i couldn't help my self and write a review...when i looked at this film i was wondering what the hell was those people thinking that they even made it..there is not one single good thing about this movie. i don't know what else to say. o yea. i also think that this movie have nothing to do whit Romero's dead series... i mean did you see the moves from zombies...they are moving so fast that you can barely see it...absolute disaster.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

An Insult To Romero

Author: KxWaal from Canada
7 January 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This film offended me as a Romero fan, this film offended me a zombie movie fan and this film offended me as a human being. This film was so terrible, in fact, that it inspired me to write my first ever IMDb review.

I will start off by saying that I'm not even sure how this can be called a "remake" of the original Dawn Of The Dead. I don't see how this could be called a "re-imagining" of the film either, for that matter....

The original film starts off in a post-apocalyptic world. The dead have been rising from their graves to eat the flesh of the living for some time now for an unknown reason. In an almost "Omega Man" theme, the characters of the film fear they are the last humans alive on earth. They live together in an underground military bunker as three distinct groups of people in general disharmony with each other - the scientists who wish to understand the problem, the soldiers, who wish to destroy the problem and the civilians who simply wish to enjoy whatever bit of their life is left to enjoy.

Much of the conflict in the film, in fact, involves the characters interactions with each other rather than their interaction with the zombies. The original Dawn Of The Dead had a very bleak, claustrophobic atmosphere to it that is responsible for it being my favourite of Romero's "Dead" films. The vast majority of the film takes place in the military bunker, as it is the only refuge from the carnage surrounding them. They leave only to gather the dead as "specimens" for scientific study and to look for survivors.

This "remake" has none of this. None. The film starts at the beginning of the outbreak, for one. Also, a reason for this outbreak is later given in the film. The outbreak is also contained to one city for the duration of the film, it is not world-wide. While they do end up in an underground military bunker, it is only toward the end of the film. The rest of it they are running all over the place and there are people all over the city, completely missing the themes and indeed, the entire basis of the original. There are scientists, zombies and soldiers - but their function in the plot is completely changed. The true enemies are not the other people in this one, it's definitely the zombies.

They did bring back the idea of the "sympathetic" zombie, Bub, however he is not been "tamed" like in the original - Instead he is docile and non-threatening because, get this: he was a vegetarian during his life. They then explain that he kept this trait through becoming one of the undead. Hearing this made me feel like I was going to cry. It was THE most terrible concept I have ever witnessed unfold in cinema. - And I'm a huge fan "so bad it's good" B grade horror.

As far as I'm concerned, this film is a remake in title only. Nothing else has any more in common with Day Of The Dead than it does with any other zombie film. In my honest opinion, naming the film this was a shameless, almost criminal attempt at a cash-grab. They were hoping to sucker in poor die-hard horror fans like myself, who would feel almost "obliged" to see such a remake if it were made.

Wow. I can't believe I've made it this far into my criticism of this being called a remake without mentioning "running zombies". Believe me, that really hurt too - But the Dawn Of The Dead remake was guilty of this crime, too... And as much as I hate to admit it, that remake wasn't all that bad. So I'll leave my zombie elitism out of this.

If this film was not marketed as a remake of Day Of The Dead, it would have fared considerably better among critics and fans alike.... However, that's not to say that this movie wasn't terrible as yet another 28 Days Later clone, either...

The acting was god-awful with the exception of (maybe) Mena Suvari. Stale lines, even more stale delivery.

Nick Cannon's role as Salazar was tasteless. He provided a "token black character" for the film in that he was given such stereotypical one-liners that they verged on outright racism... How many times do we need to hear a black character say the "Man, that's some (fill-in-the-blank) s**t, right there!" line in a film until it's not funny anymore? My personal favourite was when, in response to someone saying they were a doctor, Salazar said "Maan.. Ain't nobody here wanna hear that CSI bulls**t!". I was honestly speechless. I find such a stereotypical portrayal of an African-American character kind of ironic in this film, being that Romero's Night Of The Living Dead was one of the first mainstream films to give the lead "hero" role to a black man.

The film overall, while extremely fast-paced, somehow managed to loose my attention consistently throughout. I found myself struggling to pay attention just so I could write this review to warn you people. In the world of zombie films, this one honestly makes "Children Of The Living Dead" look like "Zombi 2".

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

BAD, really bad

Author: Maxsil from Sweden
22 July 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Seriously, the zombies in this movie is NOT Romero zombies, Romero zombies are DEAD that comes from the grave, they are afraid of fire and shamble slowly, they can only be killed with a head-shot.

in dawn of the dead (1978) they changed it from dead rising to an infection, but the zombies where still stupid and moved incredibly slowly.

But in this movie they completely changed it, now zombies work in teams, dragging people around, they also climb walls and run extremely fast trough virtually anything. And apparently the wounds zombies have just pops into them for no reason after infection.

What was fine with dawn of the dead was that the zombies where somewhat realistic, they moved slow (probably because of blood coagulating in their veins) they where stupid and didn't seem to notice each other.

In this movie they turn in a few minutes, and mutates into super-zombies sprinting like there's no tomorrow and climbing the walls in a suspiciously exorcist fashion, they also posses a certain degree of intelligence and work (as mentioned) in groups.

Well, enough complaining about the zombies, now it's time to complain about the characters and the plot, well most of the main characters are extremely annoying and do the normal clichés such as shambling around in dark rooms so that other people think their zombies, hiding their bites and looking at them all the time when they think no one's looking.

The plot is fine though, but what can you expect, the original was awesome, and this is a remake, so there is not much they can screw up in that aspect Otherwise, a pretty bad movie, it has it's moments though

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

life is just too short

Author: shotgun_mcguffin from Finland
16 December 2010

I had to stop watching this in its entirety, did some chapter-skipping, but in the end just stopped watching this altogether. I cannot think of a single reason to make this movie except that somebody hoped to make a quick, cheap buck by taking a ridiculous script and slapping the well known title Day of The Dead on it in hope that enough people will buy or rent the DVD, giving it a chance that it ultimately doesn't deserve. some people like to point out the low-budget, but many talented people have made incredible films with less or even next to nothing, so it is no excuse what so ever. I am willing to admit that i might be biased in the sense that i really love Romero's originals and that i don't really like running zombies at all, but that is in the end a matter of taste, and while Dawn of the Dead (2004) was a competent remake, this is, first of all, not even a remake, and it is a really terrible film. The actors do a terrible job although they don't have much of a choice with the even worse dialog. I don't know what went on in the editing room, i'm not sure i want to know, but whoever cut this thing did a worse job than most cheap exploitation flicks from the 70's. The fast running zombies (that are sometimes able to climb on the ceiling and jump 10 meters into the air, and for some reason, sometimes aren't) seem to have been made by pushing the forward button (seriously, check out the hospital scenes, they literally just fast-forwarded). This might have created a nightmarish effect had any mood been established at all, but alas, no this is utter s**t, and not worth watching at all, life is just too short.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Fodder for morons

Author: matthewhemmings from United Kingdom
23 August 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

"Oh, we are alive and running normally. Now we are dead, and can move like spiders across the ceiling at very high speed." If you like the sound of that, you will like this. If not, then I salute you.

This film was made by someone who'd seen zombies running along the ceiling at him in a video game and thought 'whoa, that's cool!' It may work in a game, but it doesn't here.

The characterisation was so dire as to be worthy of special mention. One example: "so it's a spear because I'm a black guy?" less then two minutes later "Yeah that was pretty gangster."

The plot started well enough then quite comfortably moved into the ludicrous. As if more proof of the game-playing origins of the script (by the way I love video games but I also Never confuse them with good film ideas) we have a 'super zombie' in the bunker.

This is a terrible film. I only hope that, in posting my review of it, I stop just one person from seeing it.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

how they dare to say Romero's name in vain?

Author: motoremi from United Kingdom
9 June 2010

to everyone that as seen at least 1 other zombie movie...we did need this? while i was watching this cr@p i was wondering how they dared to compare this shyt to the romero's movie?why even spend the money to do it?it didn't had any single original idea and they covered that saying "remake" but look at dawn of the dead(OK they had more money)..oh sorry they had a good idea,the 2 soldier that don't look like soldier that survive and the trained ones die?ridiculous,the woman and the black guy where though but then in the end he waste bullets just to be sure?sure of hitting something that need a sharp shooter to be stopped?and she lack of any attention a trained soldier would have in movement and tactic and she's an officer?

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Pathetic and Stupid

Author: Billy_Crash from United States
21 May 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Right from the beginning I was laughing at the utter lack of research that went into the entire military angle of the movie. Saying, "Yes, Ma'am" to a lowly corporal is ludicrous and to see military personnel heading into town alone and without any gear is just ridiculous.

Beyond that, the story is lame, weak and loaded with far too many coincidences - especially when in a town of thousands, the same few people keep miraculously run into each other.

Besides zombies having the ability to scale ceilings and move at vampire-fast speeds, these undead still harbored some intelligence - though I don't know why mom followed her son's voice to the radio station when she could have eaten anyone else around her. And I guess the zombies get remarkably dry inside since they can turn to ashes in an instant - and you can also thrust small knives through their skulls into their brains. Wow!

The biggest shock was to see Mena Suvari and Nick Cannon in this. Worst still, what was Ving Rhames thinking? "Dawn of the Dead" was the best Romero remake I've seen to date and Ving's appearance in the movie (along with the phenomenal Sarah Poley) was a perfect addition - but didn't Cannon, Suvari and Rhames read the script?

If Reddick had been a better writer and Miner a better director this may have been something worthwhile. Instead, it's not even worth watching for any reason.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

minus 1 out of ten

Author: mancunianfatman from Manchester, England
31 March 2010

There are no words that can describe the anger and disgust that this film will throw upon any hardcore fan of the original.the zombies are cheap looking, the stunts are cheap looking and ALL the "actors/actresses" make you cringe with their bad dialogue and over the top acting. if this was a real remake the story would be very familiar, but no, they even changed the dam story, which isn't necessarily a bad thing in some cases, but if you have seen the original they (survivors) are in a underground missile silo, in this one they are in a small town that I swear you could film a few episodes of Dawsons creek in. I mean.......the whole point of a remake is to modernise an old film with at least a similar story - dawn of the dead, chainsaw massacre, the hills have eyes, Friday the 13th all took the original films, stuck with the original story but modernised it, but this film doesn't even do this! I mean i can point out the similarities between this disgrace and Romeros original masterpiece in 2 sentences. Sarah and Rhodes are in this and a pussy zombie called bud ( apparently calling the zombie bub like in the original was far too complicated) and the missile silo is in it for the last 15 minutes when the survivors take refuge there. AND THATS IT.........THATS WHERE THE SIMILARITIES END!!!

Rhodes is portrayed by Ving Rhames, but instead of being a brilliant character like the old one, they just kill him off in the first half of the movie, my only guess is that Ving Rhames realised just how bad this film would turn out and begged that his character could be killed off as soon as possible. The zombie "Bud" is a (not joking here) VEGETARIAN!!! JUST SHOOT ME PLEASE, a vegetarian, why??? i would have been more satisfied if they just didn't include this character in the first place, but no!they took bub changed his name and made him to a vegetarian.....?????WHAT????.I HATE THIS FILM!!! There's even a scene where one of the zombies jumps on the ceiling and starts crawling.....seriously a zombie crawling on the ceiling, what were these people smoking when they came up with this idea???

i suppose what i first intended to write was a review, but it turned into an angry rant, but who can blame me?? honestly i mean this is such a kick in the balls to all the people who were looking forward to seeing a good decent remake like what they did with dawn of the dead but got this pile of puke. Any way , if you ever want to experience what it feels like to switch from a good mood to a suicidal mood in a matter of moments, watch this awful monstrosity, but if your a fan of the 1985 version then don't expect anything resembling a good movie.

BY Scott Dewhurst

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Eating your own skin is more entertaining

Author: EuroSpike from Australia
22 January 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

After watching this movie I tried to understand what went on when they were making it. If the people in charge had any passion or cared about what they were doing they wouldn't have released the movie in the state that it is in. The script and plot are such a mess and I was offended by the amount of mistakes and stupid things in the movie. Zombie climbing the ceiling? Vegetarian zombie??!! And zombies decaying instantly is stupid although not as stupid as a vegetarian zombie. What the f@!# is this was what I was thinking 30 minutes into this movie I paid $2 to rent. I felt like I had raped my DVD player after watching it. Given the choice I would rather brutally murder myself and have my mutilated body dumped in a swamp than give this any more than 1 star.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Day of the Dead??

Author: rn189307 from United States
7 December 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Are you kidding? Dawn of the Dead was such an entertaining flick, by no means an Oscar Winner but certainly a well thought out display of zombie gore and emotional interaction between likable and interesting characters.. Dawn of the Dead even ended well, paving the way for an intense sequel with a spoiler sneak peak of what's to come for the characters at the end of the movie. Day of the Dead is not that sequel.

Day of the Dead is almost laughably terrible. The acting is shallow and boring at best. Yes, Ving Rhames is in this, but somehow the producers managed to make Ving look amateurish and uncomfortable. Not only is Ving not the same character as he was in Dawn of the Dead but then they had the audacity to kill him off with the first thirty minutes and turn him into a pathetic, eye-eating, legless zombie.

The zombies look fake and in no way menacing. The editing is sloppy and choppy and quite frankly, by the end of the movie I was really just hoping to see all of the unintelligent main characters end up zombie feed. The only thing that saved this movie from making me really angry was the fact that I had it recorded it on DVR and I could fast forward through most of it and then have the satisfaction of hitting 'DELETE' when it was over.

Don't waste your time. Try again Steve Miner and Jeffrey Reddick.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 5 of 15: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [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