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 142 matching reviews (259 reviews in total) 

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?

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Not A Good Day

Author: Derek Rushlow from United States
14 July 2008

This has to be one of those remakes that makes you cringe every time you think of the original while you watch it.

A mysterious virus plagues a small Colorado town, and the Army is called in to retain order and quarantine the area. What they don't know is that the virus will soon turn those who are infected into bloodthirsty zombies who, frankly, seem to have more energy than a talented gymnast.

While these zombies run, jump real high and scale ceilings to capture their victims, a small group of people band together and try to fight them off while fleeing at the same time.

A talented cast (Mena Suvari, Ving Rhames, Stark Sands, Michael Welch and Ian McNeice) is wasted, despite a few good lines. Regardless, rent the George A. Romero original.

Filmed in Bolgaria, but oddly looks like Colorado.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

don't wast your time.

Author: TwiceLifeTobey from United States
1 April 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

There's nothing to watch on this thing. I got a copy of it at Texas Frightmare a couple months ago, and man it stinks. Is it a remake of the original? If so it is the worst remake ever. first off they try to explain it as a viral infection and then it goes into an underground base. STUPID.

and whats going on with the wall crawling zombie?!?!!! (yelling cause IMDb won't allow me to caps) spider zombie?!?!!! dumbest thing ever and i hate it. i hate this movie. it stinks. my dog carl and i were playing catch and i pretended it was a stick and threw it. he wouldn't fetch the DVD.

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