IMDb > Day of the Dead (2008) (V) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Day of the Dead
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
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
Promotional
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:
Interleaved...
Reviews from users who voted this title less than 4.5.
Reviews from users who voted this title less than 4.5.
Page 6 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) 

2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Honestly, A Very Bad Movie

1/10
Author: kenmyersproject from United States
20 March 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I truly enjoyed the George Romero zombie flicks and am very disappointed when some rookie director comes up with a 'remake' of one of the master's titles. A rookie in the sense of trying to capture the dark, gritty, viciousness of the zombie epidemic as envisioned by Romero in his earlier films. Steve Miner has directed episodes of Dawson's Creek, (which explains some of this film's truly boring dialog and Ken and Barbie type characters)and Smallville (which has effectively turned Superman into a soap opera).What Miner has done here is show us that he can capture all of the plot lines, and zombie behavior previously shown in a dozen zombie flicks, put Mena Suvari (of American Beauty) in the lead and make a horrible horror movie.

While this film might appeal to young folks who don't understand the art as developed by Romero, those who do will undoubtedly turn away from this one after the first half hour. It only takes that long to get an idea of the poor characters. Suvari plays an army Corporal (who carries a gun with no bullets. Why even pull it out?) Ving Rhames has a small part, perhaps wise enough to not stick around. Suvari's character is remarkably calm in the face of danger despite her seemingly bad decision making. The rest of the cast are like refugees from a Dawson's Creek episode.

The zombies seem to do extraordinary things one moment (like crawl on ceilings and run real fast), but when it comes to attacking the lead actors they seem inept.

Suvari's character wants to keep a colleague-turned-zombie around amongst the fleeing survivors. Why? She barely knew the guy.

This picture doesn't do any justice to the zombie film genre. it ranks down there with the very low budget. The title was used to possibly draw attention to it's existence, nothing more.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 19 people found the following review useful:

this is an insult to many horror fans!

1/10
Author: redeyenight from Ireland
11 February 2008

super human undead! this film high jacks the title from a classic and completely fails at every level.its a joke of a film, does nobody get what Romero's doing with his films? slow building inevitable doom, cabin fever, insanity, lawlessness, greed, panic, power, racism, loneliness, sadness and human error are all missing from the remake . the zombies help to instill these feelings but their not essential in these flicks, assault on precinct 13, mad max and omega man are nearer to day of the dead than the remake is! it fails super badly at everything! avoid at all cost! I'm looking forward to diary of the dead 1. just hope Romero puts a stop to these high jacking time waister's!

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Honestly, a rotten pile of garbage

1/10
Author: Captain-Rhodes
23 December 2013

When I heard that Day of the Dead was being remade, the mere thought sounded absurd. I mean that is one of, if not THE BEST zombie films of all time! But you never know, could be interesting, right? Like the Dawn of the Dead remake? Wrong.

This is honestly the most boringly awful "zombie" "film" (I used these two terms VERY loosely here) I have ever seen, and I watch all I can find.

Even if you try to pretend this movie has nothing in common with the original, it's still beyond atrocious. Not even remotely half-way through this movie I was craving for it to be over.

The actors who portray characters-in-name-only of the ones from the original film, are pretty mediocre. Ving Rhames' presence could have been good considering how great he was in the Dawn of the Dead remake, but even he couldn't save this mess.

The movie seemed very anti-climactic throughout with a very boring and forgettable score. Terrible CGI, terrible gore, etc.

This "movie" isn't even worth an in-depth review, because it seems they didn't even put in a decent amount of effort.

Avoid this movie like a horde of zombies. Watch the original Day of the Dead (1985) instead, as well as Night of the Living Dead (1968) and Dawn of the Dead (1978).

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

The Truth

1/10
Author: mrabundant from United States
20 July 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie is a complete piece of s#*%. Don't watch it. This movie is a complete piece of s#*%. Don't watch it. This movie is a complete piece of s#*%. Don't watch it. This movie is a complete piece of s#*%. Don't watch it. This movie is a complete piece of s#*%. Don't watch it. This movie is a complete piece of s#*%. Don't watch it. This movie is a complete piece of s#*%. Don't watch it. This movie is a complete piece of s#*%. Don't watch it. This movie is a complete piece of s#*%. Don't watch it. This movie is a complete piece of s#*%. Don't watch it. This movie is a complete piece of s#*%. Don't watch it. This movie is a complete piece of s#*%. Don't watch it. This movie is a complete piece of s#*%. Don't watch it. This movie is a complete piece of s#*%. Don't watch it. This movie is a complete piece of s#*%. Don't watch it. This movie is a complete piece of s#*%. Don't watch it. This movie is a complete piece of s#*%. Don't watch it. This movie is a complete piece of s#*%. Don't watch it. This movie is a complete piece of s#*%. Don't watch it. This movie is a complete piece of s#*%. Don't watch it. This movie is a complete piece of s#*%. Don't watch it. This movie is a complete piece of s#*%. Don't watch it. This movie is a complete piece of s#*%. Don't watch it. This movie is a complete piece of s#*%. Don't watch it. This movie is a complete piece of s#*%. Don't watch it.

Was the above review useful to you?

37 out of 54 people found the following review useful:

Oh dear oh dear oh dear

2/10
Author: johnd-78 from United Kingdom
12 February 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

In the case of this movie, re-making Day of the Dead means stealing the title and some character names.

Its truly awful. There plot is non existent, the acting poor and the characters inconsistent. The zombies look quite good, but are more like rabid humans. This is one of those zombie movies that changes the characteristics of the zombies to suite the scenes. Mostly its just rabid, insane 28 days later type movements. Oh but they can sometimes walk on walls and ceilings (how? why?). Oh and listen to radios and understand what is being said. The Bub character is ridiculously used in the plot. One of the soldiers is infected, turns into a zombie, but they decide to keep him around and drive around with him in the car, because he might be useful. Thats right, they pile into the back seats and he is sat in the middle of them. Zombies throwing themselves at the car, everyone screaming, but the one I am sat next to? No problem! The final scenes are just ridiculous and I felt that at this point they had run out of ideas so they made it up as they went along. One line summed the whole movie up for me. They discovered that one of the scientists who worked on the project that started the virus has now become a zombie and is in the complex they are in. A colleague of his says 'If what you said about them retaining some of what they were is true, then we are so f*cked'.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Dreadful, silly and a dash retarded

2/10
Author: philipop from Denmark
17 October 2009

Despite sharing its title with Romero's 1985 cult film "Day of the Dead" this movie has no connection with the old classic. As quite a fan of anything post-apocalyptic and favorably zombie-infested, I decided to give it a go anyway.

In sum everything seems to have gone awry with this movie. The script is full of gaping plot-holes, and if this is not insulting in itself, add poor acting to an emotionally implausible script (e.g. after watching his zombie-mother be splattered by a Humvee one character remains in a rather jolly mood), and painfully cliché stereotypes (the token "gangster" black guy wielding a makeshift bone saw-taped-to-a-broom scythe with ninja-like precision) defying the laws of physics.

My personal favorite is the wall-scaling spider zombies, which move about with superhuman speed... ofc except when attempting a go at our protagonists. Oh yeah, and then there is the gun firing zombies, and the empathic zombie, who happens to be so forcefully in love with the protagonist that he overcomes his zombie-hood, and collaborates with the band of survivors - lets not give too much thought to the point that they've met each other approximately half a day prior to zombie-transformation.

In so many words: this movie is thoroughly retarded

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Really?

2/10
Author: danielsholt from United States
18 April 2008

All I can say is, "Really?" People, please quit turning Romero's work into this crap. The Dawn of the Dead movie was done well, it was a decent budget, decent conversion of the script, decent acting, and was pretty entertaining. The main thing about it; besides budget, script, and actors, was that the most engrossing and thrilling part of Romero's work; the feeling of survival in isolated, outnumbered, globally terrifying situations. People enjoy watching a movie about survival in this element, you constantly wonder what you would do in the situation. Day of the Dead was not the same kind of movie at all, the original was a heck of a lot better and it was kind of lame. They used the same crummy cheap horror movie equations for this movie they use for all of the really bad, mass produced, bargain bin horror videos made for a quick buck. They are kind of an insult to anyone's intelligence, there's the cliché "young persons making out in a shack in the woods and hear something and get attacked while you only hear noises then see blood then cut scene" scenario, the "person who wanted to get away from her small town only to find out she missed it and wanted to save it" scenario, I could go on and on but it was not at all what Romero wrote about. Please, just make your cheap, crappy, cliché horror movies but leave Romero's zombies out of it, just keeping using the vengeful ghost or teenagers in a cabin for a weekend plots.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Enough to make George A Romero cry.

2/10
Author: stitch_groover from Australia
1 August 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Let's start with an important disclaimer - I'm pretty generous when it comes to scoring a film. I like good films and score accordingly, and I like bad films if they're entertaining enough, and score accordingly.

When it comes to the Day of the Dead remake, my scoring system goes out the window. I normally score movies by the feeling they leave me with. The films I can watch over and over (Secrets and lies, Dawn of the dead remake) I'll score highly. Films like "8mm" or "Random Hearts" that either grossed me out or sent me to sleep will score low. But with this film, I actually had to start at 0 - and add points for things I liked.

So... I gave the film 2 out of 10. Half a point just for featuring Ving Rhames, even if it was to trick people into thinking this was a real sequel to "Dawn of the dead 2004". Half a point for "Bud", the cutest zombie this side of the apocalypse, and a nice little shout out to "Bub" from the original film. I gave one whole point, believe it or not, for AnnaLynne "Drunkface" McCorde. I thought she made a cool zombie killing chick. And it's not coz she's a hot chick either, I'm one of those gay homosexuals, so that had no influence on me.

The majority of the film unfortunately was fairly ridiculous. I don't have a problem with fast moving zombies (as I said I love the Dawn remake, and the 28 Later films)... however the zombies in this film were sped up to Keystone Cops level.

I thought it was silly that the infected people instantly seemed to rot away as soon as the virus zombified them, it just didn't make sense. Also the fact they could seem to defy gravity by crawling on walls and ceilings also detracted from the enjoyment of the film.

Overall, a disappointment. With some luck, George A Romero will return as a zombie upon his death.... and dismember the people responsible for this mess.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Atrocious

2/10
Author: rabidwolf417 from United States
3 April 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I just watched this last night and I couldn't believe what I was watching. Here are some of the major problems I found with it:

1. Zombie infection only affects people randomly. The excuse, the scientist says some people have a natural immunity but once bitten they're infected. We find this out later in the movie.

2. Ving Rhames eating his eyeball made me laugh.

3. A zombie hides under a corpse.

4. A zombie crawls on the ceiling.

5. Mena has no bullets in her gun. When asked why her response is "It's complicated."

6. Nick Cannon can not act.

7. The zombies move weird.

8. Zombies disintegrate when lit on fire.

9. The Mother of Mena and her brother can understand the radio, even though she's a zombie.

10. Zombies use mops and other objects to hit ventilation shaft. Since when can zombies use tools?

11. There is vegetarian zombie that they keep around after.

12. Zombies use machine guns.

13. A zombie climbs a fire escape ladder.

14. Nose bleeds, random nose bleeds, why? See my first point.

I gave this 2 because of the production value and set. Apparently, they could afford costumes, make-up, special effects, CGI, and military vehicles and set locations. But apparently they couldn't get script writing or directing or editing. I hated some of those shaky camera shots.

I liked the locations: Military facility, Hospital, Radio station, etc. Only if Snyder had directed this along with the writers of Dawn of the Dead 2004. (Which rocked), things could have been better. The locations could have worked if they set it back in Milwaukee and had this at the Day of the outbreak or the following day. We could have seen some survivors at Fort Pastor, or the Hospital where Ana worked. They then could have added the radio station and maybe some people trapped in their houses and even some still on the street.

This movie was a disgrace.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Calling this a remake of Day of the Dead is like calling American Pie 4 a remake of Animal House.

2/10
Author: grizzlor (andy.hull@gmail.com) from Toronto, Ontario, Canada
26 November 2008

Beware! This poor excuse for a movie is neither a remake of George A. Romero's Day of the Dead, nor is it a sequel to the decent remake of Dawn of the Dead. Oh sure, people who like it and the director himself will tell you it's a remake of the classic, but not a single speck of the original remains. Instead, it is another "for dumb teens only" horror picture that lacks any real scares, is laden with awful clichés and ultimately fails because it bares the name and thus, seemingly tries to live up to the standards set by the infinitely better "original". The producers saw the opportunity to put a big name on a small (figuratively speaking) movie in efforts to grab some cash and did so without any regard for how it would effect the finished product.

This film is awful, make no mistake - but had it not set people up to see a remake of a classic it may have passed at least as a mildly entertaining failure as opposed to a total waste of time that is offensive to it's own genre. This is where you find the divide amongst IMDb forum users, horror/zombie fans who hate it and regular people who didn't seem to mind it. That being said, one quote from the message boards rings true for everyone, "Enjoy it all you want but this is NOT a good movie."

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 6 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