IMDb > Day of the Dead (2008) > 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 guidemessage board
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 More at IMDbPro »

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 7 of 14: [Prev][2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [Next]
Index 140 matching reviews (253 reviews in total) 

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:


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.

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:


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.

Author: grizzlor ( 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?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

A total hack job

Author: Syntania from United States
30 May 2008

This movie is nothing anywhere near the premise set up for any of the "of the dead" movies. Steve Miner has done his own movie here and placed the title of the Romero work to try and draw fans from the "of the dead" movies to see his hack job that he has done here. It was a total let down in ever form of the expression. Ving Rhames does not reprise his role from the Dawn of the Dead movie and most of the characters would never make it in any actual Romero movie. In my opinion do not rent this movie if you expect it to be of the caliber set by the Romero films. Anyone who has enjoyed the Romero films will be sorely disappointed by this film especially due to the addition of the spider-man zombies and yes believe it or not gun toting zombies firing at people. Steve Miner has lost total base with what Romero was trying to portrait in his of the dead series and he should go back and watch the original series if he is to ever take up another Romero film in trying to bring it up to date for the viewing audience. I hope this helps those thinking of renting this film much less buying it on DVD.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Disgrace to Romero

Author: nas179 ( from United States
23 May 2008

While this is not a remake of 1985s Day, the new version is a disgrace to the wonderfully crafted story lines of its predecessors. The new Day strays far from the roots of Romero's previous efforts and alters the entire view of a zombie movie. Sub-par acting, poor scripting, poor writing, and over the top makeup and special effects truly ruin an opportunity to update a "straight to video" classic in 1985s Day. Instead, the movie tries to violate all previous zombie efforts by countering every innovative idea in the past 40 years of zombie movie history. Fortunately, Romero only had his name tied to the movie as a reference for the story, and hopefully, others will learn from this excruciatingly painful take on a horror master's classic vision.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

A disgrace, an absolute disgrace.

Author: jcburns87 from United States
28 March 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This film is just a mess, there was no reason what so ever to even call this movie "Day of the Dead", as it has nothing to do with the original in the slightest bit. The quality of the script, the direction, the acting are all what you'd except from a film made by a cable channel. Romero's films had social context and underlying messages. This film says nothing about humans aside from the fact that they can't remake good films. Say what you will about zombie movies, but the few rules that zombie movies share, such as zombies not having the ability to do human things are not present here. One of the characters becomes a zombie and doesn't attack people because he's a vegetarian, a fact that is mentioned offhand in the beginning of the story. Also there are zombies driving cars and climbing walls. Don't waste your time with this garbage dump, if you've never seen the original "Day of the Dead", watch that instead. If you have seen the original "Day of the Dead" and want to see a remake, grab a few buddies and film one in the backyard because it'll turn out ten times better than this.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Don't choke on it just spit it out.

Author: cfjackson123 from Earth
29 October 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

A few points to start off. It's Poorly made, has terrible actors,and the plot is virtually nonexistent witch leads to a huge exposition scene at the end.

Now lets talk zombies. The zombies are capable of advanced acrobatics at one point one seems to jump a clear four feet to catch hold of a ventilation cover (there's someone on the other side crawling inside the vent.) While on the subject of the zombies something that actually had me laughing on the floor of my room was a transformation sequence in witch a man in a hospital bed instantaneously turns into a zombie his face rots and his eyes glaze over in about three seconds and before you know it he's eating his wife.

So amongst the vegetarian zombies(No seriously) The zombie out of the Matrix that dodges bullets in a corridor with four people firing at him and the fact that every zombie runs and fires weapons you have no fear of confusing this with the Romero classic, witch is probably the only good thing you can give this film.

Up points. Nice special effects that is literally all I can think of and they are no where near as good as Tom Savini's. I suppose the disk makes for a good coaster if you can't find somewhere to set your drink down, The two out of ten I've given it is extremely generous.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

DAY of the dead... at night?

Author: Apekiller
15 July 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The movie is very bad, and extremely predictable since it's full of cliché's. Also there are some loose ends.

On a side note, I don't see why it's classified as "horror/thriller" since it's clearly a Parody.

- the movie it's called "DAY of the dead" but the action goes on during NIGHT time;

- there's vegetarian zombie in the film who gets killed by the chief zombie for being a traitor;

- there are zombies with machine guns;

- the zombie outbreak starts in a god-forsaken town, where surprisingly enough is a secret military base where the outbreak started from;

- some of the military soldiers don't have any weapons, or carry weapons with no ammo in them;

- zombies explode when they get on fire;

- etc.

These just came to mind in 5 minutes or so. Felt like I wasted enough time watching the movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Day Of The Dreadful

Author: SteveResin from South Wales, UK
6 October 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Oh dear. I thought I'd give DOTD a chance, seeing as the remake of Dawn was decent. What a mistake. There are so many things wrong with this abomination I don't know where to begin. I'll try to keep it short or we'll be here all night. In fact I'll just stick to a few points. 1. The zombie movements - crawling around ceilings, jumping like Spiderman with a rattlesnake in his knickers, hurling themselves out of high windows and not even breaking bones, just getting up and running! Awful!!!! 2. The "Beautiful" factor, so typical of modern horror. One of the best things about Romeros original trilogy was the fact the protagonists were very "ordinary" looking, like run of the mill folk. Here we are expected to accept Mena Suvari as the karate-kicking, kick-ass heroine, an Army Corporal no less! Oh do me a favor, she looks about 13. Another massive gripe is the casting of Dr "Frankenstein" Logan, who is ridiculously handsome and looks like he's wandered off the set of Desperate Housewives and ended up here by mistake. Shocking! 3. Bub! - This was the biggest travesty of all. In the original movie, Bub was a fascinating character, subdued and passive, with no explanation to his temperament given or indeed needed, and the relationship between him and Logan was a highpoint. Here Bub is renamed Bud and is a dozy, annoying Army private who becomes somewhat passive after being bitten. He spends the next 30 minutes staring at Suvari's butt and swooning and the reason he has no desire to bite people? You sure you're ready for this? OK, don't say I didn't warn you... he doesn't bite people because before he turned into the walking dead he was a VEGETARIAN!!!!!!!! I scored this movie 2 out of 10, and I was being generous. Probably only suitable for the cerebrally challenged or teenagers. Or are they one and the same?

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 7 of 14: [Prev][2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

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