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 8 of 15: [Prev][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 2 people found the following review useful:

Disgrace to Romero

2/10
Author: nas179 (nateschuckers@gmail.com) 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.

2/10
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.

2/10
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?

2/10
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

2/10
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?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

The new breed of zombies

2/10
Author: kurdo_kolene from Bulgaria
11 May 2008

I think it's a pity that more and more titles get shoddy remakes, although i don't consider them remakes, but rather a rip-off of the name of a good movie, just to make people go to theaters to see the piece of garbage that someone has convinced people to produce and release. I mean, seeing the first 3 Alien movies again, just prior to watching this makes me think whether it would have been more suitable to have Xenomorphs instead of zombies in that particular situation, doing the same exact actions, but I guess we can't have 2 Alien movies being released about 6 months from one another. What I'm trying to say is what is the point of zombies when they are running and jumping and retaining their memories and intellect but still losing half their face, getting a pale complexion and being interested only in taking out and your guts? And oh, yeah, a VEGETERIAN ZOMBIE?!?Looking back, I think it's more suitable to call the antagonists of the movie "The Infected", since they're not really the creatures we git used to calling zombies. I mean the expression itself "You look as dead as a zombie" implies someone lifeless not firing a gun or driving a car or climbing up a ladder.And what about the moment in older zombie movies where people thought the zombies are their relatives and would discover they've been bitten not until they're 5ft away from them(or even closer) In this movie they were running and jumping so fast you barely have a chance to get to know what the hell is going on.The first 2 Resident Evil movies had proper zombies, and those movies are not that old, so why is the trend to make zombies do all that complicated stuff they do in this movie? There is no suspense, no proper freak-out moments, it's just carnage. Reminds me of (Oh, yes) AVP:R. And last but not least I think this film is in the wrong category because, as was the remake before it "Dawn Of The Dead" i see this movie not as a thriller or a horror, but rather like a dark comedy(especially the bits where the infected drag a corpse with them to finish it of later), and if there are people who think this is a real horror/thriller movie, that's a cause for concern.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Day of the Waste of Money

2/10
Author: dftwilight from United States
15 April 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This was not George Romero's "Day of the Dead". This movie does not even closely resemble the original and should have a different title altogether. The remake of "Dawn of the Dead" was a decent adaptation that was somewhat in line with the original (I emphasize "somewhat") but this flick is a different beast altogether. I really hope Romero did not sign off on this hunk of corn-filled poo.

What we have here is a low budget film and horrible screenplay that degrades and makes fun of the social commentary the original "Day of the Dead" possessed. Were the filmmakers even aware that the original was part of a trilogy (or quadrilogy if you count "Land of the Dead")? Apparently not as the zombie plague has not even struck yet when this newer version begins. In fact it's just contained in one small Colorado town! WTF?? Die-hard fans of this genre want world wide zombie apocalypse! The original "Day of the Dead" was more realistic with its Army references than this pile of trash. Mena Suvari (I doubt I spelled her name right) is totally unbelievable as a U.S. Army Corporal. In fact her corporal stripes are so large it looks like the wardrobe department found them on sale at Disneyland. Moving on, Nick Cannon's character makes fun of "Bud" because he's a new enlistee and bumbles around a lot. Hey, Nick! Guess what, you didn't have any stripes on your collar either so I guess you would be relatively new as well. Did the people who wrote this screenplay pull all of their Army references from "Sgt. Bilko"?? Pauly Shore's "In the Army Now" was more authentic. Jesus. Oh, and the fact that good ol' "Bud" keeps saying "Yes, Ma'am" to a junior non-commissioned officer is awesome. If anyone had said "Yes, sir" to me while I was in service, they would have immediately been corrected. You would say either "Yes, Corporal" or "Yes, Sergeant" not "Yes, sir or ma'am". And poor Ving Raimes. He at one point uttered that he didn't know what was going on. Well he should. He was in the previous remake of "Dawn of the Dead"!! Looks like he just needed a paycheck.

Speaking of more unrealistic moronic items, do most gun shops here in the U.S. carry automatic Kalashnikov AK-47s?? How come the 9mm's all sounded like they had silencers on them? When our fearless corporal drives through a bunch of zombies, there's not a spot of gore anywhere on the Hummer. And I mean nowhere and they had to have run down like 20 of the damn things!! Oh, and Army Hummers don't use keys or have doors that lock. Civilian Hummers do. What was the point of the fat radio DJ?? Why did people decay instantly when turning into a zombie?? Decay was just part of the natural process and evolution throughout the films. This was instant and frickin' dumb. How come everything everyone does is amazingly stupid??? Skip this film if you're going in looking for a remake similar to "Dawn of the Dead". This is NOT a remake. It is a zombie film with a different take on zombies and that's it. I gave it one point for some of the gore effects.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

A VERY Bad Make-Over

2/10
Author: Mike Foxx from United Kingdom
10 April 2008

I'm a big zombie movie fan, but I'm not a Romero purist who will only enjoy an offering from 'the master'! - If it's a good zombie movie then I'll certainly enjoy it, whoever made it.

I think the reason that I hated this movie so much was because I was looking forward to seeing it so much, I had such great expectations. I know some may say it's sacrilege, but I actually loved the re-make of Dawn of the Dead more than the original and I guess I was expecting the same sort of masterful make-over....how wrong I was.

I expect you have read other reviews so I need not mention 'spider-zombie' who crawls insect-like over the ceiling, or the fact that Bud (Bub?) remains a nice guy once becoming a zombie because he was a vegetarian, or that these zombie's are as combustible as a gasoline soaked rag should they come into contact with fire, or the fact that the moment you die, no matter what your condition, you suddenly look like a rotted, sore-infested monster!! Nor the fact that the CGI sucked, the plot was all over the place, it hardly resembled the original movie in any shape or form...Well, you get the idea.

All I'm saying is, if you're expecting Day of The Dead (2008) to be the kind of re-make that Dawn of The Dead was...Don't hold your breath or you will be as utterly & bitterly disappointed as I was.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Review: Day of the Dead 2008, very light spoilers

2/10
Author: geophyrd from North Woodmere, NY
2 April 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Well, I received a screener for Day of the Dead yesterday and watched it last night. I'll write the following and try to avoid spoilers but if it takes spoilers to make you decide not to watch the movie, then I'll give you spoilers.

First off, the cover art (zombie vomiting, eyeball in middle of mess)is deceptive. It never happened in the movie and would only have made it worse if it had.

This is NOT a remake of the Romero classic Day of the Dead. The zombies aren't zombies. They're infected, much like 28 Days/Weeks Later. Whatever they've got, they don't go into it much during the movie, just a trite ridiculous explanation and some graphics showing cells being infected.

Now, before I get into it, the good. The movie looks good. The DP did quite the competent job on it. Its well lit, the scenes are well composed and there are some very nice shots, particularly of sunset/sunrises over Colorado. OK, that's the good. I mean that ALL of the good. What they did with the movie was terrible.

The script is terrible but let's face it, scripts in zombie movies are less important than having a sense of story. I know they're supposed to go hand-in-hand but they don't alway. In this case, there seemed to be a lot of improvisation, a fair amount of after-the-shoot-is-wrapped ADR/story lines implanted. A good example is the 'hot girl' (I think that's how they identify her in the end credits) who decides to walk home through the woods. After about 20 shots of the tattoo around her belly button, she's attacked and pulled off screen. Wow. Rather than show the obligatory splash of blood to show something bad happens to her, a big wad of flesh is thrown into a puddle. Hey! Its the tattoo! And the bellybutton! The actors are fine, just not given much to work with. Mena Suvari (who is actually an excellent actress)is given a thankless task. I'm guessing she saw what Sarah Polley did in the Dawn remake and thought that was a plan. Having said that, its a little ridiculous that anyone expects her to kick arse and take names but that's the role. Hope she didn't thank anyone for it. What made Polley's part so much better was that she didn't kick ass. She was just trying to survive. Polley was good. Not Suvari's best work. Probably her worst.

AnnaLynne McCord, fresh off a stint of the now unwatchable Nip/Tuck. In the show, she is Portia Rossi's daughter who is Anally-Obsessed-Because-She-Wants-To-Be-A-Virgin (henceforth referred to a AOBSWTBAV which really doesn't seem shorter)and who poisons Julia by putting mercury in her fruit cake and serving her slices over the whole season. Heck, I've wanted to poison Julia more than a few times, but doesn't anyone in Hollywood know...NO ONE eats fruitcake. AnnaLynne looks good just standing around. She really is a beautiful girl but its a good thing that she can't act her way out of a bag; No one expects her to in this film. If the film had a more competent director, they'd have convinced her to at least skin off her clothes at some point and give the viewer something to see, something that Nip/Tuck's been trying to hint at all season.

Ving Rhames, also a fine actor, is mostly wasted. Just when I thought he was going to get kind of interesting, he vanished in the movie. Won't spoil what happens to him; Its already rotten.

The 'zombies' become infected and their eyes turn white. Their skin instantly becomes porous and shredded and they get hungry. They'll apparently eat anything. One of them grabs his own eye out and downs it. Its the Zombie Ourobourus. They also get superpowers. They jump, leap, crawl on ceilings. They jump out of buildings from four stories up and keep going. The film editors use a BS technique to make them scary where they accelerate their movements by 50% and then jumpcut their motion so, fast as they seem, they look like they're on top of you instantaneously. Its editing room nonsense, but that's the movie.

Summary: Walk, don't run, away from this movie. Do not pass it and decide to grab it in the pile of rentals. Do not buy it. Avoid it. There are some things that you can't unsee and there are some moments in life you'll never get back. Here's a gift. 1 1/2 hours to do anything you want...don't waste it on this dreck

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

This was a HUGE disappointment...:-(

2/10
Author: tonyasimons from Clearwater Florida
15 February 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Okay. Where do I begin? Well, let's start off with Steve Miner. Okay, as Donald trump would say, YOU'RE FIRED!!! The special effects crew, did the best that they could with such a low budget. (And trust me that is apparent.) This was nothing even closely resembling the original. NOTHING. This was not a way to pay homage to the great Mr. Romero, this was a requiem. I gave this 2 stars simply because it does have a lot of gore and such. I was deeply saddened by the lack of some of the central characters in the original. Where was Bubs? The mad scientist? The sneaky little homage to Stephen King. (If I even have to tell you about it, then you haven't seen the original enough.)Bubs was an important part of the movie. Romero was trying to say something to his audience. Instead, we are given a vegetarian zombie named Bud. Yes, I did say vegetarian zombie. :-( Maybe that was good for a chuckle, but come on, seriously. The lack of any true character building at all was missing as well. Instead of a bunch of maniacal military men taking over, instead we are given the military good guys, Mena Suvari. They weren't underground until the last 20 minutes or so of the movie. Again, a central theme in the original. Even as just another zombie movie, it would have been disappointing. True, Romero fans are going to be upset. I'm surprised that Romero himself isn't upset by this movie. Unless of course, he hasn't seen it yet. But to bill this as a Day of the dead remake is a joke. This movie is a disaster. This should have been a SciFi original. (They probably would have had a bigger budget..LOL.) My guess is that Mena and Nick did this for the paycheck. To be honest, I probably would have as well. However, as it stands this movie is a waste of time and a movie that should have went to a director that LOVES Romero, instead of one that is trying to get famous trying to do what Romero did and failed. He is now #2 of all time worst directors. (#1 of course is Ulli Lommel.)I hope that this was helpful to you.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 8 of 15: [Prev][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