IMDb > Day of the Dead (2008) > 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 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
Promotional
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:
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 14: [Prev][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [Next]
Index 135 matching reviews (249 reviews in total) 

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?

5 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Just not good.

2/10
Author: eronios from United States
12 February 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

***CONTAINS SPOILERS***

First off, I am a big fan of George Romero's. Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, Day of the Dead, and Land of the Dead (I have not seen Diary yet). I've seen all of the originals and enjoy them immensely. A good storyline and common sense driving the action makes a great zombie movie.

With that said...

This movie is a huge disappointment. First off, the character Nina must be bipolar to flip-flop as much as she does throughout the movie. First she's the scared girl who can't do anything for herself, then the bad-ass, then back to the scared girl, then back to the bad-ass. Terrible.

Secondly, the only two people I actually thought were at least half decent in their roles were Mena Suvari and Ving Rhames. The whole recognition thing is just a joke (you'll understand when you see it), but I'm not slamming the actors for that, the whole story is just bad and the plot mechanics are nearly missing. I honestly cannot tell what Jeffrey Reddick was thinking when making the screenplay.

Third, the special effects make up is a very nice touch, it really looks good. But the CGI special effects are, for lack of a better term, laughable. When you can tell the zombie who is lit on fire is standing in front of a black backdrop, the fire's light not even matching the bouncing light on the zombie, and the excruciatingly abrupt (and quite frankly, stupid) way they die just leaves a bad taste in your mouth. If you are trying to do some justice to the series, you either go all out (such as the remake of Dawn of the Dead) or rely on an actual stuntman sheathed in flames.

Fourth, the action is too predictable. Just like almost every single other zombie movie, one character fires off almost an entire clip into a zombie's chest, then another shoots it in the head and says, "You have to shoot 'em in the head!" It was necessary the first time it appeared in a movie, and understandable the second time...now it is just old and no longer needed at all. People understand that to kill a zombie, you sever the head from the body or shoot the head.

***** Watch out! MORE SPOILERS BELOW *****

The invincible 'never-need-to-reload gun' comes into play. The zombies can crawl along walls and ceilings, stock humvees are bullet-proof, and canisters of compressed, flammable gas don't launch backwards after being ignited (for every action there is an equal an opposite reaction, thank you for not watching Mythbusters, Reddick). Also, apparently nobody ever noticed the missile silos that were along a dirt road in the small, bumblescum town in Colorado.

I regret watching this movie. I honestly do. It's such an embarrassing addition to the zombie genre that they should not be called zombies anymore. They should be called 'Mr. McLeapyPants' and 'Mrs. ICanCrawlAlongTheCeiling'. And I can now tell why it is a straight-to-DVD movie, because this most certainly would flop at the box office.

Even to a hardcore zombie fan, I cannot recommend this film. The 2008 version of Day of the Dead is an embarrassment and there is next to nothing to enjoy, unless you like movies that have big guns and zombies and even that cannot save this film.

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 22 people found the following review useful:

pathetic

2/10
Author: Esken from Norway
12 February 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is one of the worst zombie-movies ever made i think. And i've seen many of em. I actually used to respect Steve Miner for his contribution to Lake Placid, Halloween and Friday the 13th 2+3. But this is by fare the most painful thing i've seen from him. Don't't talk bad about Uwe Boll's house of dead if you praise this. It's just as bad. Crappy acting from mediocre actors. And why on earth did Ving Rhames do this film? He's already done a zombie remake. "Dawn of the dead" which is a great film. Zack Snyder the director is of the new age. Miner is outdated in the horror-field. It's the new generation of directors job to make these films now. Look at The hills have eyes. Great film, great director. Look at the sequel. A script from Wes Craven, German director. It stank up the whole industry! It's a shame to say it, but maybe these guys should think about making other stuff? I am a big fan of Craven, but i'm also a big fan of horror. And these old guys aìn't giving it anymore. Day of the dead should have been a first-time director's job. Someone young and hungry for success. Miner is a great TV director. Hss made a lot of good shows. Stick to that.

I can't say how disappointed i was when i saw this. I love the original. Which had great gore. This remake was an embarrassment. cgi gore through the whole thing. If your making a zombie-movie. Make sure you can finance the gore first. That is what those movies are about.

To all. Stay clear of this very low quality film from an outdated director, bad actors and a pathetic production.

Sorry guys...

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 24 people found the following review useful:

Don't be fooled by the title - the trailer said it all

2/10
Author: weemonk from United Kingdom
11 February 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Calling all zombie fans....

One user has said this is the best zombie film since Planet Terror. Might be right as there has not been another since Planet Terror has there? or at least one with a moderately half decent budget.

Let's take this from the point of view of a what most people will want to know who like zombie films and hail George Romero as the master....is the film any good and how is Day of the Dead re-imagined from the original.

Remember when the DOTD remake came out and most of us all spat at the idea saying what a travesty? I for one thought I was proved vastly wrong. Zack Snyder took the basis of the original and re-interpreted the idea in what turned out to be an excellent film, on it's own merits. Good characters, good story, gore and a decent run time with a very nice budget. Let's not forget that DOTD remake revived mainstream zombie interest! Since then though it's been slightly down hill with some poor further attempts released. Even Land of the Dead wasn't that great (mainly due to studio interference)

So now we have Day of the Dead. Not really a remake of such but more a cash in to get our zombie juices flowing and gain interest. Let's make one thing clear, the only thing this has in common with the original is a few character names and zombies...and a military presence. Nothing further. This film is not a remake or re-interpretation, so don't get your hopes up.

Now, there are a fair few out there who didn't like the idea of running zombies when DOTD remake came out. If you didn't like that then you'll hate this. Not only do the zombies run they:

Jump - leap - run through windows - play dead (??) - drive cars - understand what's being said -(most importantly) THEY CAN CRAWL ON CEILINGS!!

Maybe someone thought this would be a great idea but I have this to say to that person....NO NO NO NO!!!!!

I keep referring to zombies. I find it difficult to see the zombies as 'zombies' though. They are more like crazed maniacs. Think 28 days later (which was not a zombie film people!). Also, remember how in zombie films zombies look how they do because they are rotting or because they have been eaten? Not really the case here. The virus (or whatever) turns people, makes a change at DNA level and makes their faces all strange and horrible looking.

The casting of this film is wrong, everyone is young, apart from Ving Rhames (why did he decide to have any part in this?). The cast don't have much to work with via the non-existent script and hence everything has a slightly diluted and cheap feel to it. There's plenty of gore but I honestly couldn't give a toss because I'd lost interest in the film after 30 minutes and just wanted to watch everyone die.

If you're going to watch this you MUST remember that this is not a remake and not a re-interpretation. This is a cash in, nothing more. It's no wonder the film has been sat on the shelves of the studio for a year now. They shouldn't have bothered releasing it.

In an ideal world, the impatient cash hungry studios would have waited for Zack to finish 300 and then signed him on to the project. I think Universal (or whoever had them) sold the rights on....probably because Zack wasn't available and they knew the movie would be crap.

We can now only hope and pray that George brings us back to where we should be with Diary of the Dead. If not, I fear the zombie revolution has come to an early end....again.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Bottom of the barrel

2/10
Author: TheMarwood from United States
18 June 2014

Steve Miner has never been a great director, but even his lousiest work is basically competent. This version of Day of the Dead is incompetent and looks like it killed his big screen directing career. The $18 million budget must have gone to someone's pocket, because not a penny of it is on screen. Calling this straight to video quality would be wrong, it's syfy channel TV movie quality. Was funding pulled during production? Was Miner fired? There has to be some explanation for the shoddy work on display. The acting is almost entirely terrible. Mena Suvari does her best to maintain her dignity and AnnaLynne McCord proves to have none. Besides McCord's rear, there's nothing of value in this stinker. Avoid.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Hmmm! Not my cup of tea I guess

2/10
Author: Aaron Takhar from Solihull, United Kingdom
9 December 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is not my kind of movie. I knew this but tried to ignore this train of negative thought and gave it a chance and resisted turning it off but I wish I did. It couldn't have been more stereotypical at the start as a zombie film; young teenagers, unnecessarily quick editing and dodgy mise-en-scene topped sadistically with over exaggerated diegetic sound. The minor characters are dismissed straight away. The movie developed more positively and had a flash of decent acting as Ving Rhames, came into the film.

The plot is about a government experiment gone wrong and is sketchy and lacks enough beneficial logic about the implications of it. The subsequent area is affected and hence quarantined, the movie follows the characters, in the town including a female soldier who takes charge by taking her sick mother to a now zombie infected hospital. She looks after her brother and his girlfriend and also another male soldier who is a private. This is probably the best thing about the movie, in that she is the one who takes action, and becomes decisive, rather than the usual stereotypical female who relies on the men. Maybe this is an oasis in the desert in terms of anything to like about this film. I'm not spoiling anything in saying that characters die, but what makes this movie so annoying is that they respond to their families being violently mauled, maimed to death the same way as if your team loses a match, or your favorite meal is out of stock at a restaurant. Most of the characters are subsequently two dimensional at best, maybe it is the absence of true directing from Steve Miner, which makes this movie so bad, the camera angles don't have enough to either create fear or sympathy, they are not involved enough. The special effects are also terrible, although I admire the indie low budget vibe, it can't always work when movies like this attempt to over shock with gore.

Maybe it is just because I am not a big fan of gore. To be fair a few days before watching this movie I watched maybe the best horror film of all time, "The Shining". The bar was pretty high I learnt a lot from comparing the two about how gore is not always what makes a film scary but it's more the editing and sound which makes it scary or not. Both are sadly lacking in "Day of the Dead".

Another reason why the characters ruined the film was not the script but more the fact that I didn't like them. They have their moments but they are too set in their ways to deserve liking. I didn't really care about the ending and whether or not they survived. This is the contributing factor in me not liking this movie. I am not saying this is the worst movie ever made; there are positive aspects, which will certainly be enjoyed for fans of zombie horror. This is also an alright movie when you just want an entertaining thrill ride, something not too taxing, but if you're in the mood for class this is not the movie to watch.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 3 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?


Page 8 of 14: [Prev][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