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 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 (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 9 of 15: [Prev][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [Next]
Index 142 matching reviews (258 reviews in total) 

5 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Just not good.

Author: eronios from United States
12 February 2008

*** This review may contain 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 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:


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

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 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:

Hmmm! Not my cup of tea I guess

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:

Crap, just crap

Author: hubble_no_1 from Sweden
22 June 2009

Have you ever wanted to like a film, just so you can keep liking the genre? I truly enjoy zombie-humor-cliché-flicks, but this one is just plain stupid.

If you don't believe me enough not to look at this crap, just lean back and prepare yourself for 1 hour and 21 minutes of: bad effects, stupid lines, horrible acting, plot holes the size of Jupiter and impossible physics.

I do like the fact that the filmmakers are trying to renew how the zombies interact with the living and each other. But the way they do it in this film, nah... watch the classic DotD instead.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:


Author: movieman_kev from United States
8 February 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

A Colorado town is quarantined (by one of the most ineffectual portrayals of the Army that I've seen in awhile) after people start turning into zombies due to a virus created by a government screw-up. Hometown girl, Sarah (Mena Suvari) and her fellow soldiers try their darnedest to get out alive.

Not so much a re-make of "Day of the Dead" as much as a defecation on it. It's hard to like a film that's so insanely stupid. We get a soldier who refuses to carry a loaded weapon, undead who can walk on ceilings, a vegetarian zombie, a bad performance by Mr. Mariah Carrey & a lame as hell 'scare' ending. However the biggest travesty of all is you get one of the writer of "Final Destination" & the Director of the great 80's horror/comedy "House", and you get THIS???!!? Wow.

My Grade: D-

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Probably the worst zombie movie I'll ever see.

Author: jdollak from United States
9 April 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I'm surprisingly forgiving of zombie movies. I enjoy the Return of the Living Dead movies on a certain level. I didn't even mind Children of the Living Dead. But this movie is on approximately the same level as House of the Dead.

The problems with this movie aren't limited to just the script, which is pretty poor. First of all, Nick Cannon's character has slipped into self-parody. Second of all, there are threads created that are never resolved, and not even in a likable way. Notice all of the references to her gun being unloaded, and that "it's complicated?" This is not funny to use it as a gag. It's not a joke - it's just poor writing. The bigger problem is with directorial choices. Steve Miner has directed some fun movies, (notably Warlock and House) but he appears to be trying to channel Uwe Boll's style with this one. Immediately after leaving the hospital, there is a fight sequence that involves randomly changing up slow motion and fast motion. This is both irritating to watch, but absurdly comical as well. It's hard to take the dead as a threat when they are acting like they limp, but are moving about 1.5 times as fast as normal humans. After the group finishes off a slew of dead, the zombies from the hospital all decide to simultaneously jump out of their respective windows to attack our heroes. If this were a musical, I would probably think this was a good directorial choice. But it's a horror movie, and some semblance of realism goes a long way to making it scary.

There are lots of silly things like this throughout the production.

I watched Flight of the Dead, and didn't feel as bad about that movie as I did about this one.

Perhaps the movie would be more acceptable with a different title? The movie has two things to do with the original. First, they have some of the same character names. Second, there is an underground military bunker. But for some reason, the bunker reminds me more of Resident Evil than Day of the Dead.

Part of the reason that the original was titled Day of the Dead is that the plague has reached a point where the dead are the dominate species. This movie deals with what appears to be an isolated outbreak in a Colorado town.

I don't think I could say enough to persuade people that this isn't worth seeing. But that isn't true. It is entirely worth seeing, since it makes us feel like we could make a movie.

(Note - I only rated this two stars because I've got a soft spot for zombies of all types, even spider-man ones.)

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 13 people found the following review useful:


Author: gbojar from United States
14 February 2008

This movie was HORRIBLE! The only reason I gave it a 2 is for the somewhat good gore factor ... That's it. Awful acting, the zombies were a cross between spider-man and EVERY ghost in the endless stream of Japanese horror remakes as they have the super ability to crawl on walls and ceilings. Mena Suvari as the tough military girl just didn't cut it either. I think after this atrocity in film making she will be lucky to land supporting rolls in Sci-Fi originals for the remainder of her career. There was absolutely nothing original about this film. Just another sub-par movie trying to capitalize on a legendary title. I hope George Romero never sees this piece of garbage.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Bottom of the barrel

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 4 people found the following review useful:


Author: koomy from United Kingdom
16 November 2010

I was a bit hesitant to watch this but I liked the modern remake of 'Dawn of the Dead' so thought I'd give it a go as I was interested to see a modern take on the original's plot.

Despite the name, this film has nothing to do with the original.Instead you have the standard 'army sealing off a small town' plot, but despite a miscast Mena Suvari as a army general(!) and annoying stereotypical black guy it still looked like it had potential. This all disappeared as soon as the zombies turned up. There seemed to be no internal logic; is it airborne or passed on by bites?, why does everyone change at the same time?, why do people go from normal to covered in open sores in a split second?, why are zombies not only running but jumping about like the modern version of vampires?

By the end it was like watching a film based on a video game, and a bad one at that. Avoid.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 9 of 15: [Prev][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