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 guide
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 10 of 15: [Prev][5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [Next]
Index 142 matching reviews (259 reviews in total) 

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

What's Romero got to do with anything?

Author: Coventry from the Draconian Swamp of Unholy Souls
26 October 2008

Zombie movies are more popular than ever since the beginning of the new Millennium, and we particularly notice an undeniable revival of George A. Romero's legendary trilogy of the dead. The Man himself released two more genuine sequels to his own franchise ("Land of the Dead" and "Diary of the Dead", which can't live up to the older movies but are still very much worth checking out) and no less than two of the three original classics already received modern makeovers. Actually, they aren't prototypic remakes to be honest. Zack Snyder added a lot of personalized style and ideas to his interpretation of "Dawn of the Dead" in 2004 and, well, to link this straight-to-video reworking of "Day of the Dead" to Romero's legacy would be blasphemous and a complete disgrace. This isn't a remake of the brilliant 80's milestone, but a mundane and inconspicuous splatter B-movie that simply needed an eye-catching gimmick in order not to dive into oblivion straight away. So what they did here was steal the title and borrow a couple of story elements from Romero's film (like the obedient zombie and the underground laboratory), but otherwise this is just a lame and uninspired zombie movie like there are thirteen in a dozen nowadays. Nearly the entire population of a small Colorado town overnight becomes infected with a hideous virus that causes their bodies to rapidly decompose and inflicts an insatiable hunger for human flesh. The army is called in and young soldier Sarah Bowman, who's from around the area, discovers a link with scientific experiments that took place in an abandoned factory nearby. There's absolutely nothing original about "Day of the Dead", unless you consider a vegetarian zombie to be innovative. To me, that was simply the most ridiculous and embarrassing moment of the entire movie. The CGI-effects look horrible and this is yet another film that doesn't comprehend that zombies need to move slowly in order to look menacing! The rotting cadavers here run faster than African athletes and, for some reason, they can even walk upside down on the ceiling! I mean, were they actually trying to make the movie look stupid? Just trying to imagine Mena Suvari as a hard-boiled and stern army girl is already impossible and, even though his name parades on the DVD-cover in thick bold letters, Ving Rhames' role as Captain Rhodes is hardly more than a cameo. That was perhaps the biggest disappointment of all, since the Captain Rhodes character of the original movie is one of the notorious "bad guys" in the history of horror. This is by far the worst thing Steve Miner ever got associated with. Otherwise he's the respectable director of several modest competent horror movies, like "Friday the Thirteenth Parts 2 and 3", "Warlock", "House" and "Lake Placid".

Was the above review useful to you?

15 out of 28 people found the following review useful:

What a waste of time

Author: kaput450 from United States
26 April 2008

I give this piece of crap a 3 for cool head explosions and the big fat DJ guy. Otherwise this is a huge waste of time. No zombie rules are followed and everyone gets zombified way too quick. I had to keep watching it until the end because it was so rediculas. I did not like anyone in this movie and it would have been great if they all died. I have to keep saying things about this to make the quota but please avoid this show at all costs. My favorite quote in the movie was "Bleach kills almost everything" Everybody who has ever seen a zombie movie knows that bleach will not cure a zombie. Low rent piece of junk. I want my free rental fee back. Thats how bad it is!

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Bad on so many levels...

Author: dunxy from Australia
17 October 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Well i must say that the original day is one of my all time favourite movies of all time, i never thought this current "re-hash" was ever going to come close, just as i didn't expect the recent dawn re-make to be up to scratch, it was however infinitely better than this.

I truly found myself coming very close to using the FF button during this movie as i found it that boring and poorly made. To summarize.

1.The spider man like behavior of many of the zombies, plain retarded.

2.The instant a person enters the "zombie state" they look like they they have been dead and decomposing for weeks, this happens in mere frames! 3.Overuse of very poor quality CGI.

4.None of the gun sounds are close to realistic,i don't know if they are using uber low charge blanks or what, but all the weapons sound like cap guns.

5.Un-millitary like behavior from supposed soldiers.

6.Un realistic weapon physics,most notably full automatic firing of an ak-47 like gun (pilfered from gun store) with one hand fully out stretched arm, try that in real life... Of note do they even sell fully automatic rifles like this in gun stores int he USA? They also managed to get an UZI from same gun store, i don't live in the USA but I'm pretty sure they are not sold in gun stores.

7.I have to mention the lack of ANY visible substance coming from the "missle engines" after they break the ends off, i think somebody forgot to add these effects in.Rapid release of any highly compressed gas will be visible.Nore is there any audible sound again WRONG.

Even a very poorly made re-make of the original movie, or the original full script (which i hoped is what this movie would have been) would have been a whole lot better.I cant think of anything positive at all about it.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Remake Mania: Day of the Dead

Author: Miyagis_Sweaty_wifebeater ( from Sacramento, CA
27 February 2009

Day of the Dead (2008) has finally been released on DVD. After several delays and reshoots, the movie went straight to video after an aborted theatrical release. After the long wait of seeing this movie, I was very disappointed. I was expecting a more faithful remake with plenty of Ving Rhames playing himself. What I got was a retread of 28 days Later and bad acting and directing.

If you're really into zombie movies then you'll like this one but if you're a George A. Romero fan then you might want to pass on this one. Ving Rhames role was cool but I expected a lot more from the rest of the cast.

Not recommended

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

frankly a mess

Author: jadflack from United Kingdom
4 January 2009

Flu like virus hits a town and turns it's victims into flesh eating zombies, small band of survivors fight to survive. Quite frankly, this is a senseless insult to the excellent " Living Dead" films of George A Romero from director Steve Miner.Here the zombies are fast moving, can walk on ceilings, can jump, and have signs of intelligence. I suppose it's an attempt at a different approach at zombies but it doesn't work. Film has a short running time and so skimps on everything including the ending.People moaned about " House Of The Dead"?This is worse, a couple of OK moments but film is not good, and has little to do with the 1985 zombie classic of the same name.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Total Crap

Author: erostew from Canada
8 June 2008

I'm not even sure where to begin to comment on the crapfest that is "Day of the Dead". I put that title in quotes because the only thing this movie has in common with the movie that it is supposed to be a remake of is a part of one character. Yes Bud the zombie from the original gets something of a reprise.

I thought going in that it would be fun to see a remake of the movie that is arguably the weakest in George Romero's original 3 movies. I was wrong. Given a bigger budget and modern special effects how could you possibly make a movie that looks worse than a film that was made for about 14 dollars? The makeup effects were pitiful and unimpressive and looked fake. The gore effects were unimpressive and looked fake. The cinematography was terrible. The cgi was just plain stupid as well as unimpressive and fake.

The worst part of this movie was the script closely followed by the direction. The original movie was a sequel and built on what had come before it. This "script" is written as a complete standalone. The whole zombie outbreak begins in this movie and the script tries to come up with a plausible explanation. Well the explanation was just plain lame. It's been done before and done better. The original didn't really try to explain how the zombie plague came to be. It was an unknown and used to good effect that way. Trying to explain it just takes away from the suspense. Not that there was any real suspense in this movie anyway. I'm not even going to go into the plot holes. I'll just say that suspension of disbelief is possible in some movies but this one needs you to be brain-damaged to believe any of it. And I'm sorry for implying that a brain-damaged person might like it. Can anyone explain to me why these zombies burn up like vampires in the sun at the slightest touch of fire? Were they all alcoholics with too much booze in their blood? Why do they run around like super-zombies one minute and then shuffle around looking at nothing the next?

So on top of the lame script we have Steve Miner's lame attempt at directing. All the crowd zombie scenes were done in such a way that it didn't really look like what it was supposed to be. It could have been drunken sports fans after their team lost a big game. It was all dark and shot from a distance for the most part. Miner is just lame enough to throw in some occasional camera shake and slow motion in an attempt to make it look "cool". Combine that with the shoddy cgi and it's really just irritating. Every single thing in this lame attempt has been done before and been done better.

And here's the thing that's really stupid. This is another zombie movie without zombies. The dead don't come to life and crawl out of their graves. Instead 75% of the town turns into "zombies" at the same time and starts eating the other 25%. Unlike the Dawn of the Dead remake, which this thing tries to emulate in part, it isn't a slow process. Unlike 28 Days Later, which it also seems to try to emulate a bit, the process isn't fast. It's fairly slow. Except when it's fast. And apparently even though it's a virus, the people that are "naturally immune" to the virus can get covered in blood and guts but don't become infected unless they are bitten. Except that they sometimes do. Oh and there's a "boss zombie" who is faster and smarter than the other zombies because he was the head scientist on this project, see? In other words this crapfest doesn't even stay true to it's own premise and keeps contradicting itself. So what we end up with is a zombie move without zombies, a horror film without horror and a remake that isn't a remake. All they did was take the title of a movie with a built in fanbase and try to trick them into seeing this piece of crap which unsuccessfully tries to ripoff other movies.

The ONLY bright point in this thing was Mena Suvari. Unlike a lot of others I thought she did a pretty decent job. Unfortunately for her, her character was just as badly written as the rest of this "movie".

Stay away!

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Oh, no they didn't. The ultimate deception!

Author: DaynaSu from New Hampshire
31 May 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I love zombie movies, and as far as I'm concerned, the cheesier the better as long as there is plentiful gore to go along with it.

In the video store, I read the DVD cover and thought that even though I hadn't heard anything about it, it had to be good because Ving Rhames was in it. And Mena Suvari. These are two well-respected actors, and so this was going to be an AWESOME zombie movie! Argh...what a let-down! My husband and I were both shocked at the quickness with which Ving Rhames' character was killed off. We were positive he was going to be brought back to life as an all-powerful zombie, but he wasn't. It was sad. Are things that bad for Ving that he needed to take a role in the most horribly done zombie movie EVER??? This was not a good film for Mena Suvari, either. While she is usually a capable actress, her performance in this film was very flat. There was nothing redeeming about it.

I felt cheated by this movie. It was a waste of time. I hope Diary of the Dead is better!

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

What The F*@#!

Author: wakcedout81 from United States
26 May 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

well first off giving this movie a 3 out of 10 is being nice from what i have seen of it so far, not being finished and what i have read here. when i picked it up to rent along with diary of the dead my first thought was awesome maybe the same guys who remade dawn decided to give day a shot. i honestly never liked the speed of the zombies in the new version of dawn of the dead but as it stuck mostly to the original story line i was OK with it. After seeing the opening for this supposed remake of day of the dead, i had already determined that they had fallen far from the original story line. *(spoiler of original) In the original day of the dead made by George A. Romero the world had already been overrun by zombie's and the military aspect was a group of military people hold out in an underground bunker, going out every so often hoping to find survivors by way of helicopter. with all to only end in tragedy as all good zombie flicks do with only a few people getting out alive, and in my opinion the funniest zombie moment i have seen with a zombie named bub. (end spoiler of original)* well i do plan on finishing this movie and seeing just how bad it really is and then promptly giving the director a lot of hate on his site if i can find one. and then i may see the alternate ending to see what this idiot thought it should have ended like. hell i'm fine if no one survives in a zombie flick at the end just as long as the damn thing is believable.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Don't be fooled by the title!

Author: rotton_jonny from Canada
25 October 2008

I'm a big fan of Romero's stuff. So don't take this the wrong way... This movie should never have been called Day of the Dead! If at all Steve Miner and Jeffrey Reddick should have left Romero's name off the movie and called it "The Day before The Day Of The Dead".

There were only a few loose similarities to the original film such as: A character named Capt. Rhodes, another named Sarah, and the Zombie du jour... 1985 "Bub"... in 2008... "Bud". Bud the vegetarian, he doesn't like human flesh! I have yet to see a Zombie chew the crap out of a head of lettuce.. Bud, who loves Cpl Sarah. Bud should have been drooling over everyone in that Hummer. Even the original "BUB" had limited expression. BUD acted more like a child, not a Zombie.

If there was no reference to Romero's version, this would be a great zombie flick. It had the "Zombie Nouveau" style like 28 Days Later as well as a few classic "moaning shufflers" in the mix. Because of the title "George A. Romero's Day of the Dead" it was a disappointment.

The upside... it had plenty of moments the kept you watching. Plus the "Black Satire" of the Horror Genre from the character Salazar is worth the watch. Let a friend watch this with you, but don't tell them what it is, if they are a fan of the Genre they will enjoy this movie. You tell them what it is... watch the disappointment flow.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Horrible remake with CGI zombies and digital blood.

Author: HumanoidOfFlesh from Chyby, Poland
22 September 2008

A town is infected with a flu-like virus that ends up turning the populace into hungry flesheaters.When the military comes in to quarantine the joint a ragtag group of survivors led by Mena Suvari try to escape to safety."Day of the Dead" is bad to the bone,even by the zombie movie standards.Here the zombies not only run around fast as hell but gain superhuman strength and can shoot.What happened to creepy walking dead from Romero's zombie movies or Lucio Fulci's gorefests?The action is fast paced and there is lots of digital blood.The gore is lame and computer generated,so I was extremely disappointed.The love story between Mena Suvari and zombified soldier is beyond retarded.It's okay to keep the zombie in a car,because he was a vegetarian in his human life.Avoid this piece of garbage like the plague.3 out of 10-only for lovely as usual Mena Suvari.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 10 of 15: [Prev][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