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:
Page 1 of 26:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 260 reviews in total 

107 out of 166 people found the following review useful:

A disgrace to the original

Author: srmathis17 from United States
15 April 2008

The reason this movie sucked royally was not because it didn't have the potential to be a good movie it was mainly casting. I don't understand why mainstream Hollywood horror movies cast ridiculous people in roles that don't fit them. The casting of Rhodes was absolutely dumb considering Ving was in the Dawn of the dead remake so it confused everyone into thinking that he survived or something of that nature. Also, if you want a sure shot at ruining your movie just cast Nick Cannon in any part and he will say ridiculous lines like "by the power or gray skull" or some random curse word when he kills his hundredth zombie because apparently he is a super zombie killer as soon as the outbreak occurs. He was quite possibly the worst actor i have ever seen and i just don't understand why he was even cast. The same thing happened with Busta Rhymes in Halloween Resurrection when he said "Trick or Treat Motha F*@#*$." When these dumb lines were barked out by these no talented actors the entire movie lost all credibility in my eyes. Granted both of these movies are not that good but at least would have been watchable if these no talented ridiculous actors were cast. It is just a recipe for disaster with respect to a horror movie.

Now for the movie itself, i literally feel like the only redeeming factor in the whole film was Mina Servari (excuse spelling if its wrong) because she was the only actor that i believed deserved credit. I think Ving was just looking for a quick pay check and the rest of the cast i don't think have any experience and thats all this was for them. I don't blame them for taking the roles because they probably didn't know this crap fest was going to be as bad as it was considering the success of the Zack Synder remake of Dawn of the Dead. The zombie's in this film must have been bitten by radioactive zombie spiders because they develop powers very similar to spider-man when they turn. My brother and I laughed out loud as the chaos happened because it was a mockery of any zombie film ever made.

I also want to point out that i very rarely will comment on films because it is almost pointless, but this film was one of the biggest let downs in all of the movies I have ever seen. I am an avid Romero fan and this did nothing but make a disgrace of his life's work.

Was the above review useful to you?

64 out of 90 people found the following review useful:

If only it hadn't carried the name Day of the Dead

Author: undeadmachine669 from United States
13 April 2008

Steve Miner, as a director, isn't bad. He directed my favorite entries in the Friday the 13th series, Halloween: H20, and Lake Placid. None of these movies are Oscar worthy, but they are all good, fun horror films. What he was thinking when he directed the Day of the Dead redux is beyond me.

A small Colorado town is overrun with the living dead, following a flu like virus that has swept across the land. As soon as the virus kills someone, their skin immediately decays and they become superhuman beasts. These zombies don't just run (a modern zombie element which has caused a lot of controversy in recent years) they jump, shoot weapons, and somehow manage to crawl on walls and ceilings. At the forefront of this super-zombie apocalypse is Mena Suvari (who phoned in her part) and Nick Cannon (who should have) as well as a few other meaningless characters. People die, things explode, and an hour and a half of your life is wasted as you watch this deplorable film.

Honestly, if this film had carried any moniker other than the classic Day of the Dead, I would have given it a bit higher of a rating. I'm thinking 3 or 4, mostly because some of the make-up fx are pretty nifty. Instead, the filmmakers decided to take everything Romero created and turn it on its head. Experimentation is a good thing, but not in this case. This should not be called a remake...or even a reimagining for that matter. It has nothing to do with the original film, aside that there are zombies involved and the military has a presence. I say, pull it from the shelves now, and send it out retitled. George Romero really shouldn't have to put up with this nonsense anymore.

Was the above review useful to you?

76 out of 119 people found the following review useful:

A Disappointing Excuse For A Romero Remake

Author: Stephen Romain from United States
14 February 2008

Like many of you, I got really excited when I heard about this film. After the incredibly good effort that was the Dawn of the Dead 2004 remake, this film is an extremely cheap attempt to cash in on the name. It's extremely important to keep in mind that this film it's not a remake as much as it's a by-the-numbers zombie/infected flick with a fancy name on it.

The film stars Mena Suvari and has a short cameo by Ving Rhames. While I'll watch anything with Mena Suvari in it - even "Loser" - this is a stretch. While Suvari does a decent job with a flat, lifeless (no pun intended) script, the other actors are incredibly stiff, awkward and unconvincing. Rhames plays basically the same character he played in the Dawn of the Dead remake, although he only appears for the first 15 minutes or so.

The film itself is extremely boring and the action and special effects are haphazard. I can honestly say that I've never felt so bored during an action sequence before. The "climax", if you can call it that, runs on for about 5 minutes more than it should. Even worse, the film doesn't even attempt to redeem itself by being a tad funny.. it tries, but fails with flying colors. The script is absolutely ridiculous, not even making relative sense in the world of the film.

If you've ever wondered what "vegetarian" zombies eat, feel free to watch this movie. If you want to see a new spin on Romero, wait for Diary of the Dead to come out in wide release by the man himself. I'm giving this one a three for Mena Suvari alone.

Was the above review useful to you?

103 out of 179 people found the following review useful:

Wait for Diary of the Dead

Author: fygall from United Kingdom
17 February 2008

The director surely mustn't of been a big fan of this genre when he signed up for it. I just don't understand how somebody who has achieved the status of becoming a film director could end up spoiling a movie that could of been so good!

OK, so i guess he wanted to take a different approach to the Zombie movie. Maybe add to Zach Schnyder's good effort with DAWN. But to make Zombies able to leap 20ft and walk on walls and ceilings. I mean really!!! What were you thinking?!?! You've well and truly messed up big time and done nothing for you career. I apologise for sounding a bit harsh but millions of fans of this DEAD franchise expected a lot better to say the least. I was gutted from the first twenty minutes. The casting was way bad too. Who in their right mind would have Mena Suvari as an Army Corporal?? Ving Rhames does his best. Make up and special effects were extremely mediocre as well.

My advice, wait for Diary of the Dead. And see how a zombie flick is supposed to be made.

Was the above review useful to you?

34 out of 47 people found the following review useful:

"You gotta shoot them in the head." Not too bad as long as you don't expect a remake of Romero's original.

Author: Paul Andrews ( from UK
17 February 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Day of the Dead is set in a small Colorado town which has been quarantined by the US Military due to a flu like disease sweeping the town, assigned to her hometown army soldier Sarah (Mena Suvari) takes her mother to a medical facility set up to treat the townspeople a lot of whom seem to be suffering from the flu like symptoms. It's not long before the situation takes a turn for the worse though as those infected start to die & come back as flesh eating zombies, Sarah leads a small group of survivors as they fight for their lives against hordes of flesh eating zombies & try to escape to safety...

Directed by Steve Miner I would imagine many horror fans will be horrified by Day of the Dead. Lets start at the beginning shall we? A filmmaker called George A. Romero made the ground breaking Night of the Living Dead (1968) which changed the face of horror films literally overnight, he then made one of the greatest films ever in it's sequel Dawn of the Dead (1978), then he made a brilliant third film in the trilogy called Day of the Dead (1985) before an OK fourth Land of the Dead (2005) & more recently a fifth film in the series Diary of the Dead (2007). Right, Night of the Living Dead (1990) was remade to great effect, Dawn of the Dead (2004) was next to be remade to fun if unspectacular results & Day of the Dead was initially given a sequel called Day of the Dead 2: Contagium (2005) which wasn't a sequel at all & was terrible & that brings us bang up to date with this Day of the Dead which is touted as a remake but in reality isn't anything of the sort. The script by Jeffrey Reddick is more akin to something that I would have expected to find on the sci-fi channel rather than a reworking or re-imagining of one of the greatest zombie films of all time, in fact George A. Romero isn't even mentioned during the opening credits which gives you some indication that this Day of the Dead is a million miles from his. Gone are the brilliant character's replaced with a almost entirely teenage cast with even the army soldiers are fresh faced teenage recruits, gone is the oppressive atmosphere, biting social commentary & sense of gloom replaced with lots of 28 Days Later... (2002) shaky camera hyperactive shrieking zombies attacking from all angles as well as Resident Evil (2002) style genetically created virus's that infect a small town turning everyone into zombies & gone is Tom Savini's ultra realistic gore & zombie effects to be replaced with CGI blood splatters. Having said that if you take Day of the Dead on it's own terms then I don't think it's a bad way to pass 90 odd minutes at all, the character's are mostly likable & good looking enough, although the gore doesn't compare to the original there's still a fair amount of blood, there's more action in this at the expense of story though & above all I thought it was quite fun & for what it is pretty entertaining. So shoot me.

Director Miner did actually have a Hollywood career at one point with films such as Friday the 13th Part 2 (1981), Friday the 13th Part III (1982), Halloween H20: 20 Years Later (1998) & Lake Placid (1999) to his credit, he does alright here & despite some shaky camera moments Day of the Dead looks pretty good & is competent if nothing else. While the gore isn't as good or as extensive as Romero's film there's a fair amount of blood, decapitated heads, rotting zombies, gory bites, a few severed limbs & mutilated bodies on show. The special effects vary from good prosthetic make-up effects to poor CGI computer ones. Day of the Dead goes for action set-pieces rather than scares, tension & atmosphere which won't please lovers of the original but there you go.

With a supposed budget of about $18,000,000 Day of the Dead is well made but does have that slightly cheap made-for-video look about it, it looks OK but won't last long in your memory. Shot in Bulgaria to keep the cost down even more. The acting isn't great, it's alright & the largely teenage cast are attractive enough. Having been in the Dawn of the Dead remake Ving Rhames also appears in this as a much toned down Captain Rhodes one of the few direct references to Romero's original, Nick Cannon is the obligatory rapper involved.

Day of the Dead if under any other mundane title such as Virus of the Dead or Dead Rising or something that has nothing to do with Romero's original would stand a good chance of being a well liked fast paced zombie horror, unfortunately by saddling itself with the Day of the Dead name it made a rod for it's own back as it could never come anywhere near Romero's original. Taken for what it is I liked it, as a remake of one of the greatest zombie films ever it's a travesty.

Was the above review useful to you?

41 out of 61 people found the following review useful:

Wait...Have we stooped so low?

Author: murdock50136 from United States
12 February 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

As an avid zombie film buff I feel sick to my stomach after watching an hour and a half of worthless film. Everyone associated with this production should truly feel uncomfortable with the direction of their careers. I knew it was going to be bad after a zombie scaled a hospital ceiling for no apparent reason other than being some type of crazy generation x zombie...not to mention zombies later on poking air conditioner ducts with crutches and floor sweepers (apparently not blessed with the gravity defying before mentioned wall crawling) in order to get at non zombie flesh crawling to safety.

You have to wonder about the makeup of a person who sits down to write a script like this. Better yet those who read this nonsense and throw millions of dollars around in order to make sure it happens. Was it that they truly could not tell a difference between this script and dawn of the dead remake script. One being decent while the other, well, read my first paragraph...

Simply put, this is pathetic. If anyone who took part in the production of this reads this, please look in the mirror and ask yourself was this the reason you got into film. Though you will always have the Day of the dead remake on your resume maybe its not too late to do something worthwhile and memorable...good luck.

Was the above review useful to you?

37 out of 54 people found the following review useful:

Oh dear oh dear oh dear

Author: johnd-78 from United Kingdom
12 February 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

In the case of this movie, re-making Day of the Dead means stealing the title and some character names.

Its truly awful. There plot is non existent, the acting poor and the characters inconsistent. The zombies look quite good, but are more like rabid humans. This is one of those zombie movies that changes the characteristics of the zombies to suite the scenes. Mostly its just rabid, insane 28 days later type movements. Oh but they can sometimes walk on walls and ceilings (how? why?). Oh and listen to radios and understand what is being said. The Bub character is ridiculously used in the plot. One of the soldiers is infected, turns into a zombie, but they decide to keep him around and drive around with him in the car, because he might be useful. Thats right, they pile into the back seats and he is sat in the middle of them. Zombies throwing themselves at the car, everyone screaming, but the one I am sat next to? No problem! The final scenes are just ridiculous and I felt that at this point they had run out of ideas so they made it up as they went along. One line summed the whole movie up for me. They discovered that one of the scientists who worked on the project that started the virus has now become a zombie and is in the complex they are in. A colleague of his says 'If what you said about them retaining some of what they were is true, then we are so f*cked'.

Was the above review useful to you?

44 out of 68 people found the following review useful:

Amphetamine Zombies

Author: Silberfalke from Switzerland
24 July 2008

Well, the only big mistake of that movie was to pretend to be the remake of a classic, when it was not. That must have disappointed and angered a lot of people.

Actually "Day of the Dead" is a highly entertaining Zombie-Flick that delivers everything one expects: good trash, gore, humor and well-known main-actors who act, well, lets say "okay"...

The story is not really important, as we saw it dozens of times (Virus, Transformation, Out of Control, group trying to escape,....and so on) and there were elements of "Resident Evil" and "28 Days/Weeks later" as the "life to death transformed" corpses behave the same hysterical way as the sickos from London, only that Americans must be way much hungrier as these zombies are feeding on flesh. And how....

Anyway: "Day of the Dead" was fun, a little thrilling, entertaining and better than a lot of other genre-movies BUT somebody in the marketing-department blew it up by having the idea to sell it as a "Romero Remake".

Some Zombie should bite this person....

Was the above review useful to you?

61 out of 105 people found the following review useful:

Not a bad day, not a bad day at all.

Author: tyler-and-jack from Edinburgh.
6 April 2008

Watch this movie as in any way being connected to the Romero series of movies or even the remake of Dawn Of The Dead and you are heading down a one-way alley towards a wall spray-painted with "disappointment". Watch this movie, however, for the sake of seeing a decent little zombie flick and you should enjoy yourself. Is it in the same league as any of those just mentioned? Of course not. Is it the worst horror movie of the year? Not by a bloody, and I do mean bloody, long shot.

The plot? The dead start problematically walking about with bad hunger pangs and a few survivors back up and back up until they find out the cause of the problem and also the fact that they must destroy as many zombies as possible before the film ends. Oh, and there's a zombie known as "Bud" (maybe not quite Bub but close enough) and an army member known as "Captain Rhodes" in at least two nods to the original movie (a film much maligned over the years but one that's also growing in the hearts of zombie fans worldwide, from what I've seen).

The main points against this movie are the facts that we've seen much of it before, Mena Suvari is the least convincing soldier since my mother gave me a Barbie in a khaki skirt for Christmas and told me it was an Action Man (that's G.I. Joe for my American friends) and, at only 80 minutes long, it feels like little more than a taster for something that could/should have been even better. Also, there's a bit too much CG-blood for my taste.

On the plus side, and it's not a universal view, I loved the non-stop action once things went all pear-shaped, the zombies new super-skills added to the tension and gave a new spin to an old stalwart and the blood was flowing quicker than the Mississippi on a really, really rainy day.

Horror fans won't necessarily be scared by this but they WILL be entertained. Which, from a zombie movie, is sometimes all you need.

See this if you like: Mena Suvari, Resident Evil, Nightmare City.

Was the above review useful to you?

37 out of 62 people found the following review useful:

A Fun Romp Through the Land of the Dead

Author: jmbwithcats from United States
9 June 2008

A Film by Steve Miner. Now let's begin there. I honestly like Steve Miner. He's directed Soul Man, Friday the 13th parts 2 and 3, as well as producing the original and The Last House on the Left. That's not a bad resume. That aside, he hasn't done anything worth noting in about 20 years+.

Screenplay is by Jeffrey Reddick who wrote all the Final Destination screenplays, so that can't be too bad right?

Let's talk casting.

Mena Suvari (American Beauty, Spun) Nick Cannon (Drumline) Michael Welch (Joan of Arcadia) AnnaLynne McCord (Made quite a splash on Nip/Tuck last year) Ian McNeice (HBO's Rome) Ving Rhames (Mission Impossible)

Altogether not a bad looking cast.

So that in mind, we start the film...

We begin our journey on a lighter note typical of the '80s slasher flicks, in an abandoned barn in Leadville, Colorado. Full of candles and horny teenagers, and there's nothing wrong with that. One couple decides to explore the rather creepy barn.

The movie actually starts out alright. Decent directing, acting, dialog if it keeps up like this, it might not be such a bad movie after all... but lets keep watching... where angels fear to tread...

First lets discuss spider monkey zombies. Now we have become so accustomed to Romero's slow moving zombies that the atmosphere has been set in stone for the standard, but I see nothing wrong with trying new things in horror, in fact I long for it. Now this isn't the first time fast moving zombies have been done, but it was probably the best explained of the type out of the ones I've seen.

The first few kills are fantastic, and holy the zombies were pretty scary, and in all honesty I haven't been scared of a zombie in a long time.

But the show must go on, even if it goes on like spider monkey zombies on crack.

If you want this to be just like the original, go watch the original. I have yet to read one decent complaint about the movie.

The faces decaying rapidly through the change was really unique, I don't think I've ever seen that used before so I thought that was pretty cool.

I actually enjoyed the movie for what it was. It had good pacing, took liberties, and took zombies into a new direction which is pretty hard to do these days. I've seen a lot worse. A whole lot worse.

I love how the people who can't let go of the idea of walking zombies thinks walking zombies is more realistic, like any kind of zombie can be realistic.

If this movie had not been called Day of the Dead I guarantee it would have been better received, because die hard fans expected it to stay true to Romero's zombie mythology which it did not do.

And though this was not adhering to Romero's preconceptions, it had a few things going for it. It brought it's own ideas to the table which worked. Such as the people going blank just before turning. As the last particle in the blood stream switched them on. I thought that was rather realistic, and a nice little piece of detail. The action was fairly non stop with good pacing. And in all honesty it was far more enjoyable than Diary of the Dead. A movie that turned out to be a huge disappointment, as was Argento's latest installment, "Mother of Tears". The two horror masters have taught a new generation well it seems.

Now not to downplay Romero, the original Night of the Living Dead is a classic that will likely never be topped. And the mood of the original Dawn of the Dead is intensely scary, but for a direct to video movie it was pretty good.

Now the idea of "When there's no room in hell, the dead will walk the earth", was never intended to be true. It is the religious reasoning to unreasonable things. But we also must conclude that there is a scientific explanation as well, and zombie movies these days attempt to take the genre in a direction of the more realistic explanation.

And it isn't specific to the horror genre either. We see how it worked for Ang Lee's Hulk and Nolan's Batman, we must be able to appreciate it here as well.

For all the differences between this and Romero, the one that stands out the most in my mind is the lack of political and philosophical importance which Romero is famous for including in his films. And while I respect that in a film, though this remake lacked that angle entirely, it was at least enjoyable.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 26:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

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