ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Entertainment and Media»
  • Movies & Movie Reviews

Movie Review: "Day of the Dead" (2008)

Updated on February 27, 2013

DISCLAIMER: This review may contain spoilers.

They had already remade "Night of the Living Dead" and "Dawn of the Dead", so it was only inevitable that "Day of the Dead" was next. Unfortunately, the idiots behind this one apparently weren't aware that there is only one way to remake "Day of the Dead" and that's by following the original version of the script.

See, the version that was released in 1985 was not the original vision that George A. Romero had in mind. His vision required a big budget and it had more of an epic feel much like his "Dawn of the Dead". That script never saw the light of day and fans have longed for it ever since.

This has been the case for over two decades and not one idiot in Hollywood was able to catch onto this before greenlighting a remake?

With that said, I must ask... Having remade Romero's entire 'Dead' trilogy, why is it that none of these remakes bother to follow the same timeline? Wouldn't it make sense to do that? Secondly, are we positively sure that this is indeed a remake of "Day of the Dead"? That's a very important question.

For one, the tone feels more like a clone of "Return of the Living Dead Part II" because the characters here spend much of the running time driving around a zombified town, hopping from one location to the next. Two, why does this film open to a bunch of teens having sex (WTF!?)? None of these things have anything to do with the original 1985 film.

This 2008 remake follows a group of soldiers on the run from a Colorado town infected with a zombie virus. Their one last hope for a safe haven is an underground military bunker. Wow, what a great way to shoehorn in the entire setting for the original film!

Cast of Retards (Listed Alphabetically)

One of the biggest noticeable changes in this 'remake' or whatever this is, is that all of the characters have been "dumbed down". I'll give a few examples with comparisons to their original film counterparts:

  • Bub, the first intellectual zombie capable of learning, is now Bud, the loser soldier who later becomes a vegetarian (more on that in a bit) zombie.
  • Dr. Logan, the rational and informative albeit loony scientist, is now basically a clone of Mr. Cooper from "Night of the Living Dead" but in a doctor's uniform.
  • Captain Rhodes, the bastard villain, is now Captain Rhodes, the strong and noble soldier who cares.

In conclusion, what we have as an end result is a special education (no, not EDITION, EDUCATION!) version of "Day of the Dead".

Slow Down, Idiots!

So we have these stupid running zombies again? Oh, excuse me, they are now Sprinting Running Zombies! Maybe if they remake "Land of the Dead", we could have flying zombies too? In addition, these zombies are also capable of shooting guns... I mean immediately! In the original film, Bub was the only one to do this but he didn't master the skill of pulling the trigger until towards the end.

This is just wrong, it's all wrong!

I'm Gonna Hang Myself

"That was kinda gangsta, huh?" (Spoken by Nick Cannon from "Day of the Dead")

Question... Did Nick Cannon actually have lines or did he just improv everything he said?

Why is he in this movie? I don't recall there being any annoying characters in the original "Day of the Dead", so who is he supposed to represent? It definitely can't be John the helicopter pilot. Nope.

This guy just helps to ruin the movie even further by playing himself and saying ridiculous lines like the above.

Some Things are Better Left Unsaid

As a result of "dumbing down" the characters, the characters also say a lot of dumb things. Hence, the dialogue in this film is completely horrible. Here's a couple of examples below:


Before the poop hits the fan, Bud and Sarah just met and are driving somewhere. Bud has the hots for Sarah but is too much of a weasel to make any progress.

Bud: "Why isn't your gun loaded?"

Sarah: "It's personal."

Bud: "Cool. I'm a vegetarian by the way."

O...K... That last line spoken by Bud makes zero sense because it has nothing to do with the conversation. How did we jump from personal business to food preferences? Answer: The writer doesn't know how to make proper use of foreshadowing. The only reason Bud mentions this is so that Sarah could figure out why Bud doesn't eat humans when he's zombified later on.


When the characters arrive at the hospital, Bud is sitting next to Sarah's Mom.

Bud: "Does she have a boyfriend?"

Sarah's Mom: "She's hot huh?"

Bud: (chuckles) "So hot."

First, does anyone find it odd that Sarah's mother is not the least bit protective when it comes to guys and dating here? Second, is this really the type of conversation one would have while sitting in a hospital waiting room full of infected people during a town emergency? Last but not least, the mother's line delivery above has to be one of the worst in all cinematic history; she sounds more like Bill & Ted in a nursing home rather than someone's mother.

Sarah's Mom: "She's hot huh, dude?"

Bud: (chuckles) "So hot."

Sarah's Mom: "Yeah, like totally. Dude, any Doritos left in that bag? My stomach is going on a major munch hunt right now."

Bud checks the Doritos bag which is half full.

Bud: "Righteous, dude!"

Sarah's Mom: "Narly!"

Jurassic Park of the Dead

Bud becomes zombified halfway through the movie but Sarah decides to keep him alive and restrained. Immediately after he revives, he is already following Sarah's commands. Why won't he eat his friends or any humans at all for that matter? Because he is a vegetarian, how brilliant. At this point, one has to wonder if they're watching a zombie film or "Attack of the Dead Killer Tomatoes".

Later on in the film, Bud the zombie encounters the other bad zombies and they all want to kill him. None of this makes any sense. Even in the original film, the other zombies didn't want to harm Bub even though he showed compassion for the human protagonists.

Random Things That Make No Sense

  • Sarah is dodging zombies as she drives. Nick Cannon asks: "Why you dodging them? Run 'em over!" Sarah replies: "They're still somebody!". Gee, you had no problem killing them just moments earlier, stupid.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Steve Orion profile image

      Steve Orion 5 years ago from Tampa, Florida

      After watching this "film," (sorry films that actually deserve the title) all I have to say is, I agree!

    • Chris Kavan profile image

      Chris Kavan 5 years ago from Lincoln, Nebraska

      I love zombie movies - even some of the terrible ones - but even I draw the line at this movie. It destroys everything in the Romero cannon is just a gigantic mess. I'm glad you're here to help spread the word about this atrocity.

    • FatFreddysCat profile image

      Keith Abt 5 years ago from The Garden State

      This sounds horrendous, I will be sure to avoid it!

      The mention of a "vegetarian zombie" (?) reminds me of this joke my 9 year old told me a while ago, though:

      Q: What does a vegetarian zombie eat?


    • OldWitchcraft profile image

      OldWitchcraft 5 years ago from The Atmosphere

      I have not been able to get through the first Day of the Dead! So, I'll definitely be steering clear of this one. I think Romero is brilliant, but he seems to make two different types of movies: One that is so amazingly deep, I just about can't look away because I'm drawn into it; and another kind that just seems silly, at least, on the surface.

      A big budget does not necessarily make a great film. Season of the Witch was ultra-low budget and absolutely brilliant. I've, also, seen some brilliant European films made on a low budget, then they bring them to Hollywood and ruin them with special effects....

      On an higher note, I'm glad he's still making movies. I don't know the guy, but for some reason, I really like him.