Dawn of the Dead

[Vemsie]

I can't remeber being scared by the original Dawn of the Dead much though. These days I just laugh at the dated zombies, environments and the crap orange paint that's supposed to be blood.

[CrispinG]

Well I think you have to allow for improvements in special effects, don't you?

[FishyFish]

fuck, is it really? i was really looking forward to it after that teaser.

do you think i should give it a miss then, i don't want to be disappointed... i'm gutted as well cos it's been a long time since the last great horror film and from what i saw this looked like it had potential.

Go and see it. The first 10 minutes ARE the best part, but the rest is still pretty solid. If I had the opportunity I'd be off to see it again and it's a definite DVD purchase for me. I'll just have to content myself with re-watching the preview that I taped off the TV...

For those who have seen it, is the UK version different to the US version? See spoilerish text below for reasons...

I've seen various comments on message boards about Michael shooting himself, but unless I blinked and missed that bit all I can remeber is him pushing the boat away from the dock and talking about catching some sun?!?!

Hopefully the DVD will have some extra goodies...

Fishy

[CrispinG]

I heard a gunshot after he pushes the boat away, then the credits started, I saw a pair of attractive breasts, was content, and walked out of the cinema. Missing the whole God damn ending! I feel that's irritating enough to mention twice.

[11 Herbs 'n' Spices]

I enjoyed it, but I didn't think it was a very good film. Ask yourself this: how many times were you actually scared? I was pretty much constantly excited for an hour and a half, but it didn't scare me once.

There were no actual scary moments for me TBH but I find that true of most horro movies. Thinking about it, I've never seen a scary zombie movie.

Whether it's scary or not, this movie was great. It's definitely a lot more than 'solid'.

It has been noted that the first ten minutes are the best and I would have to agree. Saying that, it's not like the rest of the film pales in comparison. Just like the first 8 mins, it never really lets up. The only difference is that the rest of the movie is drawn out over a period of time so naturally doesn't feel as packed as the precredit sequence.

[RikC]

Arsebiscuits! I walked out of the cinema just as the credits were rolling. I suppose it's something to look forward to when I buy the DVD. I've got to say I enjoyed the film. I didn't have much hope for it being a fan of the original but it surprised me. The opening ten minutes scared me and I can't remember the last time a film did that. A thumbs up then

[:mediadavid:]

I thought it was great, with some fantastically disturbing scenes, and some hilariously funny ones. And some that were both.

I was a bit worried when the opening scenes weren't that great - well, not to the extent that everyone here made out - but the opening credits were fantastic (a wonderful segment that did a better job of portraying the apocalypse than any apocalypse movie I've seen), and the rest of the movie ranged from ok to great. I especially liked that none of the actors were stunningly attractive - all looked, and acted, like real people.

I suppose there were a few horror movie cliche's I could have done without though. When you've been attacked by zombies, and then hear growling behind a door - don't open the bloody door!

[McFly]

The original is on BBC2 next wednesday, Night of the Living Dead is on on sunday and a doco on them and american horror (Carpenter, Cronenberg (canadain isnt he?) and Tobe Hooper

[kerraig UK]

Man, why does day of the dead get no tv love?

The romero dead trilogy is the greatest trilogy in american cinema history you know.

[cassidy]

AARRGH so many people bar Kerraig, who like the original and are liking this.

Means my willpower may fall soon and a ticket be bought.

one thing tell me its at least 60 times the movie 28 days later was.

[Rygal - Reader of Threads]

AARRGH so many people bar Kerraig, who like the original and are liking this.

Means my willpower may fall soon and a ticket be bought.

one thing tell me its at least 60 times the movie 28 days later was.

I actually felt that this remake owes it's debt to 28 Days Later.

[cassidy]

In the running zombies or the fact 28 days later was a success hence the greenlighting of zombie movies all of a sudden.

Wheres Romeros latest Hollywood, give the man his budget and leave him to get on with it. You listening to me.

[kerraig UK]

Dont get me wrong. i enjoyed this new dawn. A lot in fact. I just dont think its worthy of the name, as its not a zombie story per se, its a virus story.

I also think its far far inferior to 28 days later.

[FishyFish]

One quick question...

I always thought that ANY recently deceased person would rise again as a zombie, regardless of whether death had been the result of a bite. In the new DotD this isn't the case, yet I'm certain that it happened in previous films set in Romero's universe (most notably Barbara's brother in the NotLD remake who IIRC died as a result of a fall).

Anyone care to comment?

Fishy

[:mediadavid:]

Oh please. Don't tell me you bought into the 28 days later hype about it not being a zombie movie - that was a zombie movie, and so is Dawn of the dead remake. The baddies are dead, braindead, decomposing killers who feast on the flesh of the living - what else are they?

[kerraig UK]

Like fishy says, the woman that gets shot dead doesnt come back. She stays dead. only those who get bitten come back. this makes an absolute mockery of the 'when theres no more room in hell' theory.

In the original (night of) it is mooted that being in the trail of a comet is causing the dead to return to life. Regardless of what the cause of death is.

The new Dawn is a virus movie in my eyes. If the woman who got shot had returned it would have been a zombie movie. that one tiny detail made all the difference.

[FishyFish]

Oh please. Don't tell me you bought into the 28 days later hype about it not being a zombie movie - that was a zombie movie, and so is Dawn of the dead remake. The baddies are dead, braindead, decomposing killers who feast on the flesh of the living - what else are they?

In 28 Days Later they weren't strictly zombies - they were living humans infected with a virus (RAGE) that caused them to violently attack the uninfected. They didn't seem to have any desire to eat their victims.

Agree that film broadly fits into the zombie genre though and I'd certainly class it as such. I'm sure there's a specific sub-genre for it to fit into though (probably alongside the likes of Romero's The Crazies and Cronenburg's Rabid).

Fishy

[:mediadavid:]

'no more room in hell' was never given as the reason - those were just the words of a crazy preacher.

[zuum]

But surely in the original Dawn of the Dead the only way you come back as a zombie is if you die as the result of being bitten or scratched by a zombie? I know in NOTLD those already dead were rising from their graves (possibly as a result of Earth being in the tail of the comet) but once the comet has passed (by the time of DotD) the zombie "thing" is passed on from zombie to victim.

[kerraig UK]

'no more room in hell' was never given as the reason - those were just the words of a crazy preacher.

They were rogers words in the original and they were given a lot of gravitas. It was never a cast iron reason of course, but it was the best explanation offered. It was also the tagline on the poster, which makes it sort of a coda for the whole dead universe. In Day it is offered "we are being punished by the creator. he has visited a curse on us..."

All of this is undermined by the chick not coming back after getting shot.

[:mediadavid:]

Yeah. I always thought it was zombie lore that you had to get bitten.

But anyway, what do you actually mean by a virus movie? Outbreak is a virus movie. Day of the Dead (remake) is about shambling undead monsters who happen to (possibly, we never really find out) have a 'virus'.

[FishyFish]

But surely in the original Dawn of the Dead the only way you come back as a zombie is if you die as the result of being bitten or scratched by a zombie? I know in NOTLD those already dead were rising from their graves (possibly as a result of Earth being in the tail of the comet) but once the comet has passed (by the time of DotD) the zombie "thing" is passed on from zombie to victim.

I don't think anyone's ever pinned down the specific reason for the situation in the films. The comet is given as one explanation, but IIRC there's also a space probe mentioned somewhere too, not to mention viruses and theological explanations as well.

Fishy

[kerraig UK]

But surely in the original Dawn of the Dead the only way you come back as a zombie is if you die as the result of being bitten or scratched by a zombie? I know in NOTLD those already dead were rising from their graves (possibly as a result of Earth being in the tail of the comet) but once the comet has passed (by the time of DotD) the zombie "thing" is passed on from zombie to victim.

But in the original Dawn, being bitten doesnt turn you into a zombie. It infects you and you die from the infection. then once dead, you return. that is why Roger gets bitten in the foot and scratched, yet it takes him days to turn. because he doesnt turn till he dies. Whereas flyboy turns straight away, cos his many bites were fatal.

[kerraig UK]

Yeah. I always thought it was zombie lore that you had to get bitten.

But anyway, what do you actually mean by a virus movie? Outbreak is a virus movie. Day of the Dead (remake) is about shambling undead monsters who happen to (possibly, we never really find out) have a 'virus'.

I class 28 days later in the same category as outbreak, rabid and the crazies.

It is most definately a virus movie. It starts with the monkey, and that guy turns after getting a droplet of blood in his eye.

[zuum]

I don't think anyone's ever pinned down the specific reason for the situation in the films. The comet is given as one explanation, but IIRC there's also a space probe mentioned somewhere too, not to mention viruses and theological explanations as well.

Fishy

I hear what you're saying Fishy.

I think there's more evidence to suggest that zombification is passed on from host to victim. In Day of the Dead one of the characters suffers a wound and to save him they hack his arm off.

I think the main difference between a zombie film and a virus film is that in a zombie film the victim first dies before becoming reanimated. In a virus scenario you would suffer the transformation process while still alive.

[:mediadavid:]

I class 28 days later in the same category as outbreak, rabid and the crazies.

It is most definately a virus movie. It starts with the monkey, and that guy turns after getting a droplet of blood in his eye.

Never seen Rabid, but I'd class the crazies as a zombie movie.

Anyway, this is a pretty irrelevant argument.

[kerraig UK]

good point about Day. that is an inconsistency for sure.

Of course in true zombie movies there is still the virus, just that there isnt ONLY the virus. In Day she says "I caught the infection in time" which basically confirms the virus. But if you get caught in the teeth of a combine harvester you are still coming back from the dead.

i'd say that romero's dead trilogy only became about the virus in the third one though, and I didnt even realise that till now.

[kerraig UK]

It's the same in the remake.

except being bitten is the ONLY way to come back. thats the main difference.

[kerraig UK]

Never seen Rabid, but I'd class the crazies as a zombie movie.

Really? Even though most of the crazies dont even attack the living? Have you seen it recently?

[zuum]

But in the original Dawn, being bitten doesnt turn you into a zombie. It infects you and you die from the infection. then once dead, you return. that is why Roger gets bitten in the foot and scratched, yet it takes him days to turn. because he doesnt turn till he dies. Whereas flyboy turns straight away, cos his many bites were fatal.

You're dead right.