Dawn of the Dead

[:mediadavid:]

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

Well, admittedly not, but I do remember that there was a small group of survivors hiding from the army, and crazy infected semi-dead people. Maybe I should watch it again.

But I would definetly class 28 days later and DOTD (remake) as zombie movies. Because, whatever Alex Garland says, the baddies are zombies!

[FishyFish]

I'd definitely class the DotD remake as a zombie movie, despite the differences between it and the Romero films, because the zombies are dead.

I have to say that I was 50 / 50 on the zombies running thing. In one respect (the opening scenes) it works really well, but in the chases through the streets it doesn't look right. The zombies looked more like a mob of hooligans than reanimated cadavers. They looked too coordinated and in control of themselves.

Fishy

[kerraig UK]

I'd definitely class the DotD remake as a zombie movie, despite the differences between it and the Romero films, because the zombies are dead.

I have to say that I was 50 / 50 on the zombies running thing. In one respect (the opening scenes) it works really well, but in the chases through the streets it doesn't look right. The zombies looked more like a mob of hooligans than reanimated cadavers. They looked too coordinated and in control of themselves.

Fishy

The zombies are dead agreed, but the dead aint neccessarily zombies. And that sucks

[Lovelyman]

You're dead right.

Shouldn't that full stop be a '?'

[Space Renegade Ulala]

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

Did I imagine it or was the preacher played by the surviving copguy from the original film? He's aged well if it was him...

[super_quincy]

You be right!

[Valiant]

I wnet to see it last night with some buddies and the cinema was packed. Easily the goriest film I've seen in a good while and I have to say I enjoyed every minute of it. A really visceral experience.

I approached the film by forgeting any connection with the original and just accepting it as a completly independent zombie flick. Good to see that Doctor chap from American Gothic, Jake Weber getting some screen time , The guy that played Tucker isn't he some sort of stand up comedian. CJ was excellent as white trash comes good. Oh and holy crap those zomies can move now. Faster than Ben Johnson with a cocktail of steriods. The first film I've seen in a long long time that really felt like an 18.

Lastly WTF is professional tennis player Andy Roddick doing being a part time security guard in a shopping mall in Wisconsin?

[Hackign]

Saw it this afternoon with a bunch of mates. Having never seen the original or any of the others I didn't know what to expect. It seemed more like a gory action film than a horror to me, I wasn't scared at all.

It was really enjoyable though and probably one of the better films I've seen.

I even saw the lesbian kiss during the ending credits. B)

[Vemsie]

Lastly WTF is professional tennis player Andy Roddick doing being a part time security guard in a shopping mall in Wisconsin?

I hope he dies a nasty death. Federer is where it's at.

[Wickedkitten]

I was more freaked out by the zombies in 28 days later and the remake than the old ones. I mean hell if you were in a room with one of the old zombies and got eaten it would be your own fucking fault for being slow.

[CrispinG]

I thought one of the most frightening scenes was in the basement of the mall, when the camera shows dozens of shadows running along the wall just before you see a huge crowd of zombies appear out of the darkness. Very powerful. Even if it's essentially a copy of the same scene in 28 Days Later in the underground tunnel.

[Warszawa]

I think that the original Dawn, and to some extent 28 days later are more about despair than anything else, plus slow zombies are much scarier for the fact they completely lull the protagonists into a false sense of security, but ultimately hopelessness (original trilogy) whereas in this remake the pressure is almost always on. thus the remake is  more a kickass zombie action film than anything else, and it felt far more like a Resident Evil movie than the official Resi movie.

Yeah, I was thinking "Resident Evil!" on a number of occasions.

I enjoyed it. The original is, perhaps, my favourite film and though it clearly isn't a patch on that, the remake is enjoyable, a good solid horror movie and much better than I feared it would be when it was first announced. I think they went over the top with the running zombies though. Even the fat old woman had Michael Johnson like speed post death.

The zombies in the original were sad, pitiful and at times almost comic creatures cruelly stripped of all but their base instincts - remember the zombie nun or the girl playing with parts of a mannequin. In this they're just NASTY EVIL MONSTERS! and I don't think that's as effective.

The opening was pretty good, but not as incredible as has been made out. I have to say that the woman's dead boyfriend made me laugh and reminded me more of a particularly boozed up football hooligan than a member of the undead.

As well as the cameos from the stars of the original (and Tom Savini) did anyone notice the fact that the women's clothes shop was called Gaylen Ross? It was also noticable in the first shot of the mall near the start. She played Francine in the original.

[kerraig UK]

The zombies in the original were sad, pitiful and at times almost comic creatures cruelly stripped of all but their base instincts - remember the zombie nun or the girl playing with parts of a mannequin. In this they're just NASTY EVIL MONSTERS! and I don't think that's as effective.

you nailed it.

[Hackign]

Did anyone else see the lesbian kiss during the end credits? B)

[ScouserInExile]

Finally went and saw this yesterday. I love the original and loved this as well, even though they are totally different films. This one isn't really a remake, there are major differences in the basic ellements of the film that make them completely different (people who die of gunshot wounds not reanimating, for a start). But it's still a good action horror movie.

There were a couple of things that annoyed me in in though (other than the dead not reanimating thing):

Nobody seemed to care about people dying, this was especially evident with the girl who's dad died. She started off being all "don't kill my dad!" but was fine later that day. you would have thought she would have been a little upset.

Why didn't they go through the sewer to the gun store in the first place? Why did they wait until they had to rescue the stupid girl?

And for that matter, how did she get in the truck to get over to the gun store?

But overall I thought it was a great, non-stop action film. Loads of people left the cinema as soon as the credits rolled though, which, of course, means they missed the last 5 minutes of the film, which I also thought was ace.

[baddie long legs]

*****WARNING OPPOSING OPINION*****

I saw this a few nights ago and I thought it was distinctly average. It was too cliched, there were too many characters with too little screen time to develope them properly and as a result I just couldn't give a fuck if they lived or not. I just don't agree with the whole 'fast zombie' thing. The only thing I liked about it were the zombie make-up effects. They were damn gruesome. I much preferred that other zombie movie, The Passion of the Christ.

[InsideOutBoy]

A new DVD release of (the original) Dawn of the Dead has just been released (region 1) to cash-in on all the recent success.

It’s a one disc crystal clear print of the theatrical version, has DTS sound along with a commentary by Romero and co and sounds tempting…

But –

The long fabled 3-4 disc super special edition is still due out later this year, so hold tight if you want.

[villenium]

I saw this the other day and really enjoyed it. I approached it with an open mind and thought that it was a good re-imagining minus the social commentary. Putting the whole 80's consumerism thing back in for a 2003/4 remake wouldn't have made much sense IMO.

As for virus v zombification thing, I've always thought that it was pretty clear that if you got bitten (and hence infected) you would die as a result of the virus and then reanimate. If you got a fatal bite/s, you would rise immediately. Well, more or less.

The fact that the dead rose in the first in the trilogy does not debunk this. All viruses 'start' somewhere e.g. HIV, Ebola (although scientists are not really sure where in these cases) and then once established spread via other means. As a best guess Ebola is thought to have crossed to humans from eating monkeys but can be transmitted from human to human through the air.

I need to get out more.

[sofasurfer]

Whilst I really enjoyed the movie,there are so many glaring inconsistencies that they really grate when you watch it again.

The most obvious being when the power goes down and they have to go into the car park.They never at any point put the power back on but then magically it is on when they are leaving the mall.

Thought the end credits were great,really made the whole audience sit through them,rather than the mad rush to the exit that usually occurs.

I loved the whole pre-credits sequences,really moody and accomplished,especially the little girl zombie.

When I saw it again last night,half way through one of the audience jumped out of his seat,and ran up the stepped aisle,tripping and falling flat on his face!I thought he had just tripped but he actually passed out and had to be revived.He then passed out again and had to be helped out of the cinema.When he first came too he said he wasn't epileptic or taken anything and had only had a couple of beers.

Either he was on something or all this zombie mayhem made him ill.Never seen anything like it before.

[kerraig UK]

I saw this the other day and really enjoyed it. I approached it with an open mind and thought that it was a good re-imagining minus the social commentary. Putting the whole 80's consumerism thing back in for a 2003/4 remake wouldn't have made much sense IMO.

As for virus v zombification thing, I've always thought that it was pretty clear that if you got bitten (and hence infected) you would die as a result of the virus and then reanimate. If you got a fatal bite/s, you would rise immediately. Well, more or less.

The fact that the dead rose in the first in the trilogy does not debunk this. All viruses 'start' somewhere e.g. HIV, Ebola (although scientists are not really sure where in these cases) and then once established spread via other means. As a best guess Ebola is thought to have crossed to humans from eating monkeys but can be transmitted from human to human through the air.

I need to get out more.

I agree of course, but the fact is in romeros trilogy any death will see you rise again. Think about barbaras brother who smacks his head on the gravestone for example.

[super_quincy]

I agree of course, but the fact is in romeros trilogy any death will see you rise again. Think about barbaras brother who smacks his head on the gravestone for example.

Yeah due to the Radiation or something isn`t it? Anyways if thats the case why do they bury their dead within the perimiter fence at the beginning to Day Of the Dead? Or do they cut the head off first?

[ScouserInExile]

Yeah due to the Radiation or something isn`t it? Anyways if thats the case why do they bury their dead within the perimiter fence at the beginning to Day Of the Dead? Or do they cut the head off first?

I would imagine they would deactivate the brain (shoot them in the head) before they buried them, since cutting it off would mean you wuld still run the risk of getting bitten by the head, if you weren't carefull.

[Liquid Myth]

I must say, that I thoroughly enjoyed it. And I probably enjoyed it more than many people whose opinions may be coloured by it being a "re-make" and therefore "inferior".

Next week: Shaun of the Dead.

Edited April 5, 2004 by Mr Reverse

[ScouserInExile]

Having seen the 10 minute preview and read a fair bit about it, I went to see it with the attitude that it was a new film along a similar theme to the original, rather than a remake. And I think I enjoyed it more as a result.

On some forums there are a lot of "fans" (nutters) of the original who think it's big pile of shit because it's not a straight remake.

I thought it was great and it is one of the few films that I would pay to see on the cinema more than once.

Looking forward to Shaun of the Dead as well.

[jeff mills gran]

i'd of liked to of seen a remake of day of the dead, since theres a good chance that a modern remake with the benefit of hindsight and a bigger budget could make it shine more.

[kerraig UK]

i'd of liked to of seen a remake of day of the dead, since theres a good chance that a modern remake with the benefit of hindsight and a bigger budget could make it shine more.

I really dont know how you could make day of the dead shine anymore. its a fucking diamond.

As for the remake. Dont write off everyone who didnt like it as a blind fanboy. I was all up for enjoying a rip roaring zombie movie, but it just wasnt very good (IMO obviously)

[jeff mills gran]

I really dont know how you could make day of the dead shine anymore. its a fucking diamond.

As for the remake. Dont write off everyone who didnt like it as a blind fanboy. I was all up for enjoying a rip roaring zombie movie, but it just wasnt very good (IMO obviously)

i don't know.. i think day could of done with being a bit longer in parts.. for instance, events leading upto the team being in the underground silo.. granted, its still one of my fave films.. and shits on dawd of the dead remake from a great height.

[off topic]

impo the remake is better than 28 days later - yes.. i know '28 ISN'T a zombie film - but i feal that it "borrows" heavily from both the genre/romeros original dawn that the comparison is more than valid.

[/off topic]

oh, and running zombies is a big nono.

[Comrade]

I saw this the other day and really enjoyed it. I approached it with an open mind and thought that it was a good re-imagining minus the social commentary. Putting the whole 80's consumerism thing back in for a 2003/4 remake wouldn't have made much sense IMO.

Firstly, the original Dawn was made in the 70s, and I don't see why a satire on commercialism wouldn't be relevant now anyway. It's not as if America's turned into a socialist state in the meantime or anything.

[kerraig UK]

Hmmm, maybe if the dead virus was passing through computers around the world as a mutant software virus or something.

you could hardly satirise shopping malls these days. Hardly a new concept anymore.

[FishyFish]

Looking at Digiguide, the version of Dawn of the Dead on BBC2 tomorrow night looks to be the 140 minute uncut version. Fingers crossed!

Also, looking on IMDB I noticed this quote about the latest release of the original -

"Also, in the March 2004 DVD release, all the blood has been re-colored so that it now looks realistic, not the pinkish color in the original."

Does anyone have any info on the supposed 4-disc special edition due out later this year?

Cheers.

Fishy