Just watched Dawn of the Dead 04 again....

[Neil]

....God the stupid godzilla crying of the zombies is daft and annoying... I'd forgotten how bad it was :rolleyes:

Along with the daft no-desire-to-remain-alive behaviour...

[AcesandEights]

Just read a "I just watched Dawn 04 again" thread, again. It was also not in the proper forum again :p :D

And yes, they did sound rather raptor-esque, didn't they?

[bassman]

Oh dear lord.....he we go again.

But I agree.;)

[Doc]

....God the stupid godzilla crying of the zombies is daft and annoying... I'd forgotten how bad it was :rolleyes:

Yeah those are one of my annoyances with it.

[Mike70]

*sighs*

you don't think reanimated bodies would shriek like birds of prey out of tune.

anyway, this ridiculous movie has a few, uh, problems.

*mike slowly backs toward the door to this thread and shuts it behind him*

[Dillinger]

....God the stupid godzilla crying of the zombies is daft and annoying... I'd forgotten how bad it was :rolleyes:

Along with the daft no-desire-to-remain-alive behaviour...

I couldn't agree more. Zombies shouldn't A.) run B.) make a whole lot of audible noise.

Slow and silent = creepy

[Neil]

*sighs*

you don't think reanimated bodies would shriek like birds of prey out of tune.

anyway, this ridiculous movie has a few, uh, problems.

*mike slowly backs toward the door to this thread and shuts it behind him*

LOL!

Just I didn't recall how bad the Godzilla effect was on previous viewings... This time, it was almost as if they'd gone thru the film and really Godzilla'd it! :)

[darth los]

Is it any more annoying than the sound that Big daddy lets out? :rockbrow:

Methinks not.

[bassman]

Is it any more annoying than the sound that Big daddy lets out? :rockbrow:

Methinks not.

At least Big Daddy sounds like a human being. The dead in Dawn04 sound like dinosaurs from Jurrasic Park....

[darth los]

At least Big Daddy sounds like a human being. The dead in Dawn04 sound like dinosaurs from Jurrasic Park....

That's probably true. It doesn't change the fact that it's awful and the sound he emits is way over done and just wouldn't allow me to feel anything but contempt for him. Imean, you would think that a stray bullet would catch him in the head or something.

[Skippy911sc]

I mean, you would think that a stray bullet would catch him in the head or something.

Hope is more like it.

:rolleyes:

[bassman]

Hope is more like it.

:rolleyes:

*looks at Skippy's avatar and scratches head*:rockbrow:

:lol:

[MinionZombie]

*looks at Skippy's avatar and scratches head*:rockbrow:

:lol:
:elol:

Well spotted, Sir. :D

...

Ah mate, those "dinombie" screeches pissed me right off my tits, so they did. That was one of my 110 reasons I hated Yawn04 (110 in-movie reasons, as in things happened on-screen).

Biggy D rawks! :)

[Mutineer]

....God the stupid godzilla crying of the zombies is daft and annoying... I'd forgotten how bad it was :rolleyes:

Along with the daft no-desire-to-remain-alive behaviour...

For such a crappy film people seem to keep watching it over and over and over.

:rolleyes::confused:

So bad in fact, that threads just keep started on the film, over and over and over.

When I dislike a film, I don't have too much to say about it.

[bassman]

People watch and rewatch bad films all the time. I hate both ROTLD and Batman & Robin, but I've seen them multiple times and have plenty to say about them.

And besides, neil never said the whole movie was crap. Just that he didn't like the velociraptor zombies and the characters' actions...

[Mutineer]

I'm in the minority on rewatching crap films.

RotLD was not crap; no no no no :stunned:

[bassman]

RotLD was not crap; no no no no :stunned:

Yeah, yeah, yeah....we've been through this before and it's all personal opinion.:rolleyes:

[SRP76]

I didn't like all the squealing and screaming either, but we have to deal with it. You have yowling zombies in almost every zombie film. The only one I can think of that didn't have the zombies gargling and screaming and crying and yelling was the original Night of the Living Dead.

And "BRRRRAAAAAIIIIIIINS!!" is infinitely more annoying than the squealing in Dawn '04.

[TheSeasonOfFire]

Someone should replace the zombie sounds in Dawn 04 with the Dean Scream. For reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yshnhEHBtO4&feature=related

[SymphonicX]

Yeah, yeah, yeah....we've been through this before and it's all personal opinion.:rolleyes:

I'd say it's closer to pure, unadulterated, unequivical truth....

hehehe

I LIKED THE PHANTOM MENACE!


I didn't like all the squealing and screaming either, but we have to deal with it. You have yowling zombies in almost every zombie film. The only one I can think of that didn't have the zombies gargling and screaming and crying and yelling was the original Night of the Living Dead.

And "BRRRRAAAAAIIIIIIINS!!" is infinitely more annoying than the squealing in Dawn '04.

What pisses me off more is people who think that all zombies say "braaaains"....like you see these zombie walks on facebook or whatever and they're all chanting it over and over...wankers.

[clanglee]

Yeah, that pisses me off to no end as well. I like Return of the Living Dead and all, but those idiots that moan brains whenever they hear the word "zombie" really chaff my nutsack!!

[Trin]

For such a crappy film people seem to keep watching it over and over and over.

:rolleyes::confused:

When I dislike a film, I don't have too much to say about it.Gripping about easily avoidable things gets easier and more enjoyable as you get older. Not sure why.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Well at least we know DAWN 04 is at least re-watchable unlike LAND, which is totally Un-watchable after 1-2 viewings. :D

[Legion2213]

Well at least we know DAWN 04 is at least re-watchable unlike LAND, which is totally Un-watchable after 1-2 viewings. :D

And Land is better than Diary...Zak S made an infinitely better zombie flick than the last two GAR efforts.

Zack is the new king of zombie films...The GAR is dead - Long live the Zackmiester! :cool:

[MinionZombie]

http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/8676/pdvd016um2.png

OPINION!!! OPINION!!! OPINION!!!

Just taking up the 'Ned mantra there ... but it's true. :p

[DjfunkmasterG]

And Land is better than Diary...Zak S made an infinitely better zombie flick than the last two GAR efforts.

Zack is the new king of zombie films...The GAR is dead - Long live the Zackmiester! :cool:

Legion I wouldn't go that far. Romero's DAWN is still the superior zombie film, so therefore Romero retains the title. If Snyder does another zombie flick, I mean actuallly directs it and doesn't turn it into a CGI fest like 300 and Watchmen I might consider him the 2nd best zombie filmmaker around. Right now he made a decent and enjoyable remake of a classic zombie film.

Everyone can get lucky once. I wanna see him repeat that success, in the zombie genre.

[Legion2213]

DJ, I was being a bit naughty there, Night, Dawn & Day are three of the best movies ever, I wasn't being wholly serious about GAR losing his crown (apart from pointing out that his last two movies really were terrible).

Wasn't ZS meant to be making an epic zombie seige movie BTW? I'm sure I read something of that nature on this very board a while ago.

[Neil]

Wasn't ZS meant to be making an epic zombie seige movie BTW? I'm sure I read something of that nature on this very board a while ago.

There was talk of it... And if he can calm down on the MTV'esque style, and add some thought and intelligence, I can't wait!!

http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/775/775725p1.html
http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/06/04/matthijs-van-heijningen-to-direct-zack-snyders-army-of-the-dead/

[Legion2213]

Cheers Neil. I think the zombie genre deserves a really vast, huge scale outing, I want to see seas of those undead bastards, 10's of 1000's of 'em. (we got a small taste of that in Dawn 04, especially when they left the mall). :)

[DjfunkmasterG]

He is only producing Army of the Dead. Another person was chosen as director. Plus I have no interest in it because it is just RE: 3 done again.

[Trin]

Cheers Neil. I think the zombie genre deserves a really vast, huge scale outing, I want to see seas of those undead bastards, 10's of 1000's of 'em. (we got a small taste of that in Dawn 04, especially when they left the mall). :)You did see your sea of zombies. It just never made it off the poster onto the screen.

Zach has some work to do to become the next GAR. Dawn '04 was an action flick first and foremost, and lacked the additional facets of the Night/Dawn/Day era GAR. Even Land (for all the faults I have with it) was a much richer, fuller film than Dawn '04.

My opinion is that Dawn '04 was more successful at delivering what it attempted to deliver than Land. That doesn't make it better. Land tried to do a lot more than Dawn '04.

None of these guys seem capable of scratching the zombie movie itch.

[darth los]

None of these guys seem capable of scratching the zombie movie itch.



And we're gonna include the post 90's Gar on that list as well right?

[Trin]

And we're gonna include the post 90's Gar on that list as well right?Opinions vary, of course, but for me the post 90's GAR movies don't scratch the itch. They're more like rubbing poison ivy on it.

And with 2 post 90's GAR movies in my collection and the synopsis of the third posted I'm not sure GAR is gonna be the one to scratch that itch.

I hate to even think this, but if I had to choose between a new GAR zombie movie and a new Zach Snyder zombie movie.... I mean, the answer should be obvious right? At least for me it isn't...

[darth los]

Opinions vary, of course, but for me the post 90's GAR movies don't scratch the itch. They're more like rubbing poison ivy on it.

And with 2 post 90's GAR movies in my collection and the synopsis of the third posted I'm not sure GAR is gonna be the one to scratch that itch.

I hate to even think this, but if I had to choose between a new GAR zombie movie and a new Zach Snyder zombie movie.... I mean, the answer should be obvious right? At least for me it isn't...


It's interesting that you say that. Imo, what made the first 3 dead films great just isn't there And damn if i know exactly what that is. Gar just went off on an intelligent zombie tangent and too many people just aren't feeling it.

Now there will be some that say that it was the direction he was always headed in. I think that it was o.k. when there was an intelligent ghoul peppered into the series here and there. But to just have the whole "race" evolve doesn't seem right. Don't get me wrong, it's his franchise and he can do what he wants with it but, imo, the intelligence premise was much more effective when it was the eception and not the rule.

[Wyldwraith]

The problem's simple,
GAR has never felt obligated to give the fans what they want. This worked out ok for him when coincidentally he happened to want to go in the direction that entertained so many of us, but now that it isn't he's still inflexibly plodding on with his "My Social Commentary > All elements which make a movie entertaining" direction. He slipped Land through on the laurels of past achievements, but Diary proved that his cult following valued his past achievements as exactly ONE Get Out of Jail Mostly Free card. If George doesn't wake up and realize that a successful director first and foremost has to deliver a film that people want to watch he's finished and we all know it.

What bothers us though is that he STILL shows no signs of comprehending this. Well, non-conformity is great, but people just aren't going to part with 10$ for a ticket, 5-7$ for the gas to get to the theater and another 10-20$ on snacks to listen to another of his commentaries when the thin veil he draws over it is a crappy movie of the Uwe Boll caliber.

[Phildogger]

You did see your sea of zombies. It just never made it off the poster onto the screen.

Zach has some work to do to become the next GAR. Dawn '04 was an action flick first and foremost, and lacked the additional facets of the Night/Dawn/Day era GAR. Even Land (for all the faults I have with it) was a much richer, fuller film than Dawn '04.

Highly Disagree. Dawn 04 takes a lot of heat from this board, but I think it did a great job of making us like or hate the characters in a very short time. I know I liked some of them quite a bit, and still get torn up when CJ bites it. Land had none of this, and most of those characters were unlikeable. (especially Argento's character).

[mista_mo]

I must be one of the few who actually enjoys Dawn 04...Diary was okay, and so was land, but the overall feeling i got from them was "wow, This is the 1st George Romero movie I've seen in theaters". And that is it. I saw it because it was a George Romero film, not because it was a zombie film, and that is the type of fanboyism I am so against- seeing and supporting a movie because of an attached name.

I hope Zach gets behind the seat and directs another zombie film- perhaps continuing where Dawn 04 left off, or maybe pull a Romero and tell anouther story in the same setting.

It's sad to say, but i'm more excited at the prospect of Zach helming another film then Romero.

[darth los]

The problem's simple,
GAR has never felt obligated to give the fans what they want. This worked out ok for him when coincidentally he happened to want to go in the direction that entertained so many of us, but now that it isn't he's still inflexibly plodding on with his "My Social Commentary > All elements which make a movie entertaining" direction. He slipped Land through on the laurels of past achievements, but Diary proved that his cult following valued his past achievements as exactly ONE Get Out of Jail Mostly Free card. If George doesn't wake up and realize that a successful director first and foremost has to deliver a film that people want to watch he's finished and we all know it.

What bothers us though is that he STILL shows no signs of comprehending this. Well, non-conformity is great, but people just aren't going to part with 10$ for a ticket, 5-7$ for the gas to get to the theater and another 10-20$ on snacks to listen to another of his commentaries when the thin veil he draws over it is a crappy movie of the Uwe Boll caliber.


Wow, you just tore him a new a**hole. :lol: The Uwe Boll reference was below the belt. LOL

He seems to have that "stay the course" mentality that old people tend to have no matter what kind of chaos it's causing.

McCain 08' !! :thumbsup:

[Trin]

Highly Disagree. Dawn 04 takes a lot of heat from this board, but I think it did a great job of making us like or hate the characters in a very short time. I know I liked some of them quite a bit, and still get torn up when CJ bites it. Land had none of this, and most of those characters were unlikeable. (especially Argento's character).I agree with you 100% on the characters. I'll grant that win to Dawn '04 no questions asked.

But that doesn't put Zach in GAR territory when you look at Night/Dawn/Day. Those movies delivered much more than just characters. It might put him in the ballpark with GAR if you're looking at Land/Diary.


GAR has never felt obligated to give the fans what they want.
...
What bothers us though is that he STILL shows no signs of comprehending this.True. If GAR was interested in the fans he'd be watching Dawn '04 and taking some things away from it. He should be wondering how anyone could get so worked up over a remake of his classic. But, no, he'd rather thumb his nose at everyone and everything.


If George doesn't wake up and realize that a successful director first and foremost has to deliver a film that people want to watch he's finished and we all know it. Tell me that the studios haven't already figured this out. I think this was the sentiment even before Land. I got the impression that Land was a calculated risk for Universal, a mistake in retrospect, and not something any studio is likely to do again anytime soon.

[SRP76]

But that doesn't put Zach in GAR territory when you look at Night/Dawn/Day.

Romero gets an unfair handicap in that regard. With Night, it was the first movie of its kind; nobody had seen something like that before. By the time of Dawn, there still wasn't any competition; it was still one of the very, very few movies in this genre.

So Romero basically got two movies in before anyone else even joined the market. He was a monopoly. And since those were almost the only zombie flicks for over a decade, they couldn't help but be the best. That gives him a HUGE headstart on everyone.

And since his movies were "the firsts", nothing ANYONE is going to do is going to be able to escape that shadow; everything's going to be "a ripoff of Romero's creation".

If some other guy was out there in '68 making a zombie movie as well, it could be a whole different story. But when someone had a monoploy for years and years and was the first of his kind, there's simply no way to ever knock him off that pedestal, no matter how good the competition gets 40 years later.

[Trin]

GAR was not the only one making zombie movies back then.

Before Night:
I Eat Your Skin - 1964
Plague of the Dead - 1966

Shortly after Night:
Tombs of the Blind Dead - 1971
Horror Rises from the Tomb - 1975
Dead People - 1975

There's a pretty long list of zombie movies out there spanning back decades. I spent my entire high school and college era watching zombie movies and I never seemed to run out. There were tons of them.

And if you're talking about the whole survival horror genre then you have to look at Last Man on Earth which was 1964. Romero wasn't the first and only in that category either.

Do you really believe that GAR had hits with Night and Dawn and no one tried to duplicate his success? Yeah, lots of people tried. The fact that they all fell short for decades is simply another reason why Zach Snyder shouldn't be thought of in the same category.

[Bub666]

GAR was not the only one making zombie movies back then.

Before Night:
I Eat Your Skin - 1964
Plague of the Dead - 1966

Shortly after Night:
Tombs of the Blind Dead - 1971
Horror Rises from the Tomb - 1975
Dead People - 1975

To be fair,none of those movies are even close to being in the same league as Night and Dawn.

[Trin]

To be fair,none of those movies are even close to being in the same league as Night and Dawn.I agree 100%. If fact, I think that should be further evidence of how much above the rest GAR stood out. His movies have endured as the great ones to the point that few people even remember that other zombie movies came out at the same time.

In contrast, Dawn '04 came out at a time with very little competition in the zombie genre.

Who really had the unfair handicap?

[darth los]

It's a given that 28 day/weeks are better films than dotd 04' and it's debateable whether land is. Even given all that dotd 04' is one of the better zombie flicks and imo is more entertaining than the previously mentioned films.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Yeah, yeah, yeah....we've been through this before and it's all personal opinion.:rolleyes:

and we are trying to change yours good sir.

ROTLD is a funny film. It is sharp, funny, has good pacing, and is decently written for a zombie comedy.

[bassman]

and we are trying to change yours good sir.

ROTLD is a funny film. It is sharp, funny, has good pacing, and is decently written for a zombie comedy.

HAHAHA!:lol:

Not really. I still don't think they meant for it to be a comedy. When they realized how bad it was sucking, they decided to start telling people "oh yeah....uh....it's a comedy!"

Besides, comedies are supposed to make you laugh. All ROTLD does is make me cringe.

[darth los]

As a matter of fact ROTLD is in my top 5 zombie films along with the original trilogy and Dawn 04'.

[DjfunkmasterG]

ROTLD plays for the #1 spot in my top 5. It fights with Romeros DAWN every once in a while. Since I recently watched DAWN again, it took over as number 1, but I am looking to pop in ROTLD soon, so I see a change on the horizon.

[MinionZombie]

ROTLD plays for the #1 spot in my top 5. It fights with Romeros DAWN every once in a while. Since I recently watched DAWN again, it took over as number 1, but I am looking to pop in ROTLD soon, so I see a change on the horizon.
All time top five, or zombie top five?

[darth los]

I believe it's zombie top 5. Atleast for me it is.

[fartpants]

i know its not a popular idea but i really liked Dawn 04

[shootemindehead]

My second post and it's another review...sorry...But it says everything I want to say about Snyder's remake.


I was rather excited when I first heard about a "Dawn of the Dead" remake, partly because I was pleasantly surprised by Tom Savini's 1990 updating of "Night of the Living Dead" (also reviewed), which against the odds actually turned out to be pretty good.

I've loved the 1978 G. Romero version of "Dawn of the Dead", sequel to "Night of the Living Dead", but it was getting somewhat long in the tooth and starting looking horribly dated...a major problem with many classic 70's movies. So, the updating of a genre classic seemed to be a good idea and timely. The plot seemed to be the same, the characters were being played by non-stars and the early stills looked promising.

Then the bad news started to seep in. Romero didn't give his blessing, `nobody' director Zack Snyder was at the helm and he had also decided that his living dead were going to be able to run the hundred yard dash without a hint of difficulty. None of which bode well. In fact, the remake was looking more and more like a cynical attempt to cash in on a famous eye-catching title and a cheap re-visioning of Romero's script instead of actually creating a new one.

The James Gunn script (Michael Tolkin and Scott Frank were brought in for rewriting) of the new "Dawn of the Dead" follows Romero's quite closely; a group of human survivors of an unexplained apocalypse seek refuge in a huge mall complex as the recently dead start returning to life with an horrific desire to feed on living flesh. It may sound a bit thin, but in Romero's hands it was the middle section of a running series and he used it as a stinging critique on American society and its indulgent consumerist excess.

Snyder's film dispenses with Romero's sly swipe at consumerism though. The super new 'American' malls of 1978 had become so commonplace, not just in the States but also in most parts of the Western World that such a comment from that angle would have been redundant. In fact the Thornhill Square Shopping Centre in Ontario was considered old fashioned. It was torn down after shooting wrapped. Of course consumerism is still a large part of modern human life (probably more so than in 1978), but a mall these days is nothing new. In fact the mall motif is used in Snyder's film because he probably couldn't think of anything different other than the set-up provided by Romero.

Where both versions succeed however, is in grimness which is an essential element in any zombie apocalypse movie. Romero's version has liberal doses of humour (some of it silly like the ineptly handled pie-fight sequence) to relieve the tension and the slowness of the piece. But Snyder wisely abandons putting in slapstick, in favour of more considered humour as in the scene where the survivors and the isolated Andy (Bruce Bohne) in the gun store across the street, relieve their boredom by shooting zombies that look like famous celebrities: "...Rosie O'Donnell! tell him to shoot Rosie!" It's funny, but grim, because the celeb zombies are searched for among thousands of other hungry walking corpses waiting outside in the streets below. It's a vision of the breakdown of social norms and structure. The original version presents this breakdown too, but in a more subtle way. Humanity slowly turns off the lights of offices in the city and melts into darkness as the survivors steal a TV station helicopter and learn to begin surviving on their own in the grim new reality. In many ways Romero's more studied and slower film presents a more realistic breakdown of social order than Snyder's fast paced vision.

But Snyders worst 'sin' in his magpie remake is his misguided tinkering with Romero's take on the living dead. Whereas Romero's favourite monsters are a slow, rotting, shuffling horde whose sheer number and relentless advance is very much part of their creepy menace, Snyders zombies are like Linford Christie or Ben Johnson. They have no problem racing at 25MPH toward their victims. There are some who find this particular addition to "zombie attributes" exciting, but I found it to be a completely ridiculous. Snyder's living dead possess the muscular strength needed to run at sustained speeds but they cannot break the windows of a shopping centre to get to the human flesh inside. I can suspend belief enough for the idea of the dead coming back to life and wanting to eat flesh, but I draw the line at them running all over the place without any difficulty at all. They are, after all, re-animated corpses and should be subject to some sort of difficulty in movement. The worst offender of these new super strength zombies is the legless corpse who attacks the heroes in the underground carpark. It's a haphazard attempt at a cheap shock and it doesn't work.

On the plus side, Snyder's film has better make-up effects and more accomplished gore. Of course, Tom Savini was at the cutting edge of horror makeup in 1978 and there have been many advances made in makeup effects (a lot instituted by Savini himself) and many have been incorporated into David Anderson's special effects crew for the movie, I'm sure. However, as Snyder admits himself, Romero's "Dawn of the Dead" is gorier.

Also in the movies favor is generally good acting from all concerned. Sarah Polley (as Ana) deserves special mention as she is in nearly every scene and carries her character well and Jake Weber (as Michael) also does a good turn as the quiet unassuming member of the group. Ving Rhames (as Kenneth Hall) plays himself again and most of the others are there really just to make up numbers, but do a good job.

Other highlights of Snyder's version is an exciting helicopter shot opening and great end credits using a "Blair Witch" style handheld camera sequence, although the inclusion of Disturbed's - 'Down With The Sickness' is annoying and further sends the 2004 film down the MTV route. In fact the end credits present scenes that are far more terrifying than anything that actually makes it into the film's main running time.

Zack Snyder's "Dawn of the Dead" is not a bad film overall and it's certainly a worthy entry into the 'Living dead' cannon, but it suffers from a number of mis-steps and ideas that could have / should have been dropped in the first place, like the ridiculous zombie childbirth and the running corpses themselves...and where Romero's long script and running time leaves the viewer satisfied at its end, Snyder's film seems rushed at its end. It feels clipped as if the film had been mercilessly cut down from a much monger project. As a result I was left wanting and unsatisfied at the conclusion.

[Skippy911sc]

*looks at Skippy's avatar and scratches head*:rockbrow:

:lol:

I use the avatar as a reminder as to how horrible it really was...it reminds me every day...and as a little joke as well :)

[DjfunkmasterG]

As I have said many times I enjoy DAWN 04 over LADN, hell even Diary was better than LAND, but honestly we may all need to come to the concluson that Romero peaked at Creepshow. Basically everything else he has done since then is pretty much just late night fodder for the masses.

While DAY of the DEAD is a good zombie film, and arguably the most accomplished of his first three ,it doesn't retain the sentiment and warm feelings that fans get from Night and DAWN.

I like any Romero fan wanted to see the man do something great with LAND of the DEAD, but the outcome was a failure of epic proportions when compared with other zombie films he directed and Zack Snyder's 2004 remake of DAWN of the DEAD.

The big questions is... can Romero get his spark back with 2009's "Of the Dead"? Lets hope so, but from what has been seen so far it doesn't look too good.

[bassman]

While DAY of the DEAD is a good zombie film, and arguably the most accomplished of his first three ,it doesn't retain the sentiment and warm feelings that fans get from Night and DAWN.



You're gonna need a bigger boat.....

[darth los]

As I have said many times I enjoy DAWN 04 over LADN, hell even Diary was better than LAND, but honestly we may all need to come to the concluson that Romero peaked at Creepshow. Basically everything else he has done since then is pretty much just late night fodder for the masses.

While DAY of the DEAD is a good zombie film, and arguably the most accomplished of his first three ,it doesn't retain the sentiment and warm feelings that fans get from Night and DAWN.


I too find diary and dawn 04' more watchable than land. I can't quite put my finger on what it is though. Part of it was having established hollywood stars in it. It just detracted some of the feeling of hopelessness. I'm like "look it's dennis hopper, I just saw him in an insurance commercial and now he's a dictator". It just didn't feel real, like the part was his own. We could have plugged a number of actors into his role (as well as other roles) and there wouldn't have been much difference. Imo, when you have virtual unknowns in your film, those characters are theirs. Could you really picture someone else playing Rhodes? I sure some one else could have done it but they're just not Joe Pilato. He is incomparable in that role. The same can be said for most everyone in the film.

Now, while it's indisputable that dawn and night elicit warmer feelings from people, they are far from the best films, day is. It's not campy. It's actually plausible and they effects are better than land's, a movie made 20 years later mind you, which is a tribute to savini and nicotero. No wonder those guys are rock stars. If i could show one of GAR'S zombie films to a person for the first time and not want to turn them off to the genre with inconsistencies, inferior effects and zombie pie fights Day is the one I'd go with. :thumbsup:




:cool:

[MinionZombie]

Day effin' rocks both the balls and the cock - it's an awesome movie - and I have fond memories of it when I first came across it (not literally, just mentally :p), and I bet there's an absolute boat load of folks out there who love Day of the Dead very much.

Still, what you say about Yawn, Land and Diary are your opinions ... just fancied making that really obvious statement. :D

[darth los]

Day effin' rocks both the balls and the cock - it's an awesome movie - and I have fond memories of it when I first came across it (not literally, just mentally :p), and I bet there's an absolute boat load of folks out there who love Day of the Dead very much.

Still, what you say about Yawn, Land and Diary are your opinions ... just fancied making that really obvious statement. :D

Day was actually the first GAR film I saw and at age 7 no less !!! :stunned:



But yes those are just my opinions. But let's not get it twisted I'm speaking in relative terms. Land blows every other zombie film out there away save for the trilogy and even though I like it less than diary, rotld and dawn 04', out of respect for the master, I put it on level ground with them.




:cool:

[DjfunkmasterG]

Don't get me wrong, I like DAY, I just feel that his work was more up to snuff pre-DAY. Day is still one of the best zombie films made, but lets face facts he isn't doing what he should be doing with his series.

It is almost like he is deliberately destroying it.

[bassman]

How was he destroying it with Day? Because it had a dark tone instead of Dawn's lollipop adventure-fun? I don't see that as destroying anything. He just made a different film. Why make a film like Dawn all over again?


If anything, Day is closer to Night than Dawn. A good way to close out the trilogy, imo. And it's always been my favorite of the three...

[MinionZombie]

How was he destroying it with Day? Because it had a dark tone instead of Dawn's lollipop adventure-fun? I don't see that as destroying anything. He just made a different film. Why make a film like Dawn all over again?


If anything, Day is closer to Night than Dawn. A good way to close out the trilogy, imo. And it's always been my favorite of the three...
I agree, except that Dawn is my favourite of GAR's zed flicks.

I don't see any kind of destruction with Day, I think GAR was still in his prime back then, and when you see the behind the scenes stuff, it's really the last one of his flicks which had that family vibe - something which served his films well up to and including that point.

Then Monkey Shines happened, and while good, it wasn't spectacular ... and then The Dark Half was a let down, and Bruiser wasn't a big deal either after so much of the 1990s just slipped away.

And you all know how much I dig Land, even if it's not up there with Night, Dawn and Day, it's still quality and I'd say is his best flick since Day.

Diary though, it had some moments and some nice bits, but generally it was average with moments of "oh dear".

Roll on "of the Dead", which - from what I've seen - looks much better than Diary.

[darth los]

How was he destroying it with Day? Because it had a dark tone instead of Dawn's lollipop adventure-fun? I don't see that as destroying anything. He just made a different film. Why make a film like Dawn all over again?


If anything, Day is closer to Night than Dawn. A good way to close out the trilogy, imo. And it's always been my favorite of the three...


Don't get me wrong, I like DAY, I just feel that his work was more up to snuff pre-DAY. Day is still one of the best zombie films made, but lets face facts he isn't doing what he should be doing with his series.

It is almost like he is deliberately destroying it.




I don't think that deej meant to disparage day. Only that the direction of the series since then is not what it should be and therefore falls short of the bar set by the trilogy.

On a side note:

I was thinking the other day about a trilogy that's as good as GAR'S. The matrix came to mind, maybe the Godfather, but not much else. Everyone has their opinions but are there any others that compare?




:cool:

[DawnGirl27]

I can think of many I know who would put up the Lord of the Rings trilogy...

[bassman]

Star Wars(original)
Back To The Future
Indiana Jones
The Man With No Name

Quite a few great trilogies right there...

[clanglee]

You consider the Matrix trilogy good? :confused:

[AcesandEights]

You consider the Matrix trilogy good? :confused:

I think it gets a worse rap than it deserves, but you make a good point.

[Trin]

Matrix is a crazy trilogy. First movie is arguably one of the most creative concepts around, and it delivers in acting, plot, and effects. I was blown away.

Then Matrix 2 & 3 basically killed it. Not only did they make you scratch your head at themselves, but they make you go back and re-watch Matrix and scratch your head at it too. It is one of the only series where a sequel makes the original worse.

Lord of the Rings counts if you acknowledge that they had perhaps the greatest epic adventure in writing to draw from.

If we're counting things that exceed 3:

Alien, Aliens, ..... er... maybe one of the later Alien movies could limp its way into the running and complete the trilogy?? You know the first 2 are enough to carry the third.

Planet of the Apes. Choose the best 3 of the 5 and you have a great trilogy. Heck, like GAR's, just choose the first 3. Again, adapted from a book, so not entirely original to film.

[clanglee]

Matrix is a crazy trilogy. First movie is arguably one of the most creative concepts around, and it delivers in acting, plot, and effects. I was blown away.

Then Matrix 2 & 3 basically killed it. Not only did they make you scratch your head at themselves, but they make you go back and re-watch Matrix and scratch your head at it too. It is one of the only series where a sequel makes the original worse.

.

Exactly. The first movie was so original and good. The second was a clusterfuck of infinite proportions, and the third. . well. . it came last. The second two did indeed put a bad taste in my mouth for the first.

[krakenslayer]

Matrix is a crazy trilogy. First movie is arguably one of the most creative concepts around, and it delivers in acting, plot, and effects. I was blown away.

Then Matrix 2 & 3 basically killed it. Not only did they make you scratch your head at themselves, but they make you go back and re-watch Matrix and scratch your head at it too. It is one of the only series where a sequel makes the original worse.

Alien, Aliens, ..... er... maybe one of the later Alien movies could limp its way into the running and complete the trilogy?? You know the first 2 are enough to carry the third.


Wow, you just perfectly expressed my feelings on the Matrix trilogy! I couldn't have put it better myself.

With regards Alien 3, with recent viewings I have discovered that the third movie is actually an incredibly artful, well-made, intelligent movie of a type that has been extremely rare in Hollywood since the 70s/80s. However, one has to get past the fact that the plot is not only mind-numblingly slow and soul-crushingly depressing, but also a direct (and possibly spiteful) kick in the nuts to Aliens and its fans.

[EvilNed]

I love the original Dead trilogy, as well as the Matrix trilogy. I think the sequels are great, and I get alot out of em'. But if other people do not, I'm not going to put them down for it. Film is a personal experience.

For me, I'm kinda annoyed by how many people seem to claim that THEY hold the facts on what the best GAR film is. There is no superior film in anyway. For me, Day of the Dead is my favourite film of all time. Nothing compares to it, not even Dawn. It's simply a masterpiece. Of course Land wasn't going to live up to it, but I still like Land. And Dawn 04 isn't a zombiefilm, it's an actionfilm. It's fast-paced, annoying and riddled with cheap scares. It plays too much on clichés for me to enjoy it as anything else than popcorn fun. And when a zombiefilm steeps to that level for me, it ceases to be a zombiefilm. Or even a horrorfilm.

As for the Lord of the Rings-trilogy, it starts out good. But even after the first 30 minutes I can't help but thinking "This is so over the top it's laughable...". The films are basicly poking fun at themselves with their ridiculous melodramatics.

[Trin]

Maybe I'll give Alien 3 a re-watch. If what you say is true Kraken, the Alien trilogy would be the perfect companion trilogy to the Dead series. First movie was groundbreaking with atmosphere and unique concept. Second movie expanded the setting and took the concept to an action-adventure level without losing what made the first movie great. Third movie was dark and misunderstood but gains appreciation over time.

Neohs.... the Game Informer spoof of the Matrix Trilogy from several years ago...

[darth los]

I can think of many I know who would put up the Lord of the Rings trilogy...

I demand that you name names !!! :p


Star Wars(original)
Back To The Future
Indiana Jones
The Man With No Name

Quite a few great trilogies right there...


Those are all indeed great ones. I don't have a monopoly on ideas that's why I asked you guys. I respect your opinions. Thnx. :)







You consider the Matrix trilogy good? :confused:


I think it gets a worse rap than it deserves, but you make a good point.



It's actually growing on me more and more although none of them can even sniff the originals jockstrap. :barf:

I feel that the original is a classic and was just fine as a stand alone movie. I agree that the sequels tarnished the series but I disagree that they tarnished the original. I do make that distinction. That's like saying diary tarnished day/dawn/night and made them sucky film which I don't think anyone here is going to argue.




:cool:

[Trin]

I agree that the sequels tarnished the series but I disagree that they tarnished the original. I do make that distinction. That's like saying diary tarnished day/dawn/night and made them sucky film which I don't think anyone here is going to argue.Valid opinion. For me, I cannot go back and watch the first one without trying to piece together how all the crazy bs in the sequels reconciles with the original. Some of it simple - like how no one could ever evade the agents in the original and yet in the sequels everyone can evade dozens of them. To the more complex - like how the whole Oracle/Architect plot developments reconcile with the original. All in all it makes my head hurt watching any of them, and that hurts my enjoyment.

Lol - In the last one when Neo is confronting the Oracle about why she withheld so much info during their first meeting I always thought the answer should've been, "Well, you see, we didn't know we'd be making a sequel back then..."

I think Diary (or Dawn/Day/Land for that matter) did a good job of not messing with the predecessors. Sure, we have our little niggly things like how long it takes a bite to kill someone, how long it takes a zombie to reanimate - yes, those things are somewhat inconsistent in the later movies compared to earlier ones. But by and large (so far - crosses fingers) none of the later movies bring into doubt major events or series defining behaviors from the earlier ones.

[Mike70]

I can think of many I know who would put up the Lord of the Rings trilogy...

*hand goes up*


easily. the dead series is not even remotely close to the Rings trilogy in terms of, well i was going to make long list but it should suffice to say - everything.

[MinionZombie]

*hand goes up*


easily. the dead series is not even remotely close to the Rings trilogy in terms of, well i was going to make long list but it should suffice to say - everything.
One thing nobody can seriously deny with the Rings trilogy, is the sheer epic achievement of doing those three huge movies back-to-back with such reverence for the source material.

Plus those 4-disc DVDs kick ass. :)

[Trin]

One thing nobody can seriously deny with the Rings trilogy, is the sheer epic achievement of doing those three huge movies back-to-back with such reverence for the source material.

Plus those 4-disc DVDs kick ass. :)True statements one and all.

I had some minor points of wtf with some of the plot handling in LOTR compared to the books. But nothing too serious. In some areas they changed who makes certain statements, or who decides certain courses of action, and in every case I found it to the detriment of the story. But overall they stuck to the source material with far greater accuracy than most book -> movie translations.

[Mike70]

But overall they stuck to the source material with far greater accuracy than most book -> movie translations.

yes they certainly did. i am one of the biggest middle earth geeks you are bound to come across but i'm not a purist (purists should all be burned at the stake). there were changes i didn't care for, like aragorn's reluctant hero bit and elrond's whining about arwen leaving for valinor) but given the way most books get raped when they are turned into films, the changes weren't too heinous.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Lord of the Rings is nothing but a bunch of people walking. I agree with everything Kevin Smith said about it as I finally sat down after 6 years and watched all three and was like, god these are BORING.

Trilogies as good as the original Dead Trilogy.

Clint's Spaghetti Westerns
Original Star Wars
That pretty much sums it up.

Can't Include The Godfather because 3 Sucked balls
Matrix... only 1 & 3 were any good, although 2 had the best action sequences
Indiana Jones.... ruined on a count of the latest shitfest
I would have said Lethal Weapon, had it stopped at 3, but they went to 4 and although 4 wasn't great it wasn't horrible either.


Also, wasn't trying to slag DAY, but I think Romero peaked at Creepshow. I still like DAY, my favorite scene being the Fort Meyers opening, and John's Speech about God's Punishment of the human race, but Night and DAWN are leagues above DAY.

[shootemindehead]

Lord of the Rings is nothing but a bunch of people walking. I agree with everything Kevin Smith said about it as I finally sat down after 6 years and watched all three and was like, god these are BORING.

Trilogies as good as the original Dead Trilogy.

Clint's Spaghetti Westerns
Original Star Wars
That pretty much sums it up.

Can't Include The Godfather because 3 Sucked balls
Matrix... only 1 & 3 were any good, although 2 had the best action sequences
Indiana Jones.... ruined on a count of the latest shitfest
I would have said Lethal Weapon, had it stopped at 3, but they went to 4 and although 4 wasn't great it wasn't horrible either.


Also, wasn't trying to slag DAY, but I think Romero peaked at Creepshow. I still like DAY, my favorite scene being the Fort Meyers opening, and John's Speech about God's Punishment of the human race, but Night and DAWN are leagues above DAY.

Jesus...Smith has some nerve. The guy wouldn't even know where to start if he had to tackle a project as large as "The Lord of the Rings".

...and into the bargain, he hasn't made a good film since "Clerks".

Also, Indiana Jones begins at "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and ends with "Temple of Doom" for me. "The Last Crusade" was mind-numbingly stupid and it remains a mystery to me why people hold it dear to their hearts. The first two are classic cinema, with Lucas and Speilberg on top of their game, but the third film is just irritating, littered with idiotic attempts at "humour" and failing miserably everytime it puts it on screen.

And, as for "Return of the Jedi", every time I see one of those fucking teddy bears, I want to join the Empire. Ewok, my arse. Imagine how much cooler that film would have been if Lucas had retained his original idea and made Endor a planet full of Wookies!

[AcesandEights]

I agree with everything Kevin Smith said about it as I finally sat down after 6 years and watched all three and was like, god these are BORING.

Right, well, thanks for the opinion. ;)

[Mike70]

Jesus...Smith has some nerve. The guy wouldn't even know where to start if he had to tackle a project as large as "The Lord of the Rings".

ugh. agree totally. kevin smith is one of, if not the most, overrated director in the biz right now. a ridiculous hack who seems to think that dick and fart jokes are the height of sophistication. his movies can have their moments but over the long haul, i get very tired of the sophomoric, immature, and profane nature of most of his "films."

[AcesandEights]

ugh. agree totally. kevin smith is one of, if not the most, overrated director in the biz right now. a ridiculous hack who seems to think that dick and fart jokes are the height of sophistication. his movies can have their moments but over the long haul, i get very tired of the sophomoric, immature, and profane nature of most of his "films."

Yeah, I really, truly enjoy some of Kevin Smith's lighthearted stuff, but I'd like to see him successfully move his film making repertoire forward before he starts casting stones at kids movies, whose dramatic moments manage to resonate with more emotional intensity than 9/10s of what he's managed to put out on screen.

[shootemindehead]

I too, think that some of Smith's film are good. I liked "Clerks" and I quite enjoyed some of "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back". But to reduce "The Lord of the Rings" to '...people walking' and calling it 'boring' and then returning serve with crap like "Mallrats" is enough to destroy Kevin Smiths opinion with ease.

Game, set and match to Peter Jackson. No contest.

[darth los]

Also, Indiana Jones begins at "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and ends with "Temple of Doom" for me. "The Last Crusade" was mind-numbingly stupid and it remains a mystery to me why people hold it dear to their hearts. The first two are classic cinema, with Lucas and Speilberg on top of their game, but the third film is just irritating, littered with idiotic attempts at "humour" and failing miserably everytime it puts it on screen.

And, as for "Return of the Jedi", every time I see one of those fucking teddy bears, I want to join the Empire. Ewok, my arse. Imagine how much cooler that film would have been if Lucas had retained his original idea and made Endor a planet full of Wookies!

:lol::lol::lol::lol:


That's hilarious dude because when I saw it in the movies when I was 5 that's exactly what I thought they were!! Baby wookies !!

I am in total agreement with you about the Indiana jones films as well.




:cool:

[Trin]

Trilogies as good as the original Dead Trilogy.

Original Star Wars

Indiana Jones.... ruined on a count of the latest shitfest
I would have said Lethal Weapon, had it stopped at 3, but they went to 4 and although 4 wasn't great it wasn't horrible either.
If you're going to nuke trilogies based on movies numbered 4 and up then the Original Star Wars trilogy needs the boot.

Which raises the very interesting question - is the Dead series as good as the Original Dead Trilogy? That is, did Land ruin the legacy because "they went to 4 and although 4 wasn't great it wasn't horrible either." Did Diary further put the nail in the coffin? Will "... of the Dead" redeem the series?

Why hasn't anyone mentioned Revenge of the Nerds??

[Mike70]

Yeah, I really, truly enjoy some of Kevin Smith's lighthearted stuff, but I'd like to see him successfully move his film making repertoire forward before he starts casting stones at kids movies, whose dramatic moments manage to resonate with more emotional intensity than 9/10s of what he's managed to put out on screen.

like i said above, some of smith's films have their moments but overall i cannot stand 85% of what he's done. they strike me as really immature, mostly idiotic and seem designed to appeal to people perpetually stuck in their freshman year in high school.

[darth los]

like i said above, some of smith's films have their moments but overall i cannot stand 85% of what he's done. they strike me as really immature, mostly idiotic and seem designed to appeal to people perpetually stuck in their freshman year in high school.


Yeah, that schtick tends to wear thin pretty quickly and then it's just not funny anymore. Very few can make a career out of one particular film. (COUGH.....GAR......WHEEZE.) :p






:cool:

[archivesofthede]

WARNING!

Further flames of Kevin Smith will result in the casting of a series of Voodoo spells that will generate several nasty diseases to rot your fingers off. :elol:

First Stormtrooper hate, now Kevin! KEVIN!?!?! What has come of the world?

[DjfunkmasterG]

If you're going to nuke trilogies based on movies numbered 4 and up then the Original Star Wars trilogy needs the boot.

Which raises the very interesting question - is the Dead series as good as the Original Dead Trilogy? That is, did Land ruin the legacy because "they went to 4 and although 4 wasn't great it wasn't horrible either." Did Diary further put the nail in the coffin? Will "... of the Dead" redeem the series?

Why hasn't anyone mentioned Revenge of the Nerds??

LAND ruins the Dead series, Diary inmy opinion saves it, "Of the Dead" is the nail in the coffin.

In regards to NERDS, the only good one was part 1. it was Rated R, Raunchy funny, and awesome. Part 2 was retarded, and 3 & 4 were just utter trash.

Yes there was a 4th nerds movie.

[capncnut]

LAND ruins the Dead series, Diary inmy opinion saves it, "Of the Dead" is the nail in the coffin.
Weird, it's the other way around for me. While Land was FAR (and par) from the original trilogy, it squatted a gigantic loaf on Diary.

[bassman]

... "Of the Dead" is the nail in the coffin.



And when did you get an early screening?:rockbrow::sneaky:

[MinionZombie]

And when did you get an early screening?:rockbrow::sneaky:
Exactly.

[archivesofthede]

My second post and it's another review...sorry...But it says everything I want to say about Snyder's remake.

I really enjoyed your review. I don't agree 100%, but I do about 80%. It was very well thought out and written great. I feel you brought a lot of good points into perspective. It made me want to watch the film again, none the less. Thanks for posting this.

[shootemindehead]

Cheers Archives!

I reread it a while ago and there's a few silly grammar mistakes in there...duh. Oh well.

[DjfunkmasterG]

And when did you get an early screening?:rockbrow::sneaky:


Exactly.

That trailer was enough for me. However, i will go see it, if its good fine I will admit I was wrong and eat crow, but if it turns out I am right... I will never let it go, much like how I don't let go of the fact LAND sucks ass.

[clanglee]

Tell me that the studios haven't already figured this out. I think this was the sentiment even before Land. I got the impression that Land was a calculated risk for Universal, a mistake in retrospect, and not something any studio is likely to do again anytime soon.


I am sorry for bringing up such an old post here, but I wanted to share something. At the film fest, in line to get my stuff signed by george, some shlub a few people ahead of me tried to get george to sign the double release of Land/Dawn '04. He signed it of course being a nice guy and all. But I could hear him kinda bitching about it. "I had nothing to do with this movie really, the studio just released them together to get my name on it."

Then during one of the Q/As he was bitching about the studios, and while I can't really quote verbadim, he did allude that Land was funded(and underfunded) just so universal could have a movie by him to release with the remake of Dawn.

It's not really George's fault that the hollywood studios won't support him. They suck. But I found it kinda sad and interesting that it seems that the only reason that Universal funded his film, was to double package it with the Dawn remake. :(

[bassman]

That trailer was enough for me. However, i will go see it, if its good fine I will admit I was wrong and eat crow, but if it turns out I am right... I will never let it go...

Well....at least we know that you don't judge a book by it's cover. Good to know you keep an open mind.:rolleyes:

[Trin]

LAND ruins the Dead series, Diary inmy opinion saves it, "Of the Dead" is the nail in the coffin.

In regards to NERDS, the only good one was part 1. it was Rated R, Raunchy funny, and awesome. Part 2 was retarded, and 3 & 4 were just utter trash.

Yes there was a 4th nerds movie.Come on DJ, you cannot ruin something then have something later save it. Ruined is ruined. That's like saying that Revenge of the Nerds 5 could come along and make it all better. (and just for the record I brought up nerds with tongue firmly in cheek)

However, I am in the DJ camp with "... of the Dead." I expect it to be the nail in the coffin, though I hope to be disproved, and I will buy my ticket wearing a trenchcoat in fear that my friends might see me going into the theater.

@clanglee - Congrats on getting to see the man himself. I'd be more sympathetic to GAR's plight with the studios if I'd loved his recent films. As it is I cannot bash the studios for turning their backs on his scripts. I mean, if it were MY money to invest I'm not sure he'd get it, and I'm a sentimental fool for the Dead series.

[AcesandEights]

I see that over the last week or so, in the Spirit of Easter, we have resurrected a few similar threads to once again pontificate on how many running zombies can sprint on the head of a pin. Well, once again I will weigh in and say Dawn 04 was great fun (despite shed sized plot holes), Land was decent (though I rolled my eyes a few times, shuddered at his heavy-handedness and Romero seems to be losing his touch to make us feel connected to his protagonists) and Diary was kind of, sort of 'utter gash'.

Also, I am hopeful with regards to "...of the Dead."


I will buy my ticket wearing a trenchcoat in fear that my friends might see me going into the theater.

I do that all the time, though not when I'm going to see horror movies :dead:

[darth los]

Come on DJ, you cannot ruin something then have something later save it. Ruined is ruined. That's like saying that Revenge of the Nerds 5 could come along and make it all better. (and just for the record I brought up nerds with tongue firmly in cheek)

However, I am in the DJ camp with "... of the Dead." I expect it to be the nail in the coffin, though I hope to be disproved, and I will buy my ticket wearing a trenchcoat in fear that my friends might see me going into the theater.

@clanglee - Congrats on getting to see the man himself. I'd be more sympathetic to GAR's plight with the studios if I'd loved his recent films. As it is I cannot bash the studios for turning their backs on his scripts. I mean, if it were MY money to invest I'm not sure he'd get it, and I'm a sentimental fool for the Dead series.



I agree with you both on this one.


I think what he meant to say is that it "TARNISHED" Romero's Legacy and Diary "REDEEMED" it.


I do agree that once a great film/trilogy in this case is made that a subsequent film doesn't tarnish it, especially if it's not connected in any way other than the fact that it has zombies in it which is the case with land.






:cool:

[zombie bob]

What do people think about the remake of Dawn? I wasn't sure about the zombies..... sure slow and stumbly is scary but fast and vicious has its place too. I wasn't a fan of the zombie baby in '04 and whats with the lack of biker gangs?!? They were the cream on the cake in the '78 version.

[darth los]

What do people think about the remake of Dawn? I wasn't sure about the zombies..... sure slow and stumbly is scary but fast and vicious has its place too. I wasn't a fan of the zombie baby in '04 and whats with the lack of biker gangs?!? They were the cream on the cake in the '78 version.


Welcome to the boards. :)


Yes the inclusion of the Pagans was an all time classic. I mean, who else can say they had a real, honest to God Biker gang tearing stuff up in their film?

In any case, use the search function and I'm sure you should find more than enough about how people feel about this subject.





:cool:

[DjfunkmasterG]

Welcome ZOmbie Bob...


Here is my thing, any film that shoots a Baby in the face gets a minimum 5 stars out of 10 from me.

Now your mention of the missing biker gang... Well the chances of anyone surviving this zombie apocalypse, like th eone depicted in DAWN 04 would be minimal. The zombies are too fast and vicious, so excluding the gang was the right choice, however, back int he 70's Biker Gangs were a huge media thing, especially with the wrath brought upon some citizens by the Hell's Angels, so Romero's use of the PAGANs was probably just another one of his sly comments of society in the 70's.

While a lot of people write of Zack DAWN remake as forgettable there are a lot of elements in place about consumerism that are quite suttle. For instance, the character of Steve being the rich yuppie douchebag is pretty much a take on the materialistic society, and if you notice as each character inhabits a store as their own home, Steve uses the Jewerly store. Whereas Monica )Blonde chainsaw chick) spent most of her time in gaylen ross.

However, most of the mannerisms and commentary in DAWN 04 are very subtle, and not as in your face as Romeros stuff, but they are there. Dawn 04 is the GIMME generations zombie film.

[AnxietyDilemma]

I didn't like all the squealing and screaming either, but we have to deal with it. You have yowling zombies in almost every zombie film. The only one I can think of that didn't have the zombies gargling and screaming and crying and yelling was the original Night of the Living Dead.

And "BRRRRAAAAAIIIIIIINS!!" is infinitely more annoying than the squealing in Dawn '04.

In one case we have a movie that is a spoof, that injects elements of horror, and in the other, we have a movie that is a serious take on the subject

[sfreeman]

hey guys,

im currently writing an essay on why zombie films are often referred to as cult films.. the films set are dawn of the dead and its remake..

so i have to talk about its production, stylistic and historical factors..

I loved Romero's Dawn of the dead, but am un-sure about the re-make. Do you guys reckon the re-make could be called cult ?

I'm so stuck on this essay, I would love some help

Cheers

[DjfunkmasterG]

Go to the other thread you posted in, I left you my take on it... However, if it goes in your report I would either suggest word smithing it of making sure you give proper credit/reference to HPotD as to thwere you found the information.

[Epidemic79]

Well,as a matter of fact I just watched Dawn 04 again last night.

Been a year or two,but heres my view;

I know it catches alot flak on here,but I actually liked the movie when it came out,and I still like it now. I think alot of peeps hate it simply cause it wasnt a scene for scene,character by character,frame for fraken frame Remake of the original 78.

(Like that stinking pile of monkey crap that was the Psycho remake back at the end of the 90s! Completely unoriginal and unimaginitive rip off of Hitchcock's classic! And back in high school I actually paid money to see it in theater,and I walked out at the end insulted and empty.)

Do I have issues against Dawn 04? Of course I do. I dont agree with sprinting ghouls,nor do get why animals are deemed Un-edible by the zombie standards in the Snyder Universe. But I do think he managed to pull off a much more believible and 'accurate' zombie movie.Way better job than he did with the high holy '300' movie-lol

[DjfunkmasterG]

Well,as a matter of fact I just watched Dawn 04 again last night.

Been a year or two,but heres my view;

I know it catches alot flak on here,but I actually liked the movie when it came out,and I still like it now. I think alot of peeps hate it simply cause it wasnt a scene for scene,character by character,frame for fraken frame Remake of the original 78.

(Like that stinking pile of monkey crap that was the Psycho remake back at the end of the 90s! Completely unoriginal and unimaginitive rip off of Hitchcock's classic! And back in high school I actually paid money to see it in theater,and I walked out at the end insulted and empty.)

Do I have issues against Dawn 04? Of course I do. I dont agree with sprinting ghouls,nor do get why animals are deemed Un-edible by the zombie standards in the Snyder Universe. But I do think he managed to pull off a much more believible and 'accurate' zombie movie.Way better job than he did with the high holy '300' movie-lol


I believe this as well. I am really not fond of 300 or Watchmen, but I do like what Snyder did with DAWN. yeah its not Romero's DAWN but then again if they had done that can you imagine the shit storm that would have been brought down over it?

I seriously think people need to step back away from the Holy Trilogy and look at the remake as something completely separate.

IMHO only Night 90 and DAWN 04 are the decent remakes of Romero's movies... well and I do dig The Crazies, so there are 3 of Romero's films that I enjoy their respective remake, only in The Crazies do I feel it was better than the original movie.

[MinionZombie]

I've seen Yawn04 several times now, I even used it as an example in my final year dissertation on post-millennial horror movies - indeed, that was as much as I'd ever liked the movie, a brief spell in which I thought "maybe I've got it all wrong" ... but then a further watch confirmed my initial thoughts as have subsequent viewings - and that's removed from the GAR flicks.

Kinda funny that you say folk should remove themselves from the trilogy in order to enjoy Yawn04, yet you were pissing and moaning about Land and Survival for not being Dawn of the Dead. :shifty:

*steps back as pandora's box is flung open with reckless abandon* :elol:

Night90 is a good flick, it has some problems (Judy Rose, the MPAA, occasionally feels and looks a bit 'TV movie') but it's a good flick.

Likewise with The Crazies remake. Initially I was like "ah fuck that movie" when I heard about it, and even though the 'veiny crazies' angle grates on me, and while it's not as deep as the original movie, it's actually quite a good flick and I ruddy well enjoyed it (hopefully we'll see a good DVD for it too).

Yawn04 can still kiss my chuddies, mind.

As for "300" - never cared for it. I don't see what the fuss is about that moronic movie.

I really dig "Watchmen" though, but then again Snyder doesn't make much of an impact as a Director on it - he's more a shepherd for Moore's strong source text - and I think the extended director's cut of Watchmen is better than the theatrical version. My opinion of Watchmen, while far, far from sour in the first place, stepped up a few notches when I saw the DC version.

[bassman]

I think the general mood about Dawn04 has lightened up in recent years. Same with Land, actually. The more we move away from their intitial release, the more "accepted" they become by each group. That's the way it seems to me, anyway...

I've lightened up on Dawn04 even if I do think it's a poor remake. It has a few good moments sprinkled in with all the bad and it's more of an action flick, but I still give it a viewing from time to time.

[Neil]

I think the general mood about Dawn04 has lightened up in recent years. Same with Land, actually. The more we move away from their intitial release, the more "accepted" they become by each group. That's the way it seems to me, anyway...

I've lightened up on Dawn04 even if I do think it's a poor remake. It has a few good moments sprinkled in with all the bad and it's more of an action flick, but I still give it a viewing from time to time.

The opening 15-20 minutes of Dawn 04 - apart from the Godzilla screams and silly contact lenses - are fab... And throughtout it there's some great moments, but for me there's just too much annoying unecessary daftness to merit repeat viewings...

[Andy]

The opening 15-20 minutes of Dawn 04 - apart from the Godzilla screams and silly contact lenses - are fab... And throughtout it there's some great moments, but for me there's just too much annoying unecessary daftness to merit repeat viewings...

Agreed on most parts, the opening 15 minutes is absolutely epic and if the film kept up that pace throughout, there would be alot less haters.

The rest of the movie does have highlights but it does let itself down in places.

The only point i disagree with you on is that i think the screams and the contacts are forgivable.. dont get me wrong i dont like them but they are forgivable, its simply the 2004 equivilent of iffy face paint and bad acting on many beloved zeds in the 80's. Besides, its snyders vision and i rank it alot higher than any of romero's new trilogy.

[bassman]

The opening 15-20 minutes of Dawn 04 - apart from the Godzilla screams and silly contact lenses - are fab... And throughtout it there's some great moments, but for me there's just too much annoying unecessary daftness to merit repeat viewings...

The opening is good, but it kinda only makes me mad because of how much better it could have been. Overall it's a good sequence, but the girl that basically defies gravity? The "they love each other" shower scene? The Husband head butting his way through the door in what could pass as a Shining reference? Those things bring it down a notch and take me out of it.

Once the big black bad cop guy comes in, the movie really goes downhill.

But like I said...it's not the worst thing ever. I've come to terms with my anger issues over Dawn04. We can now live together in peace. :lol:

[Neil]

The opening is good, but it kinda only makes me mad because of how much better it could have been. Overall it's a good sequence, but the girl that basically defies gravity? The "they love each other" shower scene? The Husband head butting his way through the door in what could pass as a Shining reference? Those things bring it down a notch and take me out of it.

Once the big black bad cop guy comes in, the movie really goes downhill.

But like I said...it's not the worst thing ever. I've come to terms with my anger issues over Dawn04. We can now live together in peace. :lol:

Yep, and you forgot the now industry standard zombie raptor/godzilla screams, and the silly contacts that go in the moment someone dies. I mean their eyes would instantly change to some odd unhuman colour the second they die! Not daft in the least!

Later on we get daftness like zombies knowing when to be super quiet so as to sneak up on the heroes, or legless zombies up in rooftop piping... :rolleyes: