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

[bassman]

... "Of the Dead" is the nail in the coffin. And when did you get an early screening?

[MinionZombie]

And when did you get an early screening? 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? 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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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