ONE SOLID REASON DAWN of the DEAD 2004 rocks

[skullan]

Dawn of the Dead (2004) was, in my opinion, a great zombie-based action flick. The casting was good, the acting was solid. I really liked it. The original Dawn of the Dead was a good movie for character development and it is fun to watch to see the differences in terms of time (JC Penny's merchandise and such). They are both good flicks, but admittingly, I will watch 2004 over the original any day of the week. Diary of the Dead is fairly good and it comes close to being as interesting as Dawn (2004). Land of the Dead was trash. Day of the Dead (original) was fun to watch, but it wasn't as good as Dawn the original and was stupid in some places. Day of the Dead (remake) was trash, beyond trash. Night of the living Dead (90s) was actually a good flick and I like the direction they took Barbara. Night of the living Dead (original), good flick. I love zombie flicks, but even with Romero it is hit and miss on whether or not his movies are good. I'm especially critical of Romero after LotD, I felt let down after that one.

[fulci fan]

I am going with Planet Terror as the best zombie movie since night 90

[DjfunkmasterG]

well if 28 Days later isn't a zombie flick, then Planet Terror doesn't qualify as one either. They were called sickos, and you could shoot them anywhere to kill them. When guns were fired at them, the sickos would turn around and retreat. (See BBQ scene when they held up in the restaurant)

[Excessium]

I think Shaun of the Dead is better then Dawn. You can only watch Dawn once or twice after that you begin to notice just how horrible the movie really is. Shaun on the other hand is a movie you can watch over and over again and find something new. So much is going on in the background, that when you actually start to notice it, you gain a whole new level of respect for what Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg did. Also, in the better zombie movies i have watched, zombies are usually the backdrop for the actual story. Zombies aren't really that intersting which is why movies that make them the antagonist usually are weak. Dawn is just a really boring movie. I can't relate to any of the characters. Can anyone? There isn't enough there to even let u care about them. Edgar Wright did a far better job directing then Zack Snyder. And the Shaun screenplay/story was far better then James Gunn's weak script. Really I think Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg laid down the new blueprint on how to make a good film with zombies. Develop Characters inside a story, throw zombies in.

[Neil]

I think Shaun of the Dead is better then Dawn. You can only watch Dawn once or twice after that you begin to notice just how horrible the movie really is. Shaun on the other hand is a movie you can watch over and over again and find something new. So much is going on in the background, that when you actually start to notice it, you gain a whole new level of respect for what Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg did. Also, in the better zombie movies i have watched, zombies are usually the backdrop for the actual story. Zombies aren't really that intersting which is why movies that make them the antagonist usually are weak. Dawn is just a really boring movie. I can't relate to any of the characters. Can anyone? There isn't enough there to even let u care about them. Edgar Wright did a far better job directing then Zack Snyder. And the Shaun screenplay/story was far better then James Gunn's weak script. Really I think Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg laid down the new blueprint on how to make a good film with zombies. Develop Characters inside a story, throw zombies in. Shaun did have some really nice - Romero'esque - touches... I always like the ambulance they drive by, and there is a body back just gently thrashing around...

[Bub666]

I think Shaun of the Dead is better then Dawn. You can only watch Dawn once or twice after that you begin to notice just how horrible the movie really is. Shaun on the other hand is a movie you can watch over and over again and find something new. So much is going on in the background, that when you actually start to notice it, you gain a whole new level of respect for what Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg did. Also, in the better zombie movies i have watched, zombies are usually the backdrop for the actual story. Zombies aren't really that intersting which is why movies that make them the antagonist usually are weak. Dawn is just a really boring movie. I can't relate to any of the characters. Can anyone? There isn't enough there to even let u care about them. Edgar Wright did a far better job directing then Zack Snyder. And the Shaun screenplay/story was far better then James Gunn's weak script. Really I think Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg laid down the new blueprint on how to make a good film with zombies. Develop Characters inside a story, throw zombies in. I agree,Shaun is a lot better then the Dawn remake.

[Excessium]

Dawn '04: THE best opening sequence in horror history. Really??? I'll name a few openers I think are better horror openers. 28 weeks later, that opener is better for not only what happens, but the for the question it asks. Under those circumstances, could you do what Don did to his wife. Could you leave a loved one behind like that? Plus none of infected slowed down for dramatic purposes like the little girl did in dawn. 28 days Later. The Ring. Scream-You killed off Drew Barrymore in the first 10 mins!? OG NoTLD. Those are the 5 that stand out in memory.

[Neil]

Dawn '04: THE best opening sequence in horror history. Was quite good apart from:- 1) Cheap sex scene - Necessary due to the poor writing. 2) Super human girl-child zombies bouncing off the floor. 3) Unecessary contacts (in husbands eyes) to help the more dimwitted members of the audience work out who's not normal anymore. 4) Raptor/Godzilla zombies - Why the strange unhuman screams? Yes it was a good opening, but the cracks were already showing in the movie even in the early stages!

[darth los]

How dare they try something different.

[skullan]

Was quite good apart from:- 1) Cheap sex scene - Necessary due to the poor writing. 2) Super human girl-child zombies bouncing off the floor. 3) Unecessary contacts (in husbands eyes) to help the more dimwitted members of the audience work out who's not normal anymore. 4) Raptor/Godzilla zombies - Why the strange unhuman screams? Yes it was a good opening, but the cracks were already showing in the movie even in the early stages! 1) Yeah, nothing like having a biker gang running through the mall shoving pies in the faces of zombies, sitting at the heart meter machine when being chased by zombies or really poor music selection during the whole thing. Because that right there was awesome writing *just a hint of sarcasm on my part here * 2) She didn't bounce, she jumped, she's dead, dead don't feel the pain of their bodies getting slammed (or at least that is assumed). I will agree that they did it too fast, she was pulled up with a wire I believe. 3) Shaun of the Dead did it with CGI, Dawn (original) and Day did it with grey body paint. Each movie has the dead being differentiated from the living in different ways. 4) Agreed. It wasn't necessary to make them shriek, or technically make noises at all. With that said, wasn't that much of a detractor for me.

[darth los]

1) Yeah, nothing like having a biker gang running through the mall shoving pies in the faces of zombies, sitting at the heart meter machine when being chased by zombies or really poor music selection during the whole thing. Because that right there was awesome writing *just a hint of sarcasm on my part here * Great point. I actually posted about how rediculous that was not too long ago.

[Deadman_Deluxe]

Personally? I think this whole situation could have, and should have, been avoided by simply NOT calling the movie DAWN OF THE DEAD. Lets face it. When all is said and done, its NOT DAWN OF THE DEAD, is it? This movie was a rip off, a blatant cash in on an already existing franchise, somewhat sacrilegious in it's nature, and directed by a guy who misunderstood the most basic of concepts regarding zombie flesh-eaters, which were the creatures whom he was supposed to be portraying. That said, it was strong enough to stand on its own two feet as a decent horror movie ... so why use the name? The answer is obvious. Money! Had they called the movie <insert independent movie title here> then we would never have been having this discussion over and over for the past four years, we would never have had such a split camp, and we would in all likely hood all be singing its praises, whilst simultaneously laughing about the impossibilities of sprinting corpses.

[MinionZombie]

I don't buy the idea of 'everyone would love it if it wasn't called Dawn of the Dead' though, to paraphrase for sake of argument. Regardless of title, the flaws I've listed at exhaustive length (110 in 110 minutes ) would still exist and still render it a load of f*cking poop. But that's my take, on your take, of one element of this whole piss-pie, so...

[sandrock74]

I think this whole situation could have, and should have, been avoided by simply NOT calling the movie DAWN OF THE DEAD. Lets face it. When all is said and done, its NOT DAWN OF THE DEAD, is it? I fully agree!

[Bub666]

I don't buy the idea of 'everyone would love it if it wasn't called Dawn of the Dead' though, to paraphrase for sake of argument. Regardless of title, the flaws I've listed at exhaustive length (110 in 110 minutes ) would still exist and still render it a load of f*cking poop. But that's my take, on your take, of one element of this whole piss-pie, so... I agree.If you called anything else it would still be a bad movie.