Completely random Dawn 2004 observation ...

[Danny]

for me it was after she got out the car crash. coincidently that was also the moment ving rhames showed up

[Mutineer]

Dawn 04 is one of the more inspiring zombie films ever made. It was slick, exciting and a fun tale of action and survivor horror. The characters, alhough not completely fleshed out (pun) were atleast entertaining on the surface. Despite the lack of a layered presentation you still get the sense these characters have a backstory The opening is one of the best openings in any movie; period. Showing the neighborhood go to **** and Ana driving through a city in chaos is everything I have always wanted to show in a zombie film and something no one has done before with any success Andy and Ving having a connection was a great idea; with them communicating from roof to roof and having Andy be stuck in a gun store is a great plot point CJ: You know what, asshole? Either way we gotta get over there and get the guns to get out of the parking lot, OK? The escape is done with more zombie geek fantasy than Romero's Dead Reckoning. These escape vehicles atleast have a plausibility factor and these little busses barreling though the cityscape is a fun ride. We get our gore in the 3rd act; Andy has one of the more impressive head-shots in cinema and the chainsaw landing on blondie is effin gross enough - In spite of everyone saying the characters were shallow; who didn't love Steve ? He is such an ass you almost lhave to like him. He says everything we all want to say, but never do. When the bus topples over and he comes stumbling out of it and looks up and sees the zombie, who isn't caught up in the moment ? What a drag, in the 3rd act they kill off the 3 best characters; CJ offs himself to save the others and who isn't bummed when we realize Michael has been bitten and is being left behind ? - And just when we think it is over; we get a little video footy in the end; nothing cooler than an ambiguous ending in a zombie film. = I always have thought that most people bag on Dawn purely for sake of George A Romero. They're geek purists who can't accept that Dawn 04 really does kick ass. GAR had a chance to redeem himself with LAND and just dropped the ball on the 1 yard line. I not only find DAWN 04 to be one of the best zombie offerings we've seen but embrace it. We need more zombie films with this kind of ambition.

[Cereval]

They're geek purists who can't accept that Dawn 04 really does kick ass. GAR had a chance to redeem himself with LAND and just dropped the ball on the 1 yard line. Geek purists typically acknowledge that the Dawn remake was a great film - that's usually not the issue. Rather it's usually a question of the reimaging of the original film; the omittance of key elements that made the original Dawn of the Dead the film it was (plot factors, inherent themes, underlying commentary). The rebuttle of Dawn 04 purists seems to dog this factor continually. I'm just suggesting we be fair concerning these terms. And as far as redemption is concerned ... I still find it amusing when this kind of phrasing is used about Romero - the half-century film veteran who invented this particular genre.

[EvilNed]

In spite of everyone saying the characters were shallow; who didn't love Steve ? He is such an ass you almost lhave to like him. He says everything we all want to say, but never do. I kinda hate Steve. Mostly because he's such a poor character. One second he's a coward, the next scene he's willing to leave the others behind and take only a gun with him? The guy is pure example of poor writing. He was just put in there so he could do something assholish every time the script needed it - wether or not it suited his character was beside the point.

[Brubaker]

I kinda hate Steve. Mostly because he's such a poor character. One second he's a coward, the next scene he's willing to leave the others behind and take only a gun with him? The guy is pure example of poor writing. He was just put in there so he could do something assholish every time the script needed it - wether or not it suited his character was beside the point. Steve seemed like a character placed in there only because people would really hate him and eventually get a kick out of seeing him killed. A lot like the one or two token "assholes" that used to infest the Jason Voorhes sequels. Honestly, Cooper was the same way in Night. I suppose the same could be said about Rhodes in Day but the thing is people who were enjoying the movie probably wanted to see what he would say or do next. In contrast, I'm sure that everybody just wanted Steve to die in Dawn 04.

[ProfessorChaos]

I was watching Dawn '04 with the commentary on, and the director dude was talking about the locations and stores in the mall. He says that "Wooley's Diner" was named after Wooley from Dawn '78, who got "chomped by a zombie"....WTF? Last I recall, Peter blasted Wooley's guts out with his M-16 and no "zombies" ever touched Wooley! I know it's been said before, but how did this douche get the job of directing the remake of one of the greatest horror films of all time?!?! He probably saw the original once, after a long night of taking it in the butt and huffing gasoline with a group of transvestite circus midgets. That guy is a total dildo and needs to be have his ignorant tongue ripped out of his stupid dick-licking mouth and shoved right up his self-righteous ass. I still like this movie, but am starting to get mighty critical of those responsible for not allowing the movie to stand anywhere near the original. Seriously, I think anyone who is a member of this glorious site could have done a much better job. By the way, the part of the commentary I am talking about is on the unrated DVD, about 18 mins and 05 secs into the movie.

[EvilNed]

Steve seemed like a character placed in there only because people would really hate him and eventually get a kick out of seeing him killed. A lot like the one or two token "assholes" that used to infest the Jason Voorhes sequels. Honestly, Cooper was the same way in Night. I suppose the same could be said about Rhodes in Day but the thing is people who were enjoying the movie probably wanted to see what he would say or do next. In contrast, I'm sure that everybody just wanted Steve to die in Dawn 04. Difference is that both Rhodes and Cooper made sense. Cooper didn't want his family to die. Rhodes didn't want his men to die. Steve didn't want to die, yet alot of his actions were just retarded and made no sense. For instance, escaping the bus without helping the others. A coward such as him? No, the writers just wanted to show Steve do something assholish.

[ash]

I don't care what anyone says, Dawn 04 was freaking entertaining and worth buying. Nowhere near as good as the original, but the atmosphere and it's portrayal of the downfall of humanity are priceless. While I didn't feel any real attatchment to any of the characters save Andy and Chips, I still wanted to see them all survive. While I dislike the zombies running through the ENTIRE movie, I have to admit that it has better short-term scare value. The gore and action were extremely well-done, and it had good sound design. On the subject of Steve, he was always an asshole. He never really got any more brave or helpful. He IS the character we love to hate, but he is also a source of comic relief. ("Well, Deadish". So funny.) I agree that he seemed a bit unbalanced, and I expected him to pull a big character change like Peter did at the end of Dawn 78 where he is about to kill himself, but the heroic music plays and he fights his way to the roof. I also think that it does deserve it's title as a "reimagining", because it shares much with the original concept-wise. Note that GAR was attempting to show both the human condition and the end of modern civilization. This "remake" shows this effectively, though the downfall of humanity falls much more in place than the human condition part. P.S. I happen to be a GAR diehard myself, but I can still appreciate a good film.

[Brubaker]

Since Michael seemed to know he was bitten and doomed to die, perhaps he could have sacrificed himself instead of C.J. I own both the unrated version and the theatrical cut (found that version on vhs for $2 and watched it the other night). They are both worth viewing, if you were a fan of the movie. The theatrical cut does move a little bit faster and a lot of the missing footage isn't necessary.

[capncnut]

Yeah, the theatrical version is way better than the director's cut - it's shorter.

[Brubaker]

Yeah, the theatrical version is way better than the director's cut - it's shorter. "B-B-Bu-Bu-Buh-Buh-But-But........" Synopsis: *Brubaker gapes at the screen in disbelief. His mouth moves to form an argument but it quickly closes again.*

[bassman]

Yeah, the theatrical version is way better than the director's cut - it's shorter. I prefer the shortest cut of them all......the trailer.

[Brubaker]

I think I will slink out of this thread now and hope it gradually slips to page 2, then page 3, then............

[Yojimbo]

And as far as redemption is concerned ... I still find it amusing when this kind of phrasing is used about Romero - the half-century film veteran who invented this particular genre. Well said. Here, here!

[Mutineer]

Gar invented the genre but his reign ended a long time ago. He had his chance to empathetically slam down the ultimate vision with Land and gave us as much substance as ass on a stick. He almost single handedly killed the very genre he birthed. - Dawn 04 stands on it's own two feet while bringing a fresh take on the subject matter. Pitting the two films against each other (78 and 04) is moot and nothing but fanboy banter. - Anyone saying Dawn sucked is full of crap and only trying to protect GAR's version. Well don't ! They're two different worlds.