gore in the directors cut

[MinionZombie]

Ving Rhames is a pretty big name. Mekhi Pfeiffer - he's a big deal (apparently) etc. They're the sort of people that the typical Yawn04 audience would lap up. I saw a CAM version of Yawn04 when it had just come out in America and you could hear the audience lapping up every drop of Rhames as he cringed his way through the hideous "my black ass I will" style dialogue. Yawn04 strokes the dick of the M.T.V.-A.D.D. audience. That's my view anyway, I'm sure Dj knows it well, lol. I have the Director's Cut on DVD, even got it from America, but I wouldn't give it anything more than 4 out of 10. It has the attention span of a toddler and is just too brainless ... which is ironic for a zombie film.

[EvilNed]

Dawn 04 is as stupid as they come, but at least it had some cool scenes. As far as zombie adventures go, I'd rate it a 6 or 7. As far as zombie films go, it's a weak 3 or 4. It's way inferior to Land in everyway, of course.

[Hawkboy]

Ving Rhames is a pretty big name. Mekhi Pfeiffer - he's a big deal (apparently) etc. They're the sort of people that the typical Yawn04 audience would lap up. Not really. Neither is a household name. Mekhi Pfeiffer is on 'ER' and hardly a big deal (Seen his name on a marquee anywhere in the last three years?), and I'm trying to think of the last movie Ving Rhames had a lead role in outside of a made for cable Don King movie (That is very good by the way). Sorry, but to the average joe, Ving is known as "the big guy from Pulp Fiction". In other words, some movie goers may know of him but he is certainly no draw at the box office. I'm not arguing the merits of the Dawn remake (Although I hold it in much higher in opinion then yourself) but the the reasoning the remake did better than "Land" because it had "Big Name Stars" is simply not true, as it had no "Big name Stars". Yawn04 strokes the dick of the M.T.V.-A.D.D. audience. The movie is much more than that, at least to me. If it were your typical MTV flick we would have had 2 hours of strobe light, horrible heavy metal laden soundtrack tripe. I was sooo relieved when that wasn't the case (Sadly they let me down with the end credits....those more than anything resemble the movie you describe) I thought the remake was thoughtfully done and not a retread of the previous film. The characters had a depth more prevalent than today's horror films and was really quite ambitious in expanding the scope of the zombie terror in terms of world wide chaos. Now it did some things I didn't like.... I missed the social satire and political mistrust of Romero's version and the lack of it makes the remake far inferior. But then again had they tried to redo that type of commentary/subtext it may have come off as cheap. I'm glad they went in a different direction with the film. I didn't want to see a carbon copy of the original Dawn (I already have that on DVD) I think the film makers did a grand job and I welcome any attempt to re-work "Day" as that is my least fave of the Dead films. Don't worry I'm not trying to make you like the remake, or saying you're wrong for hating it....... I'm just telling you why I liked it. (Theres a lot more reasons why I liked it but I am sooo tired =) ) By the way I LOVED Land of the Dead too.

[EvilNed]

Dawn 04 is a good film for when you're really tired and want to watch a no-brainer. EDIT: I changed "perfect" to "good". I realized there's a ton of no-brainer films that I'd rather watch instead of Dawn 04, really, considering the writing is really horrible. My favorite No brainer is Blade.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Not really. Neither is a household name. Mekhi Pfeiffer is on 'ER' and hardly a big deal (Seen his name on a marquee anywhere in the last three years?), and I'm trying to think of the last movie Ving Rhames had a lead role in outside of a made for cable Don King movie (That is very good by the way). Sorry, but to the average joe, Ving is known as "the big guy from Pulp Fiction". In other words, some movie goers may know of him but he is certainly no draw at the box office. I'm not arguing the merits of the Dawn remake (Although I hold it in much higher in opinion then yourself) but the the reasoning the remake did better than "Land" because it had "Big Name Stars" is simply not true, as it had no "Big name Stars". The movie is much more than that, at least to me. If it were your typical MTV flick we would have had 2 hours of strobe light, horrible heavy metal laden soundtrack tripe. I was sooo relieved when that wasn't the case (Sadly they let me down with the end credits....those more than anything resemble the movie you describe) I thought the remake was thoughtfully done and not a retread of the previous film. The characters had a depth more prevalent than today's horror films and was really quite ambitious in expanding the scope of the zombie terror in terms of world wide chaos. Now it did some things I didn't like.... I missed the social satire and political mistrust of Romero's version and the lack of it makes the remake far inferior. But then again had they tried to redo that type of commentary/subtext it may have come off as cheap. I'm glad they went in a different direction with the film. I didn't want to see a carbon copy of the original Dawn (I already have that on DVD) I think the film makers did a grand job and I welcome any attempt to re-work "Day" as that is my least fave of the Dead films. Don't worry I'm not trying to make you like the remake, or saying you're wrong for hating it....... I'm just telling you why I liked it. (Theres a lot more reasons why I liked it but I am sooo tired =) ) By the way I LOVED Land of the Dead too. Hawboy is right. There really is no Big name stars in DAWN 04. There are known character actors. Sarah Polly is only big on the canadian indie circuit. Everyone else is just a bit player, but everyone did a fantastic job... except for that retard who went after the frigging dog. They should have just shot her and left her for Andy to feed on.

[MinionZombie]

Hmmm...no brainer films...I duno which ones I'd go for, but one on my list of preferred no brainer entertainments is Van Wilder: Party Liason - as derivative as it is, it's still really silly and fun. I've watched clips/snippets of Yawn04 on Sky Movies ... but haven't put the DVD in my player in a very long time ... probably been over a year, when I was doing my dissertation (one segment talked about Yawn04). It's a rather dusty DVD case.

[DjfunkmasterG]

I just watched it the other night. Holds up good too repeated viewings. Dawn 04 that is.

[Moon Knight]

Land of The Dead. Man, I loved this movie. However, it wasn't perfect and the thing I love most about the GAR films seemed to missing- Character Development. Slack even went the entire film without her name mentioned once. Aside from a few minor complaints, including the ending where the zombies are breaking into The green and some soundtrack issues, This movie was fun. Great dialogue, a healthy amount of gore, and a nice cast, really set this film apart from this sad wave of horror crap that keeps coming out. Land a Failure? Maybe depends on how you look at it. Sure, profit wise, it wasn't impressive and yes, it was POORLY marketed. GAR even admits that Universal aint knocking on his door. Was Day of The Dead a succuss at the box office? Hell no! It was a complete dud, but you know, who cares. That film grew even bigger among GAR fans as years gone by and I love Land of The Dead a bit more every time I pop it in. Like Minion said, these movies have a cult following and I love carrying these films around in my pocket.

[MinionZombie]

All of Romero's films have met with some sort of bugger up. Night was only successful after the French started raving about it. Dawn suffered the "X" rating debacle - but was ultimately very successful - Hungry Wives and The Crazies both did pretty much nothing (though I like them). Martin was small time I'd say, Knightriders didn't do at all well, Creepshow was his biggest success - a commerically bankable product. Day of the Dead flopped like a soppy pancake, Monkey Shines did alright, Dark Half was over-done, Bruiser was seen by about 3 people and Land ... well considering his track record he's done well. GAR makes the movies he wants to make and they've all found cult success thanks to video (and now DVD), because there are hoardes of people like us swooning over his flicks.

[Adrenochrome]

Bruiser was seen by about 3 people GAR makes the movies he wants to make and they've all found cult success thanks to video (and now DVD), because there are hoardes of people like us swooning over his flicks. I must be one of the three. I liked Bruiser.

[MinionZombie]

Same here, got it on DVD. It's not great, but it's kinda cool. I especially liked the Misfits part *he says as he sits typing while wearing a Misfits t-shirt*.

[Ryan1]

I thought Land Of The Dead was pretty violent. Day is still the goriest for me,i saw it when i was pretty young and that scene of the guy getting his eye ripped out ****ed with me for a long time.

[Monrozombi]

I must be one of the three. I liked Bruiser. alright i'm in the club of three woohoo, loved Bruiser. GAR is one of those directors that he may not be successful financially or commercially wise compared to the Lucas', Spielbergs & Camerons but he's created a small set of films that have stood the test of time and although people may think of LOTD as a flop, it really wasn't, todays standards when it comes to films is set too high if you ask me. People pump too much money into a film and expect 10x the return. GAR made a decent film for 20mil give or take a few hundred grand, none of the actors probably got paid more then a million, so it goes to show that someone like GAR can make enjoyable films, that are remembered throughout the ages

[MinionZombie]

Actually it cost $15 million and it's done over $46 million worldwide.

[Monrozombi]

Actually it cost $15 million and it's done over $46 million worldwide. I was rounding off...anyway, that shows you that with the right story, director, crew and cast a good film can come from a small budget. We're getting into the season of mega blockbusters starting next week. Could MI:III have been made for 20 million? probably if it wasn't all salary for Tom and Phillip Seymour Hoffman etc and the need for the over the top and all the marketing, some of these movies have marketing budgets 2x the amount that a GAR film would take to produce. If someone would just give GAR 10-15 million and the proper marketing people behind it, anyone of his films would gross over 50 million easily