Dawn Of The Dead remake reaction thread

[Drezzy]

I agree. First off, f**k the MPAA. I've been saying that since I first learned about their less-than-respectable ways of rating films (read: incredibly biased) a couple years ago (keep in mind I'm still in high school).

I loved the remake. It has a few things that make it superior to the original (zombies that look like zombies and not townsfolk in gray facepaint; a little better pacing, as I felt the inclusion of zombies every 10 or 15 minutes made the movie feel like an actual ZOMBIE movie; THE ENDING WAS INSANELY AWESOME, AS WELL AS THE BUSES), and a few things that make it inferior (soundtrack, although including Richard Cheese covering "Down With The Sickness," was way too poppy; only some of the characters were developed, and when they were it was done in a "cheesy" manner; James Gunn seemed to want to make people laugh more than be terrified, which is understandable considering his other movies were Tromeo & Juliet and the Scooby-Doo films; ZOMBIES SHOULD NOT MOVE FAST AFTER RIGORMORTIS SETS IN). I'd give it a 3.5/5, and definitely worth seeing again.

[JohnL]

>ZOMBIES SHOULD NOT MOVE FAST AFTER RIGORMORTIS SETS IN).

Actually, rigor mortis is only temporary. It loosens up after a few hours.

[Brother Ragnarok]

I'd just like to say, I think it rocked a whole bunch, and I'll probably catch it again before it leaves the theater.

Brother R

[jmc]

It's probably one of the few horror films of the last 10-15 years to actually scare me and make me feel creeped out the next day.  

There are a few minor things I don't like about it, and I think overall the original is more entertaining [only because the new version is a lot bleaker and more depressing] but from the opening sequence until the end this movie had me in its clutches.  Seriously, I think it's one of the best horror films of the last couple of decades, and maybe the first "modern" film to really be sucessful as far as how it was shot, the story, etc...even though it was a remake this film really seems like a movie of our times and not just something influenced by movies of previous decades.   Maybe I'll feel different later, but right now I feel like this is an instant classic.  

Way beyond my expectations.  And when I left I told my wife, "This is the movie 28 DAYS LATER was trying to be...."

[Jim H]

Alright, thanks for clearing that up.  One thing though..

"Therefore, Romero had to go down to a budget of $3 million and the MPAA granted Romero the 'Unrated' label, which resulted in the film playing in limited areas due to some major theatre districts and newspaper advertisements refused to play 'Unrated' movies not specifically rated by the MPAA. And if you don't believe me on this one, check out the Romero interview on the 2-disk Anchor Bay Entertainment DAY OF THE DEAD DVD release. "

What do you mean granted him an Unrated label?  The MPAA is voluntary, so why would they have to apply to not get a rating?

[Chris K.]

Jim H wrote:

> Alright, thanks for clearing that up.  One thing though..
>
> "Therefore, Romero had to go down to a budget of $3 million and
> the MPAA granted Romero the 'Unrated' label, which resulted in
> the film playing in limited areas due to some major theatre
> districts and newspaper advertisements refused to play
> 'Unrated' movies not specifically rated by the MPAA. And if you
> don't believe me on this one, check out the Romero interview on
> the 2-disk Anchor Bay Entertainment DAY OF THE DEAD DVD
> release. "
>
> What do you mean granted him an Unrated label?  The MPAA is
> voluntary, so why would they have to apply to not get a rating?

Granted is the wrong word I used (again, note to myself, re-read your statements). The issue was that if Romero made DAY OF THE DEAD on a much more "larger-scale" independent budget, the MPAA wouldn't stand for it, R or X or Unrated for that matter. Therefore, in order to avoid troubles with the MPAA and their concerns with higher budget independent movies, they lowered the budget to make it acceptable for Valenti. In turn Valenti was at least glad that the film would be budgeted around $3 million and thus ended up caring less about the films rating issue with Romero as long as the budget would be low.

This is really the best way I can explain it. If you check out the interview on the 2-disk DAY OF THE DEAD release, their is more in-depth explination on the subject as I can recall.

[jmc]

I've seen the same interview and heard it differently.  The problem was that the producer saw Romero's script and said that it would cost more money and that it would have to be unrated due to the violence.  The producer wasn't willing to spend the extra money for an unrated film because during that time unrated movies just couldn't make the same money as R-rated films due to so many places refusing to advertise them or play them in theaters.  Romero agreed to a smaller budget so he wouldn't have to worry about cutting the film down for an R.  He also had to make major script changes so the movie ended up not being his original idea.  I don't recall them even mentioning the MPAA, at least certainly not when they were talking about pre-production.    

The MPAA doesn't control anything other than the rating of the films submitted to them.  The X was considered the realm of pornography so most people chose to go unrated if their movie was too violent for an R.  Later they made the NC-17 rating in an attempt to have a rating for movies that aren't pornographic but have too much sex and violence for the MPAA to give them an R but it didn't work and it's treated the same way as the X or as going unrated used to be.   I have the same problem that many others do....their inconsistency.  And I agree with Roger Ebert in his review where he says that if THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST got an R then no movie can ever get an NC-17 for violence ever again but I'm sure the MPAA won't see it that way.

[Chris K.]

jmc wrote:

> I've seen the same interview and heard it differently.  The
> problem was that the producer saw Romero's script and said that
> it would cost more money and that it would have to be unrated
> due to the violence.  The producer wasn't willing to spend the
> extra money for an unrated film because during that time
> unrated movies just couldn't make the same money as R-rated
> films due to so many places refusing to advertise them or play
> them in theaters.  Romero agreed to a smaller budget so he
> wouldn't have to worry about cutting the film down for an R.
> He also had to make major script changes so the movie ended up
> not being his original idea.  I don't recall them even
> mentioning the MPAA, at least certainly not when they were
> talking about pre-production.    

Hmm, thank you for the clarification. Most of the interviews that I have read usually mention the MPAA's involvements in the film, but after reading your statement it seems that they were a minor inconvience towards Romero's film and they probably were. However from some sources, the MPAA is allowed to read the script before the fim's development and pre-production so as to inform what may be acceptable towards their rating format. This is, of course, not mandatory at all and is done in choice consideration by the majors with so-so results.


> And I agree with Roger Ebert in his review where he
> says that if THE PASSION OF THE
> CHRIST got an R then no movie can ever get an NC-17 for
> violence ever again but I'm sure the MPAA won't see it that
> way.

So says Ebert, which I agree with in full. However, I don't think Ebert's claims will change Jack Valenti's mind whatsoever, so I'm not going to hold my breath either.

[Lee]

Awesome movie! I loved it. Oh jmc, I'll second that comment about 28 Days Later.

[Chris K.]

It seems that Jack Valenti is indeed on the verge of retirement. And, as much as I hate to stand in the way of somebody's glory, all I have to say is Thank God that he is getting out of the MPAA.

Here is the link to the article:
http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,13763,00.html

Now, with Valenti out of the way we just might have somebody with balls to take over and start some changes with the MPAA. Here's hopeing, by a longshot.

[Grimsnipe]

I luv dolma wrote:

> I got a question: (I'm sorry if someone already asked this, or
> if the answer exists somewhere on this page) When Ana drives by
> Vivian in the beginning of the movie, she tells Vivian, "Say hi
> to your mom." and talks to her as if she was a neigbor. But a
> moment later she is Ana's house, and I assume Louis was Ana's
> husband or boyfriend, but he says, "What's wrong dear?"
>
> IF SHE WAS A NEIGBOR, I WOULD BE FREAKED OUT IF SHE CAME IN MY
> HOUSE. MAY SHE BE A ZOMBIE OR NOT!

That was something I was wondering about.  Now, Ana did say to hear "Maybe I'll go skating with you tomorrow" (well, I'm paraphrasing but you get the gist), so we can assume Vivian has been by there has before (maybe even in it.)  Still that does NOT explain how Vivian could get INSIDE the house.  I mean, did she break in?  If so, why didn't the noise wake Ana and Louis up?  

The only possible explanation I can come up with is this is one of those rare neighborhoods where everyone leaves their door unlocked.

Or, perhaps Vivian had a key to their house, got bit, ran over to her neighbors to get help, unlocked the door, opened it, and then fell on the floor, died and came back as a hallway.

I guess we could get into how Vivian, as a zombie has an interesting sense of dramatic timing.  (She stands still for several seconds and waits until Louis gets REAL close before attacking.)  Especially interesting since all the other zombies go for the straight attack (well, except maybe for that one who hide on top of those pipes in the mall basement and waiting till someone walked by to jump down.)

Course, we're thinking too much... :)

Grimsnipe

[Grimsnipe]

JohnL wrote:

> >ZOMBIES SHOULD NOT MOVE FAST AFTER RIGORMORTIS SETS IN).
>
> Actually, rigor mortis is only temporary. It loosens up after a
> few hours.

I'm told the reason behind the idea of the fast zombies (other than, I suspect wanting to get the film a faster pace) was that zombie, since they don't feel pain, will go all out towards their prey until they'll destroyed.

Dunno, for some odd reason the fast zombies didn't bother me too mcuh, although I did think that one guy (Ana's boyfriend) came back a little TOO quickly.  No infection can set in THAT fast...

But hey, I'm just nitpicking..

-grim

[Mr_Vindictive]

Just came back from seeing Dawn and I'm quite amazed.  If you have read any of my posts related to this film, you would know that I was seriously against the idea of a remake.

But, Zack Snyder really suprised me.  The film was actually quite good.  It seems that Snyder really really really loved the Dead films.  His film is true to the same feel of the original Dawn while taking on it's own life.  This is a fantastic stand alone zombie film.  Even the zombies felt like the originals, even though they seemed to be on steroids.

Compared to other newer horror films, this one is a freaking GEM.  Gory as hell, fun and action packed.  I'm sure Romero is proud.

[Chopper]

"I'm sure Romero is proud."
very true Skaboi, at times it seemed the film was more like an ode to the original than a remake.

[jmc]

None of the films have ever really been consistent on when exactly someone becomes a zombie, though I guess with Ana's husband I think it was becuase he had died from his wounds and was reanimated, not from infection.  The movie's vague about this--whether it's only infection or if it's also any unburied dead person.   I think the characters conclude that it's only the former but I got the feeling that was just another one of the bad conclusions/decisions they make throughout the film.   I'd guess if most of the "rules" of the original films were in place, someone who died quickly from a zombie's bite would become zombified as soon as they were dead.

In some of the Italian flicks people reanimated pretty quickly too....for dramatic purposes.  And in the original NOTLD the Coopers don't take long to rise, though I guess it's longer than in this newer film.  

One thing I did like...they establish very early on that you need to shoot zombies in the head--they didn't bother with a scene where people try to shoot them in the chest only to have them keep coming.  I don't think it would have worked with this film.  

When we were leaving the theater and going to the parking garage we felt all creepy and nervous, almost expecting zombies to be around the corner.  I guess that's how people felt when they saw the original DAWN back in the Seventies.