Hey everybody,
I thought I'd start a new thread for the actual release, since the speculation thread is looooooooong now.
Anyway, I hope you all enjoy it as much as I did back in that test screening in January. And I'm so incredibly happy it's getting such great reviews from critics - kinda assures me that I wasn't just being some fanboy with stars in my eyes at the screening (considering that the original "Dawn..." is my favorite movie of all time).
Anyway, my opinion is that it kicks ass. Now I'm looking forward to what you guys have to say......
______________________________________________________________________
We're seeing it tomorrow...I'm just going into it hoping for a decent horror film. It sounds like I probably won't be disappointed.
From what I have heard from a friend, apparently their were a few other gore sequences in DAWN OF THE DEAD that had to be removed because the MPAA b***hed about it and threatened to give the film an 'NC-17'! Considering how the original DAWN OF THE DEAD got away with no rating, it's truely suprising how time has changed from 24 years ago.
Now if true about those cuts, once again this proves that the MPAA is not as up-to-date as one would expect. Especially when one considers that the 40 minutes plus of Jesus Christ getting whipped in THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST did not suffer one cut and got away with an 'R' rating for all it's gruesomeness (sorry to bring this one up, but the MPAA is getting more ridiculous than it was 20 years ago). Hypocritcal is stressed on this subject as well.
Now when I say THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST "got away" with no cuts, I am not saying in any way that the MPAA should have demanded any sequence to be cut. My issue is that if THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST and all it's gruesome bloodshed can get an 'R' rating and not be cut, then DAWN OF THE DEAD and all it's gruesome flesh-eating zombie display should also get an 'R' rating and not be cut.
Personal taste from the MPAA it might be, but it's downright idiodic.
was pleasantly surprised aat how well some stuff was done, but the biggest flaw of the film is its script which does have some good ideas, but is quite weak in character and dialogue. the direction is very nice and has plenty of atmosphere and a nice dark mood.
there is well done gore, wonderful cameos( too short though) and some nice humor. definitely worth seeing for its bad movie value too.
"Considering how the original DAWN OF THE DEAD got away with no rating, it's truely suprising how time has changed from 24 years ago."
What do you mean by "got away with"? I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. The reason they could afford to do that then was twofold, essentially. First, some theatres back then actually carried unrated movies, unlike today. And second, the original Dawn of the Dead was lower budget in general, and could rely on a smaller run to make a profit.
Of course, it is possible I just misunderstood what you were getting at.
Jim H wrote:
> What do you mean by "got away with"? I'm not sure I understand
> what you're saying here. The reason they could afford to do
> that then was twofold, essentially. First, some theatres back
> then actually carried unrated movies, unlike today.
Not nessisarlily. Back in the mid-80's, fewer theatres were carrying Unrated films, most likely due to extreme pressue from newspaper ads refusing to print advertistements for some Unrated films (i.e., THE EVIL DEAD and RE-ANIMATOR were some of the victims, however both did manage to do quite well in some outletts) with heavy concerns from the so called community standards. Back in the 70's, it wasn't much of a big concern to any theatre chains during that era, but it still was an issue to Jack Valenti, even though he was very "liberal" to the major companies while heavily "conservative" towards the independents (I explain this below on the next issue).
>And second, the original Dawn of the Dead was lower budget
>in general, and could rely on a smaller run to make a profit.
Yes, DAWN OF THE DEAD was low budget. But when released, especially in it's Unrated format, the film managed to pull in $45 million. Not bad for a film made on a low budget and released on a "smaller run". And it was Jack Valenti and the MPAA who threatened Romero to give the film an X rating, to which Romero said he would release it Unrated. Valenti claimed it would fail due to not being properly rated; the $45 million spoke more volumes than Valenti's claim.
George Romero also recalled that during the development and preproduction of his original script for DAY OF THE DEAD, Romero wanted to have a budget that woud go slightly over that of $3 million. However, he was told that the MPAA would grant Romero's film an X rating if his independent film was made on a larger budget. Of course, why would the MPAA care what budget Romero was going to have? But again, it goes back to when the MPAA was established by Valenti and some major picture corporations and was used to regulate independent features and majore features; usually the major pictures would be treated more "fairly" than the independent ones. So, if Romero's film were shot on a bigger budget and sold more units under it's Unrated label than a regular mainstream motion picture with an R rating, then to me it's obvious that the majors and their MPAA are not going to be too thrilled about that. 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.
To me, the issue is why is the MPAA still venting over their if-it's-too-gory-then-it-has-to-be-removed-for-a-proper-rating mentality. Zombies eating human flesh; I do believe that is R rated material. Either that, or Valenti is still venting over sour grapes of the original DAWN OF THE DEAD rating issue? But then again, I really don't think that is very likely.
Chris! I applaud you! Fantastic job!
As for Passion not being that cut, you have to realize that Gibson is filthy rich.
Compare Hannibal and American Psycho. Hannibal was grotesque and uber violent. American Psycho had about three seconds cut from the sex scene that would have gotten it rated NC-17. I happen to own a copy of the unrated version on DVD and there is absolutely no reason for the three seconds to have been cut.
I'm not a big fan of Valenti. I wrote numerous essays on his influence on film while in college. You have to remember that the MPAA was once ran by a religious orginization many decades ago (before Valenti). You also have to take in consideration that Valenti's first cut to any film was when he took the word "Screwed" out of 'Whos Afraid Of Virigina Woolf" in the 60s.
Times have changed and I believe that the MPAA should be ran by someone more WITH the times than behind.
But that of course is just my two cents.
Skaboi wrote:
> As for Passion not being that cut, you have to realize that
> Gibson is filthy rich.
Oh, I realize this. But, to me, their is more to this than meets the eye. Have you ever heard of any other 'religious' picture besides THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST to be rated R? In my theory, I believe Valenti refused to cut a single frame from Gibson's film to avoid controversy. However, if somebody in the media, mainstream or otherwise, would mention this issue of the rating, then Valenti would still be under some kind of fire. And yet, that 40 minutes of bloody whipping didn't strike Valenti at all when he issued the R rating? Either the guy is becoming senile or just doesn't really know what to do. And if I were rating the film, I wouldn't remove any scene (i.e., Personally, I think that is the director to decide if a scene needed to be removed.) at all. And yet, a few gruesome gore scnes had to be cut in DAWN OF THE DEAD for an R?
> Compare Hannibal and American Psycho. Hannibal was grotesque
> and uber violent. American Psycho had about three seconds cut
> from the sex scene that would have gotten it rated NC-17. I
> happen to own a copy of the unrated version on DVD and there
> is absolutely no reason for the three seconds to have been cut.
>
> I'm not a big fan of Valenti. I wrote numerous essays on his
> influence on film while in college. You have to remember that
> the MPAA was once ran by a religious orginization many decades
> ago (before Valenti). You also have to take in consideration
> that Valenti's first cut to any film was when he took the word
> "Screwed" out of 'Whos Afraid Of Virigina Woolf" in the 60s.
Indeed, the early forms of organized film censorship was created by religious organizations, such as the Hayes Code back in the 30's. And, don't forget their was such a thing as state censorship, in which each state had their own form of censor policies (i.e., Lengendary film producer/distributor David F. Friedman recalled that back in late-50's New York the state censor board was run by five Irish Catholic women who were the wives of the state aldermen! And Friedman didn't get any standing ovation from them!). Valenti was the one who expressed concern on state censorship before his MPAA days, claiming that directors and producers artistic filmmaking should not be mangled by unfair state censors. He should talk, Valenti would later be the forerunner of ruining directors and producers artistic filmmaking! And the MPAA was formed by several major company pictures to assist in regulating both the major films and the independent films, usually the independent ones getting the short end of the stick.
From what I have been told, the MPAA doesn't even have any of the emploiers there to judge the films that they screen: they use parent-groups to view the film and judge what it should be rated and even "suggest" what the filmmakers should do! For example, the horror-comedy DEAD HEAT (1988) had to submitted to the MPAA 9 times in order to get the R as apparently the gory humor was too much.
As with another George Romero-MPAA related case, when Romero finally found a financier for his long-awited dream project DEAD RECKONING back in early 2002 I believe, Romero was facing problems with the major studio concerning the script and his creative control, for which the studio would not grant. Also, the MPAA demanded that if the film was going to be made, the entire gore segements either had to be watered down or removed from theatrical showings. With all of this on his back of the studio and MPAA, Romero pretty much backed-off and walked away from the whole thing with DEAD RECKONING still waiting to be made. And, of course, this would be a same issue when he was asked to write and direct RESIDENT EVIL.
> Times have changed and I believe that the MPAA should be ran by
> someone more WITH the times than behind.
Well, considering how old Valenti is now, it might not be long before somebody else is employed to take over and hopefully have some balls for once.
Chris, you really know your stuff when it comes to the MPAA.
The following is from the MPAA website:
By summer of 1966, the national scene was marked by insurrection on the campus, riots in the streets, rise in women's liberation, protest of the young, doubts about the institution of marriage, abandonment of old guiding slogans, and the crumbling of social traditions. It would have been foolish to believe that movies, that most creative of art forms, could have remained unaffected by the change and torment in our society.
A New Kind of American Movie
The result of all this was the emergence of a "new kind" of American movie - frank and open, and made by filmmakers subject to very few self-imposed restraints.
What is it that Valenti thinks is so bad about frank and open films? Did he honestly believe that if films weren't censored, film would turn to porn? I believe in some restrictions, but some of Valenti's decisions with films have been god awful.
to be honest with everyone i thoroughly enjoyed it. the gore was plentiful, they did a good job of updating the story and characters for a more modern setting, and there were a lot of scenes that were very well paced in their suspense.
i’m also a huge fan of the original and i found it fun to compare the new storyline with the old one. and also how they had to modify certain things to make them more politically correct, for example being it’s not very PC nowadays to refer to latino drug dealers as “dirty spics†like in the original. i also loved the cameos with Tom Savini & Ken Foree.
my only gripes (and they’re not really major ones), i would have been awesome if they would’ve done a more Goblin-like soundtrack in certain spots, and they should’ve played “the End†by the Doors during the closing credits!
ot: i had a dream last night i was fighting a totalitarian society and it was very bloody, hmmmm, wonder if it was influenced by seeing Dawn ; ).
"Considering how the original DAWN OF THE DEAD got away with no rating, it's truely suprising how time has changed from 24 years ago."
Not to be too picky and I don't know a whole lot about the MPAA but the original was released in theaters in '78, not '80. Two years doesn't seem like a whole lot but in this case it does make a difference. It also did not get "away with no rating" as that was often a case for people to want to see the movie even more. I know it worked with me and my friends. "No rating? Man, this one has to be good!"
You're also saying that many theatre districts and newspapers refused to play or promote non-rated movies. Well, that all depends on where you were. I know where I grew up, they had no problems advertising or showing non-rated films. It was more than likely limited to the small rural areas that this actually had an impact.
Anyway, I just wanted to point some things out and I'm in no way getting down on anything you said, in fact I agree with most of it.
odinn7 wrote:
> "Considering how the original DAWN OF THE DEAD got away with no
> rating, it's truely suprising how time has changed from 24
> years ago."
>
> Not to be too picky and I don't know a whole lot about the MPAA
> but the original was released in theaters in '78, not '80. Two
> years doesn't seem like a whole lot but in this case it does
> make a difference. It also did not get "away with no rating" as
> that was often a case for people to want to see the movie even
> more. I know it worked with me and my friends. "No rating? Man,
> this one has to be good!"
Yes, I do know that the original DAWN OF THE DEAD was released in 1978, not 1980. My "24 years ago" claim was quite inaccurate. Serves me right for trying to add up how old the film was in my head. Next time, I must get a calculator.
Well, as for not getting "away with no rating", Unrated is Unrated. However, as I can recall, in most trailers and theatrical advertisements for Unrated films, their would be a disclaimer that read: "Their is no explicit sex in this picture. However, their are some scenes that might be considered shocking. Therefore, no under under 17 admitted." At that time, that disclaimer gives somewhat an impression that the film could either have been rated R or X, as both those two ratings had the "no one under 17" claim (i.e., However, back in the late 1960's to the early 1970's, the original R and X rating claimed "no one under 16 admitted"! Yikes!). Either way, DAWN OF THE DEAD was Unrated and today has no specific rating attached to it. So, in a small essance, DAWN OF THE DEAD definatley managed to get away with no specific MPAA rating, despite the disclaimer.
And then, their is the case of "self-imposed" ratings, usually done by the films distributor. In this case, "self-imposed" censorship usually involved rating films without the assistance of the MPAA. This was commonly done back in the 1970's and, while not quite legal, it didn't serve any problems. Perfect example would be Herschell Grodon Lewis placing an R rating on THE WIZARD OF GORE without the MPAA looking at it and thus did not recieve any problems. He would however get the X rating for his last film THE GORE GORE GIRLS, but that was the MPAA's doing and is another story for another time.
For a side note, check out the advertisements for ZOMBIE (1979), THE EVIL DEAD (1982), RE-ANIMATOR (1985), DAY OF THE DEAD (1985), and EVIL DEAD 2 (1987) as these films also used the dislcaimer and had no specific MPAA rating.
> You're also saying that many theatre districts and newspapers
> refused to play or promote non-rated movies. Well, that all
> depends on where you were. I know where I grew up, they had no
> problems advertising or showing non-rated films. It was more
> than likely limited to the small rural areas that this actually
> had an impact.
You are correct on this one, and I wished I pointed this out earlier. Indeed, it really depended on the area that you lived in or what the community standards were. But as I said, it was the early 1980's where certain areas were beginning to not carry Unrated films. It was until the late 80's the Unrated films craze was at an end and the dreaded NC-17 that brought it's ugly head in the early 90's.
> Anyway, I just wanted to point some things out and I'm in no
> way getting down on anything you said, in fact I agree with
> most of it.
Oh, no problem with your imput. In fact, it just adds more to the discussion. Anything else to add, just go right on ahead.
About the MPAA's uneven rating practices; There's no set scale that they use, it's just what a bunch of parents (the only requirement for being part of the MPAA) think the film should be rated. If they like the movie, they'll go easy on it (Passion), if they don't like it (most horror movies), they'll insist that it needs to be cut.
I think it's time for some changes. First, the MPAA should be run by an impartial panel who will deliver consistent ratings. Second, theaters and newspapers should be legally barred from refusing to show or advertise a movie based solely on its rating, even if it's NC-17. Third, the MPAA should keep its nose out of things that don't concern it. In a couple years, TV will be going all digital, but you're not going to be able to record the high-quality digital signal, thanks to the MPAA lobbying the government and electronics makers to include a "broadcast flag" in the digital standard. Supposedly they were afraid that people would pirate movies and TV shows. So now, all equipement manufactured after a certain date will refuse to record anything that has the broadcast flag and the MPAA, along with the movie studios, are to blame!
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!
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.
>ZOMBIES SHOULD NOT MOVE FAST AFTER RIGORMORTIS SETS IN).
Actually, rigor mortis is only temporary. It loosens up after a few hours.
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
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...."
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?
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.
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.
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.
Awesome movie! I loved it. Oh jmc, I'll second that comment about 28 Days Later.
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.
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
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
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.
"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.
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.
I thought this was fairly miserable on the whole. Not as awful as, say, Underworld or Equilibrium or Dracula II: The Ascension, but lousy nonetheless. The zombies look fine, but they're faster and more agile than any living human being, and the fright factor goes right out the window. The cast was so large as to make any character development whatsoever impossible. The three mall security guards were uncalled for. So were the people who show up in the truck. The humor was out of place, as the rest of the movie took itself very seriously. And as Peter Jackson will tell you, it's best to play a snarling zombie baby for humor rather than scares. Thumbs down.
Come to think of it, there were a few entertaining scenes. I enjoyed the celebrity zombie shooting gallery with Richard Cheese accompaniment, and the part where the truck runs over some zombies on the way to the loading dock was a nice touch and well done. Still, the funny or exciting bits were too sparse to save the rest of the movie.
Cool! I'm very glad to see that most of you guys love it - makes me glad that you don't think I've just been blowing smoke these past couple of months.
______________________________________________________________________
I saw it last night with my brother and we both liked it. I would call a unfaithful remake of the original but at least I had fun. I still think the original is way better and I think the new Dawn is one of the better horror movies to come out in years.( I don't care what you say Ving Rhames it is a HORROR movie!) 3 1/2 out of 5 just because it was a fun movie. I wasn't bothered at all by the fast Zombies, I'll admit I think fast zombies are more dangerous than slow zombies but slow Zombies are a lot creepier than fast zombies (and I prefer my zombies slow.)
Post Edited (03-27-04 16:34)
This movie kicked ass. And I'm just going to come right out and say I thought it was better than the orginal. (You may all throw your stones at me now) Almost everything about this movie improved apon the orginal. Better acting, scarier story, and cooler zombies.
I know many of you complained about " oh the zombies moved to fast" I actually thought the idea of faster zombies was an improvment. It made the situations alot more suspensfull when you knew that the zombies were just as fast as those who were alive.
The look of the movie was far more apacalyptic than 28 Days Later and the orginal Dawn of the dead.It was like looking at scenes right out of the Resident Evil video game and might I add that this was what the Resident Evil movie should have been.
My only real vise with it is this. One how did they know which boat was the right boat and that WAS NOT WISCONSIN. I live in wisconsin and I know what the sky line of Milwaukee looks like not to mention the basic layout of the houses in wisconsin.
In the movie the houses are all crowded real close together with in-ground swimming pools.You do not find many in-ground swimming pools in wisconsin. Lastly as far as I know there are no islands in lake michigan, but I maybe wrong and if I am correct me.
I really wish that they had decided to make it in my fair state and not some place in california.
I haven't seen it but 99% of it was shot in Canada.
Most of the original Dawn of the Dead (1978) was shot in Pennsylvania.
I thought that I was going to hate this movie, but I thought it was decent. The original is definitely a better movie, but the remake is worth seeing. I will buy the DVD when it is released.
Dawn of the Dead is one of the best movies I've seen in a while. And yeah, I think it was better than the original. Better zombies (faster moving = scarier and more believable), more gore, and kickass explosions. It had decent enough character development for me, especially the security guard who was an a***ole in the beginning but actually ends up kicking major ass in the end.
The inclusion of Richard Cheese's cover of "Down with the Sickness" was classic. Even the ending credits kicked ass. People were leaving and then just froze in their steps during them.
But don't believe me. Check out this review:
http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=dawn_rules
I thought as a horror film it was better, but not as an overall film. Still, it's a great horror film, and my wife and I are STILL feeling creeped out a week after we saw it.
I finally got to see it last night. I was the "loser" that you always see at the movies who is by themselves as I couldn't find anyone else willing to go with me. Anyway, I thought the movie was real good. Comparing it to the original, I am not real happy with it. As a movie on it's own, entertaining and definitely worth seeing. The gore effects were done fairly well and the fast zombies...well, they did add to it when there was a mass of them chasing the characters. I prefer the slow zombies (because this is what I grew up watching) but I don't think they would have worked out as well in this movie.