Dawn of the Dead (attn. lilcountriegal)

[Dan]

This comes out on DVD tomorrow, it's a remake of the 1978 movie. Lil, I heard this is supposedly almost as good as 28 Days Later, and it does have the running zombies and everything. I'll probably rent it this weekend or something.

 

[Johnney]

seen it when it came out and its a good remake imo. not like the old school zombies though, these fuckers are fast!

 

[Mainframe]

This movie is good.. BUT... its not the original. It has some of the same story, but it really goes off on a tagent.

First, the zombies should not be zipping around like 28 days later (which was a disease and not the result of "hell becoming full"). Second, they are dead, have been deceased, and should be slow and uncoordinated (like the original). Now they are all top speed zombies.. Im sure hollywood did that to cater to the "newer" audience who couldnt handle "slow" zombies. STUPID.

I liked it, it was intense, but its not the original. They should have just called it something else... George Ramero should have had some kind of role in the making of this movie besides just using his 1978 screenplay.

At least Tom Savini got in on it..




Not nearly as much of a disaster as the remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Talk about a WASTE of time

 

[Johnney]

good observation, but i havent seen too many remakes that are 100% the same. no its not the same, there had to be some type of difference in it. i liked the different layout of the plot, it was a good twist.

 

[Mainframe]

IMO.. if your going to make a RE-MAKE.. keyword there, make it at least close to the original, if not, call it something else. They just tried to ride the "Dawn of the Dead" name for recognition.

The mall was on (but if they took that out it'd be 100% different), but the speed of the zombies was just too much. That was a total bite from 28 days later and they should have kept it traditional. ZOMBIES WOULD NOT BE FAST.

It wasn't horrible tho. There were some cool scenes. There were also characters in the movie that didn't need to be and played little to no role in the overall story (see: the black dude and his g/f who had a zombie baby?? DUUUMMMB)

Overall.. 2.5 / 5

 

[Johnney]

IMO.. if your going to make a RE-MAKE.. keyword there, make it at least close to the original, if not, call it something else. They just tried to ride the "Dawn of the Dead" name for recognition.

The mall was on (but if they took that out it'd be 100% different), but the speed of the zombies was just too much. That was a total bite from 28 days later and they should have kept it traditional. ZOMBIES WOULD NOT BE FAST.

It wasn't horrible tho. There were some cool scenes. There were also characters in the movie that didn't need to be and played little to no role in the overall story (see: the black dude and his g/f who had a zombie baby?? DUUUMMMB)

Overall.. 2.5 / 5

the baby thing was a bit far fetched...lol
but this isnt the first instance of fast zombies. the name escapes me at the moment, but it was with the punk kids and that warehouse that had the canisters in the basement. they ended up burning one of the re-animates in a creamatorium. those zombies were fast as hell too. late 80's?
i would have given it a bit higher rating
3.5/5

 

[lilcountriegal]

This comes out on DVD tomorrow, it's a remake of the 1978 movie. Lil, I heard this is supposedly almost as good as 28 Days Later, and it does have the running zombies and everything. I'll probably rent it this weekend or something.

I think this actually looks good... I havent seen it yet... I'm a little slow on these type things.

Dan, lemme know if/when you see it and what you think.. we seem to have the same taste in these types of movies...

 

[Dan]

First, the zombies should not be zipping around like 28 days later (which was a disease and not the result of "hell becoming full"). Second, they are dead, have been deceased, and should be slow and uncoordinated (like the original). Now they are all top speed zombies.. Im sure hollywood did that to cater to the "newer" audience who couldnt handle "slow" zombies. STUPID.

As much of a horror purist as I am, I have to disagree with you. First of all, you are right, zombies that have been rotting in the ground should not be hauling ass all over the place. But, the original stumbling, moaning zombies were never very scary for me. The fact that in Night of the Living Dead, they decide to avoid the zombies by... just running past them! shows why I don't like them, they're just not that much of an immediate threat the way a "runner" is. Again, I haven't seen the remake of DotD, so I probably shouldn't be arguing this one way or the other.

I liked it, it was intense, but its not the original. They should have just called it something else... George Ramero should have had some kind of role in the making of this movie besides just using his 1978 screenplay.

Honestly, they should have taken the money from this and made Romero's original script for Day of the Dead, the original script is awesome, but the movie (due to budget issues) is much different from it and frankly, kinda sucks.

With all due respect, I didn't like DotD (the original) that much. It drags way too much once they get to the mall, it's very dated. I suppose this was what he was going for, but the zombies had no affect on me whatsoever. I'm guessing Romero did this on purpose so that once the humans go crazy, it really showed the whole "who's the real monster here!" angle even better. I liked the original ending to the original movie better, too (the main guy makes it to the roof, but everyone else has died. The main guy realizes that there's no hope for humanity and shoves his head into the blades of the chopper). At this point, I mainly appreciate the original as a part of film history more than anything else. Although, the effects are still amazing to this day.

but this isnt the first instance of fast zombies. the name escapes me at the moment, but it was with the punk kids and that warehouse that had the canisters in the basement. they ended up burning one of the re-animates in a creamatorium. those zombies were fast as hell too. late 80's?

Return of the Living Dead, a true classic! :happy2:

Dan, lemme know if/when you see it and what you think.. we seem to have the same taste in these types of movies...

I'll probably rent it this Friday, I'll let you know how it was.

 

[Mainframe]

the baby thing was a bit far fetched...lol
but this isnt the first instance of fast zombies. the name escapes me at the moment, but it was with the punk kids and that warehouse that had the canisters in the basement. they ended up burning one of the re-animates in a creamatorium. those zombies were fast as hell too. late 80's?
i would have given it a bit higher rating
3.5/5

That would be return of the living dead part 2, i believe. and those were army canisters and some kind of agent (gas) in there. the canister got cracked and started releasing the gas. the gas went up thru the crematorium chimney deal and went into the clouds, right? then it rained and the agent went all over the graves and the dead started to rise. i havent seen this since about 15 years ago so this is off pure memory. i remember the end they killed em all and burned some in the incinerator and then the news guy comes on and says "oh good, rain, that will help put out the fires". but of course we all knew it meant more zombies to come.

those zombies were 1/2 to 3/4 normal speed but i wouldnt say fast. Yeah, late 80's.. musta been 87 or 88.


Ive seen just about every zombie movie made, I believe.

Go see "the crazies" by george ramero. excellent movie. i think its gonna be remade by him again.

 

[Mainframe]

As much of a horror purist as I am, I have to disagree with you. First of all, you are right, zombies that have been rotting in the ground should not be hauling ass all over the place. But, the original stumbling, moaning zombies were never very scary for me. The fact that in Night of the Living Dead, they decide to avoid the zombies by... just running past them! shows why I don't like them, they're just not that much of an immediate threat the way a "runner" is. Again, I haven't seen the remake of DotD, so I probably shouldn't be arguing this one way or the other.

That was the beauty of it tho! They were slow, yes, so they seemed like a nuisance more than anything.. but there were millions of them, and you found you would be quickly overwhelmed no matter what you did (see: Day of the Dead). The "runner" deal worked in 28 days later, when it made sense. But it doesnt make sense in this particular movie, at all actually. I liked the movie, it wasnt horrible, it shoulda just been called something else and I wouldnt even be talking about probably.

Honestly, they should have taken the money from this and made Romero's original script for Day of the Dead, the original script is awesome, but the movie (due to budget issues) is much different from it and frankly, kinda sucks.

The effects are kinda hoaky at times but still disturbing if it was 1978. I mean they used real sheep intestines and hearts and such to get the effect and it was nasty! When the cops bust in at the beginning and raid the apt. complex and they blow dude's brains out the back of his head, that still looks really tight.

With all due respect, I didn't like DotD (the original) that much. It drags way too much once they get to the mall, it's very dated.

Well, it is nearly 30 years old.

I suppose this was what he was going for, but the zombies had no affect on me whatsoever. I'm guessing Romero did this on purpose so that once the humans go crazy, it really showed the whole "who's the real monster here!" angle even better. I liked the original ending to the original movie better, too (the main guy makes it to the roof, but everyone else has died. The main guy realizes that there's no hope for humanity and shoves his head into the blades of the chopper). At this point, I mainly appreciate the original as a part of film history more than anything else. Although, the effects are still amazing to this day.

I liked the zombies.. they dont scare me now of course, but when i was about 5 or 6 when I first saw this, I was scared for a long time. The original ending is better, I agree. But this is all taste, so we cant really argue taste.

 

[Johnney]

it came out today so im going to buy it!

 

[Dan]

The effects are kinda hoaky at times but still disturbing if it was 1978. I mean they used real sheep intestines and hearts and such to get the effect and it was nasty! When the cops bust in at the beginning and raid the apt. complex and they blow dude's brains out the back of his head, that still looks really tight.

No no, I was talking about Day, not Dawn. I think one of the only things Day really has going for it is the special effects in the climax. It really drags worse than Dawn in the middle section. And, this is depressing considering that the original script would've made Day the best of the trilogy.

Well, it is nearly 30 years old.

Yeah. I guess when I say 'dated', I don't necessarily mean old, just that the point it's making about consumerism was a lot more pertinent in 1978 than today.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre was made in, what, 1974? That doesn't seem dated to me at all. Again, I guess this is just a matter of taste.

That was the beauty of it tho! They were slow, yes, so they seemed like a nuisance more than anything.. but there were millions of them, and you found you would be quickly overwhelmed no matter what you did (see: Day of the Dead). The "runner" deal worked in 28 days later, when it made sense. But it doesnt make sense in this particular movie, at all actually. I liked the movie, it wasnt horrible, it shoulda just been called something else and I wouldnt even be talking about probably.

That's fair enough. I guess I should make my comment "of the movies I've seen, I've liked the runners better". You are correct that it doesn't make any sense at all in the context of the Dawn remake, I guess.

 

[Dan]

I watched Dawn of the Dead last night, and as much as I hate to admit it, I liked it better than the original. It didn't really have the social commentary of the original, but it was far more entertaining and surprisingly just as gory (I got the unrated director's cut). I definitely liked the running zombies better than the lurching ones.

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

I watched Dawn of the Dead last night, and as much as I hate to admit it, I liked it better than the original. It didn't really have the social commentary of the original, but it was far more entertaining and surprisingly just as gory (I got the unrated director's cut). I definitely liked the running zombies better than the lurching ones.

It was Ok....Didn't understand why they wanted to leave their refuge for
Gilligans island!

 

[Dan]

It was Ok....Didn't understand why they wanted to leave their refuge for
Gilligans island!

Spoilers ahead!

Well, I guess it was just that they didn't think they would be able to hold off the zombies for too much longer. Either that or they were running out of food, maybe? Most mall food is frozen, so with the power cut, it wouldn't last too long.

But, they died on the island, so it all worked out in the end.

Am I the only one who didn't like the video clips at the end? I would've much rather had the movie end when the guy on the dock shot himself and it cut to black. I get the feeling the filmmakers were forced to add that stuff in the end credits in order to make the ending seem a little less bleak.

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

Spoilers ahead!

Well, I guess it was just that they didn't think they would be able to hold off the zombies for too much longer. Either that or they were running out of food, maybe? Most mall food is frozen, so with the power cut, it wouldn't last too long.

But, they died on the island, so it all worked out in the end.

Am I the only one who didn't like the video clips at the end? I would've much rather had the movie end when the guy on the dock shot himself and it cut to black. I get the feeling the filmmakers were forced to add that stuff in the end credits in order to make the ending seem a little less bleak.

I thought the video idea could have been better, yet it left you with that
"all for nothing" feeling about the cast and their journey.

 

[Dan]

Yeah, true. At least the real end to the movie (the one before the credits, anyway) left you with a sense of hope even in the hopelessness of the situation.

The zombie head in the cooler was just silly. And the added shot of the boobies was just gratuitous.

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

Yeah, true. At least the real end to the movie (the one before the credits, anyway) left you with a sense of hope even in the hopelessness of the situation.

The zombie head in the cooler was just silly. And the added shot of the boobies was just gratuitous.

speaking of redundant.....
How about that 2 second sex scene clip in the mall WTF???

And who the Hell in their right mind would go to save the dog???
I don't care if you are a member of PETA... look at the facts,
THE ZOMBIES NEVER HURT THE DOG STUPID!!!

 

[Dan]

Yeah, that was really out of nowhere. I guess it established that girl as "the whore who will die".

That whole sequence was really bizarre to me, to be honest. I guess a movie that tense needed a break, but it was weird that all of a sudden the tone went from "zombie shot in the head: scary!!" to "zombie shot in the head: comedy!!"

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

Yeah, that was really out of nowhere. I guess it established that girl as "the whore who will die".

That whole sequence was really bizarre to me, to be honest. I guess a movie that tense needed a break, but it was weird that all of a sudden the tone went from "zombie shot in the head: scary!!" to "zombie shot in the head: comedy!!"

Ya that shit was funny
"rossie"
" no give him a harded one"
:rotflmao: