NoCalMike Posted October 26, 2004 Report Posted October 26, 2004 The Dawn remake was excellent. They knew it was not smart to try and make the same movie, so they didn't. I think they even changed the rules about the zombies too, like how if you "died naturally" you would not turn into a zombie.
Youth N Asia Posted October 26, 2004 Report Posted October 26, 2004 Also...I read something in Best Buy's weekly ad about an extra disk you get with Dawn 2004 there. Looks like I'll pick mine up there then.
kkktookmybabyaway Posted October 26, 2004 Author Report Posted October 26, 2004 So what some of you are saying is that Night of the Living Dead was a movie about zombies, and Dawn was a movie with zombies?...
Guest El Satanico Posted October 26, 2004 Report Posted October 26, 2004 Actually...none of Romero's films are really about the zombies. That may sound like insanity to some, but the zombies aren't the main focus in any of Romero's films. Humanity and how they'd react to such a situation has always been the focus. Of course the films don't force you to focus on either aspect.
Guest Dynamite Kido Posted October 26, 2004 Report Posted October 26, 2004 Also, to add to what Satanico said..... In NOTD you will not hear one reference to anyone being a Zombie. I believe that is what fans started calling them. In the original NOTD......they were ghouls.
Guest El Satanico Posted October 26, 2004 Report Posted October 26, 2004 Have they ever been called zombies by characters in the movies? I don't recall the zed word being used in dawn or day.
Guest Dynamite Kido Posted October 26, 2004 Report Posted October 26, 2004 Have they ever been called zombies by characters in the movies? I don't recall the zed word being used in dawn or day. Not really sure, but after some thought I think you maybe correct. If they do, it's in Dawn.........on the TV or radio reports. But if they don't on those......there are none.
kkktookmybabyaway Posted October 27, 2004 Author Report Posted October 27, 2004 Well, I just got the new unrated Dawn of the Dead -- not sure when I'll watch it...
NoCalMike Posted October 27, 2004 Report Posted October 27, 2004 Well, I just got the new unrated Dawn of the Dead -- not sure when I'll watch it... I was very pleased with the remake. I think you will enjoy it. It is NOTHING like the original.
kkktookmybabyaway Posted October 27, 2004 Author Report Posted October 27, 2004 Too bad I accidently ripped the plastic cover off the DVD. The better half was bitching at me for buying one of those hippie joysticks that are just like the ones in arcades (I can't play Mortal-Kombat-type games with a PS controller) and I was calling her my usual assortment of names and realized that the plastic I was removing wasn't supposed to be torn. Oops. It's all good though, since the movie also came with a sleeve...
Guest Dynamite Kido Posted October 27, 2004 Report Posted October 27, 2004 KKK, you might like the new one better. I don't see you really giving a damn about the characters, but there is no social commentary(for the most part) and it's definately way different. Besides the mall and the movie having zombies..........that about sums up the similarites between that and the original.
Guest Agent of Oblivion Posted October 27, 2004 Report Posted October 27, 2004 I think the most fun thing about the series is to picture yourself in the situation. I would've sat in the gun store all day and just picked 'em off as stylishly as possible.
dubq Posted October 27, 2004 Report Posted October 27, 2004 The unrated remake is awesome. I'd seen the theatrical version a few times, but just watched my unrated DVD last night. The extra scenes and character development are great. Glen actually has lines!
Guest Dynamite Kido Posted October 27, 2004 Report Posted October 27, 2004 I must admit, I was surely impressed by the Unrated version myself. Several extra scenes as Vivi said. Rewatching it, I was very surprise to catch a lot of references and hidden things from the original for the hardcores too..........there was a lot more than I thought.
kkktookmybabyaway Posted October 27, 2004 Author Report Posted October 27, 2004 I should edit my commentary remark. I don't hate ALL commentary in a movie. Con Air is one of my favorite popcorn flicks and there's a hippie dialog in there about how we shouldn't be mean to prisioners. Mr. Holland's Opus was a multi-hour infomercial about giving the National Endowment for the Arts and other programs more money and I still liked it. Patch Adams had the whole Everybody-Gets-Free-Healthcare vibe, but yet I ... wait a minute, I fucking HATED that movie. Oh well, you get the idea. And of course, my favorite "subliminal" message came in Armageddon when Bruce was firing off golf balls at hippies from his rig...
Guest Crazy Dan Posted October 28, 2004 Report Posted October 28, 2004 I think why many love the Dawn of the Dead is how Romero really made a social commentary about society. The dead flock to the mall, wondering brainlessly around the mall, becuase their instincts have taken them back to consume. Even humans tend to act like the dead, sometimes. I think many critics/fans were able to determine the parallels among the two. Also, I think that what also is a strong point of the orginal is how when the four heros have everything they could possibly want, the scenes before the bikers come show all three with sad looks in their face as they are trapped in a consumer nightmare where they have everything, yet they are prisoners, who can't leave. So there is a point that they are so sad and trapped, that they have become zombies themselves, in a way. Many love the inner meanings of the orginal. Heck Ebert listed this as one of his 10 best of the year. I also think that the orginal has more gore in it and memorable deaths. I also, liked that it does have a more comic-book feel to it, maybe showing how our existince is not a reality that we are used to. I saw this movie back in H.S., so I missed much of the symbolizm and inner meaning and since got more the symbolism of the orginal. I have however still don't get how the slow moving zombies really could overwhelm a well trained shooting military or sharp shooters. I guess if enough outnumber the living, it could happen. I also, think that the characters do not have insight to remove the keys from their road blocks to the entrance, which had bad idea written over it. I liked the Black man and woman of the group, but Fly Boy really got on my nerves, especially when he freaks out about losing his "stuff" to the bikers. I was actually glad to see his get "turned", he deserved it. The orginal script had everyone dying, but Romero liked his characters too much, so he ends up changing it so two are able to get away to uncertainity. (In the original, both commit suicide, and the helicopter runs out of gas at the end, meaning they would not have gotten far enough to really survive. And I was not scared as much, or felt it had the intensity of Night of the Living Dead (which got my heart beating). All nitpicking aside, a very good movie, but I need to watch it again. And I think that it is one of the better horror movies to come out of the 70's. I did like the remake, though. Different from the orginal. I think fast zombies make a overrunning of society more realistic, as they can outnumber you faster and run you down. I thought the new one was more intense and faster paced. The camera angles created more choas, that fit the mood of society ended. Despite some cannon-fodder characters, the main ones I cared more for, and I really was sad to see them die. And the makeup was better in that it showed the decay more of the zombies. And the exploding cannister, showed the special effects has improved since 1978-1979 (?). I want to see the director's cut to see what is different. And the gore was less than the orginal (the beginning throat scene, notwithstanding). A movie that has a different feel, but did not diminish the orginal (even though Romero liked Shaun of the Dead better). And the opening is one of the best horror movie openings I have seen. So I need to rewatch both, but I think that I liked the newer one better by a 1/2 a star better. But both are great horror movies, just depending on tastes. 21
dubq Posted October 28, 2004 Report Posted October 28, 2004 Normally, when the slow moving zombies overwhem a "trained" person.. it's usually because the person is not paying proper attention, or he trips or has some other slip up - allowing them to get close enough to close in on him. You have that many people all over you and it's hard to lift your arms to shoot a gun.
2GOLD Posted October 28, 2004 Report Posted October 28, 2004 That's what I love about slow zombies, that "you can survive this cause they are slow" feeling. It's not totally hopeless in your mind and yet it actually IS hopeless cause pure numbers get you in the end. Arrogance and igorance get you killed, that "ha, they are slow...this will be a cake walk to survive." Creates tension, I love tension. I need tension. In the remake, you are screwed. I mean, I can't get terrified of that. When there is no hope whatsoever, then it's just like "ok, let's just pick these losers off so I can leave." And I still laugh at the Olympic sprinter zombies at the start. Those guys are wonderful. I think it's much more scarier thinking you can survive even though you can't than knowing they have the speed and numbers so you are basically waiting to die. With no hope, no tension to me made the remake just an action movie that happened to have zombies.
dubq Posted October 28, 2004 Report Posted October 28, 2004 I don't mind either, slow or fast, to be honest. I just wish someone would make a film with BOTH of them in it and explain it, as well. IE: "due to the stage of decay" or rigor-mortis or something like that. Either way..
2GOLD Posted October 28, 2004 Report Posted October 28, 2004 I don't mind either, slow or fast, to be honest. I just wish someone would make a film with BOTH of them in it and explain it, as well. IE: "due to the stage of decay" or rigor-mortis or something like that. Either way.. That I could live with. That would be the perfect combination. The recent dead are the fast movers at first and the long dead or the risen are the slow movers who eventually just break down. At least that is kind of a solid mix of the tension and action. Like people said, I place myself in the film Slow zombies: Ok, they have the numbers but we have the speed factor. Keep aware and maybe I could survive this Fast zombies: Well, I'm dead...Now how do I want to die? Explosion or gunshot wound?
NoCalMike Posted October 28, 2004 Report Posted October 28, 2004 I prefer slow zombies for the mere fact of the "building tension" When there are 1 and 2 outside of your home, the problem is easily containable, but if you dick around too much and don't make a plan to get out, soon more and more start showing up and the once nuisance gets out of hand......The Hospital scene from Lucio Fulci's Zombi 2, is a perfect example of this, as is the original Night of the Living Dead.
Guest Dynamite Kido Posted October 28, 2004 Report Posted October 28, 2004 Plus Mike, there is something that adds to the effect when it's the slower zombies. Would you rather be killed quicker(more likely to happen with the fast ones) or do everything you can to escape or stay safe and be terrorfied the whole time(with the slower ones) only to be eventually mobbed and eaten by big groups of them? I would go for quick death over slow death, and I think most people feel the same. Adding a different dimention to the slower ones being used.
kkktookmybabyaway Posted October 30, 2004 Author Report Posted October 30, 2004 Well I saw Dawn v. 2.0 -- wasn't bad. Wasn't great either, imo. My biggest complaint was that not enough people died getting eaten by zombies. I hate cheesy stuff like when people die from gunshots or other non-zombie related stuff. And I liked Andy until I saw the "Blair Witch" video of him in the special edition features...
Youth N Asia Posted October 30, 2004 Report Posted October 30, 2004 Yeah, the Andy video and News Videos completly sucked. Had it just been footage they filmed for the movie and didn't add in it would be one thing, but it looks like they knocked both of those out in a quick afternoon...no entertainment to either one.
kkktookmybabyaway Posted October 31, 2004 Author Report Posted October 31, 2004 I must admit I did laugh at the "News" extra, but not because of its production quality...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now