*** Official DAWN OF THE DEAD Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Chad Ferguson]

Personally, I thinks hes lost his touch. Have you seen his lastest works? Or did you read his draft for Resident Evil? I love that he is doing another dead movie and I do believe this will up the budget for his film like Spiderman did for Daredevil. Amthough I expect nothing from him in the end. I always felt the less involvement he had with this flick, the better.
Thanks

 

[Tino]

FYI, SPOILERS ARE UNNECESSARY in a Discussion thread.

I loved every minute of it. It delivered exactly what it promised.

If it didn't work for you fine, but it sees to have worked for a lot of people (with and without ADD ). No need to insult those that liked it.

And the gore was about as much as I would expect for an R rated film.
The original Dead films were UNRATED, so the gore comparisons are unwarranted.

This film stands on it's own. I don't see it as a remake of the original, just a new millenium update.

:star::star::star:1/2

 

[Anthony_De]

I saw it on Friday and have to say I was disappointed. It felt like a modern, "MTV style" slasher flick but with zombies instead of a slasher. I didn't care about any of the characters as there were too many and you don't get to know any one of them. It seemed like the writer's realized they didn't have much of a plot so they had to throw extra people in to die just so they could keep things moving. I guess it's sorta like a zombiefied version of the original. It's still moving around, but there's really no substance or character left.

:star: :star: 1/2 out of :star: :star: :star: :star: :star:

 

[Andres Munoz]

I loved the movie. And I'll dare say as much as I loved the original. Much better acted than the original and with characters that I cared about (at least the main ones). I appreciated the gore (for an R rated film) which nowadays is very rare.
The zombies were actually scary here. That kept me on the edge of my seat throughout the whole thing.

I'm gonna have to keep my eye on Zack Snyder now.

 

[Mikel_Cooperman]

Awful? Awful are movies like Freddie vs. Jason and Dreamcatchers.
This was fun and I enjoyed it.

 

[Bill Bessette]

I thought this film delivered the goods. They didn't cop out anywhere. You wanted to see the zombie baby - they showed it to you. You wanted some chainsaw and propane tank action, and they gave it to you. You know you wanted them to build the shuttle-bus-assault vehicles, and by God they built them.

Yeah some stuff was glossed over and the character development was only just enough to get the job done, but when you think about it, if they went the route of exposition the darn film would've been 3 hours long.

Finally, for those complaining about the lack of blood, I offer the neck ripping kid, the ambulance rundown, croquet mallet stick through the jaw, the fireplace poker in the eye, Andy's loss of the top half of his head via shotgun, the truck backing into a half dozen zombies at high speed, the chainsaw removal of legs (and later righteous bisection of the babe), and any of 4 dozen closeups of pistol and rifle inflicted headshots. If you didn't see blood it's because you had your eyes shut.

 

[Andres Munoz]

I don't know if anyone talked about this but the zombie baby had me cracking up!

 

[ChuckSolo]

I can honestly say that I really loved this film. Having been a fan of the Romero trilogy, I was really apprehensive about this re-make. With all the disappointments of late, i.e., "House of the Dead", "Cabin Fever", etc. I was surprised to find how much I enjoyed this one. I saw it on Friday at the first screening at my local theater and went back and saw it again on Saturday and enjoyed it just as much. This will definately go in my collection when it hits the DVD world. Kudos to the producers, actors and techies on this film.

:star: :star: :star: :star: 1/2 out of :star: :star: :star: :star: :star:

 

[Travis_W]

Awesome film. I mean the level of failure here was so high and it was totally surpassed. I've seen it twice now, going to see it for a third time and a fourth tomorrow...don't worry I work at a theater and get in free otherwise I'd be waiting for the DVD after the first time .

It doesn't hold a candle to the original but then again I never expected it to anyway. I liked every scene except:

the end credits. They were pointless and just kind of ruined the whole movie since you don't know if Anna, Kenneth and the others died.


What are everyone's thoughts on the "ending"?

 

[Xavier]

Aaron, I couldn't agree more.

And I too caught the quick fade on Romero's name. This alone set the tone for me rather quickly.

 

[Ray_Gootz]

Now that I look back i loved the end credits. That was a balssy move on the filmmaker's part. Plus it rewards people that stay till the very end and the people that didn't. They got their happy ending. Everyone's a winner.

One question if they remake Day of the Dead and put Bud in the film how will that work? You can't do Frankenstein monster-like emotions when your faster than a speeding bullets! Bud'll probably wind up like Jet Li.

 

[Chris Tedesco]

Actually didn't see it coming so in that instance, love it!

It caught alot of people off guard as they were getting up to leave, and I like that it ended on a ..well bad note! Very nice touch I thought.

 

[Scott Weinberg]

I thought Snyder's approach to the ending was pretty damn excellent:

Those who bolted for the doors as soon as the credits began...they got a somewhat happy ending.

Those who stuck around for the full thing...got a dark and nasty ending.

 

[John Geelan]

aaahhhh...sailing off into the sunset...all is well!!

 

[AaronMan]

Thanks, Xavier. We seem to be in the minority, though. We gotta stick together!

 

[Terry Flink]

As the movie ended people were getting up from their seats and heading towards the doors. When they realized the end credits were a continuation of the story, many stopped "dead" in their tracks and stood there watching. It was a very eerie scene seeing these "zombies" backlit staring blankly at the screen.

 

[Tino]

Ray

I believe you mean BUB not Bud. Unless Lou Costello shows up as a zombie looking to munch on Bud Abbott.

And if they do a sequel to this DOTD, I doubt it will bear much resemblance to Romero's Day Of The Dead, if any.

Regarding the opening credits, Romero's wasn't the only one to disappear quicker than others. With the exception of the major credits (director, producers, actors, etc.), they all quickly vanished.

 

[Keir H]

Who prefers slow zombies (original film) to the fast zombies depicted here? Sorry if this has been mentioned already..just joining the thread.

 

[Robert Anthony]

I don't PREFER one over the other.

For the original, and what Romero was doing--Slow Zombies work better and are more effective.

For the new version, and what Snyder/Gunn was aiming for--fast zombies work perfectly. There are a lot of set pieces in the new one that simply would fall flat if it were just slow zombies.

On the flip, there are a lot of moments in the old one that the new movie can't have because there are no slow zombies.

It's not the style of zombie, it's how that style is used. And both movies used both styles wonderfully.


It depends on which "Day of the Dead" they tackle. The filmed one, or the unfilmed one. The original Day of the Dead script was pretty different from what was filmed, due to budgetary constraints. The whole thing was re-written.

I hope if "Day of the Dead" gets greenlit, that the screenwriter is smart enough to start from that unproduced Romero script and work from there.

I also hope the 30 mil in one weekend prompts SOMEONE somewhere to give Romero the money for his final Dead film.

 

[Alex Spindler]

Good post Robert. We had a similar thread in Polls that asked the same question. It all depends on what they were going after. This film used their fast zombies to good effect, and afforded them sequences that wouldn't fly in the original. It was worth it just for the husband zombie trying to catch up to Anna's car.