Author | Message |
Dawn of the Dead (2004) I saw this last night on DVD and was pleasantly surprised. Although it wasn't really scary I found it entertaining. It moved along pretty well (I loved the "celebrity" shooting scene )
It's not up there with the Romero original (as if it could be) but i think the film was worthwhile. When I read about the evils of drinking, I gave up reading. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Nope, haven't seen this one either.
I should try and watch more movies..... | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
doctormcmeekle said: Nope, haven't seen this one either.
I should try and watch more movies..... When I read about the evils of drinking, I gave up reading. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
2the9s said: When I read about the evils of drinking, I gave up reading. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
bkw said: 2the9s said: Yeah, that one could go either way. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
2the9s said: bkw said: Yeah, that one could go either way. When I read about the evils of drinking, I gave up reading. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Ex-Moderator | Zombie movies freak me out.
I saw this in the theatre when it came out and thought it was an OK movie for a matinee, not super scary, a few good laughs, etc. Then I went to a friend's house for whom I was kitty-sitting. He had left out some dvds for me to watch so I could spend time with the kitty. I fell asleep on the couch and woke up at around 10:30 at night. And promptly remembered the zombie movie and freaked myself out and decided I didn't want to walk to my car alone in the dark. So I ended up spending the night on the couch with the lights on. |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
This version was a piece of shit. I have no desire to see it again. "You need people like me so you can point your fuckin' fingers and say, "That's the bad guy." "
Al Pacino- Scarface | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Eh, it was okay. Not bad, but certainly doesn't come near the brilliance of the original. What?! No social commentary AND the zombies run!? Blasphemy! | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
EvilWhiteMale said: This version was a piece of shit. I have no desire to see it again.
Did you hate it cos it was SO different to Romero's original? When I read about the evils of drinking, I gave up reading. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
RipHer2Shreds said: Eh, it was okay. Not bad, but certainly doesn't come near the brilliance of the original. What?! No social commentary AND the zombies run!? Blasphemy!
Yeah, I think it is okay too and nowhere near the original. I thought it was going to be really crappy so I wasn't too let down. I dont have a problem with zombies running although it was ridiculous that they would run all that way after the bus. When I read about the evils of drinking, I gave up reading. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
bkw said: EvilWhiteMale said: This version was a piece of shit. I have no desire to see it again.
Did you hate it cos it was SO different to Romero's original? No, I hated it for the following reasons: 1. The characters sucked 2. The zombies ran 3. They shot action scenes with that alternate shutter speed crap 4. The story was poorly written 5. It was a total "Hollywood" horror film These are the reasons I can remember since I've been blocking out that crap of a film. "You need people like me so you can point your fuckin' fingers and say, "That's the bad guy." "
Al Pacino- Scarface | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
EvilWhiteMale said: bkw said: Did you hate it cos it was SO different to Romero's original? No, I hated it for the following reasons: 1. The characters sucked 2. The zombies ran 3. They shot action scenes with that alternate shutter speed crap 4. The story was poorly written 5. It was a total "Hollywood" horror film These are the reasons I can remember since I've been blocking out that crap of a film. do you find that a film causes more fear if it is based in reality? i find that a realistic backdrop makes the fear that much more powerful. dawn of the dead was far too glossy to find believable. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
EvilWhiteMale said: bkw said: Did you hate it cos it was SO different to Romero's original? No, I hated it for the following reasons: 1. The characters sucked 2. The zombies ran 3. They shot action scenes with that alternate shutter speed crap 4. The story was poorly written 5. It was a total "Hollywood" horror film These are the reasons I can remember since I've been blocking out that crap of a film. Fair enough. I agree with most of your criticisms. When I read about the evils of drinking, I gave up reading. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
asylum said: do you find that a film causes more fear if it is based in reality? i find that a realistic backdrop makes the fear that much more powerful. dawn of the dead was far too glossy to find believable. I think they did a poor job in creating the sense of dread that the original had. The original seemed a lot more realistic even with some of the cheesy scenes and music. They should have payed more attention to how Tom Savini re-made Night of the Living Dead. "You need people like me so you can point your fuckin' fingers and say, "That's the bad guy." "
Al Pacino- Scarface | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
bkw said: EvilWhiteMale said: No, I hated it for the following reasons: 1. The characters sucked 2. The zombies ran 3. They shot action scenes with that alternate shutter speed crap 4. The story was poorly written 5. It was a total "Hollywood" horror film These are the reasons I can remember since I've been blocking out that crap of a film. Fair enough. I agree with most of your criticisms. Also, I think it was casted poorly. "You need people like me so you can point your fuckin' fingers and say, "That's the bad guy." "
Al Pacino- Scarface | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
EvilWhiteMale said: asylum said: do you find that a film causes more fear if it is based in reality? i find that a realistic backdrop makes the fear that much more powerful. dawn of the dead was far too glossy to find believable. I think they did a poor job in creating the sense of dread that the original had. The original seemed a lot more realistic even with some of the cheesy scenes and music. They should have payed more attention to how Tom Savini re-made Night of the Living Dead. i find it quite interesting that an original in age is far better. it is a shame that the hollywood system does not keep this in mind. maybe it is time to relearn the aspect of original thought and not remake it. a sure thing is one that entertains an audience for 2 hours not large cash. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
EvilWhiteMale said: 3. They shot action scenes with that alternate shutter speed crap
I hated that too. Other than that, I found the film fairly watchable. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
This movie does not compare to the original Ceaser Romaro classic. I'm talking about the one that started it all. I hated the 70's dawn of the dead... for the cheese, music, actors. I rather enjoyed this one better, although I have to agree with most of your comments... running zombies are not fair nor... realistic? And what's with the end? Was that creepy er what? | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |