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.

Nope, haven't seen this one either.

I should try and watch more movies.....

doctormcmeekle said:

2the9s said:

bkw said:

Yeah, that one could go either way.

2the9s said:

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.

This version was a piece of shit. I have no desire to see it again.

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!

EvilWhiteMale said:

Did you hate it cos it was SO different to Romero's original?

RipHer2Shreds said:

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.

bkw 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.

EvilWhiteMale 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.

EvilWhiteMale said:

Fair enough. I agree with most of your criticisms.

asylum said:

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.

bkw said:

Also, I think it was casted poorly.

EvilWhiteMale said:

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.

EvilWhiteMale said:

I hated that too. Other than that, I found the film fairly watchable.

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?