Richard
30-10-2004, 04:18 PM
1978:
A friend once told me that George Romero in no way invented the subgenre known as zombies. You see, up until I met him I had every reason to believe he did and I was wrong. Romero is falsely credited with creating a genre that was around long before him. It is true that he revolutionized the genre, but he in no way created it. With that said, let's discuss this beautiful film.
George Romero's 1978 release of Dawn of the Dead is probably the most recognizable zombie film ever made. It's a shame really, because I believe there is one film that can arguably take that title. What I loved most about the 1978 version was the incredible amount of human bonding it portrayed in an awkward or harsh environment. I've always thought the premise alone was simply masterful, that being a group strangers are stranded in a place where the "fun" is the mall. A place where any person can possibly live forever.
The entire movie has a humorous side to it if you think about it. The idea of looting whatever you want by taking advantage of the whole situation... is pretty funny. Because in their world, it was over. It was kill or be killed, something some of you may enjoy. :)
In my eyes, it's nothing short of superb. It's a great movie that contian suspenseful and thrilling moments that shouldn't be missed. Not to mention, it's a wonderful experience, and a great work of fiction.
2004:
As some of you may or may not have heard, I don't agree to remakes, of any kind. Simply because I've always believed nothing can possibly be done any better that time around... I was wrong with this film. I recently purchased the Unrated Director's Cut (that's right, frodo... I got it!) and was very pleased with the outcome. But just for the record, the original still takes the cake.
Zack Synder did his homework for this movie, which is something I can appreciate. It had it's moments, some of which I was very pleased to the extent that I may have not noticed the flaws. I thought the film started off pretty good to begin with, after Sarah Polley's character (who looks a lot like Uma Thurman, what the shit!) walks out the hospital, the scenery was remarkable, and already by my sight... almost isolated.
Something I hardly ever notice in remakes are the new efforts established by the creators that appeal to the general target audience. By that I mean, there were some moments in the film that I gave high remarks for because it was something I've never seen. The humor was good, but there was nothing really special about it. It was obvious from the start there was going to be some.
This version however, had more characters. The movie overall was pretty good in a stylistic sense, and for a modern remake. The only downfall (if I can even call it that) was the obvious, and quite possibly undenialble effort to kill some characters of the film off so quickly and cheaply just so the ending will have a small group of survivors... why can't there be a big group of survivors in a horror film? But that flaw was in no match to what this film really is... a pretty damn good one.
Your thoughts? On both.
A friend once told me that George Romero in no way invented the subgenre known as zombies. You see, up until I met him I had every reason to believe he did and I was wrong. Romero is falsely credited with creating a genre that was around long before him. It is true that he revolutionized the genre, but he in no way created it. With that said, let's discuss this beautiful film.
George Romero's 1978 release of Dawn of the Dead is probably the most recognizable zombie film ever made. It's a shame really, because I believe there is one film that can arguably take that title. What I loved most about the 1978 version was the incredible amount of human bonding it portrayed in an awkward or harsh environment. I've always thought the premise alone was simply masterful, that being a group strangers are stranded in a place where the "fun" is the mall. A place where any person can possibly live forever.
The entire movie has a humorous side to it if you think about it. The idea of looting whatever you want by taking advantage of the whole situation... is pretty funny. Because in their world, it was over. It was kill or be killed, something some of you may enjoy. :)
In my eyes, it's nothing short of superb. It's a great movie that contian suspenseful and thrilling moments that shouldn't be missed. Not to mention, it's a wonderful experience, and a great work of fiction.
2004:
As some of you may or may not have heard, I don't agree to remakes, of any kind. Simply because I've always believed nothing can possibly be done any better that time around... I was wrong with this film. I recently purchased the Unrated Director's Cut (that's right, frodo... I got it!) and was very pleased with the outcome. But just for the record, the original still takes the cake.
Zack Synder did his homework for this movie, which is something I can appreciate. It had it's moments, some of which I was very pleased to the extent that I may have not noticed the flaws. I thought the film started off pretty good to begin with, after Sarah Polley's character (who looks a lot like Uma Thurman, what the shit!) walks out the hospital, the scenery was remarkable, and already by my sight... almost isolated.
Something I hardly ever notice in remakes are the new efforts established by the creators that appeal to the general target audience. By that I mean, there were some moments in the film that I gave high remarks for because it was something I've never seen. The humor was good, but there was nothing really special about it. It was obvious from the start there was going to be some.
This version however, had more characters. The movie overall was pretty good in a stylistic sense, and for a modern remake. The only downfall (if I can even call it that) was the obvious, and quite possibly undenialble effort to kill some characters of the film off so quickly and cheaply just so the ending will have a small group of survivors... why can't there be a big group of survivors in a horror film? But that flaw was in no match to what this film really is... a pretty damn good one.
Your thoughts? On both.