PDA

View Full Version : Dawn Of The Dead (1978) (2004)


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.

Renegade
30-10-2004, 04:25 PM
I can't really comment on the original as I've yet to see it. However, the 2004 version was okay. It mixed light humor with intense action nicely. I was hoping for a more serious tone but I'll happily accept it for what it is. The one thing that stood out for me were the ending credits, interchanging credits and story.

bob
30-10-2004, 04:33 PM
2004 version had kevin zegers in it. mmm.... kevin zegers...

Richard
30-10-2004, 04:36 PM
I can't really comment on the original as I've yet to see it. However, the 2004 version was okay. It mixed light humor with intense action nicely. I was hoping for a more serious tone but I'll happily accept it for what it is. The one thing that stood out for me were the ending credits, interchanging credits and story.

Yes. The credits were surprising. How many idiots do you think got up just as soon as the credits started rolling? Funny you should mention that, because I was left with the question "Did the remaining survivors die?"

I want a sequel so bad.

Sarah
30-10-2004, 08:01 PM
*Edit*

I don't know what I'm talking about

CFC
30-10-2004, 09:21 PM
I found it kinda odd that everybody seemed to be expert marksman in Dawn of the Dead 2004.

Hazzle
30-10-2004, 10:25 PM
DOTD 1978: Excellent film, an all time great, I need say no more I feel. Plus I'm in a hurry.

DOTD 2004: SUCKED. Seriously couldn't see anything redeeming in it. I tend not to like remakes as it is, and this did nothing to convert me to liking them.

Richard
30-10-2004, 10:33 PM
Sarah, I want to know what you said. :(

Plus I'm in a hurry.

To do what? The Haz has no life. This is what you do best. :p

Deliver us some evil.

Hazzle
30-10-2004, 10:36 PM
To do what? The Haz has no life. This is what you do best. :p

Fuck off! I do have a life. Ok, it is 11 on a Saturday and I AM at home, but that's out of choice. Doing a Sunday evening thing instead :p

Well it was just...cliched. It lacked any zip, anything new to the genre, whereas Romero revolutionised the genre (true, he didn't create it, that's a myth). The plot was poor, predictable and uninteresting. The zombie movements looked wrong too...it looked polished but the little details like that let even the visual side down.

Sarah
30-10-2004, 10:40 PM
Sarah, I want to know what you said. :(



All I said was that I was confused by what you meant when you said ''
I condone remakes, of any kind.''

I understood that to mean that you agree with remakes... so, I was confused.

Maybe I just misunderstand the meaning of 'condone' these days.

Richard
30-10-2004, 10:46 PM
All I said was that I was confused by what you meant when you said ''
I condone remakes, of any kind.''

I understood that to mean that you agree with remakes... so, I was confused.

Maybe I just misunderstand the meaning of 'condone' these days.

Holy shit. Condone does mean "agree with"!

I made a mistake. I fix now.

But just for future purposes, I don't agree to remakes. If you got a blemish over the confusion, I'm sorry.

Timmy
30-10-2004, 10:47 PM
being a fan of both i actually prefer the 2004 version, i dunno i just enjoyed it more, it made me jump instead of laugh

Hazzle
30-10-2004, 10:49 PM
Holy shit. Condone does mean "agree with"!

I made a mistake. I fix now.

You were thinking of condemn ;)

Richard
30-10-2004, 11:05 PM
You were thinking of condemn ;)

Ah, there we go.

being a fan of both i actually prefer the 2004 version, i dunno i just enjoyed it more, it made me jump instead of laugh

The original is commonly regarded for using black comedy, which now that I've thought about, can agree with. I think.

Narg
30-10-2004, 11:19 PM
Only ever seen the 04 movie, and it kicked ass.

The Black Rider
30-10-2004, 11:56 PM
I decidedly avoided the 2004 film, but I'll probably take a gander at it if it ever comes on TV and I've got nothing to do.

The original, on the other hand, is fabulous. Definitely the best of Romero's trilogy (the first being Night of the Living Dead, the third being Day of the Dead). I loved them all, but Dawn surpasses the others by a long shot.

P.S. Richard, Rosemary's Baby is a brilliant film.

Richard
03-11-2004, 07:23 PM
I saw the new Dawn of the Dead over the weekend. It was fun. My nipples get hard whenever I start thinking about Dawn of the Dead. I didn't go in expecting much and had a good time. I was entertained. That being said, here's what makes me see the every time Hollywood green lights a remake of a classic: Why remake instead of allowing a filmmaker to create something new? George Romero, creator/director of THE definitive zombie movies, Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, and Day of the Dead, has been trying for YEARS to get funding to make a fourth edition. Instead they give a no-name music video director a pile of money to make a so-so action movie with zombies.

As embarrassing as this may sound, I was apparently clueless to the fact that the name of Romero's movies actually had meaning. Night, Day, and Dawn. That was cool. :)

I hear Romero is making two more Dead films. I don't know if I should be content with that.

Was the remake fun? Hell yeah. Did George Romero's commentary on America's obsession with consumerism come thru into this remake? Hell no.

Agreed.

Create, don't remake!

You say that too! :p

Pygmalion
04-11-2004, 06:59 AM
Dawn of the dead 2004 was one of the FUNNIEST things I'd ever seen in my LIFE! I thought it was great the way from before the credits, heaps of people had died...I also thought it was funny there were NO well known actors in it.

Dawn of the Dead 1978 I didn't like as much-there was not legless zombie dropping from the ceiling for one, and there was more plot...it was also more fake.

In the opposite sort of thing, I LOVED Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) because it was THE funniest thing I've ever seen in my life! 87 minutes of gold...pity the main girl doesn't wear a bra while running through the woods...

The NEW one on the other hand with Jessica Biel sucked. It wasn't scary, or funny, just gross. I admit the scene where the massacrerer was wearing her boyfriend's face was rather good.

Whatre your takes in that?

Richard
04-11-2004, 09:33 PM
Dawn of the dead 2004 was one of the FUNNIEST things I'd ever seen in my LIFE! I thought it was great the way from before the credits, heaps of people had died...I also thought it was funny there were NO well known actors in it.

I think Ving Rhymes is pretty well known, and Mekhi Pfeiffer.

Dawn of the Dead 1978 I didn't like as much-there was not legless zombie dropping from the ceiling for one, and there was more plot...it was also more fake.

The original had a great plot. You can find out by the other posts above. People always say the 1978 version is "fake". What are they talking about? What is fake about it?

In the opposite sort of thing, I LOVED Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) because it was THE funniest thing I've ever seen in my life! 87 minutes of gold...pity the main girl doesn't wear a bra while running through the woods...

Funny? I don't know about that... it was more along the lines of disturbing.

The NEW one on the other hand with Jessica Biel sucked. It wasn't scary, or funny, just gross. I admit the scene where the massacrerer was wearing her boyfriend's face was rather good.

Yes. It did suck.

Hazzle
05-11-2004, 01:10 AM
I think Ving Rhymes is pretty well known, and Mekhi Pfeiffer.

True story.

The original had a great plot. You can find out by the other posts above. People always say the 1978 version is "fake". What are they talking about? What is fake about it?

As opposed to a "real" movie? What...a zombie documentary?

Or a "real" zombie? Pygs...you know I love you...but c'mon...you seen any "real" zombies?

Original's plot is better.

Funny? I don't know about that... it was more along the lines of disturbing.

If you knew Pygs you wouldn't make that comment;) She seriously scares me sometimes...SHE'S disturbing...FAR more than the Texas Chainsaw Massacre ;)

Yes. It did suck.

True story.

Pygmalion
11-11-2004, 01:07 AM
Oh come ooooooooon!
Texas Chainsaw Massacre (7974) was hilarious!
The budget for the entire movie was $80,000 US!
Another adaptation I saw recently (last night) was Alien Versus Predator. considering I got to see it for free, it wasn't that bad. But if I'd PAID for it, I would've been VERY pissed off.

Richard
11-11-2004, 02:45 PM
Texas Chainsaw Massacre (7974) was hilarious!

They're planning to remake another one in 7974!?! What the hell?!? :p

The budget for the entire movie was $80,000 US!

Actually, I hear it was $100,000... but that's not the point. That budget makes the film all the more genius.

Another adaptation I saw recently (last night) was Alien Versus Predator. considering I got to see it for free, it wasn't that bad. But if I'd PAID for it, I would've been VERY pissed off.

Now... I know that movie sucked. Too bad I haven't seen it.

Pygmalion
13-11-2004, 07:37 AM
They're planning to remake another one in 7974!?! What the hell?!? :p

Lol yeah sorry, I meant 1974 :)