Originally posted by dean7879You might think so, but to me when i heard of it i thought it would be a classic movie with plenty of killing and unrealistic amounts of blood. but when i watched both versions i was confused why some one would make a zombie movie with every one in a mall for more then 75% of the movie. just not what i thought was anything near entertaining. and i hate the ending.
dawn of the dead is a classic
"Dawn of the Dead", in my opinion was a really good vehicle for Romero getting across his social commentary, being consumerism in the late 70's. That said, I don't think it was as effective as it could have been in regards to a true "Horror" movie.
"Classic" is usually reserved for older films, who's innovation could be felt for years to come, a la early Sci Fi. "Dawn" is heralded as a horror classic, IMO, mostly because of the smart approach Romero took. It wasn't just another Horror movie, it had an effective message, and some great gore, thanks to Tom Savini.
Romero is the granddaddy of zombie flicks. Bar none.
Originally posted by tabby999True but im saying in the end it doesn't need to be all at once in a mall for most of the movie, even "28 Days Later" made it more acceptable with more of a talk then go, talk then go again. My main point still being most people are renting this movie for action and zombies, but there getting a episode of friends stuck in a mall, i think thats why i was most disappointed.
i didn't say it was all devoted to the development of character, i said it was the director putting his SOCIAL COMMENTARY in the movie, the character development is ONE of the ways he did this...