I just got home from seeing it.
I liked it.
BUT I will say that I have not watched the original yet-- I stopped on the way home and bought it. I plan on watching it tonight and comparing them.
So, I am basing my opinion on the remake based on the movie itself, not on how it compares to the original.
If it was a stand alone movie, not a remake, I would say "well done."
Make sure you stay to watch the credits.
4 out of 5
Originally posted by Evil Dead
"In the old Romero dead movies there was rules to how a zombie should act in Romero's eyes....there unintellegent, can't do any other movements but wabble around, and all they care about is eating.....they dont know how to use objects to there advantage, "That is not accurate. As Romero's dead trilogy progressed we learned more and more about the zombies. In Dawn of the Dead....we learn that zombies aren't just mindless eating machines. They do still have some intelligence and memory. They flock to the mall because that's what they remember wanting to do, go to the mall. One of the characters (I don't remember which) comments about seeing a zombie trying to drive it's car.
In Day of the Dead we get Bub. Bub is given a razor.....and he still knows what it's used for and how to use it. He puts it to his face to shave. He is given headphones....and quickly learns how to turn the radio on and off. When given the chance to bite "Dr. Frankenstein" he doesn't. He has the perfect chance to feed but does not want to bite/kill him because he considers him a friend. When Bub finds "Dr. Frankenstein's" dead body, he picks up a pistol........then uses the pistol to kill, out of revenge. He did not feed on the dead body......he simply gives a salute and walks away.
In Romero's zombie trilogy we are given the idea that zombies are just like us..........not as intelligent but are getting smarter....just as we once did.
If you think that Romero's zombies are unintelligent, can't use tools and only care about eating.......you must have missed a good portion of the last two movies......especially Day of the Dead as Bub himself blows every one of those notions away.
Good points. Makes you think about what Romero will do with Dead Reckoning.
Originally posted by SaTsuJiN
Please give us a review BF, I wanna know if it sucks bad 😄
(Im gonna go see it with my best friend and her boyfriend tomorrow.. so I just wanted to know what kind of ride I'm in for -_- )
Will do, I know everyone is waiting to see what the horror expert of KMC thinks about it 😛
Originally posted by PissedOffGoalie
i'll try to see it tonight but i have to go to a stupid dinner pary 🙁 i would much rather see ppl get their heads blown off!!!BRAIIINSSS BRAAAAIIIIINSSSS!!!!!
haha .. same here ... my GF wants to see it tommorrow ... soo i got to WAIT... i think ill watch the original dawn again tonight ... just to get psyched
Originally posted by Evil Dead
"In the old Romero dead movies there was rules to how a zombie should act in Romero's eyes....there unintellegent, can't do any other movements but wabble around, and all they care about is eating.....they dont know how to use objects to there advantage, "That is not accurate. As Romero's dead trilogy progressed we learned more and more about the zombies. In Dawn of the Dead....we learn that zombies aren't just mindless eating machines. They do still have some intelligence and memory. They flock to the mall because that's what they remember wanting to do, go to the mall. One of the characters (I don't remember which) comments about seeing a zombie trying to drive it's car.
In Day of the Dead we get Bub. Bub is given a razor.....and he still knows what it's used for and how to use it. He puts it to his face to shave. He is given headphones....and quickly learns how to turn the radio on and off. When given the chance to bite "Dr. Frankenstein" he doesn't. He has the perfect chance to feed but does not want to bite/kill him because he considers him a friend. When Bub finds "Dr. Frankenstein's" dead body, he picks up a pistol........then uses the pistol to kill, out of revenge. He did not feed on the dead body......he simply gives a salute and walks away.
In Romero's zombie trilogy we are given the idea that zombies are just like us..........not as intelligent but are getting smarter....just as we once did.
If you think that Romero's zombies are unintelligent, can't use tools and only care about eating.......you must have missed a good portion of the last two movies......especially Day of the Dead as Bub himself blows every one of those notions away.
Good post ..
I enjoy Romeroz stories. They are my favorite and the closest films to realistic zombies we have. Bub's character developement was awesome. I think everyone wanted to buy that zombie a beer after Day of the Dead. However, that is one of the few Hollywood myths that Romero wrote in. Great story though. I dont think it should be changed. But zombies have no blood flow. The only part of there brain that still functions is instinct. The brain is rotting away and has no blood. It would be impossible for one to learn. Realisitic Zombies would be mindless.
Ofcourse Realistic zombies would be.........
The speculation in Dawn of the Dead however is "when there's no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth".............giving a supernatural connotation to the situation. If we are to buy into the supernatural bit, why would the zombies be any different than the rest of the people in hell simply because they are forced to remain in their bodies? The people in hell don't even have bodies........no brains to rot.........
or not
plus I'm married.....if chicks thought I was cool it would do me no good........sure I might be able to hook something up while my wife's out of town but I earn a pretty damn good living......I have some nice stuff......I don't want to lose half of it and pay alimony just because I wanted to be cool and go to the theater by myself.
But does it deserve the name "Dawn of the Dead"? Is it anything at all like the original?
All the reviews I've read says it bares no resemblence to the original other than it being set in a mall. Different characters.......different story.......completely different theme (not anything like Romero's social commentary on the materialism of our society).........
all reports say it is a damn good movie.......but nothing even close to resembling the original. Why must they give the movie the same name and call it a remake if it is nothing like the original? Why not just give it another name like "The Dead Will Walk" or something lame and let it stand on it's own two legs as a good movie.
Even if it is a 5 star movie (don't know yet......I'll watch it tomorrow)....points automatically have to be deducted for the name alone if it is nothing like the original.
That's bullshit. There are PLENTY of tie in's to the original. I'll elaborate in extremely mild spoilers below.
Spoiler:* Mekhi Phifer's wife is pregnant, much like Fran in the original.
* There was a store called "Gaylen Ross" a tribute to Fran herself.
* Ken Foree spoke about his father(?) the preacher who said the "When hell is full.." line. Ken's cameo is himself as a televangelist, speaking the same line.
* Scott Reiniger had a cameo as an Army general.
* Tom Savini had a cameo as a Sherriff.
* The Ken Foree lead role is taken up by Ving Rhames, a Police Officer, whos name is actually "Kenneth".
* Instead of a biker gang, a group of regular survivors infiltrates the mall, which intails a wide variety of people. A rich man and his wife, an average father and daughter, an older couple, a female truck driver, in addition to the already stationed trio of young, underpaid security officers. Diverse backgrounds galore, which lends perfectly to the socialistic part of the movie, because they all DO NOT get along, and are very indifferent at times.
* When Ana is flipping through the radio dials, the excerpt from the original, "This is not an isolated incedent" is heard.
* The "BF" trucks are back!
* Instead of a gunshop in the mall, there is a gunshop across the street, where which there is a series of cutscenes of the gang loading up on guns and ammo, much like the segment in the original.
* When the "fat lady" dies, and is covered with a blanket, there is a shot of the gang talking, while she rises and the blanket falls down her face and she sits still, like Peter in the original.
* When Frank, the father is about to turn, he looks almost exactly like Peter, when he was in bed, in the same situation. Deep set black eyes, pale skin.
* While watching television in the electronics department, C.J. I believe mentions that there hasn't been a broadcast in 3 days.
* During a broadcast, the newsanchor begins to recite safety shelters, only to apologize, and say that the list was taken off the teleprompter, much like in the original.
* Of course, someone mentions that they can only be killed by being shot in the head.
* Towards the end of the movie, most everyone escaped except for C.J. who at first allowed the zombies to get near him, just like Peter in the storage room, then began firing off rounds. Except, instead of escaping. C.J. commits suicide, in turn, killing off 100+ zombies.
* The helicopter used in the new version is the same paint scheme as Stephen's bird in the original.
Of course some of the characters are different, or homaged to in different variations, and the underlying theme of the original isn't as blatant. I appreciate the fact that there are alot of recognizable comparisons to the original, as it is a re-telling, and not so much a remake. James Gunn was smart enough to make it his own movie, and realize that nothing will touch the original, so why bother.
I am sure there are plenty more instances, but for anyone to say that they are two totally different movies is insane. Hell, I just got the movie 5 days ago, watched it 2 times, and still caught all of that above!!
IMO, it is a fantastic horror movie, and it did the namesake proud.