OldBoy

or Dracula, the Mummy, and those highly regarded monster classics of yesterday?

I mean it is said that DotD was the rejuvenation of the horror movie. At least a film in which ALL zombie movies are compared. It was George A. Romero's statement on a slowly corrupting society and a magnificent one at that.

So, is his masterpiece just as "classic" as those B/W originals?

cactusoly

maybee not Dawn of the Dead but definatly Night of The Living Dead. Although Dawn is the superior film, Night had more of a historical and cultural impact.

Drop

I would compare it more to Bride of Frankenstein. I mean they both had more of a sense of humour about themselves, and many consider them the better films. The similarities are quite amazing. They are both perfect examples of what to do with sequels.

I think in the long run, the original Dawn will indeed be recognized as a classic along with those other films. Day of the Dead might be as well.

scott shelton

This thread is gonna get ugly fast...

Drop

I know, and I'm glad I got here before than.

Oh well, everyone has their own opinions. Too bad we take them all too seriously.

resinrats

I wouldn't say so. Anyone can recognize a picture of Frankenstein or Dracula from those movies. Unless you are a huge Dead fan, most people will have no idea what movie a photo (of the dead films) comes from.

Mondo Kane

Whoa. Never thought of that. This is probably the most recognizable image of the movie, but since it's a little grisly, chances are you're not gonna see it used as much as a Dracula/Frankenstein photo.

Joe Molotov

True, but I wouldn't say having a single iconic villian is required in order to be a classic horror movie. People may not be able to pick out a particular zombie from the DotD, but if you ask most people to name a older zombie movie, they'll probably say one of the Dead movies.

Cameron

Gotta go with no way...

No doubt, the dead movies are classic and immportant to horror fans, but The Univeral monster films far surpass them to all FILM fans. To this day, we still see that the staple images of Frankenstein, and dracula are compared to the classic films. If anyone changes it (Van Hellsing, deniro's monster etc) we compare it to that.

Tyler_Durden

I'd like to be anal-retentive and point out that it's Frankenstein's monster you're talking about, not Frankenstein himself.

Ms. M

I think that the Night of the Living Dead=Frankenstein, Dawn of the Dead=Bride of Frankenstein analogy is apt. Both film series have first films that were hugely influential. Frankenstein was hugely influential on the course of the classic horror film and Night on the course of the modern horror film. The sequels both surpassed the originals in quality (my opinion and that of a lot of other people, too) and showed that the old formula could be used in more creative ways.

It is a bit unfair to compare the two movies at this time. Frankenstein has over 40 years of film criticism and appreciation over Dawn. I do think, though, that in 40 years time, Romero and Dawn of the Dead will still be appreciated.

Personally, I'd rather watch Dawn than Frankenstein, though I'd be more conflicted if it was up against Bride of Frankenstein.

Mr. Cinema

There's "Frankenstein", and then there's everything else.

lamphorn

Is there something wrong with me? I watched the three Dead films in college (haven't gotten to Land, yet) and absolutely LOVED Night of the Living Dead, but hated Dawn and Day. I just thought Dawn was the cheesiest dumbest thing I'd seen with the dorky music and goofy mall sequences. I actually enjoyed the remake much more. Um.. what am I missing?

Drop

You missed the whole "don't expect the sequels to be anything like the previous films" thing.

Dawn is great because it is a perfect mix of genres and styles. Romero captured the spirit of the 70s and were America was at soci-politically. He also made the film incredibly fun and somewhat epic, while still having effective dramatic moments. A lot of people compare it to a comic book. Also, as far as I'm concerned, there has never been group of characters better than the foursome in this film.

It's just a film some connect with, and boy do they.


edit: Also on the topic of iconic monsters, it is hard to compare. The focus on those old Universal films was on one character, so there is only one thing to go by. Plus they have like 45 years on Dawn. When you think of a zombie though you just think generally. They are somewhat dumb, slow, they like to eat warm human flesh, and headshots only kill them. These are the laws Romero laid down, and most people recognize them as such. He has certainly defined the zombie.

Geofferson

This is a valid point when referring to the Average Joe and what he thinks is the most recognizable horror movie out there. However, when speaking within the circle of horror fans I honestly think it's a toss-up. Both movies are so very different yet so recognized for their influences. An interesting observation would be going to a horror convention and count how many people have DoTD t-shirts to those who have Frankenstein or Dracula.

BassDude

Hmmm.. I was of the 'No Way' belief when I clicked this thread, but I agree that Romero's films have defined the term Zombie. From film to TV shows to cartoons...everyone uses his "rules." Hard to not call them classic by those standards.

But..the question asked was about Dawn, which was the sequel, so...I'll say no. (And this is from a guy who saw Dawn every other weekend at the midnight movies one summer...alternating with Fast Times the other weeks)

Fincher Fan

I would define 'Dawn' as a classic but not as universally recognised as 'Frankenstein' or 'Dracula' because there is no single image that defines it. Most people will probably not recall Dracula and Frankenstein's monster from the 1931 movies but as filtered down through other pop culture references such as modern versions, TV shows like The Munsters, comics/magazines, etc.

Cinemaddiction

Personally, I think "Frankenstein" is grossly overrated. Just because something was "classic" doesn't necessarily mean it was A) entertaining, B) infalliable, or C) both. I'd hold it in higher regard, could it have held up over time. Both it and "Dracula" I found to be very..very..dull movies.

Ms. M

I won't deny that these two films seem a bit slow and creaky to me, even when compared to Bride of Frankenstein. But I know of horror fans who find Dawn of the Dead to be dull compared to the recent remake. Times change.

Cinemaddiction

Oh, "DOTD" is in the same boat, but I enjoyed it 10,000 times more. Namely because of the characters, the outrageous situations, and living my fantasy; being holed up in a mall, lol.

The social commentary is heavier than I should have been, IMO.

Terrell

Big fan of the original Frankenstein, Dracula, Mummy, and Werewolf movies. They are indeed classics of the genre. They just ooze atmosphere.

As for the "Dead" zombie movies, I've honestly never understood what was so good about them. I never found them frightening. The acting, especially in NOTLD, is horrid. The makeup FX look fairly cheap. The writing is not good. I can believe they are hugely influential to the zombie genre, but are they up there with those older classic horror films? No way! I know my opinion will be unpopular, so now that I've posted my thoughts, I'll quietly leave!!!

jaeufraser

In all fairness, the Romero zombie films have in many ways defined the zombie genre too and provide the inspiration of almost every zombie film made these days. I know the genre has deeper roots, but his NotLD practically created the modern zombie.