sracer

Thank you Scott... for the longest time I felt like a lone voice crying in the wilderness.

This is all about cynicism. The producers know that the name "Dawn of the Dead" is a cult classic and will guarantee a certain percentage regardless of the actual content of the film. They flip-flop when it is convenient for them.... To attract attention they call it a "remake"... when people see through their true intention, they back pedal and call it a "retelling" or "re-interpretation" and say "judge the film on its own merits".

They deliberately want to draw a connection to the original, that's okay... live by the sword, die by the sword.

DJLinus

I thought this was funny (from this week's The Onion):

El-Kabong

The same plot, huh? What - a band of isolated humans have to fight for survival in an improvised stronghold and are under siege by an army of undead creatures? And everybody dies at the end (or at least leaves their fate uncertain).

Gee, that's the EXACT same plot as Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, Day of the Dead, Return fo the Living Dead, The Omega Man, The Last Man on Earth or Army of Darkness. So you're saying that all those movies are remakes?

The only thing DotD-04 shares with DotD-79 is the location and the name. That's where the similarites end.

Julie Walker

I can't wait to see this as well!!!

Saw the preview 10 minute clip on USA & was dieing for more,more more!!!

It was a hoot all the way:ie-fun fun fun popcorn entertainment. Had my brother & I(both HUGE fans of the original) laughing & just being wowed by the crazy chaos of the film.

So you can bet your ass I will be there this weekend,am aiming for a midnight showing hopefully. The rest of the film better kick ass,like those first 10 minutes teased at.

I did not find the running zombies I glimpsed scary in the least. I found it more humorous than anything. The idea of running zombies in real life IS scary,but onscreen,it is tougher to take seriouslly. At least for myself. Yet who knows,maybe when there are millions of bolting like the flash zombies onscreen,it will be alittle more unsettling? I hope so,since the best horror comedies have a good amount of dread,to balance out the darkly funny bits.

As for the TCM remake. I was against that as well at first,but was pleasently surprised with the film. Sure it had at least two major problems(Leatherface motive=LAME & final 20 minutes=generic snore)..but it was far better than I expected. It could have been much worse than it actually was.

So I plan on viewing Dawn with an open mind,just like I did with Chainsaw.

Jackskeleton

Well it does have someone who is preggo's and it does have a black cop. It may not be the same exact thing but look how well doing a shot by shot remake got Pyscho.


It's still a remake, just taking the ball and running with it a little in other directions.

scott shelton

Oh boy, here we go...

You're implying in your 2nd paragraph that I suggested DAWN 78 as some bastion of originality. I said nothing of the sort. Hell, DAWN is a sequel, isn’t it?

In fact, this 2nd paragraph is quite a trollish way to approach my argument, isn't it? Huh?

The discussion at hand is whether DAWN 04 is a remake of DAWN 78. Not if DAWN 78 was some launching point for countless remakes.

And what’s with those examples? OMEGA MAN came out before DAWN 78 and was based on a book. NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD we’ve already dealt with. DAY is the loose sequel/continuation/furthering saga to DAWN. RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD is a riff on the DEAD films. ARMY is the second sequel to the EVIL DEAD movies. LAST MAN I have not seen, but it was released in 1964. Does that answer your question?

Funny how none of these movies, which you sarcastically imply could be considered remakes of DAWN 78, are called DAWN OF THE DEAD are they? Huh?

You don't believe the two can be connected more than superficially? That location and plot are the only two similar factors in the remake? God bless. I cannot make that enormous leap with you.

Could somebody remind me why calling this remake a “remake” is giving people a case of the pokes all of a sudden? Did I miss a thread where the movie board has a financial stake in this movie?

Jackskeleton

I dunno. I'm happy to accept this as a remake because that is exactly what it is.

Applejack

I agree. However, I do think that the fact that it is a remake prevents some people from even giving it a chance.

Jackskeleton

I think me actually loving this film proves that even the toughest critics can give it a chance.

I'm sure a search looking up when this was first in production would show me being dead set against it and cursing anyone involved.

scott shelton

Well written review here...

http://www.joblo.com/arrow/dawnofthedead-2004.htm

Drop

Well scott, I wouldn't exactly call that a good review, in terms of it being positive, but it actually made me a bit more hopeful for the remake. The review points out exactly what I want from this film, even if the reviewer didn't totally like it. So come tomorrow I will finally be able to formulate an opinion based on me actually having seen the movie.

steebo777

Pretty good movie. Not as good as the original, but definetly worth checking out. Can't wait to see it again tomorrow.

sracer

Well, you were always only 2nd in the toughest critic race... a good step-and-a-half behind me.

I'm going to judge this film as a zombie film. I'm going to compare it to those that are my favorite, like (Night, the original Dawn, Night of the Zombies) and those I vehemently disliked (Nightmare City).

I will judge it as a film that dared to use the title "Dawn of the Dead".

I will judge it using the same criteria that I used BEFORE watching it. I disliked "running zombies", I disliked "superhuman zombies" before watching this film, and I have very specific reasons for it. So unless this remake can successfully pull off "running, superhuman zombies" without making it seem like the American sequel to "28 Days Later", then I will re-evaluate my position.

...but I won't let my being caught up in the "excitement" of watching it on the big screen influence my view of the film itself.

Dudikoff

I saw the new film on Tuesday and loved it. It was marginally better than 28 Days Later and imo, better than the original. Leaving out certain scenes from the original gives this one a more unique feel. Your not constantly reminded that this new movie is a remake of an old movie. If you like zombie movies, see it, it's enjoyable all of the way through.

NEUMANN

All remakes switch stuff around from the original(unless its a shot by shot remake like Psycho and i can not think of another remake that did the shot by shot stuff) look at the NOTLD remake,that switched a lot of stuff around from the original and i thought it was a good movie,i can not see where anyone can say that this is not a remake

Venom

man, i still love this movie and can't wait to see it again tomorrow.
i've thought about the movie every night hoping it will influnece my dreams.

i kinda realize now what it is to be a "fanboy." obviously this movie, like 99.9% of every horror movie ever made, has some flaws. character delevopment for one, but it is a horror more for christsake. since it is also a remake there is more in the pot to choke on.

as a genre film, a zombie film, it rocks. no question about it. as a remake of danw of the dead, well, of course it's not as intellectual as the original is. however as a action/horror film i feel it is a classic. this is what RE should of been and what 28 days later looked like it was gonna be. i'm extremely glad that this remake is a remaking and not a carbon copy, whats that point? we already got a classic there, lets see it in a new direction and that is what we got. one glaring difference between the first and remake is the mall. in the remake it is nolonger a character, it is just a setting. since there is no huge message behind the remake it works.

let me add, that i love slow moving zombies. that is a zombie to be. so i was also very wary of the fast moving zombies. the remake has totally changed my opinion of that though. three reasons, actually 4;

1. i love zombies films, i have spent a fair many day dreams filming my own in my head. even at a few points seriously thought about making a script. one problem i always had was, how exactly do the dead get to the point of being over whelming?
in this day and age of high tech weapons a well trained swat unti should be able to end the situation with ease. well the fast zombies are a solution to this problem. if and when you see the movie you'll see a few news clips with well armed troops having their hands full.

2. in the remakes case, the zombies are not super human fast, they aren't intelligent nor do they posses any super human strenght other then feelings no pain and such.

3. you know that dread of the slow zombie horde? its is still there with fast zombies. they got the same numbers but you couldn't easily run through 50 of them, they would hone in on you. that adds more dread to them in my opinion.

4. finally, and almost importantly there really are no rules to a zombie. even within romeros trillogy! in night of the living dead the very first zombie attempts to unlock, that is lift the handle, of the car that barbara is in, that impiles intellect.... or i suppose you could counter act that it is more a recalled memory or instinct. fine. but right after it trys the other side of the car and when it can't open that it turns looks around and grabs a rock and throws it at the window, thats using a tool. in dawn flyboy turns into a zombie fairly quickly but roger turns slowly in a day or two.

well i'm drained. i hpe this film does extremely well and those that are hung up on some very minor stuff will go see the film and judge it with an open mind.

Drop

You are wrong there, sir. There are certainly rules, and as a matter of fact they are all laid out in Dawn of the Dead. In one scene specifically a scientist explains what zombies are and how they function.

Roger turns slowly because he did not die for 3 days after he was bitten, matter of fact it seemed he turned quicker than Flyboy, turning almost immediately after he died. I chalk that up to him being infected for so long, so the disease was pretty ready to ressurect him. Flyboy died probably immediatly after we cut away from him and turned after a few hours.

Anyway, this is a different movie, so it can have different rules, but I think as a remake it should retain some of Romero's rules.

sven

I dont care what they call it as long as its a good movie.

DonnachaOne

Tepid overall, with a few excellent moments. When I get time I'll post a point-by-point review.

Supermallet

Finally saw it. Overall, I enjoyed it, but I have reservations.

The likes:

The male leads. Specifically, Ving Rhames' character, Mikhi Pfieffer's, the lead white guy (I'm forgetting his name) and the head security guard. All of these guys had great moments, gave very good performances, and had the most interesting characters.

The humor. I thought most of the one-liners were pretty spot on.

The make-up effects. These looked awesome.

Andy.



The cameos.

The general rethinking of the whole scenario. I liked that they strayed far from the original, because if I wanted to see something like the original, I'd pop the new Divimax Dawn disc into my DVD player.


The dislikes:

The female characters. Firstly, Sarah Polley is not a very good actress. Her delivery made me cringe a few times. The rest of the female characters were either very quiet (the blonde, the pregnant wife), or very stupid (the redhead). The only female character I liked at all was the trucker.

The zombie baby. After Dead-Alive, all zombie babies have a very high standard to live up to, and this one didn't cut it.

The cinematography was all over the place. Some scenes looked well balanced, others desaturated, and others had this horrible CGI-looking light. I don't know if these were stylistic choices or just bad shooting, but it bothered me.

The fast zombies. A lot of people say they worked for this movie, but I still didn't think so. They didn't ruin the movie, but they did lessen the impact. It just bothered me when this fat zombie lunges at Sarah Polley's character with even more strength and speed than the woman would have had when she was alive. I also miss a few of the other Romero touches, like in this one, the only way to become a zombie is through a bite, but in Romero's films, anyone who dies with their brain intact is coming back.

The extra characters. While they had a cool scene at the end, they were distracting through the rest of the film.



There didn't seem to be a clear reason for going to the mall in the first place. They just said, "Well, we're going to the mall." Didn't work for me.


As for whether or not it's a remake, of course it's a remake. Not only does it have the same name and basic plot, but there are lots of small nods and allusions to the original. It's not as good as the original, nor do I think it's as good as 28 Days Later, which had far better characters, but it's a solid film.

Jackskeleton

I'll step in to defend the redhead, as she falls under a Hot Clause.. meaning anything stupid she did on screen can be overlooked because she is A.) Red Headed and B.) Hot.

The little back story we know of her is that she lost everyone in the events at a young age. So of course she's going to be clingy with anything that is close to her. She isn't in her right mind.

as for going to the mall. Well considering the other paths were pretty much danger zones, why not take safety in a big secure location.

Catch 21

wow, I loved this movie because it had great pace and it didnt do that fakeout(surprise music) then suprise crap. Wasnt the endings different tho? ? hey Jack at the convention which actors showed up?

Jackskeleton

yes, in the original they took a chopper into the sunset.

as for the actors who showed up at the con, it was all the male actors really.

Catch 21

I have to be honest from a distance when they first introduce the owner of the boat, I thought it was Bruce Campbell. Damn Oh well

Venom

well thats only one mans opinion, and without knowing his credentials and his scientific method, all of that is meaningless

I suppose you could argue that there are rules, however what you quote isn't set up as a rule but just an observation. now since romeros dead movies seem to follow that, i would call it more of a guideline.

And to quote the good Dr. "These creatures are nothing but pure, motorized instinct." that in no way exludes running.

i was kinda like "what?" when they said that. it seemed like a let down at first, but quickly i liked it very much. obviously in the orginal the mall was a huge factor, i think this was the remakes way of stating that they were going to do something different. and i liked that it was stated in a very mudane way, insteading of them not knowing what a mall is