Did anyone catch the PARIS HILTON footage in the end credits?

Yes, I am serious! After the stuff with the mini-DV happens, the credits keep going, and there is quick flashes of zombies shrieking, and then there is a quick flash from the Paris Hilton Video tape! I have seen Dawn of the Dead '04 Three times, so I know that I have seen this correctly. Anyone else catch this? I find it to be pretty funny.

funny, I saw it three times. Sat through the entire credits all those times and the only thing after the miniDV footage is just more random zombie rushes.

where were all the dogs? there are pets without food providers out there-- if zombies don't "eat dog,"

Anybody notice that when ving was playing chess with andy he was useing a alamo chess set,kinda ironic lol(though i am sure it was supposed to be)

Funny? That's sad! You missed Paris! Sucks to be you!

There was a quick nightvision shot of a couple making out right near the end, but I couldn't make out who they were. Probably not Paris Hilton for copywright reasons.

meh, going into my C: drive to see it on the computer.

Actually, considering what Paris Hilton looks like, he's quite lucky if he missed it.

Hard to miss what isnt there.

Atleast this new example of credit roll in's makes things interesting and hopefully gets people to stick around for the credits.

hey jack..i have a question about the remake that has been plaguing me..see the other thread and let me know what you think...

Any idea how long the group stayed in the mall?

Because in the original, the survivors were there for well over a couple of months (Fran's belly got bigger) But no answer was given in the remake...Unless I missed something.

damn cross promoting the other thread.

The context just isn't the same without bloody zombies.

Good question. Couldn't have been months, since the pregnant chick looked like she was ready to drop when they came in. Also, since Andy indicated that he was hungry could be an indication, since he probably didn't have a horde of food in his shop to last very long. I'm guessing a little more than a week maybe?

I would figure a weeks time would be a good assumption.

I had the opportunity to finally Dawn 2004 last night and as some of you may recall, I said that if this film was called anything other than "Dawn of the Dead" that I wouldn't have a problem with it...

I WAS WRONG!

This film was a sad excuse for a horror film...by ANY name.

I tried to find something I liked about it... ANYTHING. But I came up empty handed.

First off, this isn't a zombie film. This is an "infected" film ala "28 Days Later" or "The Crazies". The "zombies" are faster and stronger than when their bodies were alive. Their eyes change color. And only those bitten return to life. This is virtually identical to "28 Days Later"... The digital shutter effect used in the film is the same effect used in "28 Days Later".

Second... graphic gore is minimal. There is virtually no explicit shots of zombies tearing into flesh. Only a handful of exploding exit-wound headshots.

Third... as I predicted, there are relatively few zombie encounters with the main characters. Because they move so quickly and are so strong any zombie/human encounter will be short-lived.

Fourth... soundtrack. The Rob-Zombie-House of a 1000 Corpse-like shrieking metal-junk was irritating and ineffectual.

Fifth... No character development. The screen presence of Ving Rhames was wasted on a pitiful storyline. Too many characters and a haphazard treatment of them failed to draw any kind of connection with any of the characters.

Sixth...Story cohesion. The film was simply a string of thinly connected scenes with no overall sense of purpose.

Seventh... Poor and inconsistent use of the zombie "physics". If you're going to have running super zombies, then why weren't they crashing head-first into the mall's glass doors trying to break through?! Why were the "celebrity" zombies moving slow?!

Eighth... Cameos. Ugh. The cameos were strained, poorly planned, and poorly executed. Tom Savini looked absolutely silly in his ponytail and sheriff's uniform. Either CGI-out the hair, or use him somewhere else. The same goes for the other cameos.

There is so, so much more wrong with this film that I won't get into it unless others bring up those issues.

Some of you may say, "why don't you just kick back and simply enjoy it?! Why be so critical?" Well, I WOULD HAVE sat back and enjoy it if there was SOMETHING to enjoy! Sorry, but I don't get off on cameos of the original stars... nor did the store name of "Gaylen Ross" goose me like I'm sure it did to the adolescent fanboys in attendance.

The effects were poor, the story was poor. It was worse than an "unique" remake of the original. It was a poor rip-off of a ground-breaking film (28 Days Later) using the name of a cult classic (Dawn of the Dead).

But I know that I'm in the small minority since virtually everyone else thought it "rox" "w00t!" or "kicked ass". Glad that you all enjoyed it. And because of that, you'll probably get more of the same cheap swill as other zombie-like films get made... great for you... bad for me. (I guess I just gotta "take one for the team")

Wow. I've changed my opinion. I hated it. Damn you and your logic!









BTW, that reminds me that I never did read this "unofficial" thread. Maybe tomorrow I'll plow through it.

Jesus, you brought my thread back from the dead to only piss on it's corpse sracer?

You should have just left it buried.

damn sracer That review "kicked ass"

I thought it was reasonable. His only ally died and he was never evil, just wary of strangers and trying to be tough. After he spent some time with them, he was ready to help out. I'm so glad that they didn't go to that old cliche of the redneck *******s sabotaging everyone else. I suppose they did go with the businessman ******* cliche though.

Damn...this technique was used in Gladiator....what is DotD a Roman epic? Wait, Ridley Scott also used the technique in Hannibal...is DotD a Ridley Scott film??

C'mon, obviously all of your points are easily refuted....but this was just the most ridiculous that I had to take a minute out of my life to mock you.

I just saw this. Very, very good. I had heard the good reviews and press surrounding this, but I wasn't sure how it would turn out. I'm on the fence, though, if it was better than 28 days later.

Jack-have you read this book?

The Zombie Survival Guide : Complete Protection from the Living Dead by Max Brooks





http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books



Anybody?

I thumbed through it. But I haven't bought it yet.

It's a cool book.

I've only referenced it oh... 100 times in my post already. Yeah, I picked it up. I thought it was alright. Most of the material seems to really be pulled out of there ass and does take some changing to the zombie myth as it is. Drastic changes? Not so much. Just another persons discription of them. Over all, it's a good read.