|
Post by blackknight273 on Jul 30, 2008 4:42:04 GMT -5
Noone has managed to post this so it might as well be me. Way back in 2004 when this first came out, when I used to be on a lot of horror boards (before getting banned and flamed over this), I was one of the few who loved it. I still do too. Sorry original Dawn fans but you gotta give credit where credit is due. It was damn good action film with lots of zombies. It didnt have shit for a message but it was still damned good. The first ten minutes of this movie are among the best I have seen in a long while. The movie doesn't drag or let up. Plus the escape in the minibuses was pretty damned thrilling.
Yeah it had its weak points (the girl going after the dog, or why didnt the guy in the sporting goods store grab a baseball bat instead of a croquet mallet) but it was still a damn solid movie.
Any fans who arent afraid to get flamed?
|
|
|
Post by tannerboyle on Jul 30, 2008 6:33:22 GMT -5
Shit...I think it's the best zombie flick in the past 23 years--since the original Return of the Living Dead blew the original Day of the Dead right outta the fucking water back in 1985!
Hell--it even improved upon the original in alot of ways, and has pretty much set a new standard for all zombie flicks to come.
|
|
|
Post by The Dead Walk! on Jul 30, 2008 10:35:26 GMT -5
I'm not so much against it as I am unhappy that they slapped the DAWN name on it. To me, it's not a remake at all... the only thing in common with the original is the mall (and a few cameos). I own this movie on DVD, so that should tell you I enjoy it. But really, it's not nearly in the same league as the original, and to me it just feels like they were trying to cash in on the name of a massive cult film.
It's a good action movie. It's not a horror movie though... well I suppose it is in some respects, but it's mainly action in my opinion. And I fucking HATE running zombies. It's just ridiculous. Not only do I find them less scary, it's just an impossible feat. Something dead has no blood flow, no oxygen, nothing... they don't call em stiffs for nothing. They just couldn't run. Irks me real bad.
But yeah, decent film... but I wish they'd just chosen a different title.
|
|
|
Post by omer135 on Jul 30, 2008 12:03:29 GMT -5
I agree about the running zombies, It's kind of ridicolous that dead things can run but don't forget that the whole "dead people come back to life" thing is ridicolous and we still enjoy it.
Yes, I also love the slow zombies from romero series, But , I don't find them that scary. In contrast, Here the zombies really scared the hell out of me. The remake is a very entertaining and well made movie . I enjoyed it immensely and I can watch it over and over again. I can't see how you say it's not horror, while it is way scarier than the original. Yes, It has a lot of action sequences, but the horror aspect is quite strong in it after all.
|
|
|
Post by The Dead Walk! on Jul 30, 2008 12:14:06 GMT -5
Maybe because for me, I don't get scared by movies at all. When I was a kid, sure... all the horror movies of the time (notably the F13 films, Alice Sweet Alice, and even Night of the Living Dead) scared the shit out of me. But as I grew older, somehow I stopped being afraid of movies.
To this day, only one movie truly creeps me out, and it's Night of the Living Dead. I have bad memories of that movie as a child... and it really can scare me for some odd reason. DAWN never scared me, same with it's remake.
Like I said, it seems like more of an action movie than anything. I mean if you watch that scene near the end where the thousands of zombies are chasing them to the dock (the overhead shot), it looks like something out of an action flick. In fact, most of the "scary" parts just seemed like chase sequences.
I can fully understand why people would be scared of the DAWN remake, but I'm just not one of em. And like I said before, I certainly see some horror aspects in it.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Tongue on Jul 30, 2008 12:21:24 GMT -5
I am not such a fan of remakes, Dawn original always has a place in my heart. I tried to accept this remake but simply couldn't. Night remake on the other hand was easily better for me.
|
|
|
Post by Flesh Eater on Jul 30, 2008 20:06:19 GMT -5
I enjoy the hell out of this film. I saw this before I even knew there was an original. Sad, I know. I still watch this a few times a month. The Johnny Cash intro is amazing, really gets my blood going. Of course the original is a stronger film in ever aspect. I really can't stand the fact that the swat officer was a dick and the only "love" plot to it gets developed in the last few scenes. It's still a good movie, but after watching the original it kind of dropped this film in my personal rating.
|
|
|
Post by tannerboyle on Jul 30, 2008 23:49:21 GMT -5
I'm not so much against it as I am unhappy that they slapped the DAWN name on it. To me, it's not a remake at all... the only thing in common with the original is the mall (and a few cameos). I own this movie on DVD, so that should tell you I enjoy it. But really, it's not nearly in the same league as the original, and to me it just feels like they were trying to cash in on the name of a massive cult film. It's a good action movie. It's not a horror movie though... well I suppose it is in some respects, but it's mainly action in my opinion. And I fucking HATE running zombies. It's just ridiculous. Not only do I find them less scary, it's just an impossible feat. Something dead has no blood flow, no oxygen, nothing... they don't call em stiffs for nothing. They just couldn't run. Irks me real bad. But yeah, decent film... but I wish they'd just chosen a different title. Yeah, but being unhappy about the name is a dumb reason to be unhappy. It's really a catch 22--if it had followed the original closely, people would've screamed "rip-off" and rightly so. Instead, the writers and director worked really hard to give us a unique, fresh take on the phenomenon...and it worked like a charm. As for the whole "cash-in" thing, lots of people cashed in on it--including GAR and Savini. I don't hear them complaining. Now, on to the whole "action film" thing. The same could be said for the original--that it's more action than horror. Let's face it--the shambling zombies of olde just aren't scary. They're about as frightening as Frankenstein. Now that they can run, they're more of a threat...and scarier. I notice that the whole issue of the realism of runners and shamblers has come up again, so here’s my take on the subject. Personally, I think that the runners are more realistic, as they more accurately reflect the type of bodily phenomenon we see in the real world. Point #1--the Rigor Mortis Issue According to the most beloved Ernie Kaltenbruener of the Resurrection Funeral Home (21702 East Central, Louisville, Kentucky): “Rigor mortis starts in the brain. And it spreads down through the internal organs and finally settles in the muscles. It loosens up after a while, but it can be broken out…'manually' as they say, by flexing the muscles.” Bodily movement is achieved by the contraction and relaxation of different muscle groups, working together. If a fresh corpse is reanimated not too long after it initially expires, rigor mortis wouldn’t have the time to effectively cause the stiffness that most fans associate with zombies. And, even if the corpse was in an advanced state of rigor mortis when it revived, it would work itself out of that stiffness in a relatively short time as it moves around on its own accord. Point #2--the Speed and Strength Issue It’s a proven scientific fact that people in frenzied psychological states can often do seemingly amazing things physically. Anyone who’s worked in Law Enforcement, Corrections, Health Care, and the Mental Health industries has seen people who look relatively normal become freakishly strong and fast while flipping out. In addition to this strength and speed, some also don’t immediately feel fear or pain while in these states. This has been touched upon in countless genre outings, from Halloween to The Exorcist to “The Incredible Hulk”. Now, is this strength and speed and toughness coming from deep within? Sort of. Oftentimes people fail to live up to their fullest physical potential not because of physical weakness or inability, but because of psychology. They don’t think they’re that strong or fast, and as a result they’re not. During these states of psychological frenzy, the part of the brain that tells each person that they can’t do something is shut off while the brain enters “fight or flight” mode. And, you don’t even really have to be in a frenzied state to experience this. For example--a lot of times, when lifting weights, a person will feel that they can’t squeeze out that last rep on the bench unless their spotter puts his fingertips on the bar. Now, is the spotter giving the person lifting that weight that much help? Usually not. Just having the spotter there, touching the bar, is enough for the lifter to put the weight up…something he’s doing on his own, but doesn’t think he can without help. See what I’m getting at here? Zombies don’t feel pain. They don’t have that little voice inside them telling them they can’t do something. They’re driven by hunger, and hunger alone. Hence, I think they’d be able to perform to their body’s fullest potential--including great strength and speed…until the corpse deteriorates to the point of mush and falls apart. Thus--once you put together points 1 and 2, I think that makes a pretty effective case for the runners as being more realistic. And, that's alls I got to say about that. ;D
|
|
|
Post by tannerboyle on Jul 30, 2008 23:52:02 GMT -5
I am not such a fan of remakes, Dawn original always has a place in my heart. I tried to accept this remake but simply couldn't. Night remake on the other hand was easily better for me. Well, Doc...if the Dawn remake had been basically the same old shit by the same old guys (like the NOTLD remake), you would've liked it?
|
|
|
Post by rogueslayer on Jul 31, 2008 0:01:24 GMT -5
The same could be said for the original--that it's more action than horror. Let's face it--the shambling zombies of olde just aren't scary. They're about as frightening as Frankenstein. Now that they can run, they're more of a threat...and scarier. I agree with you here sir. Runners are much scarier but, shambers are a much better cinematic device.
|
|
|
Post by blackknight273 on Jul 31, 2008 0:27:48 GMT -5
One of the things I liked about the running zombies was that you could see how quickly things would fall apart having fast moving dead/infected swarming the streets. The old fashioned zombies to be honest wouldn't last fifteen minutes in an armed society. They are too slow and we in the US at least are too well armed.
|
|
|
Post by The Dead Walk! on Jul 31, 2008 10:32:41 GMT -5
I'm not so much against it as I am unhappy that they slapped the DAWN name on it. To me, it's not a remake at all... the only thing in common with the original is the mall (and a few cameos). I own this movie on DVD, so that should tell you I enjoy it. But really, it's not nearly in the same league as the original, and to me it just feels like they were trying to cash in on the name of a massive cult film. It's a good action movie. It's not a horror movie though... well I suppose it is in some respects, but it's mainly action in my opinion. And I fucking HATE running zombies. It's just ridiculous. Not only do I find them less scary, it's just an impossible feat. Something dead has no blood flow, no oxygen, nothing... they don't call em stiffs for nothing. They just couldn't run. Irks me real bad. But yeah, decent film... but I wish they'd just chosen a different title. Yeah, but being unhappy about the name is a dumb reason to be unhappy. It's really a catch 22--if it had followed the original closely, people would've screamed "rip-off" and rightly so. Instead, the writers and director worked really hard to give us a unique, fresh take on the phenomenon...and it worked like a charm. As for the whole "cash-in" thing, lots of people cashed in on it--including GAR and Savini. I don't hear them complaining. Now, on to the whole "action film" thing. The same could be said for the original--that it's more action than horror. Let's face it--the shambling zombies of olde just aren't scary. They're about as frightening as Frankenstein. Now that they can run, they're more of a threat...and scarier. I notice that the whole issue of the realism of runners and shamblers has come up again, so here’s my take on the subject. Personally, I think that the runners are more realistic, as they more accurately reflect the type of bodily phenomenon we see in the real world. Point #1--the Rigor Mortis Issue According to the most beloved Ernie Kaltenbruener of the Resurrection Funeral Home (21702 East Central, Louisville, Kentucky): “Rigor mortis starts in the brain. And it spreads down through the internal organs and finally settles in the muscles. It loosens up after a while, but it can be broken out…'manually' as they say, by flexing the muscles.” Bodily movement is achieved by the contraction and relaxation of different muscle groups, working together. If a fresh corpse is reanimated not too long after it initially expires, rigor mortis wouldn’t have the time to effectively cause the stiffness that most fans associate with zombies. And, even if the corpse was in an advanced state of rigor mortis when it revived, it would work itself out of that stiffness in a relatively short time as it moves around on its own accord. Point #2--the Speed and Strength Issue It’s a proven scientific fact that people in frenzied psychological states can often do seemingly amazing things physically. Anyone who’s worked in Law Enforcement, Corrections, Health Care, and the Mental Health industries has seen people who look relatively normal become freakishly strong and fast while flipping out. In addition to this strength and speed, some also don’t immediately feel fear or pain while in these states. This has been touched upon in countless genre outings, from Halloween to The Exorcist to “The Incredible Hulk”. Now, is this strength and speed and toughness coming from deep within? Sort of. Oftentimes people fail to live up to their fullest physical potential not because of physical weakness or inability, but because of psychology. They don’t think they’re that strong or fast, and as a result they’re not. During these states of psychological frenzy, the part of the brain that tells each person that they can’t do something is shut off while the brain enters “fight or flight” mode. And, you don’t even really have to be in a frenzied state to experience this. For example--a lot of times, when lifting weights, a person will feel that they can’t squeeze out that last rep on the bench unless their spotter puts his fingertips on the bar. Now, is the spotter giving the person lifting that weight that much help? Usually not. Just having the spotter there, touching the bar, is enough for the lifter to put the weight up…something he’s doing on his own, but doesn’t think he can without help. See what I’m getting at here? Zombies don’t feel pain. They don’t have that little voice inside them telling them they can’t do something. They’re driven by hunger, and hunger alone. Hence, I think they’d be able to perform to their body’s fullest potential--including great strength and speed…until the corpse deteriorates to the point of mush and falls apart. Thus--once you put together points 1 and 2, I think that makes a pretty effective case for the runners as being more realistic. And, that's alls I got to say about that. ;D I never said I was unhappy. I just said I wish they'd chosen a different name, because I honestly see almost zero correlation to the original DAWN. I mean, why the fuck call it Dawn of the Dead when it's an entirely different movie in damn near every way? It's fucking stupid. And I hear you about your whole take on running zombies, but I still hate them and think they're stupid. I also don't think the original is more action than horror... not even close. There were no giant explosions, countless chase sequences, a hard rock soundtrack... you get my point. And as I've said several times, I don't think the slow zombies OR the fast zombies are scary. To me, it's not an issue of how scary the zombie is. I think you're ignoring the fact that I LIKE the DAWN remake. I've said it a couple of times now. I just don't think it remotely holds a candle to the original. That's my opinion and I'm stickin' to it!
|
|
|
Post by rogueslayer on Jul 31, 2008 12:40:29 GMT -5
never said I was unhappy. I just said I wish they'd chosen a different name, because I honestly see almost zero correlation to the original DAWN. I mean, why the fuck call it Dawn of the Dead when it's an entirely different movie in damn near every way? It's fucking stupid. It's really a catch 22--if it had followed the original closely, people would've screamed "rip-off" and rightly so. Instead, the writers and director worked really hard to give us a unique, fresh take on the phenomenon...and it worked like a charm. ;D I also don't think the original is more action than horror... not even close. Lets face it man maybe in the 70s it was shocking but, now its more of action film. Tell me unless you were alive back in '78, a 10 year old or younger, or real pansy would this film scare you? Hell the trailers are scarier than the film itself. There were no giant explosions, Please I bet if old George had enough budget there would have been a ton of explosions.
|
|
|
Post by The Dead Walk! on Jul 31, 2008 12:58:20 GMT -5
I have to respectfully disagree.
For one, if the remake had followed at least ONE plot device from the original (other than a mall setting), people wouldn't be screaming rip-off. I don't think you're getting what I'm saying.
Let me give you an example....
Say I make my own horror movie, and it's set in a farmhouse. It has not a single other thing in common with Night of the Living Dead, but I name the thing Night of the Living Dead and proclaim it as a remake.
It makes no fucking sense! Just because a film is set in the same place as another doesn't mean it deserves to be classified as a remake of the original.
And I still don't think the original DAWN is an action film. Tell me, in what specific ways is it? By your criteria, almost ANY film could probably be considered action. If anything, the original DAWN is more of a drama than anything else.
Oh, and I highly doubt there would have been any bomb-like explosions if George had the budget. Let's not forget the scene where the rednecks shoot the gas tank in the car... there was an explosion, but it wasn't some massive unrealistic blast. So obviously George had the means to create explosions, and he didn't.
|
|
|
Post by tannerboyle on Jul 31, 2008 22:11:46 GMT -5
I never said I was unhappy. I just said I wish they'd chosen a different name, because I honestly see almost zero correlation to the original DAWN. I mean, why the fuck call it Dawn of the Dead when it's an entirely different movie in damn near every way? It's fucking stupid. And I hear you about your whole take on running zombies, but I still hate them and think they're stupid. I also don't think the original is more action than horror... not even close. There were no giant explosions, countless chase sequences, a hard rock soundtrack... you get my point. And as I've said several times, I don't think the slow zombies OR the fast zombies are scary. To me, it's not an issue of how scary the zombie is. I think you're ignoring the fact that I LIKE the DAWN remake. I've said it a couple of times now. I just don't think it remotely holds a candle to the original. That's my opinion and I'm stickin' to it! You never said that you were unhappy? As for the rest...whatever. Although, from what you're writing, it appears that you haven't seen the original too closely. Or the original NOTLD, for that matter. The original Night and Dawn had a couple of explosions, and Dawn had Goblin.
|
|