Dawn 2004 - Yay or Nay

Discussion in 'Reader Polls' started by rhett, Mar 21, 2004.

?

What did you think of the DAWN OF THE DEAD remake?

  1. I loved it, Ving Rhames is such a hunk!

    29 vote(s)
    70.7%
  2. I hated it, zombie babies are the pitfall of society!

    12 vote(s)
    29.3%
  1. x666x

    x666x Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,900
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Canada
    I liked it better and here are my reasons:

    In a nutshell, it exceeded my expectations in terms of violence, blood, and gore. As well, it was shorter than the original and I loved the editing. Fast or slow moving zombies doesn't matter.

    I didn't grow up watching Day or Dawn. I saw a colorized version of NOTLD on tv when I was very young. Then, I skipped to Return of the Living Dead etc. Quite frankly, the video box for Dawn never looked too appealing to me so I just never rented it. The same video store did rent Demons and a lot of Fulci and such so there were always video boxes that appealed to me more in terms of gorey rentals.

    So, I am not too stuck on the original Dawn even though I do like it. I like shorter films which Dawn 2004 is. As well, less hokey music and hokey scenes with the zombies. If there was less of that in the orignal then I would have liked it more although grant it is far more gorier than the 2004 version. My stance also applies to the goofey likes of Brain Dead and Bad Taste. I am not questioning technique pertaining to any of these films. I just like more serious attempts at horror films even if they fail at trying to be serious.

    Also, I was going into the film thinking there was going to be no blood or gore.
     
  2. RyanPC

    RyanPC Guest

    Yay for me too, but I disagree with these two statements. While the humor and overall film didn't have the social commentary of the original, the humor was definitely there and it worked for me. I also don't agree that it isn't as bloody- I think it's much gorier than the original.
     
  3. Grim

    Grim Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,659
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    Yeah, thats what I meant by satire, I was talking about the social commentary, the film had an abundance of humor (I even commented on this in the official thread). The film was overall a lot more violent than the original, but the violent moments lacked the visceral punch in the stomach that the original had. I mean nothing in this film came close to the dismemberment of those bikers at the end of the original, such as the slow tearing of intestines and flesh, the slow, helpless screams, etc. But hopefully thats something that the director's cut will provide us with.
     
  4. H0MOSareGAY

    H0MOSareGAY Guest

    eh, I'm leaning a little more toward the yay side...
     
  5. aoiookami

    aoiookami Demon Fetishist

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2001
    Messages:
    2,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Endsville, Canada
    yay, and Ving is a hunk :lol:
     
  6. zombi3

    zombi3 Pure Evil

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2001
    Messages:
    2,237
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Shit Creek
    I'll say yay. I don't think it comes close to the original, but I still enjoyed it. It reminded me more of 28 Days Later than Romero's Dawn. In fact, one thing I didn't like was the use of fast-motion photography during the action scenes, which I thought hampered 28 Days as well.
     
  7. thrashard76

    thrashard76 Guest

    This is actually one of the things I liked most about the remake. The same goes for 28 DL as I think the sped up parts of the movie added to the adrenalin rush of the moments.
     
  8. X-human

    X-human I ate my keys

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,878
    Likes Received:
    600
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Illinois
    Shouldn't there be a middle ground vote on this? "It's not bad, just not good." ? That'd be mine.
     
  9. steve_p

    steve_p New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2003
    Messages:
    258
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Pittsburgh,PA
    This movie sucked it should have been called the zombies who like to rave. I guess I am to big of a fan of Dawn of the Dead to see the name of a movie that I loved be trashed by a movie that couldn't even hold a candle to it.
     
  10. Dave

    Dave Pimp

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 1999
    Messages:
    7,178
    Likes Received:
    358
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    Put me in the middle too. It was okay, but it shouldn't have been called Dawn of the Dead. The only similarity is the mall. The zombies were way too fast.
     
  11. Nasty Nate

    Nasty Nate New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    301
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Napa, CA
    It didn't suck but I don't like the way it was done at all.
     
  12. slinker

    slinker Un-Holy Force.

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2001
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    London
    It was watchable, but i was expecting a whole lot more after seeing the trailer....i guess that makes me a NAY! :(
     
  13. SEANVALEN

    SEANVALEN Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2001
    Messages:
    1,052
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    London, England
    I liked the fast zombies, 28 days was interesting, but it stopped being fun when they left London, that film was stuck between trying something original and having fun, but his Dawn of the dead is what you see at face value, it's just good plain fun without you expecting something unexpected, it's just well executed and refreshing, it feels different to the original, thats a good thing in a way, as it's style separates it.
     
  14. SEANVALEN

    SEANVALEN Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2001
    Messages:
    1,052
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    London, England
    Agreed, the fast zombies are nerve rattelers, the classic wait for the attack, and it's so fast, it catches you by surprise everytime!
     
  15. Ravenheart

    Ravenheart Guest

    I loved it.No,it won't replace the original in my heart but I still thought it was pretty damn good :D
     
  16. Wermode

    Wermode New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2001
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Matool
    Jaw-snapping zombie fun, where the undead actually created a feeling of dread and danger, and the dialogue was way better than most of the horror (read "teens acting/talking stupid until they die") out there in recent years. The only people I know who didn't like it judged it before they ever walked into the theater...and even some of them converted once they had seen it. Give it a thumbs up from me.
     
  17. Jamm

    Jamm J'aime les cadavres

    Joined:
    May 19, 2000
    Messages:
    3,828
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Albany, New York
    Now that I've finally seen this, count me in with the "I didn't love it but I didn't hate it either" crowd.

    Ving Rhames is NOT as hunky as Wesley Snipes, but he does make a better drag queen!!!

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0250425/
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2004
  18. FulciZombieFan

    FulciZombieFan New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2001
    Messages:
    410
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA in the USA
    Why DAWN OF THE DEAD 2004 sucked donkey balls

    This movie sucked pure and simple.

    So it's hard to know where to start ... since SO much is wrong.

    So rather than try to pick apart this thing or that thing let me just say it in a very general way ... or as general as I can I suppose.

    This is a zombie film and a remake.

    As such it has certain rules it MUST play by and if it is going to twist the rules or circumvent them then there has to be a damn good reason UNLESS it is attempting humor. If you think about it most films that twist the rules or make their own abide by this one way or another. Either they have a good reason to change it (with ample explaination) or it is for the effect of humor. I think we can all agree this movie wasn't about being funny or humorous.

    So they must have had a damn good reason to change the rules right?

    Well OK let us visit a few things in more detail.

    1.) Zombie speed
    Most zombies in movies are slow. Name me one zombie film that had fast zombies? Oh you say RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD do you? Well OK but that was half horror half comedy with a heavy dose of campyness. It don't count plain and simple. 28 DAYS LATER? Sorry but 28 DAY LATER doesn't count either. They are not true zombies aka living undead.

    So why did the remake change this? It's not for humor so there must be a damn good reason for it right? Oh ok some of you say that fast zombies are more scary ... that it made you more edge-of-your-seat etc.

    I guess I can understand this to an extent but eventhough this is a horror film logic doesn't go 100% out the window. Why are the zombies so fast ... why are they so fast and strong that they appear to be almost super human ... yadda yadda yadda. The film never even attempts to explain it. As a result it doesn't fit.

    Also by changing this long standing rule bear in mind that not only is this film going against a long standing ZOMBIE GENRE RULE but is also going against the original movie that is was REMAKING.

    It doesn't add up. It totally changes the aestetic of what zombies are and how the characters and the audience relate to them. With no decent (or any) explaination of why they are SUPER FAST ZOMBIES ... well I'm sorry but it just doesn't work.

    2.) Gore and all that
    I know GORE alone doesn't make a movie but this IS a zombie film. They are supposed to have some level of gore above and beyond the average horror film. This film simply had very little FOR a zombie film. The fact of sub standard amounts of gore is even more unforgiven that it is a remake of one of the goriest films ever made. Granted I only saw this movie once but where was the flesh eating? Do we actually ever see it? Not really as I recall. Damn what good is a zombie film without some die hard flesh eating gore for christ's sake!

    3.) When there's no more room in the HELL the dead will walk the EARTH
    OK this is a great tag line. It worked well for the original both as a tag line and in the movie. It made sense to use it again as the tag line to this remake version ... HOWEVER ... *sigh* ... it makes no sense in the context of the film. First of all I admit that having the Ken Foree cameo so HE could deliver the line was a stroke of genius. Kudos to whomever thought that up. Having said that it was totally botched. His cameo was edited so very poorly that it ruined what should have been a GREAT moment in the film. In fact most of the stuff shown on television was done very poorly i.e., not used to good effect. Romero did this SO much better in the original NOTLD and even better yet in the original DAWN OF THE DEAD which contains the best damn scene Romero has EVER put together on film ... the death of Roger and the way it was intercut with the "crazy" scientist guy on TV. This remake totally blew all of that.

    But back to THE LINE. They wanted to use the line right? OK. Great. I more than understand. So ... what the FUCK (scream FUCK as loud as you can so as to get my level of emotion here) did they go AGAINST this line? You know what I mean. The whole bullshit about NOT turning into a ZOMBIE unless you die due to infection. HOW FUCKING STUPID IS THAT!!!

    I could go on and on and on and on but at this point I've worked myself up into a rage so that is all for now.

    - John "FulciLives" Coleman
     
  19. Cujo108

    Cujo108 Guest

    Change is good. Also, the running zombies don't need to be explained. They never explained why the zombies in Romero's films simply shamble, so why should they explain zombies running? Also, some of the zombies in Romero's films do run. Bill Hinzman runs after the car at the beginning of NOTLD, and the kid zombies in the original Dawn run at Peter. Running zombies make the film more intense and more frightening. Also, remakes don't need to follow the films they are remakes of down to the exact detail. The ones that have usually suck. They decided to go with running zombies so we could see something different. You don't like it, you don't like the film, get over it. Harping on it isn't going to change the mind of anyone who liked it.

    Correction: It doesn't work FOR YOU!

    As for the gore, there was a fine amount of gore for me. Zombie film or not, I don't have to have loads of gore to enjoy a film. Plus, the studio wanted to make its money back, so they didn't put in loads of gore and then go with an unrated release.

    As for the Hell line, it was obviously a reference/homage to the original. It didn't need to make sense in this film's storyline. Foree is a televangelist with his own beliefs, and it happens to look like his beliefs on that matter are wrong. The only coming back if bitten idea is different, and Romero's films were never completely consistent with that either anyways. They wanted to take the story in a new direction, and they did. Also, I thought the TV scenes in the remake were pretty effective. Again, they didn't work FOR YOU.
     
  20. FulciZombieFan

    FulciZombieFan New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2001
    Messages:
    410
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA in the USA
    Lot's of shit comming out of your mouth.

    If you like it so damn much then how about explaining WHY you like it so much instead of harping on the shit I said.

    Asshole.

    - John "FulciLives" Coleman
     

Share This Page