Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General' started by zombiexfan, Oct 27, 2004.
has anyone seen this movie while it was in the theaters? is it as good as the original?
Yes, three times.
No, But it is a very fun movie. One of the best zombie films in recent years.
Saw it twice and loved it...Was waiting for the store to open this morning so I could get an unrated copy. It's an entirely different film than the original...It holds its own, so it's almost unfair to compare the two. I like the original for sentimental purposes, and what it has to say underlying the main plot...The "remake" is not quite as deep, but in some ways is more of an entertaining horror/action film...I dunno..Tough call..Hard to beat a classic, but the new one is...well..just so shiny and slick!
Alright I just saw this for the first time and I got to say that I didn't love it. First it was very British looking in the way it was filmed and I don't know why in that aspect it is more like 28 Days Later (which I loved) than Dawn and for that I'm dissapointed. The story was just not there. I hate running zombies, I just can't stand it. I know 28 Days Later had running zombies but they weren't really "zombies." Taken on it's own terms it was not a bad movie by any means and will definitly have to watch it again. Seeing people from the original was great (Scott, Tom and Ken) and the store being called Gaylen Ross was also a nice touch. The gore was very good and most of the gun shots were awesome plus the explosions were also great. I didn't think it was all that scary although I didn't watch it in the theaters. Overall I just didn't think was as great as everyone seems to think. I'd recommend 28 Days over this but nothing will ever compare to the original Dawn. Can't wait for Land of the Dead!!
I'd say it's as good as the original but in a different way....for me they're equals but they're not in the same ballpark
Not trying to be an ass, but why's this in the slasher forum?
I also asked that before
I think when you compare the two you have to remember that Romero really didn't consider his film to be a horror film, more of an action/adventure satire. The remake doesn't try to be anything other than a horror film, so it's not going to be the same. But I think it does very well at being a horror film, and it's probably the only movie released in the last few years to really work for me as a pure horror film.
And although people complain about the remake being shallow and not having any social commentary, I really think that in 2004 the idea that some major catastrophe could cause society to collapse in a matter of days works as well as Romero's concerns about consumerism did in the 1970s.
It is a good zombie movie, but it´s completely different from the original.
You´ll enjoy it better if you watch it as a zombie movie with the same name, and not as a remake.
i know i found that out last night it was too weird i still like the original alot better.
My question still stands.
Because the new DOTD has more slashings and gore-ings than any "real" slasher flick of recent days.
Slashers are a sub-genre. Not a killing style. Dawn of the Dead is a zombie flick. Not a slasher.
Because the zombie forum hasn't been resurrected yet.
But we´re in the 90´s. Things changed. Jason´s now a zombie, and all genres got mixed and maxed. :eek2:
Or maybe not, but that´s a technicality. :bs:
Saw this last night and was impressed with it. After it was over I was left with a strong feeling of satisfaction -- that feeling that only a great Zombie movie can provide. Not better than Romero's Dawn of the Dead, IMO, but great on its own merits for certain. Maybe I'm alone here, but Romero's Dawn still holds a stronger apocalyptic feel than Dawn '04 does.
i made a mistake ok .
I like to create my own Zombie chronology, that includes all Romero zombie movies, LET SLEEPING CORPSES LIE, Fulci´s ZOMBI and even RESIDENT EVIL. It´s fun.