Dawn Of The Dead Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
When the undead rise, civilization will fall.
When there's no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth.
How do you kill what's already dead?
36 billion people have died since the reign of humanity. For the new Dawn, there's a reunion...
On a day like any other in the middle of the summer a nurse named Ana just wants to spend some time with her husband,Luis.But something goes horribly wrong when Luis is bitten and Ana has to run to keep from dying.She wrecks her car and is saved by a cop named Kenneth.They run into a small group of survivors consisting of Michael a TV salesmen,Andre a common thug,and Luda who happens to be Andre's pregnant wife.But what happens when the dead find the mall and have a craving for possibly the only living people left in the world?All Hell breaks loose.A small group of survivors manages to get into the Mall with the others but some are bitten which starts a controversy.Should they be killed or not?And thats just the beginning.You cant forget about the gun salesman,Andy living across the street.But what really gets the most attention is how to get Andy food.Then Nicole takes off for her dog and is cornered by bitten Andy.So the gang sneaks over and stocks up on ammo before killing Andy and saving Nicole.Now the gang runs back to the Mall and leaves in two buses that they heavily armored.The movie ends as they kick off in a boat.The death toll for the group is amazing.Norma,Monica,Michael,CJ,Andy and many others.Will they survive or die?Maybe a sequel will tell.
| Sarah Polley | Ana |
| Ving Rhames | Kenneth |
| Jake Weber | Michael |
| Mekhi Phifer | Andre |
| Ty Burrell | Steve |
| Michael Kelly | CJ |
| Kevin Zegers | Terry |
| Michael Barry | Bart |
| Lindy Booth | Nicole |
| Jayne Eastwood | Norma |
| Boyd Banks | Tucker |
| Inna Korobkina | Luda |
| R.D. Reid | Glen |
| Kim Poirier | Monica |
| Matt Frewer | Frank |
| Zack Snyder |
7.30 out of 10 (33829 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Ordinary Film About Zombies
posted on 28 Aug 2009So, what can I say about this film? I don't know why, but I do not like films about zombies anymore. Why? Because it is boring. A lot of directors choose zombies as the main characters in their horror movies. So, the films are very similar. "Dawn of the Dead" isn't an exception. On the other hand, this film about zombies is one of the best movies from this category. The director Zack Snyder showed really monstrous and realistic zombies (the amount of them was really big!) but they were stupid and heavy-footed like others. Moreover, I liked the acting of Sarah Polley (Ana) very much. This actress was a discovery for me. There is a lot of action in "Dawn of the Dead". Mostly, the scene is laid in a supermarket and in the cars. The actors lick the dust one by one and this fact frightens the film viewers. Especially I liked the end of "Dawn of the Dead". Only one or two people stay alive in the end of simple horror movie. "Dawn of the Dead" is an exception! Every character of the movie was killed by hungry and mad zombies...
It's a weird, weird time when a remake of a horror classic is getting better reviews than the new Tom Hanks movie.
posted on 20 Aug 2009Zack Snyder, who at the time of this writing is such a new director that his photo is not even posted on the great IMDb, has started off his career by reminding the world that the horror genre is not quite dead yet, that it is not doomed to spout endless crap like I Know What You Did Last Summer, Jeepers Creepers I and II, House of the Dead, Cabin Fever, etc. Rob Zombie did a wonderful job of jumpstarting the horror genre with his wonderfully unapologetic House of 1000 Corpses, and I have to say that I was endlessly thrilled to see this remake of a horror classic come off so successfully, especially since modernizations of classics generally tend to strike me as little more than cashing in on past successes due to a current lack of ideas.The revised Dawn of the Dead comes at a time when the cineplexes are saturated with bad horror escapades, not the least of which are mentioned above, with others including Resident Evil, 28 Days Later, Gothika, etc. All of the standard remake things are there, the famous actors, the enhanced comic relief, bigger special effects (and, much less common, also better), and also in this case, importantly clarified plot points. It was nice to see the characters act more logically than was displayed in the original, the ridiculous biker gang was scrapped in favor of better zombies, a group of touristy people who show up in their motor home, a guy on the roof across the parking lot (tempting the cast and the viewers with the fact that he is heavily armed because he's on top of a gun shop) and one of several mall security guards, constantly demanding authority.Ving Rhames takes on the lead role in the film, leading the cast because he's a law enforcement officer, but also challenged by the jerk security guard mentioned above, determined to be obeyed to the point that it endangers all of them. He's the only really irritating character, wanting to basically imprison everyone except himself because he is so distrustful, which is strange since they are hiding from the walking dead who are all instantly recognizable. These people are all struggling for their very lives, what does he think they're going to do, steal from The Sunglass Hut?The zombies themselves have been upgraded as well. In the first film (as well as the original Dawn of the Dead), they are slow, loping creatures similar to the killers in slasher movies. They're extremely slow-moving but scary because they're so relentless. In this movie, not only do the zombies move fast, they run and even jump. In the original Dawn, they wouldn't even duck down to get past an obstacle. They were so mentally absent that they would simply keep walking into an obstruction over and over, like one of those little robots from Stephen King's The Waste Lands.(spoilers) Much of the plot has been changed for the remake. There is no snide content about the innate need to shop that was mentioned in the original film (maybe this has become so deeply ingrained that they were afraid the audience would be genuinely offended this time?), there is no biker gang, there is much more worry about what is going on in the rest of the world (concentrating on a particular rescue post that they are desperately trying to come up with a way to get to), and the final escape attempt is made in a boat rather than a helicopter. Today's audience is too impatient to watch these people struggle for their lives in this mall while they had a helicopter on the roof.Also, the zombies are no longer the bad guys, just the walking dead who have no control over their actions. The idiot who kept hooting and hollering until he was attacked several times by the zombies in the original Dawn once referred to them as `bastards,' in this movie the characters are simply trying to escape from them. Their confused wandering as seen from the rooftops in this movie may even be an attempt to create sympathy for the people that these creatures once were. Unfortunately, in the absence of a real antagonist they decided instead to have this one security guard act like a complete jerk to everyone until they have to lock him up in the mall's holding cell, until he miraculously has a change of heart late in the film so that his anger doesn't render him a loose end.One of the things that I liked about the movie was that the black guy was one of the powerful characters. This is to be expected from Ving Rhames, but unfortunately there was another black guy whose portrayal is not as easily deciphered. Mekhi Phifer plays Andre, the guy with the very pregnant wife. I liked that he is portrayed as more interested in saving the life of his wife and baby than in his own well being, but then when his wife and baby are both turned into zombies, one of the other characters runs into the room, sees the zombie tied to the bed (where she gave birth to the zombie baby) and shoots her. Andre, still foolishly thinking that the zombie was his wife, accuses the woman of killing his family, and so pulls out a gun and shoots her as she shoots him. Yes, the black guy was the strong character in the movie, but does the other black guy have to get shot by the woman that he's shooting?That being said, I guess I have to admit that it is one of several clever scenes that were invented for the remake. Nothing even remotely like this appeared in the original film, especially with the baby zombie. Oddly enough, the baby zombie was one of the funniest moments in the film, a reaction about which I'm not sure I should be amused or repulsed. But hey, I thought it was funny, too, so I guess I shouldn't say anything. I think that a pretty big point of a movie like this is that it is meant to be funny (hence the success of such scenes as the one where Rhames holds up a sign for the guy across the way to pick out and shoot people in the wandering zombie crowd who look like celebrities.There are some great additions to this version in the escape as well, one of which surprisingly utilizes the cute dog in the movie. The characters find a couple of vans in the mall basement and turn them into heavily armored transport vehicles, with the intended purpose of taking them to the dock, where one of the characters has a boat that they may all use to escape the horror of the mainland. Interesting ideas are hatched as far as keeping the zombies from climbing onto the outside of the vans. There are some genuinely creepy scenes in the opening of the film, one of which involves a little roller-blading girl, also invented for this version of the movie.I think that really the only way that the movie slips up is that it has sort of thinned the depth of its plot, although this is done in favor of one that makes more sense. The zombies are faster and smarter, living humans do not fight other living humans beyond the struggle with the one security guard (a conflict which pales in comparison to the trigger happy biker gang in the original film), and they still try to escape even though it seems clear that the zombies would eventually starve in whatever way they starve, since they have turned so many people into zombies that they have successful eradicated all of their food. Kind of like what would have happened in Blade had the vampires succeeded in the mass domination scheme which was their self-terminating goal. I would think that one good reason to wait until the zombies started to run out of gas is the little fact that they happen to be in a shopping mall, in which they could conceivably find enough sustenance to survive for weeks.Luckily, in this installment, the rescue post that has reportedly become an outpost for the few remaining survivors of the human race is a pretty tempting destination. I have to admit that I would not be that anxious to sit around for weeks waiting for the zombies to die if I knew that the only survivors on the outside may have become zombies themselves by then.Oddly enough, despite being a bigger and better version of a 1978 movie that fell flat largely because it was bigger than it's predecessor, the Dawn of the Dead remake also redeems itself by ironically maintaining some of the series' original simplicity. The special effects, budget, actors/acting, and story are heavily improved, but the movie smartly avoids one of the pitfalls of many recent horror films, which is to have a trendy soundtrack to sell. There are two versions of a wildly popular Disturbed song, but other than that mostly the only music on the soundtrack is the tinny, boring mall music which, at a few points, is the only sound onscreen at all, which is a great effect which alludes back to the simplicity of the original Night of the Living Dead. Evidently this clever mix of high-technology and low-budget filmmaking makes for a good combination for modern horror. Now can other filmmakers actually notice this time?
Don't be fooled!
posted on 18 Aug 2009When I first heard about this movie I was a little afraid that this was going to be like most of the other remakes that get made each year. But.... this is a great horror flick. The acting is so good in this film it's scary. The scares are endless and would recommened it to Romero fans. Only 1 problem I had with this movie is the fact that the zombies can run. It wasn't a BIG problem, just a little irritating. Other than that the movie is flawless. But I wouldn't recommend this to everyone. This is an extremely violent movie. I saw a grown man in the theatre closing his eyes (Sickening). So overall go see this movie and I guarentee you will have a great time.This is just as good as the original 9/10
Greatest zombie movie ive seen
posted on 16 Aug 2009I have been a fan of NOTLD and DOTD for as long as I can remember. After a long wait, I was finally able to go see the remake of DOTD, and I must say it kept me on the edge of my seat from beginning to end. I loved the apocalyptic feel in the beginning. Seeing society breaking down lets you now that this isnt just the plight of a few people in a farm house. The special effects are great, its refreshing to see zombies booking at full speed toward people. As soom people mentioned before, I thought it was hilarious when the character "Andy" was picking off "celebrities" from the roof top. It is a fun, fast paced horror movie that will get your heart pumping, with a little bit of comedy relief thrown in. Maybe im biased, but 10 out of 10.
I loved it.
posted on 16 Aug 2009Excellent movie,fantastic.This was very well thought out.This is one of those movies were you go to blockbuster,look at the case and go,"This is going to be horrible". Well,that's what I thought,I saw it about 12 times,returned it,rented again,than I finally bought it.This was so awesome of a movie.Zack Snyder really well thought this out.Bascicly,the storyline is the same,but with minor twists.Zombies now run instead of wobbling around,there's also some humor in it.The effects with blood was so cool,zombie movie fans will roar with delight!The special features ARE to die for!This was so good,i suggest you rent it,and if you like it BUY IT! 9/10
A remake as enjoyable as the original?
posted on 10 Aug 2009The horror genre is, at times, a contentious mix of everything from the sublime to the ridiculous. I know that's a well-worn cliché, but it is true perhaps more for this genre than for others. Audiences will often stay away in droves and consign otherwise good movies to cult status simply because they ARE remakes: indeed, often just because they are classified as horror. And let's face it - some remakes are woeful; some horror flix miss the point that INTENTIONAL humour and INTENTIONAL textual references add to the enjoyment. Even irony gets lost in the drive to be as gory as possible. The suspension of disbelief is made easier if there is at least a semblance of plot line and, in these days of fear re the use of biochemical and bacteriological weapons by terrorists, any film using same NEEDS humour to ensure the audience doesn't go home and commit mass suicide.Dawn of the Dead (2004) is one of the best remakes ever. Zack Snyder has created something new - a juxtaposition, if you will, between the original screenplay, new editing techniques, and a fresh, vibrant cast.Who is Sarah Polley? She gives a great performance as Ana. Ving Rhames is excellent as is Michael Kelly as CJ. Overall, an inspired casting of all the characters. We really FEEL for all of them and thus get "sucked-in" to engage with each. What happens to them means something.The cinematography is excellent. Perhaps my only criticism would be the lack of unusual perspectives, i.e. unusual camera angles. This, of course, is more to do with costing than intent. One can only do so much within the strictures established by the bean-counters. However, Snyder and crew do a bloody-good job. (Pun intended.)It is interesting, to say the least, that the dog becomes a central part of both the action and the pathos.Sorry. There's a huge thunderstorm overhead and I don't want to fry the computer or the phone. More to follow...Paul
a GOOD remake?!?!?!
posted on 06 Aug 2009It's true! They DO exist! I know, I can't believe it either. This movie has been brought back from the (un)dead for some updated, innovative, zombie fun. The main difference I saw in the portrayal of the zombies, as opposed to how they appear in older movies, is that these zombies know how to RUN. None of that slow, rocking, arms straight ahead zombie walk. These guys will chase you down. Brilliant! The film starts with one of the best opening sequences out there, very well crafted, and it only takes about a minute to get right to the action. Great editing, and great special effects. Then the title sequence, done to a Johnny Cash song, is one of my favorite parts, and is highly entertaining on its own. The body of the film is rich with examinations of survival instincts and human behavior under pressure. A very smart, very scary, very fun movie. Brilliant!
One Kick Ass Zombie Movie!
posted on 04 Aug 2009Enthralling, Enjoyable, Scary, Suspencful and Humerous all great words to describe DOTD 2004. I cant say I was a fan of the origional, while the premise was fine the execution was poor. But thats enough comparation as the director himself said this is not a scene for scene remake its a completely different movie. And I would have to agree, aside from the zombies and the mall there is nothing else linking this to the origional.The Film itself top notch, It keeps your attention from the beginning and dosnt let go until the end of the credits (DO NOT LEAVE THE CINEMA OR STOP THE FILM UNTIL THE CREDITS HAVE FINISHED!). The acting is also first class. Ving Rames Shows shows how underused her has been in the Mission Impossible movies (Something that will hopefully be set right in MI:3). While the rest of the actors put in an equally convincing performance.The Special Effects both Physical and CG are fantastic and beyond what I thought would have been possible on such a low budget movie.I cannot fault this movie in any way as hard as I try.9/10
It's questionable as to whether its a remake or not, but it's the best zombie film since 1992
posted on 02 Aug 2009As a long time fan of zombie films (as well as all horror films) I can honestly say I am impressed. 28 Days Later? I loved it. It was a tribute to the George Romero films (watch it, you'll see it). I don't think that one measured up to Dawn though. The completely rehashed story and characters was a fresh breath of air to we, the fans of zombie flicks. The characters were more or less real, the plot and how the characters reacted to the events was believeable, and the gore was perfect. As far as gore goes, it finally broke the trend of using a cut away as opposed to old fashioned Savini-esque effects. Ok, so I don't sound like I am some starry eyed fan who saw no flaws in it, I did think that some things that happened were...shall we say forced...(The baby thing...) But coming from somone who has seen them all, I'd easily say this is the best zombie flick since 1992's Peter Jackson (thats right kids) Directed DEAD/ALIVE. On a scale from 1-10, this one is a 10.
Remake Mania: Dawn of the Dead
posted on 02 Aug 2009Dawn of the Dead (2004) was pretty good. I was very surprised when I saw this movie on V.C.D. a few months back. I have to say that I was very impressed. The script by James Gunn and the direction was on par with the original. Ving Rhames was the man. He played his role quite well and was creditable as the tough cop. The set pieces were up to snuff and the gore effects were excellent.A strange mutation has quickly spread across the land. It hit so fast and so hard that nobody was prepared for what was to come. Society collapsed along with the military and the government's ability to try and contain the situation. Thousands of the living dead roam the streets and what's left of the survivors are either squabbling, bickering or killing each other off. A local mall as become a magnet not only for survivors but for the hungry and ever growing horde of the living dead. A nurse, cop, a family man and a young couple seek refuge in the mall that's under the control of three security guards who are still "on duty". Can any of them make it through the "dawn" so they can survive another "day"?Like I said before hand. A very good remake of the original. Instead of trying to do a scene for scene remake or an "inspired" by version, the film makers wisely incorporated both elements to create this release. I haven't seen the new director's cut yet but from what I have already watched I have to say that I'm very impressed. Impressed indeed!Highly recommended!AKeep an eye out for three stars from the original film. A nice treat fro fans of the original film.
What's wrong with the critics?
posted on 31 Jul 2009I don't get it. Why is it that the critics, who often dislike otherwise good movies over petty details, actually LIKED this thing? I hated this movie.Warning: contains spoilers."Dawn of the Dead," or more precisely, "Yawn of the Dead" is another cookie-cutter horror movie for the masses. As the movie progressed I picked out so many things I hated that I couldn't fit it all into one review.A note first: I am judging this based on its own merits as a stand-alone film. I believe movies should be judged on their own, and I have attempted, as much as possible, to enjoy it as its own entity, without comparing to the original. However, since it does bear a resemblance at some points, I have had to compare just a little to illustrate a point. The movie begins pretty well. I knew the little kid was going to die, because otherwise she had no reason to be on-camera so early and for so short a time. Predictable. Willing to ignore that, it started pretty well. The city in flames, everyone getting killed... I had no problem with this early part and found it did quite well to bring about a feeling of apocalypse.The movie went downhill quickly. The woman in the beginning forgot about her dead husband within 5 minutes. Why? Because they didn't want to concentrate on character development. This is the major problem I had throughout the whole film.Another example of this: the conversation between the police officer and the young man in the bathroom was interesting. I would have liked to see more of this, see their opinions and conversations grow or shift as the movie went on. The problem is, again, the director wanted to throw a reference to religion in so he could say he did so, but didn't want to bring it up again, like he did with so many other concepts in the film. Religion is brought up, briefly, with a televangelist talking about "When there's no more room in hell..." but this is obviously thrown in only to use the tagline from the original. It makes no sense here, where the zombies are a result of a virus, and I can't see a Christian preacher saying this in any event(in the original it was quoted from a Voudon priest). Note I'm not calling the characters by name. Why? They were too 2-dimensional for me to remember, to be honest. I couldn't remember half the characters in the film most of the time.Another example. In the original, we learn that the woman is pregnant only after hints, secrets, foreshadowing, etc. In this one, two characters meet three characters, and BAM one is 8 months pregnant. Why? Because the director wanted the sudden shock of pregnancy, but didn't want to do as Romero did, byt actually using character development to lead up to the revelation. That would take actual work with a plot and with dialogue, and this movie is just about blowing people up.The way the characters get to the mall is similarly contrived. When the two characters meet the other three, they ask them "Where are you headed?" One of the three responds "We're going to the mall." Which, of course, just happens to be right behind them, so that no time has to be taken up traveling to the mall or talking or anything. That scene was about when I realized the film was going to suck.The whole movie is contrived, just like that scene, with weak(or no) dialogue and zero character development, except for the security guard wil suddenly becomes a good guy. The "surprise ending" was lame, also. I have no problem with characters dying en masse, but seriously, think about it. Did it really make any sense?The major problem with the film is one I've been mentioning. The movie had too much crammed in, and not enough attention given to any one part. We have all the themes of the originals, really: religion; people fighting themselves while they should be fighting the undead; a fear of what is causing this menace; a pregnancy in the midst of this terror; innocent victims rescued and taken in; waiting on the military; and so on. The problem is, instead of concentrating on a couple strong themes and working them, the film has all of these things thrown in and then doesn't really pay attention to any of them, opting for zombie massacre footage instead.Similarly, instead of having three or four characters developed and continued strongly, we have a dozen or so characters, most of which appear nameless and pointless, and which the audience doesn't care about.I might have liked the movie more if I hadn't been in an audience full of idiots. Some people behind me started laughing when the one guy on the other building said he was starving. Yeah, that's real funny, morons.On that note, I would like to say that the one part of the movie that I did like were the scenes where they were playing games with the guy across the street, or having fun in the mall in general. Those were decent scenes, and I think, aside from the graphic sex in one part, would have fit into the original movie really well.One last thing: I saw a bunch of little kids in the audience. What's wrong with you people? Why the hell are you taking children to see this kind of movie? I mean if the graphic violence and profanity doesn't offend you, what about the nudity and sex? Is this appropriate for your children?Overall, on a scale of 1 to 5 stars, with 1 being useless and 5 being perfect, I give it ** stars. Not quite horrible, but below average, certainly.
Several reasons to say this movie sucks
posted on 29 Jul 20091. They say the zombies aren't intelligent but looks like they're enough to only try to get in the gunner's store when he opens the passage. Oh yea and then the gunner twisted in zombie shows a panel full of blood. This is dumass. Also a "stupid" zombie picks up the gas tank that CJ throw at them. Zombies can't do that they too stupid resident evil was much better well the first movie the second a little sucked.2. When that girl's husband get bitten by her daughter he turns into a zombie like 1 minutes later and the black guys wife took days to turn into one.3. When they all get out the mall with the trucks it's night and 5 minutes later its like afternoon. This was stupid too.4. Is the entire world infected or its just an area they don't mention it.5. None of the people are afraid they seem natural.6. Why doesn't the zombies eat the dog, what attracts them to the humans in the mall?? 7. The music is awful. It doesn't fit the movie at all well if its a horror movie of coarse because it was funny than scary to me.8. One of the zombies in the mall was eating an other zombie laying on the floor. If they can eat each other why doesn't the zombies near the mall eat each other? Well there's a few more stupid stuff but would take a while writing them.Anyway I give 5/10 its all I can give. Might be OK and you got nothing to do but personally I think there's nothing to enjoy
When there is no more room in Hell, the dead will sprint the Earth. - Spoilers
posted on 27 Jul 2009I do not understand the idea of remaking good movies. I think I'll re-paint the Mona Lisa. Why not remake bad movies? Just think, a big budget remake of Plan Nine from Outer Space. Then again, if you wash and polish a piece of crap, it's still going to be a piece of crap. Ignoring the fact that it is a remake, the new Dawn of the Dead is a good movie. I would call it a gore filled action movie as opposed to a horror movie. It was not scary at all. 28 Days Later is more of an actual 'horror movie.' Not many modern horror movies are actually scary any more. They have become so post-modern that it is almost impossible to have unique scares anymore. The good thing about this movie is that it does not take it self seriously. James Gunn set out to write a balls to the wall zombie movie and that is exactly what he did. It is obvious that he is a student of Lloyd Kaufmann. The zombie baby scene is something right out of the Troma Universe. It is obvious that Gunn is a big horror movie fan. He knows all of the elements to throw into the mix, like the a*****e you hope gets killed, the comedic yet gruesome death scene, the 'getting and plan and preparing to kick ass scene,' and countless others. He is the perfect person to write a 'horror' movie.I can do without the MTV style of editing in movies these days. Dawn of the Dead is full of that and it gets annoying and confusing to a degree. The cinematography was great though. It had that kind of grainy look that any horror movie should have. The picture also seemed to stay clear and focused while the camera was rapidly moving around too. The new Dawn of the Dead is a treat for any zombie fan. The whole argument that the zombies move too fast is just silly. There are no rules for zombies because they DON'T EXIST, so film makers can have them do whatever they want them to do. I think they are creepier when they are slow moving and lurking around, but who cares.The remake ignores the capitalist and consumer oriented society metaphors because they were already explored in the original. That would have been crossing the line of remaking into just ripping off ideas. Have fun and go see the remake. I'm sure Mr. Romero will forgive you.
Hooray for Sheriff Sex Machine!!!
posted on 23 Jul 2009Having only "28 days later" and the Simpson's Halloween specials as reference for zombies, I'd say this is an excellent zombie-stompin movie. The roles played by the original "Dawn of the Dead" cast were also very cool. It lacks the social commentary of previous zombie flicks, but it doesn't detract from the experience.The film makes a point of establishing the reality of the world pre-zombie takeover, so the frequent defiance against of the laws of physics is troubling for some (anal science freaks like me). A filled propane tank ways 40 lbs. and there is no freakin way that they can be thrown that far, regardless of a ripped physique. Also, the number of direct headshots delivered by handguns is completely ludicrous, but now I'm being petty. If these attacks against the laws of nature scare the bejeebas out of you, maybe zombie flicks aren't for you.Snyder does a good job for a first time out director and the cinematography is superb. The music selections seem odd at first, but suit the film (all hail Richard Cheese!).8/10
Rollercoaster ride
posted on 23 Jul 2009I think some of the contributors are a little pretentious to say the least. The original film is one of my all time favourites and after reading the Director's/Cast's comments i have to agree that the new "Dawn" cannot be compared to the 1978 classic as it is a new take on the storyline. The original is a great film because of its low budget and therefore much of the two hours 30 minutes running time time is spent on character development rather than action scenes.This also helps as more time was spent shooting empty mall scenes which gives the viewer a sense of isolation. And after all where the original grabs the imagination is that everyone would like to have an empty shopping mall to help themselves to whatever they liked from the shops therein. At one hours less running time the new "Dawn" is a very good thriller that keeps you on the edge of your seat.It is one of the best movies i have seen in a while and unless original "Dawn" fans take it in its own right then i am afraid they will be critical. The opening 30 minutes of society breaking down , including excellent ariel shots of the mayhem below are excellent and set the tone. It is a must see and the only critiscism i can have is it seems a bit crammed. Better editing and maybe an extra 30 minutes running time could have made it even better.
get down with the sickness
posted on 21 Jul 2009when i heard that dawn of the dead was being remade, the first thing i thought was: philistines! how could anybody mess with such a classic? then i watched it. oh. my. god. this film kicks undead ass! it will never truly live up to the original, but it's so good that it doesn't have to. this stands on its own two decomposing feet as a cinematic triumph. i have been let down so often by horror films in recent years that i was expecting to feel completely underwhelmed by the new dawn. instead, i sat entranced with a grin on my face so wide that it was threatening to decapitate me. from the moment Vivienne the neighbour girl gave the heroine a very rude awakening, i knew that this wasn't going to be your average shambling zombie flick. child zombies would have been frowned upon until very recently and as for fast zombies, at last! older films have a certain Pepe le pew-like quality, with the poor victims running for their lives while the zombies move about as quickly as the average post office queue, yet still manage to catch them. i was delighted to see so many references to the original, including a couple of cast members being resurrected. the news reports on the DVD edition gave the film a much more realistic feel, plus some decent back-plot. the characters were believable and well-rounded, with the possible exception of luda (did she annoy anyone else or was that just me?). scenes such as the zombie version of celebrity squares lightened the tone of the film, balancing nicely with the harshness of the birth scenes. there is more to recommend this film than i could possibly mention here. it's an instant classic, worthy of the great George Romero himself. the director's cut is a must for true fans, Andy's tape is pure gold, a marvellous account of a solitary man's descent into despair and mild insanity. that alone is reason enough to buy this film. if you haven't already seen it, do it now, don't wait till you're undead!
Great Zombie Action Film
posted on 19 Jul 2009While it lacks the social commentary of the original, what it does pack is a king size action punch. This is a scare/shock fest from beginning to end and to that extent it's one of the best in years. While I do favor the original I honestly don't feel this can be considered a remake. Of the few similarities that both movies share, the shopping mall being the most obvious, they're quite actually very subtle. I understand that filming of a sequel is to begin shooting early next year. How you make a sequel to a remake is beyond me but if it's half as good as Dawn of the Dead 2004 then I shall be waiting in line at the theatre to see it. As a Zombie film collector (39 and still growing LOL), come October 5th, this film will make number 40.
Fantastic
posted on 15 Jul 2009Just seen Dawn at a preview screening. (Not out proper for another week in the UK.) Goes to show you shouldn't believe everything you read on discussion boards - It is fantastic.This is the film Romero would love to have made if he ever had a decent budget. No it doesn't have his social commentary. No it isn't making any deep statements about consumerism. Yes the zombies run. But it works - it's scary, it's brutal, and you believe it. It portrays the end of the world convincingly. To not like this film is to not like zombie movies, and horror in general.Having said all that, all the usual cliches are present and correct - people acting like suicidal idiots wandering off alone, unsympathetic characters thrown in just to get eaten, etc but on the whole it doesn't hit many bum notes.If anyone tells you zombies shouldn't run, and they're more scary when they're slow, I would suggest they haven't seen this yet. These monsters are the business.And the gore! You name it it's in there. It's a cannibal/zombie/gut-crunching/head blowing off fest. Fan-f*cking-tastic!!!
Not up to standards.
posted on 11 Jul 2009The remake of Dawn of the Dead did not maintain the standard of the original version. The original movie used a fraction of the monetary budget that the latest version used. Come on people, zombies do not move at lightning quick speed!In addition, the movie lacked one of the most important quality of any of the zombie ficks, that would be the lack of gore!This movie reminds me of House of the Dead. House of the Dead also missed the important notion that zombies are not olympic gold medal track runners. Zombies are animate corpses! Even from a scientific view, rigormotis will prevent any animate object from movie at superhuman speed or even speeds faster than a brisk walk. I gave the movie a B-, and that is because the interesting story line. 28 Days Later would have made a better zombie movie than this movie.
Low expectations, high rewards...
posted on 28 Aug 2009Like many others, I wasnt too optimistic about the quality of this Dawn of the Dead remake, especially after heading rumours of it having a similar style to the Resident Evil film (which seemed to neglect the feel of the video games), but I was really surprised with the quality of the finished film. The remake opens far faster than the original, with less story background, and exposition, preferring to blow straight into the action from the start, which is a great thing I feel, because what would be achieved from explaining the well known story (started by Night of the Living Dead)? Instead, the film goes for edgy action for the majority of it's length, before exploding into all out war in the last 25 to 30 minutes (Remind you of Aliens anyone?), which really works in it's favour. The vicious, running and leaping zombies are genuinely unnerving, and some of the lead characters are engaging (admittedly, some of the less developed characters fall by the wayside in terms of characterisation), and the direction is stylish and effective. Overall, a well engineered, exciting thrill ride. But the big question is, how does it stand up to the original? I have a feeling this question is going to cause a lot of debate, for some time to come, because the 2 films are so hard to compare, (the plots only relate to each other because of the mall location really, the themes are totally different, and there are 25 years between each one) so it's probably best to take the new Dawn of the Dead for what it is: a totally new film, and a damn good one at that.