Dawn of the Dead

[welsh]

Ok, who has seen it and what did you think?

Was the remaking of these flicks a good idea.

Roger Ebert's review-

DAWN OF THE DEAD / *** (R)

March 19, 2004

Ana: Sarah Polley
Kenneth: Ving Rhames
Michael: Jake Weber
Andre: Mekhi Phifer
Steve: Ty Burrell
CJ: Michael Kelly
Monica: Kim Poirier
Terry: Kevin Zegers


Universal Pictures presents a film directed by Zack Snyder. Written by James Gunn, based on the original screenplay by George Romero. Running time: 100 minutes. Rated R (for pervasive strong horror violence and gore, language and sexuality).

By ROGER EBERT

The contrast between this new version of "Dawn of the Dead" and the 1979 George Romero original is instructive in the ways that Hollywood has grown more skillful and less daring over the years. From a technical point of view, the new "Dawn" is slicker and more polished, and the acting is better, too. But it lacks the mordant humor of the Romero version, and although both films are mostly set inside a shopping mall, only Romero uses that as an occasion for satirical jabs at a consumer society.

The 1979 film dug deeper in another way, by showing two groups of healthy humans fighting each other; the new version draws a line between the healthy and the zombies and maintains it. Since the zombies cannot be blamed for their behavior, there's no real conflict between good and evil in Zack Snyder's new version; just humans fighting ghouls. The conflict between the two healthy groups in the Romero film does have a pale shadow in the new one; a hard-nosed security guard (Michael Kelly) likes to wave his gun and order people around and is set up as the bad guy, but his character undergoes an inexplicable change just for the convenience of the plot.

All of which is not to say that the new "Dawn of the Dead" doesn't do an efficient job of delivering the goods. The screenplay, credited to James Gunn (based on George Romero's original screenplay), has been co-produced by Richard P. Rubinstein, who produced the original. They use the same premise: An unexplained disease or virus, spread by human bites, kills its victims and then resurrects them as zombies. The creatures then run berserk, attacking healthy humans, infecting them, and so on. The only way to kill them is to shoot them in the head. True to the general speed-up in modern Hollywood, these new-issue zombies run fast, unlike the earlier ones, who lurched along. They also seem smarter, and make decisions faster, unlike the 1979 models, who were likely to lurch up the down escalator.

The story begins with Ana (Sarah Polley) greeting a young girl who lives in the neighborhood. As the girl skates away on her in-lines, the shot is held just a little longer than seems natural, informing us Something Bad Will Happen to Her. And does, as the next morning she attacks Ana's boyfriend, and Ana barely escapes with her life. After zombies roam the streets, newscasters fight hysteria and neighborhoods burn, Ana eventually finds herself part of a small group in the local shopping mall.

Well, not such a small group. Unlike the tight little group of survivors in "28 Days Later," this one expands to the point where we don't much care about some of the characters (the blonde with the red lipstick, for example). But we do care about Kenneth (Ving Rhames), a gravel-voiced cop with hard-edged authority. We care about Michael (Jake Weber), a decent guy who tries to make the right decisions. And we care about Andre (Mekhi Phifer), whose wife Luda (Inna Korobkina) is great with child and will give birth at any moment; the way that plot plays out is touching and horrifying. We even work up some feeling for the guy marooned on the roof of the gun shop across the street, who communicates with Kenneth by holding up signs.

For the rest, the movie consists mostly of dialogue and character scenes, alternating with violent attacks by zombies. The movie wisely doesn't give us too many of those scenes where one guy wanders off by himself when we're mentally screaming, Stick together! And although there is a cute dog, at least it's made useful in the plot. Of course the movie makes full use of the shock shot where a zombie suddenly appears in foreground from out of nowhere.

Of gore and blood there is a sufficiency. When the survivors devise a risky way to escape from the mall (which I will not reveal), a chainsaw plays a key role. The survivors take chances that are probably unwise; maybe they should stay in a safe place, since the zombies will presumably sooner or later run out of gas. But taking chances makes for good action scenes, and exploding propane is always useful.

So, yes, "Dawn of the Dead" works and it delivers just about what you expect when you buy your ticket. My only complaint is that its plot flatlines compared to the 1979 version, which was trickier, wittier and smarter. Romero was not above finding parallels between zombies and mall shoppers; in the new version, the mall is just a useful location, although at least there are still a few jokes about the Muzak.

 

[El*Diablo]

I've seen it twice and in my opinion its a damn good movie.

 

[alec]

I've seen it twice and in my opinion it's a stupid piece of shit movie.

 

[Montez]

Ving Rhames was awesome in the movie - he definitely has that gift that great actors have, where he can do almost nothing yet still communicate a huge number of emotions and thoughts across the screen. Besides him though I thought it was inferior to the first one. Horror movies lose a lot when they are too slick, and this one was as slick as they get. Beyond that the story was kind of fragmented, the pacing was off, there wasn't any depth to it, and the "28 Days" style raging, running zombies don't work in this movie. It was a good horror movie, but not as good as the original.

Could it have been a good remake? Absolutely. It got the standard Hollywood treatment though, where they eradicate any intelligence and uniqueness and process it until it's a standard flat "fast-food" movie, devoid of character and missing the subtle elements that made the original vivid and interesting.

Plus there wasn't any biker invasion, and no zombie with a pie in the face.

 

[Malky]

I saw it twice.

Brilliant.

The original is probably my favorite horror film, and I was very skeptical walking into the movie. I knew it'd either be damned good, or damned bad.

It was damned good.

The acting was terrific, the characters felt like they could be your next door neighbors (especially the character of Michael), and the action was spectacular.

I have to comment that this isn't so much a remake of the 1979 film, as it is a "re-envisioning." The only similarities it has with the original "Dawn" is the fact that there are some survivors in a mall. Other than that, this is a completely different film...thankfuly so. I think it would've failed as a straight up remake, because the original is such a masterpiece.

 

[King of Creation]

Cancel the Academy Awards

 

[Brother None]

I dunno, I feel aversion to see it.

The most insightful comment I heard on it is "It's an American rehash of 28 Days Later. A bunch of big boobies bouncing about while ADHD-zombies mope around stupidly ocassionally eating people"

I'm not into horror much anyway.

 

[Malky]

"It's an American rehash of 28 Days Later.

28 Days Later is a rehash of the "Dead" films. There are direct homages to the movies within 28 Days Later.

A bunch of big boobies bouncing about

I don't recall anyone being over a C cup.

ADHD-zombies mope around stupidly ocassionally eating people"

The zombies are smart, and they run fast. There was no moping going on in the movie.

They do eat people, though.

 

[Brother None]

28 Days Later is a rehash of the "Dead" films. There are direct homages to the movies within 28 Days Later.

Completely beyond the point

]I don't recall anyone being over a C cup.

There goes my only possible incentive to go see it

The zombies are smart, and they run fast. There was no moping going on in the movie.

They do eat people, though.

Well that sound familiar...OH WAIT 28 DAYS LATER

Lewl the British made such a kewl film let's do exactly the same thing lewl!!!!1111

PS: why do you think I said "ADHD-zombies"?

PPS: 28 Days Later really wasn't that good, so excuse me for not feeling like watching a rehash

 

[Malky]

28 Days Later is a rehash of the "Dead" films. There are direct homages to the movies within 28 Days Later.

Completely beyond the point

The zombies are smart, and they run fast. There was no moping going on in the movie.

They do eat people, though.

Well that sound familiar...OH WAIT 28 DAYS LATER

Lewl the British made such a kewl film let's do exactly the same thing lewl!!!!1111

You...uh...contradicted yourself.

 

[Brother None]

You...uh...contradicted yourself.

No:

I have to comment that this isn't so much a remake of the 1979 film, as it is a "re-envisioning."

As a re-invisioning, it should have its own, unique elements. Or isn't it a re-invisioning?

Also, 28 Days Later was a homage to the "Dead" films, that in no way justifies a "Dead" remake to be a direct rip-off of 28 Days Later.

Also, I understand the zombies are more similar to 28-zombies than to the original "Dead"-zombies. Thoughts?

 

[Malky]

PS: why do you think I said "ADHD-zombies"?

Read it as ADD. My mistake.

PPS: 28 Days Later really wasn't that good, so excuse me for not feeling like watching a rehash

Just because it has zombies that run doesn't mean it's a rehash. There are 100s of movies in which zombies run. I didn't see you going around making posts about how 28 Days Later was just a rehash of all of those.

Not to mention the situation is completely different.

Get your head out of your stuck up movie going ass and admit how much Kill Bill pwned you.

 

[Montez]

I have to comment that this isn't so much a remake of the 1979 film, as it is a "re-envisioning." The only similarities it has with the original "Dawn" is the fact that there are some survivors in a mall. Other than that, this is a completely different film...thankfuly so. I think it would've failed as a straight up remake, because the original is such a masterpiece.

That might have been my problem with it - I went in thinking that it was a remake and I couldn't help comparing the two throughout. I do give it bonus points for that scene at the end with the chainsaw - UnneccesaryGore+++.

 

[Brother None]

Just because it has zombies that run doesn't mean it's a rehash. There are 100s of movies in which zombies run. I didn't see you going around making posts about how 28 Days Later was just a rehash of all of those.

Not to mention the situation is completely different.

Meh, maybe if I ever see it. Ever.

On the subject; my aversion to the Passion is increasing every minute

Get your head out of your stuck up movie going ass and admit how much Kill Bill pwned you.

pwned what?

Man that movie sucked.

 

[welsh]

Your not the only with an adversion for the Passion.

I hear the Ladykillers is quite good, although Tom Hanks is not.

And honestly, I liked the fact that the zombies moved slowly, weren't that smart and just wanted to eat. That's one of the things that made them both menacing and kind of disturbing.

In that sense I liked the remake of the Night of the Living Dead- stayed pretty much true to the story but made the events within the house more interesting.

And I am sorry to say this for the Night of the Living Dead fans- but, honestly, the flick was kind of boring.

 

[Malky]

And I am sorry to say this for the Night of the Living Dead fans- but, honestly, the flick was kind of boring.

Agreed, but the first time you see it it's quite scary. It's still an excellent film - considering when it was made.

 

[Mohrg]

Saw it twice and loved it both times, they just need less zombies and more clowns!

Mohrg

 

[Elissar]

Saw it twice.. Loved it... Especially the celeberty snipeing scene... and the remix of "Down with the sickness" I was singing that alll damn night after hearing it the first time.

 

[Thorgrimm]

Welsh, George Romero wrote the script for the Night of the Living Dead remake. Just thought i would mention it in case you did not know that.


Cheers Thorgrimm

 

[alec]

No no no, it was crap. Too stylish.

What's that new Tim Burton flick? Is that any good?