|
Post by CherokeeJack on Mar 21, 2004 16:31:22 GMT -5
I saw it last night. I’m a huge fan of the original and by no means does this movie rip it off in anyway. It pays homage. It’s probably the most real and frightening zombie flick out there (by modern standards).
What I liked: Zombies were fast and not slow and helpless when they were alone. I prefer slow zombies in movies, but the use of fast ones gave this one a better feel. One zombie could prove fatal to one person. Hopelessness was very prevalent.
28 days later wasn't harmed. I liked 28 days later and even though 28 days later can be remembered for it's fast zombies, 29 days later is a more intellectual look at the genre as Dawn of the Dead 2004 is just pure horror geared towards American audiences. In no way did Dawn try to steal what 28 days later did.
The characters. Though some completely generic (get the worse deaths) it was a nice cast and added a flavour to the film.
Andy the guns storeowner. He was just cool. I won’t go into details, cause I don’t want to spoil.
What I didn't like... The Phfiefer (sp?) dilemma (people who have seen this will know what I am talking about) was way too brutal and hard to watch. Brutal as in the sickness of it. It out did any of the other scenes. Just a hard scene to sit through. I'll be skipping that one when I get the DVD (..well probably not when I become jaded).
Go see it! Well worth it and one to be seen in theaters. Ben from Dawn (they had to bring him back so he could give his line "When there’s no more room..." and Tom Savini also have guest appearances.
I give it a B+ 4/5 stars
It got out what needed to be done, point came across. Well directed and no Hollywood glare.
|
|
|
Post by Ator on Mar 21, 2004 19:09:12 GMT -5
I haven't seen many horror films, but is this one scarier than The Ring, or The Amityville Horror? Those two freaked the hell out of me.
|
|
|
Post by Ator on Mar 21, 2004 19:16:40 GMT -5
I don't think that face was CGI. The fact that her face was warped, and her eyes were pretty much missing is what freaked me out. It wasn't so much the fact that her face was torched, it was the expression on her face. Different strokes for different folks.
|
|
|
Post by nightfalcawk on Mar 21, 2004 21:22:10 GMT -5
I saw it yesterday too. I'm happy to see a non-campy horror film once in a while! The beginning (the daughter walking into the parents room in early morning) has to be one of the most frightening scenes in modern horror film history. So you reccomend it? I always had a soft spot for zombie ficks. The reason being with other monsters you can just kill. With zombies, the more you kill them, the grosser and scarier they become.
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Engineer on Mar 21, 2004 21:45:03 GMT -5
So you reccomend it? I always had a soft spot for zombie ficks. The reason being with other monsters you can just kill. With zombies, the more you kill them, the grosser and scarier they become. Like the Borg.
|
|
|
Post by nightfalcawk on Mar 21, 2004 21:48:06 GMT -5
No, the Borg collective is cool. You can physically kill a Borg, but not really zombies.
|
|
|
Post by nightfalcawk on Mar 22, 2004 17:11:44 GMT -5
I saw the trailer. Pretty sick. Her cute, sweet, lovable daghter becomes a zombie which eats the dad? Gross. Yet I am strangely drawn to it.
|
|
|
Post by Blurryeye on Mar 22, 2004 17:30:34 GMT -5
I've been debating with myself whether or not to see this movie. The reviews have been pretty mixed, and as the horror genre is generally misunderstood anyway, it is hard to gauge the quality from reviews. But from what I've read here, I'll definitely see it. I love horror movies, especially zombie ones. Thanks, guys!
|
|
|
Post by Emperor Cupcake on Mar 23, 2004 0:53:50 GMT -5
I saw it a couple of days ago. I liked it a lot more than I thought I would, especially after complaining that it got made at all, since I'm a big fan of the original as well (though I love the uber-gory Lucio Fulci zombie movies that ripped off the Romero movies). Granted, the remake didn't have the social commentary or the sly humor (or the gut-munching) of the original, but it worked in its own way, as more of a straightforward, action-oriented horror flick. The beginning sequence was terrific, and I liked that the ending just kind of destroyed all hope and joy. Of course, some of the characters were such jackasses that they might as well have had "Zombie Chow" tattooed across their foreheads, but oh well. And hey, Savini! Overall very enjoyable, if you like that kind of thing.
|
|
|
Post by losingmydignity on Mar 23, 2004 1:08:58 GMT -5
Well, Romero has gone on record saying the original was a metaphor for the consumer conformist culture Americans were slipping back into in the late seventies... What about the new one? Any Terrorism subtext? American under siege and all that...
|
|
|
Post by MonsterX on Mar 23, 2004 5:15:34 GMT -5
Well, Romero has gone on record saying the original was a metaphor for the consumer conformist culture Americans were slipping back into in the late seventies... What about the new one? Any Terrorism subtext? American under siege and all that... That’s an interesting theory! For me, the scariest thing about the dead trilogy isn’t the fact that there are zombies eating people, it’s the fact that every thing you knew about the world is gone. No more job, car, no nice warm house to sleep in, friends or family, nada. Imagine waking up to the world that the characters in the movie awoke to? Where would you go? What would you do? What about every thing that you’ve accomplished with your life thus far? That’s what scares the crap out of me, and that’s why I find losingmydignity’s comment about America under siege so interesting. Everything changed the morning those planes took out the World Trade Center. I know that it’s much easier to digest now that so much time has gone by, but just think back and remember how you felt when all that was going on. Remember how you felt when the planes hit. When you saw the first tower fall. When you heard that a third plane had crashed into the pentagon. The feeling you got when you realized that some terrible force was changing your world and there was absolutely nothing you could do about it. Now I imagine that zombie plague would be like that, only multiplied by 1,000. Now that’s some scary poopie.
|
|
|
Post by radagast on Mar 23, 2004 12:48:23 GMT -5
I saw this in a small theater for only $5. I thought the visuals were sick.....the goriness was crazy. (and I liked the Johnny Cash song at the beginning)
but overall, the movie kind of sucked. But you can't expect much from a movie that relies on blood and guts to sell itself. I enjoyed it, but damn, that scene with the fat woman had me laughing. That was totally unnecessary.
|
|
|
Post by nightfalcawk on Mar 23, 2004 15:13:58 GMT -5
That’s an interesting theory! For me, the scariest thing about the dead trilogy isn’t the fact that there are zombies eating people, it’s the fact that every thing you knew about the world is gone. No more job, car, no nice warm house to sleep in, friends or family, nada. Imagine waking up to the world that the characters in the movie awoke to? Where would you go? What would you do? What about every thing that you’ve accomplished with your life thus far? That’s what scares the crap out of me, and that’s why I find losingmydignity’s comment about America under siege so interesting. Everything changed the morning those planes took out the World Trade Center. I know that it’s much easier to digest now that so much time has gone by, but just think back and remember how you felt when all that was going on. Remember how you felt when the planes hit. When you saw the first tower fall. When you heard that a third plane had crashed into the pentagon. The feeling you got when you realized that some terrible force was changing your world and there was absolutely nothing you could do about it. Now I imagine that zombie plague would be like that, only multiplied by 1,000. Now that’s some scary poopie. Now imagine these dead people immortal and are trying to have an unholy feast upon your flesh, relentlessly hunt you down without mercy, and cannot be stopped. Now, I understand where you're coming from, but I would rather live in a vacant world untouched by evil corpses walking and ravaging the Earth, than in a world that was not destroyed but had zombies in it. The no society thing simply amplifies the damage.
|
|
|
Post by MonsterX on Mar 23, 2004 18:04:21 GMT -5
Now imagine these dead people immortal and are trying to have an unholy feast upon your flesh, relentlessly hunt you down without mercy, and cannot be stopped. Now, I understand where you're coming from, but I would rather live in a vacant world untouched by evil corpses walking and ravaging the Earth, than in a world that was not destroyed but had zombies in it. The no society thing simply amplifies the damage. Don’t get me wrong; if I saw a pack of hungry zombies shuffling towards me I would wet em’ in a heart beat. But what if we could control the problem? Then we would eventually, over time, get used to it and we would find some way to carry on with society. Now, what if the problem was out of control, resulting in a total collapse of society? Also, I should have probably mentioned that I haven’t seen the remake yet, but I’ve seen the original a few times.
|
|
|
Post by nightfalcawk on Mar 23, 2004 18:59:16 GMT -5
Don’t get me wrong; if I saw a pack of hungry zombies shuffling towards me I would wet em’ in a heart beat. But what if we could control the problem? Then we would eventually, over time, get used to it and we would find some way to carry on with society. Now, what if the problem was out of control, resulting in a total collapse of society? Also, I should have probably mentioned that I haven’t seen the remake yet, but I’ve seen the original a few times. I'm sorry, but even if society didn't fall and there was a plague of zombies, I would shyt my pants. If society ended then I would be less afraid. Mankind survived witout K-Marts for thousands of years. I guess I would rather not be prey.
|
|