Dawn of the Dead Remake: good or not?

[Alleged]

It's settled. If I get my grading done in reasonable time this weekend, it's zombie time for me!

[CherokeeJack]

and the crowd goes wild.

yea...

Let me know what you think.

[Blurryeye]

Alleged said:

George Romero is a very hit-or-miss filmmaker. The one emotion that he did manage to tap into is a very primal fear that all mammals have - being eaten.

I find Night of the Living Dead extremely disturbing, even more so given how bland most movies of its day (1968) were.

The first Dawn of the Dead is more outrageous and funny than scary...but the idea of being chased by slow-moving predators that NEVER SLEEP AND WON'T STOP is very disturbing to me. The anticonsumer message in that film is extremely effective, which is what elevates it into a classic.

I shouldn't say that I didn't feel any emotion when watching Day of the Dead, just not fear or much disturbance from the gore. I think I was too busy thinking about all of the messages in the movie about mass consumerism, the struggle to maintain a civilyzed society in the face of destruction, the meaning and purpose of science, how far morals and ethics can be stretched, the battle between the military and regular society, and the blurring of the lines between zombies and humans. There were a hell of a lot of ideas in that movie.

I've read that Day of the Dead is not as highly regarded as his first two zombie movies. Maybe the acting is not the greatest, and the soundtrack is really corny, but I think there are a lot of intriguing ideas, and frightening ambiguity and complexity in the message that Romero gives.

There were some unforgettable images, not just of the gore, but also of Bub, the star pupil of the doctor's. At the end I was actually rooting for Bub to shoot the head military guy. What a coup for Romero to make the viewer empathize with the zombie over the human! Wow, there was so much symbolism and meaning in everything with that zombie character.

[CherokeeJack]

The original script for Day of the Dead was 100 times better than the movie. Basically it involved a group of characters island hoping until they came across an island with a facility in where they were training zombies as troops to fight other zombies. There was also a place on the island where survivors of the zombies (I guess from Dawn and Night eras) were just living in a prison camp in a drug induced haze. It was run by some corrupt governer who also survived (governer of floridia I think) kept sleeping with women and being nasty. I don't remember what happened in the end. I need to read it again.

But because the budget was so low for the movie, it turned out completely different.

[Alleged]

I had the pleasure of seeing "Day" back in 1985. I was 17 and just the right age to see the film without having to sneak in. It disappeared in a week or two.

Years later, fans still think it's the weakest entry, but it does grow on you. The problem is that the subtext (reaction to Reagan-era miltarism) was too ham-handed and obvious.

And, after spending some years in the military, It's very difficult for me to take the Captain Rhodes characiture very seriously.

Still, the gore is first-rate and very disturbing....I still have nightmares about Miguel's arm amputation and field surgery, and his later "dinner" with the zombies.

The Divimax release really cleans up the print and makes the film much more pretty to look at - it's not nearly as dark.

Okay-fine, it's zombie weekend for me, I can tell.

[Blurryeye]

Yes, Alleged, the Captain Rhodes character was over-the-top, with just a tad bit of over-acting. That's definitely a weakness, and makes it a too obvious military-is-evil message. The other soldiers weren't as terribly caricaturized, though, while still being completely barbaric. Those two crazy soldiers who ran the zombie-catching operation were creepy.

I did think there was a big part of the story that wasn't shown. The beginning seemed like it just jumped in part of the way through. There was definitely a previous relationship between all the characters, so it makes sense that the original script was different.

Well, with all its flaws, it still was a good movie, more complex and disturbing in visuals and ideas than most.

[CherokeeJack]

hey Alleged, did you see the remake yet?

[Alleged]

You know, I didn't, but it wasn't for lack of trying.

Might get a chance to this week, though. It's rapidly making its way down the box-office receipts chart, so if I don't see it by Thursday I'll have to wait for DVD.

[Alleged]

OK, I did finally see this.

Guys, it's a fine action/horror flick. But it is NOT "Dawn of the Dead". It has nothing in common with the 1978 anticonsumerism classic.

DOTD 2004 has no spirit, no soul to it...it's directed by a guy who makes commercials, and it shows...the Johnny Cash, the punkish music over the end credits...the "Saving Private Ryan" grainy shaky cam...it's all been done many times before. The cringe-worthy dialogue....the pedestrian special effects...the avoidance of the really horrific aspects of the zombie plague (being eaten alive).

What's good? Sarah Polley does terrific with weak material. Andy the gun store marksman was great. The nods to the original actors (Savini, Ken Foree, Scott Reineger, the "Gaylen Ross" Department Store) were welcome, and all too short. It made me realize that i want to see THOSE guys again, not some Gen Y mutation of my beloved 1978 "Dawn".

That said, I'm not sorry I saw it as the world needs more zombie flicks...directed by George Romero, whose zombies have a point.