|
Dawn of the Dead (2004)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Dj Smitty20 |
Did anybody see this crap? I saw it last night and as a fan of Romero's timeless classics, I was not very impressed. Actually, I lost track of how many times my mind kept wandering back to the original throughout the whole movie. (not a good sign) Sarah Polley is a very talented, beautiful Canadian actress, but I hope she makes wiser career choices. She could become a real star.
There were good moments, but they changed way too much like making zombies run. Since when can a dead person run and jump faster than when they were alive? And there was just no message in this movie...it was just balls out action and a little gore (laughable compared to Romero's originals) with no theme. Romero's was a brilliant allegorical attack on American consumer culture with a bleak view of humanity's ability to cope with internal disaster, as well as being a horror film with balls. I'm coming to the realisation that independent movies are so much better than what Hollywood churns out these days.
comments from any Romero or horror fans on this movie? |
|
|
| Dr. Z |
The movie does not need an allegorical comparison. It does not need a higher meaning, or message. It is what it is, the 2004 Dawn of the Dead. Its just a bloody gorey zombie movie where zombie's limbs are chopped off with chainsaws and they are shot in the head with snipers. That is what it is. Nothing more. And for that its great. Just pure laughs and 'coolness'.
:) |
|
|
| Dj Smitty20 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dr. Z
The movie does not need an allegorical comparison. It does not need a higher meaning, or message. It is what it is, the 2004 Dawn of the Dead. Its just a bloody gorey zombie movie where zombie's limbs are chopped off with chainsaws and they are shot in the head with snipers. That is what it is. Nothing more. And for that its great. Just pure laughs and 'coolness'.
:) |
and it requires no brain activity to watch and I can't respect movies like that. It will be forgotten within months, whereas Romero's classics will live on forever. |
|
|
| Provitex |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dr. Z
The movie does not need an allegorical comparison. It does not need a higher meaning, or message. It is what it is, the 2004 Dawn of the Dead. Its just a bloody gorey zombie movie where zombie's limbs are chopped off with chainsaws and they are shot in the head with snipers. That is what it is. Nothing more. And for that its great. Just pure laughs and 'coolness'.
:) |
YES! :)
I totally agree with you and I can't stress this enough.
It was simply an entertaining piece which took an excellent direction for its type. It was fun, and I enjoyed it-- a very good film indeed! |
|
|
| Dj Smitty20 |
| Have you guys even seen Romero's films? They did define the genre you know.:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Provitex |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dj Smitty20
Have you guys even seen Romero's films? They did define the genre you know.:rolleyes: |
I don't think we're arguing Romero's works, neither comparing the two... It's great you find interest in different types of film but as far as 'Dawn of the Dead' goes, I would disagree to it being 'crap' or anything less than it was. Pure 'fun' ...
And that's all it is, no need to further scrutinize the film (as Dr.Z and I were mentioning) :) |
|
|
| Dj Smitty20 |
^^^ Well I'm a die hard Romero fan. He has made a few other interesting movies besides the Dead films like The Crazies, Knight Riders and Creepshow.
But it bothers me to NO END that Hollywood will fund a 45 million dollar remake of a classic horror cult film, but won't give the guy who MADE THAT FILM the 15 million dollars he desperately wants and needs to make the 4th installment in his zombie genre defining series. I mean christ...the original Dawn made 40 million dollars worldwide in 1978 despite being banned in several countries (England and Germany only allowed the film to be seen in the early 90s) but he saw very little of the profits. He's been ed over big time and seeing his classic movie remade while his own movie resides in development hell must be like rubbing salt in his wounds.
And people just eat like the remake up....and everyone wonders why most Hollywood movies these days are pieces of crap. |
|
|
| Provitex |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dj Smitty20
^^^ Well I'm a die hard Romero fan. He has made a few other interesting movies besides the Dead films like The Crazies, Knight Riders and Creepshow.
But it bothers me to NO END that Hollywood will fund a 45 million dollar remake of a classic horror cult film, but won't give the guy who MADE THAT FILM the 15 million dollars he desperately wants and needs to make the 4th installment in his zombie genre defining series. I mean christ...the original Dawn made 40 million dollars worldwide in 1978 despite being banned in several countries (England and Germany only allowed the film to be seen in the early 90s) but he saw very little of the profits. He's been ed over big time and seeing his classic movie remade while his own movie resides in development hell must be like rubbing salt in his wounds.
And people just eat like the remake up....and everyone wonders why most Hollywood movies these days are pieces of crap. |
I could see where you're coming from and I'd have to credit you on some of the points you made. Just remember,
It's not a remake!
The idea was simply 'inspired by', but was never meant to be a remake of the original. As you said yourself, the original was perfect-- therefore I don't believe it would have been necessary to rebuild the movie on that basis. If anything, the idea was to attract people into Romero's previous works, and I'll guarantee you that it probably has taken people to further investigate them. But at the same time, this I believe was a standalone film, built as a re-envision of the original. Simply to hold a stronger build all together using the latest resources available for a film maker, not to mention Zack Snyder I believe did a great job on his part directing this piece.
edit--
"...Hollywood movies these days are pieces of crap."
That's just a generalization. I don't believe it's true at all, yes some people have been rejecting hollywood films as 'quality'-- but alot of talent comes from there, whether it be any part from a crew set. That's what we need to notice and take into consideration. |
|
|
| Dr. Z |
Smitty
You seem to be focusing on the wrong thing. You see, we pay $13.50 (I payed $4.00) and go see the movie. We see gore, fun, laughs and leave with a good impression of the movie. If the politics behind it bother you, you can't blame us or the quality of the movie. You simply have to discuss it with the higher powers, like the directors and etc. |
|
|
| Dj Smitty20 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dr. Z
Smitty
You seem to be focusing on the wrong thing. You see, we pay $13.50 (I payed $4.00) and go see the movie. We see gore, fun, laughs and leave with a good impression of the movie. If the politics behind it bother you, you can't blame us or the quality of the movie. You simply have to discuss it with the higher powers, like the directors and etc. |
13.50? I paid 9.75 at my local Silvercity Famous Players theatre. But anyway, it really gets on my nerves that people will pay that much money and are actually pleased at what they see. I like to be at least challenged in some way when I watch a movie. To remake a cult classic but delete everything that MADE it a classic just doesn't make any sense. To me, this remake or reenvisioning or whatever just screams big business. The movie plays so blatantly to appease the younger generation (too much action, not enough character or plot substance) in order to "cash in" on Romero's brand. It just really drives me nuts when I think about it for too long.
I don't fault the director too much...it was his first gig and he's just shot the script as it was written. His camera angles and editing were top notch...no problems there. But James Gunn, of Scooby Doo fame, wrote the screenplay while claiming to fans that he was going to be faithful to the source material in the writing stages two years ago. He is the real sellout, and it's such a shame that so many people actually like this crap. I guess I just have too high standards. |
|
|
| Ub3rTrancer |
| never seen the original... Still a good movie. Fun to watch. |
|
|
| MarkT |
Smitty...I agree that it's sad that so many crap movies make a fortune, while some incredible films make nothing. While many people, myself included, go to see "good" filmaking, a quality script, capable acting, etc....many people go for pure, mindless escapism. Most people will unfortunately choose senseless violence, tiresome explosions, slapstick humour, and gratuitous sex over anything remotely resembling a good screenplay or a brilliant performance by an actor.
You'll never convince all the people that made Titanic into a "cinematic materpiece" that it was hardly deserving of being the best picture that year (good effects notwithstanding). Jeez...people protested that DiCaprio didn't get an Oscar nod...BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
edit: great letter in Ebert's column:
Q. I work at a local video store and the recent release of "Lost in Translation" on DVD has had lots of people asking about it. But I noticed that about 90 percent of the people that watched it said they didn't like it. In fact, most of them said that it was one of the worst movies they've ever seen. They didn't understand why it drew all of the attention that it got.
Is this because of the expectations that the general public has in their minds? Was it over-advertised by the Oscar hype it got? Or is it just because the general public can't watch a film that will challenge them to think when they are used to watching big-budget films where everything is drawn out for them?
Sean O'Connell, Novato, Calif.
A. Yes, yes and yes. "Lost in Translation" requires audiences to be able to pick up feelings and information on frequencies that many moviegoers don't receive on. Most of the movies most people go to see are made in such a way that not a moment's thought is required. The audience is a passive receptor for mindless sensation. When I'm told by people that they hated "Lost in Translation," I have to restrain myself from replying, "You are saying more about yourself than about the film."
"Lost in Translation" was applauded by 94 percent of the 190 critics monitored at rottentomatoes.com, and by 97 percent of the major critics. Does that mean critics are (a) out of touch with popular taste, or (b) have better taste than the customers at Sean O'Connell's video store? Before you answer, remember that the mission of a good critic is not to reflect popular taste but to inform it. |
|
|
|
|
