Rating: 
Summary: They must be destroyed ON SIGHT!
Review: Silly me. I rushed out to buy this movie because a) I love Dawn, and b) it's been criminally out of print on DVD for years, and the older sets sell for a lot of $ on ebay. However, Anchor Bay has announced that they're selling a deluxe version of the film in late 2004, so looks like I'll have to buy it...again.The next version will likely be a double disc set with two different cuts of the film. Dawn exists in several different cuts, and the names are not helpful. The actual 'Director's Cut' is not George Romero's definitive version of the film. The version Romero considers his 'director's cut' is the American Theatrical version. I believe the Director's Cut is similar to the cut that Dario Argento prepared for the European release, and is titled 'Zombie' for the continent (which is why Fulci's unofficial 'prequel' is called 'Zombie 2'.) There is also a German cut of the film that is the longest (over 140 minutes, I believe) and is commonly sold on ebay. I'm sure various bits and pieces were cut depending on where it was released (for instance, in the past the UK version omitted an exploding head and a couple of flesh-tearing close-ups.) The version on this disc is only slighly different than the VHS of the American Theatrical version I have. This version omits part of the scene on the police dock between Steven and Fran and the cops who are running. It doesn't really matter though, the film is not upset by this change. The blood and gore is fully intact here, though. This DVD looks and sounds amazing--this is the best looking Dawn I've ever seen. The colors are brighter, the print is cleaner, it's top notch. There is now a commentary track by no less than four people including Romero, his wife, and Tom Savini. Then there's a 'moderator', which is laughable, to be honest. I don't really like 'moderators' for this type of thing, and the guy is totally unnecessary. You can tell he's fawning over Romero, and sometimes he tries to get in his canned questions (as if reading from a pad) while the rest of the crew are yukking it up, recalling the making of the film. I would rather hear honest, straightforward commentary than some pining stooge sucking up to Romero and Savini, but hey, this is better than nothing. There are also trailers, TV spots, and other goodies on this disc. All in all, a very welcome package by Anchor Bay, a company dedicated to horror fans, it would seem. However, for the Dawn addict, I would say wait until late '04 to buy the deluxe edition, guaranteed to have more good stuff (check out Anchor Bay's web page.) As for the film, I won't say much, except that it's probably one of the best horror films ever, at least American horror films. The theme is basically timeless, though the 2004 remake was quite good and turned the story into an action film, which worked well. The film has some shortcomings, sure (acting at times, effects), but the overall atmosphere is very strong, and the bright, comic-book look is perfect. This is a highly recommended film, and a great DVD.
Rating: 
Summary: Then and Now
Review: I had just finished watching the movie in my bedroom, since my kids were around the house. Too young to view the movie. Anyway, my wife mocked in asking "How was your cheesy movie?" You know, I couldn't really argue with her about some of the things in the movie that gave it it's "Cheesiness". And for the record, let me say I "HATE" that term "Cheesy". What the heck is "Cheesy" mean anyway? With that said let me list the things that really give this film a bad rap: 1) Costume design - Zombies were just so, stupid looking with gray paint, which, looked like it came off rather easy. Also, some of them looked too neatly dressed, shirt all tucked in, some of the shirts didn't look ripped, shirts buttoned, well groomed. I mean, come on now. Some of the zombies did look pretty good alone, for example, bald zombie, top of head cut off by helicopter zombie, eating a leg zombie, and of course, the Roger zombie!!! 2) Music. Dated, '70s music. Some of the music took away from the intensity of the movie. The "Military" music was so, funny. Well, the movie was made in the '70s, so what are you going to do. But, I've read many reviews how much they liked the music by the "Goblins". Which, by the way I've never heard of them. Enough said. 3) Inconsistencies of the zombies. Example, I thought they couldn't open doors and climb, yet they climbed up to the roof and opened some of the doors. What's that all about. Now on to the cool things about this movie: 1) Great story.
2) Acting was very good for a '70s horror movie.
3) Some of the effects and the way they were done. It's hard to sell this movie to people because some people would look at it and say, "What's scary about it". I admit, it took a lot for me to watch this movie let alone buy it, only because so many reviewers said how much they couldn't sleep, or it scared the heck out of them, or it was the best horror movie ever made. When I saw it, I was like, "Okay, so, why was it such an impact?". I gave the movie 4 stars. Because 1) I love zombie movies and this one is a very good one. 2) Acting and story was good for a 70's movie. 3) There just aren't that many good "Zombie" movies like this one. Maybe things'll change.
Rating:
Summary: A great classlic movie off horror
Review: This movie was made in the late 70's but it's still a great movie. Unlike the new one this one only has 4 people and that is great because theres not alot of people to keep up with. It's also funny in some parts. The zombies are slow, thats good on the peoples hand, They guys who live in the mall get to loot it and stay for a month insted of 7 days. This is a great movie to have in your zombie collction
Rating: 
Summary: What's all the fuss about?
Review: I think I must be the only horror movie fan in the entire world that doesn't think this movie is great. It's okay, but it gets boring, something a zombie movie should never do, and it stays boring. Plus, the script is trite and the acting is terrible. I know; who am I to tell George Romero what a zombie movie should or should not be? This is probably the quintessential movie of the genre. Well, I just don't like it very much. It's not that entertaining. I liked the first of the series. The third is enjoyable in its own way. But this one just drags on and on. I do like the allegory. Zombies at a mall makes for good satircal social commentary. But this only goes so far. Some people will admit that the effects aren't that good. Well, that is an understatement. They are pretty bad. I don't know exactly what their budget was, but I am surprised Tom Savini didn't do a better job. I don't think I really get Romero. I have seen many of his critically acclaimed films and I really just don't think they are all that good. I think he is over-rated, and so is his biggest film.
Rating:
Summary: More Zombies
Review: Dawn of the Dead is a extraordinarily odd movie, which has very little in common with the earlier film, Night of the Living Dead. However, simply recreating the oppressive atmosphere and dread of the original would likely have been near impossible and a bit redundant even if he had succeeded, so it's good that he moved it in a new direction. Fortunately, despite the many differences, NotLD and DotD are similarly excellent. Although they are very different, the basic plots to the first 2 films of Romero's trilogy are more or less the same: there's a zombie apocalypse, which forces small group of survivors to hideout in and barricade a building in hopes of simply waiting it out. Now, however, the small farmhouse is replaced with a huge mall, and we are given an even smaller group of 4 survivors. Overall the acting is pretty good, especially considering the budget it had. The characters are generally fairly appealing, so long as they are intended to be, and they have a realistic ordinariness to them, much like they did in NotLD. Despite the emphasis on violence and action through out the film they're some fairly powerful scenes just between the main characters. There's a great scene of them hanging out in their nicely furnished apartment, listening to some sad Spanish/classical sounding guitar while they kill time by gambling with their worthless money. It gives a great sense of desolation. There's also an even somewhat touching scene involving the one character visiting someone's grave.(In fact, I think pretty much all the scenes involving that characters death are very effective, though I won't go into that so as not to give too much away.) It's effective, as are pretty much all the best conventionally dramatic scenes in the film, because it's so simple and un-theatrical. In my review of NotLD I urged new viewers to discard their expectations form modern horror films. This is perhaps even more necessary for Dawn of the Dead. Frankly, it mainly classifies as a horror film out of convenience, as it blends and shifts from horror to action to adventure to satire to straight drama.(It's rather reminiscent of the much newer and equally excellent 28 Days Later in this way.) As for the classic complaint to all horror films, "It's not scary." well, this one isn't even trying to be scary, for the most part. (And if you doubt this assertion, just listen to the commentary. Romero pretty much says this is the case.) Still, it does have a few remarkably powerful and eerie scenes. The raid on the projects is genuinely horrific, (if not scary in the conventional sense), particularly the slow extermination of the zombies in the basement. There are some good scenes in the mall too, particularly when the guys go off to clear it out, and one zombie just stares at Fran through the glass and later, when the mall has been cleared out, but they all still hear the zombies rubbing and scratching against the glass, trying to get in. These scenes are particularly effective as they come towards the middle, where it becomes more action/adventure/satire oriented, so they provide good contrast. Much is made of the violence in this film,(done by gore legend Tom Savini) and not without good reason. Despite the fact that it was released about 25 years ago, the sheer volume of gore shown in this film outdoes anything I've seen released by a major studio up to this day.(Kill Bill Vol. 1 is the only one that comes close that I've seen) Admittedly most of it is fairly dated, largely because of the blood (which is too orange and the texture doesn't seem right) but it still has a pretty strong impact a lot of the time. There are something like 70 graphically portrayed gunshot wounds in the film along with plenty of melee violence and the requisite cannibalism. The scenes of flesh eating are always pretty gross, particularly the zombie-man taking chunks out of his still living wife and the montage of mutilation and gut-eating towards the end. It's also got a very nice and very sudden shotgun-induced head explosion. (If you really want gore, though, you need to check out the sequel, Day of the Dead. Actually, you should check that out either way)
Obviously, if you are disturbed or offended by graphic violence you oughta pass this up, though you probably already knew that. Much is made of the satire in humor in this film, and while it is pretty effective, it isn't the emphasis of the film the some people would like to pretend it is. That is to say, the film isn't simply a vehicle for Romero's thoughts on modern society and consumerism and whatnot. That element certainly is there, but as a whole he mostly wanted to make an enjoyable film. (Once again, if you doubt this listen to Romero in the commentary.) Still, the satire is very important in that it provides a great contrast to the other elements of the picture. This matters because these bizarre tone changes are one of the main things that make the film so good. There seem to be some conflicting opinions about the conclusion where the film kinda tears apart, with an invasion of weird bikers and particularly graphic violence mixed with some odd physical comedy. Personally, I think it works, and the humor and violence aren't just mixed randomly; it starts out more weird and lighthearted and steadily becomes more dark and gruesome. This is a pretty bare-bones DVD, but it looks and sounds excellent. Apparently there's gonna be a special addition later this year with a different cut (which is NOT a directors cut, by the way, just an earlier, formative one.) as well, and it'll presumably have more extra features. So if you care about that sort of stuff you oughta hold off til then.(I think it's coming out in October.) If you haven't seen it, check this version out.
Rating: 
Summary: GREAT Movie - BAD DVD
Review: This is an absolute CLASSIC of the genre. What is it about zombies and the End of the World that fires the human imagination so? Is it the desire to strip modern life of all the detritus that encumbers it? (Phone bills, parking tickets, dead-end jobs, spam e-mail, etc. etc.) Or is it just the testosterone-fueled desire to blast away at anything that moves without consequences?
Unfortunately, while the film is great, this DVD version is seriously lacking. Odd omissions show it to be a rush job. Example: There are no subtitles. How are deaf people to enjoy the cannibalistic orgy of flesh-eating fun without subtitles? More heinous example: I COULD NOT find a copy of the disk that was not defective! I tried five copies. NONE would play without major skipping and data errors. (It's not my player either. I have a top-of-the-line machine and over 100 other disks that play perfectly. Also, the DotD DVD's wouldn't play on my computer drive either!) My complaints to Anchor Bay were ignored.
Rating:
Summary: Fear The Dawn In The Flesh
Review: George A. Romero's Living Dead films are among the most innovative low budget horror movies ever made. They have influenced countless filmgoers over the years. The second installment in the series has gotten more attention lately, thanks to a 2004 remake. I will save comment on the redux for another time, instead, focusing on the 79 version. Picking up where Night Of The Living Dead left off, and still offering no explanation of why the dead are walking the earth, Dawn plunges headlong into one of the most violent and original horror films ever made. After securing an apartment building overcome with flesh-eating zombies, two Philadelphia area SWAT team members, Peter (Ken Foree) and Roger (Scott Reiniger), flee to a television station, where they escape in the station's helicopter with Francine (Gaylen Ross) and Stephen (David Emge), two station employees. Seeking refuge from the zombies and the ensuing hysteria, they land on top of a Pittsburgh area shopping mall, despite the fact that the undead seem to be flocking there. What begins as a stop for supplies becomes a longer stay as the four now find themselves caught in a furious war within the mall to somehow remain alive. I really like the fact Romero chose to start right from the end of the last film, with no explanation of events, not an easy task, considerng that 11 years passed between movies. The fact that, we as the viewers, are put right in the thick of it, at the start was a bold move. The audacious gore and high body count are not for those who are sqeamish but the film manages near masterpiece status just the same. Dawn is what all other zombie flicks should aspire to be. All of the praise for the film, is only muted by the fact that the Divimax DVD Edition, only showcases the theatrical cut. I would have loved to have the extended director's cut on the same disc, or as part of a set of some type...The audio commentary from Romero, Special Effects Creator Tom Savini, and others is just plain fun. A really solid commentary and a must listen for fans. You can also get a peek at the DAWN OF THE DEAD comic book from the publisher IDW (an interesting idea). Theatrical trailers, TV, radio spots, poster galleries, and a 4 page collector's booklet with well written liner notes, round out this release. All in all, I can recommend the DVD, despite the lack of a director's cut viewing option. **** and half stars.
Rating:
Summary: It's a good movie
Review: This movie is pretty good but before i bought it my brother told me that it was very gory!!!! But when i got it it wasnt as scary and gory as i thought. Actually at some parts in the movie were just plain boring. I haven't seen the directors cut but it is probably better than the U.S. therical version. At some parts of the movie were good like the part when the gang of bikers go in the mall and the zombies rip that guys stomach open that was pretty cool. But if you haven't seen this yet i suggest you should buy the directors cut.
Rating:
Summary: Watchable, but not a classic
Review: I'm sorry...cult horror fans seem to love this movie, but it wasn't all that great. I didn't quite get why the zombies were blue. The acting was bad, or was it the script? It was very gory, which was a plus, but it didn't save the film. While the first dead movie, 'Night', was very good and original, 'Dawn' is boring and unimaginative. I haven't seen 'Day' so I can't compare it to this, but if you like zombie movies and are interested in the Dead trilogy, check out the original Night of the living dead, or the remake of Dawn of the dead, which was awesome.
Rating:
Summary: Great but incomplete
Review: Dawn...is a great film but this theatrical re-release is simply an attempt to cash in on the movie hype going on right now. What should have been done is re-release the director's cut which apparently runs from 137 to 140 minutes depending on different sources. To the reviewer who stated that a multi-disk edition is coming ( or anyone else who knows), I would like to get more info if possible such as date, source of info etc. I am anxiously waiting for a special edition and would be first in line to buy it.
|
