Rating: 
Summary: Dawn of the Dead-lacking but effective
Review: Yes, there is no denying Hollywood marketing executives have "contaminated" this film to cater to their targeted demographic. I refer to the extreme grunge music which bookends the film for the benefit of young males. And yes, state of the art special effects have caught up to zombie films. In this case, as in so many others, they tend to overshadow or sacrifice character development entirely. Like I always say special effects do not a movie make. Even one of these elements can "murder" a film's quality but this film hasn't completely "expired".There were two factors which salvaged Dawn of the Dead.<br /><br /> Naturally being a re-make, the movie loosely followed the story line of the original and even made references to other zombie flicks by presenting character types and situations from Day of the Dead, 28 Days Later and others. This film did what the other zombie films didn't. The film presented the guidelines of the genre and broke the rules. The signs of hope, the overcome struggles, the glimmers of a possible future and escape routes were all closed off leading to a "dead" end. (Sorry, I had to do it). I found it to be eerily caustraphobic.<br /><br /> The most important thing which saves this film from an agonizing "death" ironically is the zombies themselves. These are without question the scariest i've seen in any film. The attention to detail, the make-up and special effects isn't what i'm talking about here. There seem to be alot of thought put into how these zombies would behave. They do move quickly and rabidly like in 28 Days Later but they react to threats, wonder aimlessly at times,and they lurk and stalk in groups as they growl like wolves. <br /><br /> Maybe this remake doesn't "live" up to the political and social commentary of it's predecessor. So what! we're talking about zombies here. Maybe the character development is a little weak but theses things didn't stay with me after seeing the movie. This film tapped deeply enough into a childhood fear to keep me looking over my shoulder for days. <br /><br /> I think I can forgive its short comings <br /><br /><br />
Rating:
Summary: Slick Hollywood Remake, But In A Good Way...
Review: (...)Romero's original film benefits from a much better script. The social commentary and character developement were fantastic, making the original Dawn the seminal zombie flick of it's time. While I'm not a fan of "shot by shot" remakes of films, sticking a bit closer to the original would have pulled my rating up from four to five stars. That is pretty much the only place the remake falters though. The action is nice and fast paced, the zombie makeup was great and (I'm going to generate some negative votes with this statement) I liked the fast zombies. By applying the logic that all reanimated dead creatures would be lumbering, shuffling, mindless automatons you close the possibility of fast paced exciting zombie, vampire and mummy flicks as well. If one can suspend one's disbelief to the point where a little girl can return from the dead and crave human flesh, the fact that same can run down a hallway should not prove too much of a leap of faith. I liken the new Dawn of the Dead to Steven Sommer's first Mummy flick. An exciting, fast paced, popcorn reinterpretation of a classic sub-genre. Besides, good box office for a remake of a Romero film can't get in the way of him getting the go ahead on his next picture. Romero devotees might benefit from that particular revelation. Did I mention the fast pace?
Rating: 
Summary: Best. Remake. Ever.
Review: Being a huge fan of the original classic, I was a little perturbed when I heard they were remaking it, fearing another disaster like 1990's remake of the original Night of the Living Dead, but after seeing it, I was pleasently surprised.
Not only is the best Zombie movie in recent memory (with the exception of the original and perhaps tied with 28 Days Later), but it is also one of the most suspensful.
I challenge any skeptic to sit through the first ten minutes of this film and not be convinced that it was a good idea. The suspense, special effects, direction, script, and yes even acting are first class.
The story is very different from the original, with the only real similarity being the mall. Some of Rommero's more mature socio-economic and political undertones were abandoned for the sake of good old fashioned thrills, but you know what? I don't care! The film was made so well that it's few shortcomings are hardly noticable and easily overlooked.
Many fans of the original feared that Universal would "wimp out" on the zombie effects that made the original so shocking, but fans will be please to find that they didn't. The blood and gore are easily as good (and abundant) as the original, sometimes even better (and more convincing).
For any parents out there wondering about the content of this film, the violence is VERY strong. The language is also pretty bad. There are some short scenes of sexuality but they are there nevertheless. The atmosphere and suspense are also very heavy. Parents may want to think twice before taking youngsters to this one. I wouldn't reccomend it for anyone under twelve, and even then I'd think hard about it.
This film is one of the best and most entertaining horror films in years. See it. Fear it. Love it. ...
Rating:
Summary: I really wanted to hate this remake
Review: But the brilliant first-time director, Zach Snyder, was just too good!
The elements that really floored: The completely believable and realistic reactions the characters had to a completely unbelievable situation. Sarah Polley played her shock and grief over the sudden insanity she's awoken to with complete honesty and Vingh Rhames friendship with the lonely Andy is touching. I also really respect the fact that many of the big stunts, like explosions, aren't shown close-up (as in many action films), but from extrememly wide shots, to illustrate the general chaos that's engulfed this Wisconsin suburb.
The dialog is completely natural and the violence is shocking.
This is everything an action/horror film should be!
The reasons I've given Dawn of the Dead four stars rather than five are: 1: What should have been the most powerful part of the story (Taye Diggs' relationship with his pregnant girlfriend) was actually the weakest link. 2: Snyder's removal of the commentary on commercialism that was the whole point of Romero's film.
Weak points aside (including the fact that nobody even suggest amputating newly bitten limbs in an attempt to prevet eventual zombieism), this is a must see film!
One piece of advice, watch the entire closing credits. The film's ending actually takes place durring the credits, so you don't get the whole story if you hit stop!
Bravo, Zach Snyder! Bravo!
Rating: 
Summary: Astonishingly bad...neither scary nor relevant
Review: For those of you who like short reviews, let me summarize: "Dawn of the Dead" is both amazingly un-scary and incalculably irrelevant at the same time. It invites neither introspection nor titillation, and is thus utterly unworthy of the media it occupies.
For those of you who would prefer a more extensive explanation of my admittedly strident summary, read on.
Where to begin...well, I'll admit, I was sucked in by "Dawn of the Dead". In spite of uniformly mediocre reviews, I waited for the director's cut, and settled in for what I anticipated would be a stylish horror flick featuring a solid, if not starlit ensemble cast. And why not? The trailers indicate tremendous production value, and draw nicely on the inherent inversion of relationships found in any successful zombie film.
Alas, the best parts of the film are featured in said trailers, and the failure to develop upon them is immediately obvious, i.e. the aforementioned inversion (/perversion) of relationships. For example, in "28 Days Later" the first zombie the protagonist encounters is a priest. His reaction to that character's assault sets (quite absolutely) the theme for a completely changed world. However, in the case of "Dawn of the Dead" this element is utterly wasted, as the characters all too quickly abandon any ties to those they once loved or respected.
This is somewhat forgivable in the case of the zombies. After all, the hallmark of human evolution has been a remarkable ability to adapt to sudden change. As a result, the tongue in cheek "celebrity" hunting that the survivors engage in is somewhat understandable, and is certainly the highlight of the film. After all, one must find a way to cope with new surroundings. However, there is no pathos in this carnage, and in the end, it completely debases the zombie mythos; the horror of being hunted by your next door neighbor, or worse yet, your spouse, must be in some way offset by your past ties to them.
As the body count (zombie count?) rises and the film unravels, things become even more bizarre. Which is why mentioning the cast seems appropriate; the truth of the matter is, they deliver fine performances. Even Ving Rhames, who is hardly known for his Shakespearean presence, manages to bring a certain gravitas to his role. Likewise, Sarah Polley, and the rest of the cast deliver genuinely solid performances that are let down by an utterly ridiculous script. If you want to experience a genuine reaction to an apocalyptic event, read "Alas, Babylon", "The Stand", "I am Legend" or even the awful, but practical "Some Will Not Die". However, avoid this film in which hillbillies straight out of "Deliverance" somehow not only manage to get a job as security guards in Wisconsin, but get the mall owners to allow them to wear sidearms.
But wait, one must suffer through the insultingly ridiculous performance of the otherwise laudable Mekhi Phifer. After establishing himself as a force on "er" and "8 Mile" why he didn't run screaming from this script is a complete mystery. The producers must have driven a dumptruck full of money up to his house, because nothing else could justify the total waste of his considerable talents.
Last, but certainly not least, there is the awful and completely misguided ending to the film. If there were any justice in the world, all producers, directors and actors in post-apocalyptic and dystopian films would be forced to read "A Clockwork Orange", but unfortunately, that is far from the case. The director of "Dawn of the Dead", in his lazy credits, completely misses the point of the twenty-first chapter of said book, namely, that there is good in all of us, and that if we are utterly self-destructive as a species, we are capable of redemption as individuals. If he had allowed his characters to become utterly craven in the face of American consumerism, this might have been acceptable, but even as he tries to redeem them, they are damned to irrelevance by the total lack of appreciation for spiritual growth.
Visually disgusting, emotionally neither scary nor inspiring, and viscerally dull, "Dawn of the Dead" strikes out swinging. In spite of the best efforts of a completely wasted cast, this is a film that should be avoided (queue the irony) like a plague. As an alternative, I would strongly recommend, "28 Days Later" which offers genuine thrills, original cinematography, and a well thought out, multi-layered story.
Jake Mohlman
Rating:
Summary: Fast Zombies
Review: I love Zombie movies. I even watch those aweful Italian zombie flicks in an attempt to see all in existance. If there's one thing I hate more than a zombie that knows how fly and land a plaine (City of the Dead), or fire a gun (Day of the Dead) it's a zombie that can run. As you probably know, this film is filled with sprinting zombies. Top that with the fact the original Dawn of the Dead is simply one of the greatest horror works of art to ever be made and you'd think I hate this film more than just about anything. But I loved it. Despite what I happen to hate most about every single new zombie movie being a very prevelent theme I still loved it. This movie did a great job of basically just satisfiying the little zombie hunter inside of me and hopefully it will satisfy yours. My third time seeing it in the theater was with a friend who hates horror movies and for the next three days he was doing nothing but asking about zombie movies, and the whole mythology that accopmanies them. \ Also I should say 28 Days Later, while it was great is not a zombie movie. I'm sick of hearing people say that. If they're not undead they're not zombies (though I can't deny the common themes).
Dawn of the Dead is a great remake of a great movie.
Rating:
Summary: The Coming Dawn
Review: I went into this thinking it was gonna stink. I love the original Dawn of the Dead, and I thought that having James Gunn (of Scooby Doo fame) writing it was going to ensure its place in the bad remakes of history... Right next to the Psycho remake. I mean, when you have a great piece of material, why remake it? I feel like Hollywood should only remake movies that stunk in the first place. Don't remake the classics. That was my attitude. But this movie surprised me.
The filmmakers successfully took George Romero's dystopic view of modern society and reinvented it for a new generation. My main question is, did this really need to be a remake? I mean, clearly it shared some things conceptually with Romero's (like the mall, and some of the moments) but this also felt like a pretty complete reboot. I wonder if they could have created this movie as a stand alone zombie flick? Perhaps there is value in the title "Dawn of the Dead". Who knows what drives those studio execs?
In the end, this was a successful, fun zombie movie. The characters were a little flat and some of the action was predictable, but the overall effect was good enough for me to give this movie 4 out of 5 stars. Teamed with "28 Days Later", I think these two films have brought about a nice zombie rebirth. Unfortunately, that also gives you the B versions like "Corpses are Forever" and "Bloody Bill", but I still think a resurgence of the zombie genre is a good thing.
Rating:
Summary: Wow. Big surprise.
Review: I'll be honest. When I first saw this movie, I hated it. I hated the blood, the gore, the zombies...but then I saw it about a year later, after I'd decided I love zombie flicks. And when I gave it a chance, and stopped being a hater, I discovered that this movie was an instant buried treasure? "Awha!?" you say. This movie got tons of attention. But not enough. It's quite possibly the most fantastic movie in twenty years, and most definatly the best horror movie of all time. The acting is fantastic, the scares are horrific, the effects are incrediable, the plot is A+, and I have to tell you, this movie made me want to make a zombie flick the day Im old enough. Sure, I won't. But I'll write a book about them. Seeing this has grouped together dozens of kids at my school who are now enthuisiastic about zombie movies. So, to be brief, I'll say this: If you don't like blood, gore, or zombies, you must likely will hate this movie. But, if you actully give it a chance, you'll find yourself enjoying one of the most evolving, suspenseful and gripping movie in years. 5 stars, no dobut about it.
Rating:
Summary: Death Comes Running...
Review: Nurse Ana (Sarah Polley) has just come off another long, thankless shift at the hospital. She is unaware that the world around her is changing in ways that will soon shatter everything she knows, believes, hopes, or dreams. Ana goes to bed with her husband, oblivious to the growing horror and creeping dread right outside. In the morning, Ana faces the new reality first hand. She has no time to adjust or think, only to flee, to react, and to survive. Yes, the dead run the streets, seeking prey, seeking those like Ana to attack and slaughter. Ana's once quiet neighborhood is a battlezone. Her entire life has suddenly plummeted off the cliff of normality into the darkness of unknown terror. Ana runs, screams, and drives on instinct now. She is automatically moving, trying to escape. Trying to keep away from the hordes of former humans that pursue her. The fires burn and the helicopters roar overhead. Ana has entered the end of all things. Somehow, she meets up with other survivors. Kenneth (Ving Rhames) is a cop who comes across Ana's wrecked car. They walk together now, strangers in a nightmare land of roaming cannibals and panic. The two find another small group of warm-blooded people. Can this tiny group stay alive? Can they face what is unthinkable? Do what is inconcievable? DAWN OF THE DEAD is a masterpiece of dread and lurking fear. The situations are fast, violent, and shocking. The characters are living people with pasts that no longer matter. The story is apocalyptic to the extreme, slamming home the idea of a world devoid of all but death, and those who seek to outlast it. Buy this movie immediately! It's like Fulci's ZOMBIE, Romero's NIGHT-DAWN-DAY OF THE DEAD, THE STAND, and MESSIAH OF EVIL all rolled into one gnashing, biting, drooling package! What are you waiting for?? ...
Rating: 
Summary: Were running zombies the best new concept?!
Review: Okay, when you're remaking a movie satirical to consumerism what's the first thing you do? Hire a director whose only experience is commercials. That's like getting Michael Moore to direct 'Red Dawn'. Now, I don't mind a dumb horror movie ever so often but can't Hollywood have a dumb horror movie that doesn't smack a good original in the face and desecrate everything good about the movie in question?
Apparently not. Zack Snyder's 'reÃmaginging' or 'reconceptualizing'a good movie for a quick cash in scares me more than his wretched movie did. Lets break the problems down piecemeal...
PROBLEM 1:
Too many characters. The original got it right when it spent time on only 4 characters rather than waste screentime on morons I don't care about that are going to die soon anyway. You could actually connect with the original's 4 (Peter, Roger, Flyboy, and Francine. See, I know the names and I've only seen the movie 2 or 3 times.) But when someone dies in the remake I don't even know or care who they were half the time. Remember when those 2 people get chainsawed to death in the bus, I'd probably have to watch it again to find out who the hell they were. For awhile I thought the rich guy was having sex with the nurse but it turns out its some other blond. Also, the characters aren't characters; they're types. The rich jackass is a prime example. Instead of developing him he's just an a-hole and instead of developing others they're just considered the 'good guys.' The cast could've easily been shaved down to 6 or 8, but I guess fanboys want to salivate over more deaths and more carnage despite any real relevance to any story.
PROBLEM 2: Nothing new to the table. Snyder nixed the "Masque of the Red Death"concept but for what? All his movie is about are people trapped somewhere who want to escape elsewhere. Wow, that's original. Nothing new comes to the premise, not even within the zombie subgenre. Even the pregnant mother was ripped off from Dead Alive and the fast zombies copied from 28 days later.
PROBLEM 3: Logical loopholes. How come in this post-modern time haven't people in zombie movies not seen or heard of a zombie? The logic behind most of the characters is to forward the plot and for no other reason. Why did that girl go through a horde of zombies to rescue a dog? Why did the zombies just happen to be near the mall hanging out (Its explained in the original but not this one)? Why did the security guard kill himself on the bus when he could've easily fought his way out? The characters make the dumbest decisions anyone else would've avoided. There are of coure more idiotic things but I've got to do something with my life now.
|
