|
|
Post by mondoshane on Mar 19, 2004 20:40:32 GMT -5
DOTD '78 was one of my favorite films and definetly my favorite horror film. I had fond memories of watching it with my father when I was young. I will never be able to have these memories again because from now on they will be poisoned by the remake that never should have been. I swore I would not buy a ticket for this movie but I have been angry about it ever since I heard about the remake and I wanted the anger to stop. This movie is poorly written and directed, the acting was mediocre and the effects were mostly CGI and lame. The soundtrack was terrible. It did however have good make up. There was no flesh eating only biting and this movie bit hard. The audience I saw it with was chuckling through out and didn't seem scared at all. This movie killed any excitement I had for "Dead Reckoning", I just don't care anymore. Easily the worst horror movie I have ever seen. Universal should get out of the horror business for good.
|
|
|
|
Post by CaptainMot on Mar 22, 2004 14:18:04 GMT -5
It's not out here in England, but I've seen the trailers. I'll probabley end up seeing it due to my love of the original, but I'm sad to hear it sucks so bad. I say it's time Hollywood stops ruining the classics and starts making new ones. Seriously, where in drastic need of a classic, or Horror may well just run out of fuel and die. I suppose that's why we came to this forum in the first place. To put an end to Teen/Thriller movies once and for all and make the future classics. Now, get out there and make some d**n movies!
|
|
|
|
Post by AJ on Mar 22, 2004 16:24:54 GMT -5
Yes the original is a horror classic, but don't forget that its a classic to a relatively small group of people, at least the remake brings the story (or at least the main thrust of it) to a new audience who would probably never have seen the original. At the very least, the remake brings new interest to the original, as well as it's re-release on a shiny new DVD, which is certainly no bad thing. It should also be noted that the original Dawn has some truly appalling special effects, mediocre cinematography and really bad music! Yes it's a classic, but to most people (i.e. the mass-market) it's in the same cheese bracket as CHiP's! I agree with CaptainMot, we need to get out and make some new classics... there's nothing stopping us!  |
|
|
|
Post by mondoshane on Mar 22, 2004 16:26:07 GMT -5
Very well put Mot! The best horror films are the independant ones and have always have been so hopefully the studios will get out of the horror business soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by Multiplex Manner on Apr 7, 2004 14:10:17 GMT -5
Okay, I just got back from seeing the Dawn of the Dead remake - and from someone who hasn't seen the original film, I thought this was very good. It managed to be tense and creepy while providing a lot of thrills. It was also very original and inventive (although I don't know how much was used from the original). So, that's what I think know. But tonight, I'll watch the original film and put another post here tomorrow in case i change my mind.
Keep it real.
|
|
|
|
Post by Multiplex Manner on Apr 8, 2004 14:55:47 GMT -5
wow.
Okay, so the original film is better. No doubt. but the remake definately looks better, and I did get more excited while watching it.
However, Romero created some fantastic moments and ideas in the orignal dawn of the dead, and it really made you think rather than just going for cheap thrills. Also, unlike the remake, it didn't have 'HOLLYWOOD' plastered all over it. Instead, it was a true indie classic. (although this could be expected, as the budget difference between them is over $27million.
That said, I think Zack Snyder(?) is one to watch for the future. Although he can't beat Romero.
Tom Savini rules.
|
|
scitek
Ridley Scott
Lurker...
Posts: 86
|
Post by scitek on Apr 8, 2004 22:53:42 GMT -5
wow. Okay, so the original film is better. No doubt. but the remake definately looks better, and I did get more excited while watching it. However, Romero created some fantastic moments and ideas in the orignal dawn of the dead, and it really made you think rather than just going for cheap thrills. Also, unlike the remake, it didn't have 'HOLLYWOOD' plastered all over it. Instead, it was a true indie classic. (although this could be expected, as the budget difference between them is over $27million. That said, I think Zack Snyder(?) is one to watch for the future. Although he can't beat Romero. Tom Savini rules. The remake is a well-made film, and if you deny it, then you really don't know what makes a movie tick. This movie captured my attention from the get-go and only started to veer off course a couple of times throughout the film. I think some parts should have just been left out, like the whole baby thing, and the beotch going after a dog she's become attached to throughout the whole debacle just frustrated me. This movie is well played overall and I enjoyed watching it. I'm sorry, but Romero's film is dated now, and if you were to ask me, Romero's always been overrated. He's the Kevin Smith of horror. |
|
|
|
Post by Multiplex Manner on Apr 9, 2004 8:54:54 GMT -5
Yeah, I get what you mean. I did really enjoy the remake - I guess I just like the original more because it started the whole idea off, and had more solid social comments.
They're both good films, but very different in their style. Snyder's was more stylised, and he also had the burden that Romero didn't in making something new out of zombies - they're all to familiar for modern audiences. Thanks for your opinions.
|
|
|
|
Post by CrawlingKaos on Apr 10, 2004 18:09:40 GMT -5
heh .. remakes. You know they are going to start remaking remakes. The Fly, Village of the d**ned, etc. Fox Searchlight gave a peculiar reason for why the Fly should be remade: in the original as well as the Cronenberg movie you never see the fly actually fly.  |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Di Bene on Apr 11, 2004 20:48:38 GMT -5
My favorite zombie movie of all time is that '78 original, and I LOVED the new one.
I see where the problem is here, you guys are calling it a "Remake" when it's a completely different story in almost every respect.
There are 2 common parts:
1. Zombies
2. A mall.
Everything else is different, and it is supposed to be that way ;D
I saw the film twice on opening day, and I just loved it.
If I went expecting to see a close remake of the original, I would have been sorely dissapointed.
And most importantly, I'd bet Romero liked it too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Multiplex Manner on Apr 12, 2004 8:19:51 GMT -5
Good point. I was actually suprised when I watched the original how little had been used plot-wise in the remake.
Romero's screenplay was adapted by James Gunn and then rewritten by Michael Tolkin and Scott Frank. These guys have experience in adapting stories into well structured action movies, so we should be happy that someone worse didn't write the film. I'm glad the orignal script wasn't used, it would have been hard to adapt something like that to please a contempory, mass-market audience. The orignal script is something that - now at least - mainly appeals to a niche market of cult zombie lovers.
The new film was actually more of a completely different thing to the original, with a few references (discoveries that the plague is passed on through bites, etc) and sneaky nods (a shop called Gaylen Ross).
I also think it's great that DOTD is released at the same time as Shaun of the Dead (in the UK anyway); you could watch them on separate screens at the same time and SOTD would seem even funnier.
|
|
|
|
Post by CrawlingKaos on Apr 14, 2004 12:16:48 GMT -5
www.crankycritic.com Most of the reviews I've seen on this film have been positive unless it comes from people who love the genre itself. Cranky is the exception. I'd also like to apologize for wanting to see 'fast-moving' zombies. Now that I'm seeing them, I know that was a mistake. One day I'll watch this 'remake', just not anytime soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Di Bene on Jun 12, 2004 13:18:45 GMT -5
The audience I saw it with was chuckling through out and didn't seem scared at all. I've thought long and hard about your statement, and I honestly cant remember the last time that I was actually scared, let alone scared by a film. It's easy to amaze an audience with CG, or startle them wih quick cuts and unpleasant visuals. But if you can honestly find the formula to Scare our jaded culture, you've got lightning in a bottle. And it's not going to get any easier from here, the nightmares we used to dream in film, are starting to reside in real life. |
|
|
|
Post by Multiplex Manner on Jun 22, 2004 11:31:07 GMT -5
I know what you mean - to be scary, you have to be original. usually if I see a good film that's trying to be scary, then I usually think 'oh yeah, I see what they've done there...that's a good effect' rather than 'ooooh crap I'm scared.'
The scariest film I can remember is Blair Witch Project, because that took a completely different approach to the formula and pulled it off.
Speaking of dreams, I think the best inspiration for stories, films, etc. is when you're asleep. I had this nightmare a while back and it was epic - like a huge scale zombie film. I can still remember it exactly - hopefully going to make it in the future!
|
|
hollowhead
Ridley Scott
Suck my spinning steel sh*t head!
Posts: 75
|
Post by hollowhead on Jul 28, 2004 14:59:54 GMT -5
Personally i wouldn't use CG in any of my films until i had no other choice especially creating monsters or effects because when people are supposed to be scared or shocked, they are just amazed at how they have digitally created something and thats what most directors do NOT want and as for Dawn of the Dead...doesn't even deserve the name dawn of the dead especially when the original was a classic!
|
|
