Dawn of the Dead

Rating:
Summary: awsome
Review: THAT GUY, MOVIE GUY OF WHATEVER THE HECK HIS NAME IS, DOES NOT KNOW WHAT HE"S TALKING ABOUT. FIRST OFF, THIS IS A DATED MOVIE, GET IT! DATED WHICH MEANS ITS A LITTLE OLD. AND IT IS SCARY. ITS ALOT SCARIER THAN NOWADAY HORROR FILMS! TRUST ME THIS ONE REALLY SCORES.

Rating:
Summary: A Must For Zombie Fans
Review: The second film in George Romero's cult zombie classics is "Dawn of the Dead". We are transported to the after affects of the zombie invasion from the first film "Night of the Living Dead" and see that chaos has taken over where order no longer exists.

The zombies become target practice for rednecks and society loses its grip. From this chaos a few escape by helicopter, a couple of SWAT guys (one black of course!), a wimpy nerd who oozes fear, his feeble girlfriend, and you know the rest.....So these people take over a shopping mall and have a blast living in free luxury until the zombies figure out a way into their secure compound. Then all hell breaks loose!!

Sometimes comical, gruesome and even remotely possible (without the zombies of course), this movie captures the essense of what drives Americans, control, survival, material possesions, freedom, democracy and FEAR!! Look for all the nuances and don't be surprised what you find. Romero is known for his political understatements. This is a must for all you fellow zombie fans...so cuddle up and scream!!

Rating:
Summary: GREAT!
Review: I reviewed the new one and was disapointed a little but some things wher good. This the original masterpice is just great and even tho it was a low budget on the film George A. Romero did a great job. It is not Night Of The Living Dead but it is better than the hollywood crap that was spewed onto the big screen. This movie seemed that if i had saw it back then when it araived then i would have been scared out of my friggin mind. Well george is awsome and you can never remake a classic film like this one. This movie features the bet line in any horror movie and it is still haunting to think about today. "When there is no more room in hell the dead will walk the earth." not as good a line as "There comming to get you barbra" but still good in it's own way. all in all this film is great and should bee woned by all. CLASSIC! bye!

Rating:
Summary: Why Give This Five Stars? I'll Tell You Why...
Review: when dead people first started walking again in the summer of 1968, our hero duane jones was shot in the head by those darn rednecks killing off zombies. day of the dead picks up, in 1978, right where night of the living dead left off, in 1968(get the picture?). while night of the living dead was original and horrifying for its time, dawn of the dead came blasting on the scene with more zombies, more gore, and more running time. this 2nd of the "holy" 3 snaps at your warm flesh with the good ol zombies you love to hate...or if youre like me, the ones you love to be! i saw the 2004 remake before i bought this original one. in the remake, the zombies have super powers, chasing after fresh humans faster and harder than a kingcab truck could ever go. these zombies are the good ones---the slow ones. although this fact makes the movie less scary than the remake, it also makes it ten times better. dawn of the dead doesnt have the same depressing ending that night of the living dead had---i thought they could have added just a TAD more bit of nihilism at the end of this one, yet they didnt. but that doesnt pop this baby down to 4 stars. its possibly gorier than the passion of the christ. less realistic gore, but still just as gory. you cant go wrong with romero, people. even creepshow (romero/king) is acceptable. if you liked the original night of the living dead, then youll also like dawn of the dead. buy it. this gives a new meaning to the term dead man walking...

Rating:
Summary: It was stupid
Review: I thought this was going to be a good movie, i was wrong. It had bad actors and cheesy affects and it was the most boring zombie movie ive ever seen next to Lucio Fulci's Zombie. Zombie didnt have cheesy affects and bad acting but it was boring. This version is gay the directors cut is probably better, i dont know usually the directors cut has better affects and stuff. The blood in this movie looks like melted crayons. I waised $20.00 on this dvd where i live and it was the worst thing i ever bought!!!

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.