Dawn Of The Dead (2004) - no spoilers in O/P

Brilliantly observed, ElectricZ. From what I’ve seen of the new movie (the 10-minute clip and 8 shorter clips at cinemovies.fr), it seems that Gunn and Snyder have jettisoned the empathy and introspection of the original for, admittedly awesome, nonstop action.

Bear in mind that Snyder as a first-time director had no say over the studio-mandated running time, so the new version is a full hour shorter than the original. With a reduced running time and an expanded cast, everything that didn’t move the action forward probably had to be jettisoned.

Note also that the central thrust of Romero’s movies is that ultimately the real threat to human survival is not the zombies, but our own greed, selfishness, and inability to cooperate. The real message of the movie, IMO, is delivered by the one-legged priest in the tenement basement where Roger and Peter have finished shooting the zombies in the cage: “Senors, when the dead outnumber the living, we must stop the killing, or lose the war.”

I bought my ticket for the new movie on Fandango, and I’ll be at Ballston Common at 5:35, ready for crunchy zombie action.

Hm. Yeah, it’s also worth noting that Romero, when he released the original, did not bother submitting it to the MPAA… and so it was released unrated. On the other hand, nobody got to screw around with it before it was released.

The remake, on the other hand… well, it’s studio product, all the way.

Which makes me ponder the fact that if the original had been studio product, would it have been good enough that someone wanted to remake it, nearly a quarter century later?

Well, if it had been that good, there would be no way to remake it. Take Casablanca, complete studio product, contract players and director, just another film off the Warners assembly line, yet it became magic and completely immune to remakes. Then you have The Thing, a great sSF/horror movie, yet it was overtaken by advances in effects, and the superior, more faithful to the original short story, Carpenter version was made. And I recall in 1982 that the same cries of “How dare they touch this classic” were muttered as well.

ACtually, I don’t think that the 2004 Dawn can fairly be called a remake. Apart from the idea of a group of people hiding in a mall from ravenous zombies, the movie’s plot, characters, and resolution are completely different.

For Max Carnage or anyone else who’s seen a sneak preview or sufficient teaser footage - what are the zombies’ eyes like? Are they entirely white (no pupils or iris visible) at any point? See, my boyfriend has this THING about white eyes, and unless I can get some sort of report on the eyes of these zombies, I’m never gonna get him to go with me. I jump at everything, while he can watch a lot of horror movies without flinching, but throw in white eyes or hairy spiders…

From the referenced first 10-minutes of the movie, the only good shot of the zombies in this version I’ve seen, it does not appear to be white-on-white eyes. Rather, it was a rather visible silverish/yellow iris with a clearly dark pupil. The eyes definitely change, but not to what you are worried about.

Then again, if it was white-on-white and I were in your position, I’d not mention it just to further freak out my SO even more. Afterall, I’m MeanJoe for a reason.

>insert evil laugh here<

MeanJoe

I just wanted to commend ElectricZ as well on his wonderful interpretation of the slow movers. I was thinking of the exact same scenes while reading your post, and it’s the perfect example of why the good ol’ fashion zombies are still the best.

I loved 28 Days Later, and think that fast zombies can work, but they’re a completely different type of creature and lead the movie into a completely different direction. I still felt horrible for Frank in 28 Days Later, but the audience was really only given a brief moment to gain any feeling before we were forced to move on. Roger’s death on the other hand, managed to really bring home the true horror of the situation, and one of the terrifying aspects of the genre.

I’m planning on checking out the new Dawn this weekend, and probably multiple times in the theaters, but I’m expecting a completely different type of scary. More “Jump and Boo” than “suspense and dread”.

No white eyes…

Unless I missed a Marilyn Manson or Little Orphan Annie zombie in the crowd scene.

I don’t know if this holds up. The Romero zombies were all recently dead, weren’t they? The O’Bannon zombies ranged from those that hadn’t even realized they died to those that had decomposed to near skeletons, so it makes sense that those farther gone would be in worse shape.

Although I won’t be seeing DotD2004 until tomorrow, from what I have seen of it I have to agree. With the fast-moving zombies and all, they should just have called it “28 Days Later: What Happened In America”.

I’m Going Monday Night - A reunion with the Junior High School friends who I saw the original with in the summer of 1981. The Multiplex that was showing it wouldn’t let us in due to age restrictions - we tried to sneak in from the alleyway but were caught. The next day we went back, bought tickets to Ringo Starr’s Caveman and ‘accidentally’ took our seats in the wrong theater.

Gonna avoid MeanJoe’s Orion link cuz of the spoilers. The one scene I hope they kept from the original was the ‘rural, bring yer shotgun to a zombie hunting picnic’ scene. The music, extras, direction, and humor in that scene were priceless. With the new director, I’m hoping this one will at least try to scare the viewer, as opposed to just shock them.

I’m glad you batted that down before the purist started their lamenting.

An IFC documentary from a year ago heaped praise on Romero, Hooper, et al. and referred to films such as DotD & Texas Chainsaw Massacre as modern masterpieces that satirized culture an an intelluctual, well-thought out & subtle fashion.

To that I say bullshit. DotD may have made a few subtle comments on society and the human condition - but I’m fairly certain that was an unintended mistake. Sometimes overly analytical types find messages and art where there isn’t any. It’s just like a museum curator staring at a white canvas with a red triangle on it and claiming to have found the answers to the mysteries of life. All the while, the ‘artist’ of the piece is laughing all the way to the bank.

Hooray! Thank you and MeanJoe both.

The zombies in NOTLD and Dawn were all fairly recent, yes… but the ones in *Day Of The Dead * were startin’ to look pretty seriously funky, and their body parts tended to “give” pretty easily when you hit them, I noticed. Squishy.

I was thinkin’ about this the other day… not only did it inject some weird humor, but also served as a way of demonstrating the “inhumanity” of the living, particularly the shot where several zombies have been “strung up” from a tree, but instead of being dead, they’re mindlessly twitching and trying to figure out how to get down… while the rednecks laugh at them and use them for target practice.

Somehow, though, I think this will not be the case in the new version. These guys are just too freakin’ fast and aggressive. You wouldn’t be able to have that “turkey shoot day at the redneck county fair” feeling, what with zombies tearing at you like velociraptors. This is another reason I kind of preferred the slower zombies… more room for social commentary.

I must respectfully disagree. I think Dawn Of The Dead was a neatly done sendup of consumer society and materialism, nicely contained in a pretty good horror movie. The film works both as horror, and as satire. You don’t often see that sort of thing happening by accident.

You could argue that there was no unintended subtext in NOTLD and DayOTD, and we could likely argue all night, or even agree… but Dawn? Nope. That was a movie with something more to say than “gee, wouldn’t the fall of civilization to flesh-eating zombies suck?”

This becomes very, very clear when you compare the Romero movies to the O’Bannon film and its sequels… and totally freakin’ obvious when you stand the Romero movies up to the legion of Italian copies.

Huge Romero Zombie fan here and it is with great trepidation I go to see this tomorrow. I have to remember this “re-envisioning” (Jeeze ain’t that a crappy hyphinated bullshit word) is not Romero’s world it is someone playing a what if game with it. What if the Zombies were faster and more powerful etc.

I’m tired of some other people’s attitude (outside this conversation that is) where these hyped up Zombies are somehow a new thing. ROLD had the running unkillable Zombies in a truly nihlistic film. I accepted it because it made sure it kept some distance from the original.

Count me a fan of the slow movers. They give a false sense of hope which is usually brutally dashed in any good horror film.

I will give this a chance but I still wonder what Romero could have given us with the budget and newer resources these folks had. A shame really. They could have opted for a sequel rather than a remake but seeing as it is the only moving flesh eating corpses on the block right now I might as well give 'em, a chance.

I agree.

Dunno about a sequel, though. Would we really have wanted one without Romero at the wheel?

And I will admit that the original Dawn is not showing its age well, in some respects. Upon a recent rewatching, some of the mall scenes in particular… well… they’re just so… 1978.

It’s a different world, now… and in some ways, part of me hopes the newer version can and will reflect this.

Like in the interviews with Romero where he said all three movies were intended to have satirical elements, you mean? (Incidentally, he’s also said that in the unlikely event he ever does Twilight of the Dead, the zombies will be the new homeless; now totally dilapidated, with people in the habit of stepping around them and mostly ignoring them.)

I came across a review today from the St. Paul Pioneer which expresses my big fear with this movie:
http://www.austin360.com/movies/content/movies/reviews/d/dawnofthedead_sppp.html

Just in case the link doesn’t work, here’s the real gem of the review:

“And, unlike the original, the remake has humanity — instead of anonymous characters, we get genuine actors Sarah Polley and Jake Weber…”

He claims the original lacked humanity?!?!?!?! The review is obviously by a guy who watched the original one time before seeing the remake and is probably the same type of guy who in college kept trying to get me to rent Wild Things beause it’s “the best movie ever!”

This is why remakes are feared, because they’re taking classic stories and making them to fit the tastes of these people (who I’m guessing can’t distinguish between “character” and “actor”…not a good sign for a movie critic). So far, it seems everyone who’s seen it has positive things to say about it, but this review really worries me…

That would be hilarious - what a commentary on the (presumed) “degradation” and jadedness of modern civilization!

“The walking dead are among us, but we don’t care! As long as they keep their paws off my Jag. God, the worst thing is the smell, they should really go to the mission for a shower and shave. Can’t the police arrest them for being a nuisance or something? Hey, wanna go to Starbucks? I feel like a latte.”

Well, I just got back from seein’ the film in question.

It’s not bad.

In fact, it’s actually pretty good.

It is not, however, quite as good as the original.

It’s actually better, in some ways – the original, while a classic, looks more’n a bit dated, as I mentioned above. The new one is as new as yesterday’s paper, complete with latte, cell phones, and up-to-the-minute cable news. The makeup is quite good, as are the special effects.

My main concern was that we would just be in for a rapid-fire zombie shoot, lotsa guns ablazin’, lotsa zombies jiggin’, rock-rock-rock nonstop! and no time for characterization, plot, or people. I was very much afraid our live protagonists were around largely so we could marvel at the creative ways they got ripped apart.

Instead of your archtypical “spam in a cabin” movie, I figured we might well be in for “spam in a mall.” But, no, it’s not that bad. The actors are very good, and there are some surprisingly subtle scenes. We get time to wonder. We get time to think. We get time to fear. This movie does its damndest to live up to the original, I will give it that.

It doesn’t quite make it… but it’s a heroic effort, and it is not a bad movie.

The original *Dawn Of The Dead * is a classic film that satirizes consumerism and society and operates on a variety of levels including that of horror monster movie, and even black comedy, in some parts.

The remake of *Dawn Of The Dead * is a pretty good horror monster movie, and makes a stab, here and there, at being something more.

I get the impression maybe it could have been more, too. The original ran more than two hours. This version runs ninety-six minutes. In fact, I found myself wondering if the director’s cut was longer, but the studios said, “No, cut it down to an hour and a half; we wanna maximize the number of showings we get out of it.” If it had had a little more time to work with – preferably time in which to get to know our characters – it could have been REALLY good. The actors are up to it, and I think the writers and director were, too. They certainly did a lot with what they had.

…but it happens a bit quick. The original gave the impression that months came and went while our four heroes are holed up in that mall. This version feels like maybe a couple, three weeks, at most. It feels rushed. And I agree that we don’t get enough time to get to know some of our characters. I really find myself wondering if there’s a directors-cut DVD in the works, because some of these characters really feel like they got the short end of the stick… like the actors really got to develop them in other scenes which, for some reason, are not in the theatrical cut of the film… and that’s a shame.

But I liked it, and I’m a Romero zombie fan from way back. It’s not bad, and it’s a halfway worthy addition to the pantheon. It’s way better than nearly all of the Italian zombie movies. It’s well worth your time, if you’re lookin’ for a good horror monster movie, or you’re a zombie fan. It is more’n a little gory, though, so think twice before bringing a date.

There were a few things that bugged me, and I’m gonna box 'em. Read at your own risk.

[spoiler]*Zombies eat NOTHING except fresh human meat. In the other versions, they’d eat mice, bugs, and anything else they could catch. In this version, they ignore EVERYTHING except living humans. WTF is up with that?

*The only way to become a zombie is to be bitten by one. A gunshot to the chest of a living human will put him down, permanently. A minor bite from a zombie will poison a living human. He will eventually die, and within seconds of death, reactivate as a ravening monster. Which begs the question of where the first one came from, and what about isolated communities? Man, this is a WHOLE can of worms, here… sequels, maybe?

*A hallmark of the Romero zombie films involved the broadcasts. Our isolated groups of survivors are hungry for news, news which grows steadily more disjointed, confusing and surreal before finally ceasing totally. This heightens the sense of horror… of APOCALYPSE. This movie, at first, appears to be doing just that… and then, without warning, all broadcasts from everywhere totally cease, within 48 hours of the beginning of the situation. WTF? This, I think, was a badly wasted opportunity for the filmmakers…sigh

*I really don’t like the fact that within fifteen seconds of your heartbeat ceasing, you go feral. Man, you don’t even have time to get totally brain dead before you become a zombie…

*Most of the time, zombies wander around aimlessly, exactly as in the Romero films. Only when they spot a living human do they go into Velociraptor mode. They can run quite fast, and apparently do not get tired, as we see them give chase for miles, literally.[/spoiler]

Oh, yeah: It’s true that the movie ain’t completely over until the credits are finished. DO NOT make the mistake of leaving the theatre too soon… [insert grinning undead motie here]
:smiley:

Just saw the New Version.

I . . . guess it was ok, in the sense I really like Zombie movies and it was certainly a zombie movie. But thats about it. I had more feelings of laughter then feelings of terror or suspense.

It was hard to ever look on the zombies as individual, horrifying creatures. Instead, they seemed like large packs of carniverous goldfish, moving in motion. You can’t really ever focus in on any one for long enough to wonder what that person was like in life, which was a bit of a downer to me. It wasn’t about the slow moving vs fast moving debate to me. I LIKED the fast movers in 28 days later. Especially towards the end - you had time to look on them, be horrified by them, and those two zombies in the mansion were far more effective and scary then the thousands of walking corpses thrown about in dotd2004.

I felt like the new version was more about crankin’ the rock music up to 11 and watching zombie brains splatter.

*Was that whole baby/ family scene * REALLY * necessary? It evoked more laughter from the audience then anything else.

*Same with the ole’ crone they brought in on the wheelbarrow. ~THAT~ was a hoot.

Sometimes I wonder if, a week from now, they will be advertising this more as a comedy then a zombie flick…

I also just saw the new movie and am torn on how to react. I guess the best way to explain my feelings is to compare the film to one of those gift-wrapped packages placed under a department store Christmas tree to lend verisimilitude–the wrapping and ribbon are beautiful but inside it’s just an empty box. The movie looked great, had excellent performances (and Jake Weber is now my new Hollywood–DAMN, but that man is fine!), but ultimately it lacked the substance of the original.

Moreover, what really struck me was the utter perversion of Romero’s message from the first movie. In the 1979 “Dawn,” there’s a scene where Yankee rednecks are shown huntin’ them some zombies and having a high ol’ time, making the point that relishing slaughter is contemptible. Romero’s point in that film was that we must treat each other with respect and compassion or face destruction. In the new movie, the characters have fun shooting zombies who resemble celebrities and lack any empathy for their late friends and neighbors milling around outside the mall. It also lacked the 1979 film’s theme of anti-commercialism and the idea that there’s no point in existing in empty excess instead of living with purpose.

So, yeah, the 2004 film rocked, er, sorry, “rawked,” but its lack of thematic substance renders it inferior to its predecessor.