Turning gold to dust: Dawn of the Dead (new) review

PurpleRain

New member
Dec 2, 2007
5,001
0
0
It?s a nice sunny suburban day in the life of the local nurse Ana. She just got off her latest shift work is already to go off home and relax. There she meets with an unspecified male who she indulges with (breaking the first law of horror movies: getting naked means a one way trip to stabbyville). The next morning waking up bright eyed and bushy next to her lover she is welcomed with a gruesome surprise. The little girl next door has no face! Dun dun dun! In a psychotic fit the girl tears out the throat of Ana?s lover and proceeds to attack Ana with no avail. Locking the door and getting on the horn Ana is once again shocked to see her dying boyfriend/husband/acquaintance fit and strong and wandering around the bedroom. Obviously not looking for another cuddle he violently lashes out at her. Ana escapes into the bathroom and breaks a hole through the window to escape. When she gets to the street all hell breaks loose. Cars are running people over, your average Joe-Blow has taken a disliking to his fellow man and people are getting eaten. Not the regular signs for another normal sunny day but rather a one for a zombie holocaust!

Dawn of the Dead was an original piece by director George Romero which, with the help of a zombie break out, shows the problems with American consumerism among other social problems. Luckily for the remake, the Hollywood producers have gotten rid of all that and have thankfully dummed it down for the next generation of stupids. Oh, that?s sarcasm. That?s so awesome. It does however give a breath of fresh air into the franchise with experimenting on the zombie?s behalf. The ?old? iconic shuffling, moaning beasts of the damned have been redone and are now slobbering, yelling, running men with scissors. Don?t get me wrong, I did enjoy the change of pace, but there?s something nagging at me about these new ones. I loved in the old George Romero films seeing the zombies slowly shuffle and surround the helpless victim. It gave a sense of impending, and quite painful, doom. I respected a zombie that had to shuffle so far and work so hard to get its tasty reward. These new ones feel like they?re cheating a bit. They don?t give off the sense of claustrophobia, just a sense of, ?holy sh_? *death*.

Hollywood has taken to this movie hard, like a hooker that offers out free rides. They have thrown the usual misfit group of trailblazers into the cogs of this money machine. Firstly we have the protagonist, undoubtedly a woman. I have nothing wrong with women playing the protagonists, honestly, I?m only sexist on a Tuesday, but because it?s Hollywood, they ?need? to do it to show off their diversity and she ends up feeling so out of place being forced into the spotlight. She delivers such wooden lines that would make Keenu Reeves blush. Of course she gets backup at the start when she crashes her car. Que the stereotypical black ?Bad Arse Mo Fo? that every Hollywood movie needs after Sam Jackson graced the screens in Pulp Fiction. He?s the gun totting bad mouth cop, that?s friendly at heart but tough on the outside. The two don an amazing adventure together and travel down a mysterious road that meets up with Jake Weber, Ana?s main love interest and Mekhi Phifer, probably the best thing about this movie. Phifer plays a street ?gangstar? with a pregnant wife who delvers a zombie baby, replaying his surgeon role from ER. The five then go off to the shopping mall and meet up with the rest of the gang in a series of events. The rat pack then includes: a bunch of other soon to be dead people I couldn?t care less about and don?t really deserve making this page any longer. One of them who proclaim in his best Redshirt accent to the protagonist, ?you have my permission, if I ever turn into one of those things, do me a favor, blow my fucking head off.? Guess how he dies.

Two main quarrels to get off my chest before I go on: For a zombie film there was a surprising lack of gore. Zombie films are known for their over-the-top gut ripping and brain eating action. Strangely, there is none of that here. The most you?ll see is a splash of blood here and a bit of red paint there. Very displeasing, says the gore fanatic. Secondly, there is a part where they lower a dog into the crowed of zombies. Odd, yes, but once more the producers have found another way to get on my tits. THE ZOMBIES DIDN?T EAT THE DOG (?scuse the caps lock)! Zombies eat anything that moves and is made out of meat yet they seem to shrug it off like t had a bad odor. Another reason I have added to my list of why Hollywood sucks.

Running long on words I do have to mention a few good things they decided to do with this film. The soundtrack contained a bit of Richard Cheese, kicking his career out of the gutters, that made for quite a funny interlude between gore (or lack-there-of) and the Bad-Mo-Fo cop forms a relationship with the gun store owner next door while playing a friendly game of ?shoot the zombie?. I mention this because it?s the only real relationship in the movie.

Now as the movie reaches the end is where these peoples stupidity hits the fan and I walk out not giving a damn anymore if the rat pack lives or dies. All I can say is, they deserved a whole lot worse then what they got. Out of nowhere? out of the deep blue? out of all the greatest things they could think of in the history of man? they get up and say ?hey, I?m bored. Let?s go for a bit of a stroll.? Yes that?s right; they up and leave. From the safe and secure fort they built, full of food and enough goodies to stop them going insane and GTFO. They even had tits so there was absolutely no point in doing that! They win the Darwin award hands down. No, you know what, give ?em two. And shine them up nicely so they can see their own reflection in the trophies as they get ultimately ripped into shreds. They build two buses into tanks, grab a whole bunch of guns from a cross the street, which leads to more of them dying, and piss off to their dooms. Good. The less we see of you the better. The only reason I could understand for this eradicate and completely unnecessary changes of events was because the producers didn?t know how to end it since they were all already safe. So they decided it was time for them to go on a road trip and end their pathetic lives. Yes I want to spoil the ending for you by saying that they all die because it gives a reason not to watch this crap.

If you?re a huge fan of Hollywood and love a good remake as much as the next, then the new Dawn of the Dead is for you. If George Romero holds a place in your heart no matter how much he lost the plot towards Day and Land, if you love zombies and if good story telling and character development is for you, I suggest you pick up your designated items for lynching now and we pay a harmless visit to Zack Snyder?s house.
 

Talisker

New member
Jan 31, 2008
117
0
0
very well said. To me it felt less like a remake and more like a blatant rip off.
 

PurpleRain

New member
Dec 2, 2007
5,001
0
0
Remakes are so pointless. All that's happening is Hollywood wants another quick buck so thy get something old, flash it up a bit and resell it. sadly, it works. The rich stay rich and Hollywood stays stupid.
 

Colodomoko

New member
Feb 22, 2008
726
0
0
Not all remakes are pointless like this movie, but if they do remake "Escape from butcher bay" I am going to shut the blinds and hope the riots don't begin.
 

Haliwali

New member
Jan 29, 2008
910
0
0
3 things:
First- I wasn't even born around the time of the original, so this remake was my only experience, and I thought it wasn't that bad.
Second- I think the reason they left the mall was they were running out of food, not that they "fancied a stroll."
Third- Didn't this movie come out five years ago?
 

monodiabloloco

New member
May 15, 2007
272
0
0
Haliwali said:
3 things:
First- I wasn't even born around the time of the original, so this remake was my only experience, and I thought it wasn't that bad.
Second- I think the reason they left the mall was they were running out of food, not that they "fancied a stroll."
Third- Didn't this movie come out five years ago?
First- Bummer. Go rent it sometime. Of them, though, Day, Dawn, and Night; Night was the best all around. That old black and white film *still* gives me chills.
Second- I agree, I don't think that they just decided to leave and would further say that the person creating this post comes off as a pompous, ignorant jackass that has watched/read too many Yahtzee reviews and desperately wishes to come across as bitterly entertaining but falls short... but that's just my opinion.
Third- Yeah.. a little delayed on this one, but I guess people get bored and need to rant about something.
PurpleRain,
I preface this by saying that I am a huge fan of the old Romero movies and nearly all Zombie movies as a whole from the original Romero films to awful greats like Redneck Zombies, Zombie Honeymoon, etc.
This remake wasn't bad. Yeah, I said it. It's a good movie. I ENJOYED it. Yeah, it does lose some of the background meaning, the plot has been done, and the characters are pretty basic, but so F-ing what? If you go into a ZOMBIE movie expecting it to be Schindler's List, you have deceived yourself in a horrible way. Especially a REMAKE of a ZOMBIE movie. Stop being an ass and watch movies to enjoy them. If you *have* to saturate your entertainment with pseudo-intellectual bullshit then I am very sad for you.
One side note though; I was pretty disappointed that they didn't have the biker gang led by Savini to prompt their departure. At least he had a cameo..
 

PurpleRain

New member
Dec 2, 2007
5,001
0
0
monodiabloloco said:
PurpleRain,
I preface this by saying that I am a huge fan of the old Romero movies and nearly all Zombie movies as a whole from the original Romero films to awful greats like Redneck Zombies, Zombie Honeymoon, etc.
This remake wasn't bad. Yeah, I said it. It's a good movie. I ENJOYED it. Yeah, it does lose some of the background meaning, the plot has been done, and the characters are pretty basic, but so F-ing what? If you go into a ZOMBIE movie expecting it to be Schindler's List, you have deceived yourself in a horrible way. Especially a REMAKE of a ZOMBIE movie. Stop being an ass and watch movies to enjoy them. If you *have* to saturate your entertainment with pseudo-intellectual bullshit then I am very sad for you.
One side note though; I was pretty disappointed that they didn't have the biker gang led by Savini to prompt their departure. At least he had a cameo..
Haha, I loved the quote about Schindler's List. It's not that I truely hate the film. There were parts that were original and pretty well done. What I'm saying is a hate Hollywood recreating pointless remakes. I sometimes kick back and watch these films just to leave my mind at the door. but as a flag waving zombie fan, there were scenes that left me baffled (like the dog).

Haliwali said:
3 things:
First- I wasn't even born around the time of the original, so this remake was my only experience, and I thought it wasn't that bad.
Second- I think the reason they left the mall was they were running out of food, not that they "fancied a stroll."
Third- Didn't this movie come out five years ago?
1st: Agreeing with everyone else. Hire the movie out. It is really slow but it is a great zombie movie. Night is definatly the best since it still gives a few shocks for when it was around. Day is another that I love. It is the start to Romero's downhill slide by making the zombies smarter (sigh) but it works here. Probably the gorest as well.
2nd: I never remember them actually saying they ran out of food. More along the lines of, 'we're eventually going to run out so why bother staying.' Leaving on a boat is a lot more risky and dangerous so I can't really see the point of it.
3rd: Yeah but it's newer then the other which is like 30ish years old. So right now is still has that sparkle.
 

Haliwali

New member
Jan 29, 2008
910
0
0
PurpleRain said:
Haliwali said:
3 things:
First- I wasn't even born around the time of the original, so this remake was my only experience, and I thought it wasn't that bad.
Second- I think the reason they left the mall was they were running out of food, not that they "fancied a stroll."
Third- Didn't this movie come out five years ago?
1st: Agreeing with everyone else. Hire the movie out. It is really slow but it is a great zombie movie. Night is definatly the best since it still gives a few shocks for when it was around. Day is another that I love. It is the start to Romero's downhill slide by making the zombies smarter (sigh) but it works here. Probably the gorest as well.
2nd: I never remember them actually saying they ran out of food. More along the lines of, 'we're eventually going to run out so why bother staying.' Leaving on a boat is a lot more risky and dangerous so I can't really see the point of it.
3rd: Yeah but it's newer then the other which is like 30ish years old. So right now is still has that sparkle.
On 2: Actually I think they were saying "Everything is running out, we need a new spot. Stockpile what we can onto the buses and go to the lake, because the asshole said something about zombies not being around the lake." Not sure exactly who said the thing about the lake, and if you watched after the credits, well, you kind of got your answer.
 

PurpleRain

New member
Dec 2, 2007
5,001
0
0
Haliwali said:
On 2: Actually I think they were saying "Everything is running out, we need a new spot. Stockpile what we can onto the buses and go to the lake, because the asshole said something about zombies not being around the lake." Not sure exactly who said the thing about the lake, and if you watched after the credits, well, you kind of got your answer.
True. But the things was, it wasn't made note of until that point. If they slowly made mention to it throughout the film of did some quick montage (as terrible as they are) I might of been a bit more nicer to it. As it was it seems to slap you in the afce and say, "Hey, lets have a change of pace... we ran out of food." It felt like a way to hurry up and end the film before the audience starts getting bored. Like a really bad plot twist.
 

zombielifecoach

New member
Feb 21, 2008
167
0
0
I love zombie films. Great, okay, or terrible. I love them all. The battle between the original DwnOTD and the remake in my eyes is unfair. First, it's not technically a remake more over a glossed up, modern, steroid pumped version of George Romero's classic MATERIAL. I know, I know. It has a LOT of the same trappings of the original. Hell, it's even got the same title! But it's not the same movie. In my opinion it really comes down to HOW you like your zombies. Me, I'm a traditionalist. Slow moving, shambling, moaning, attack in hoards. That's how I like'em. But, we live in a world where slow moving zombies aren't enough anymore to terrify us. It's no longer enough that the dead are walking the earth and feeding on living humans, no, NOW zombies have to be able to catch a speeding car on foot and leap tall buildings in a single bound! Apparently fast zombies are way scarier than regular zombies. This trend toward the 'Super-Zombie' in my opinion has hurt the zombie movie worse than Zack Snyder ever could. 28 Days Later, 28 Weeks Later(both not technically Zombie flicks-but what do you expect people to think when even Fangoria is calling the Rage-infected humans in those movies zombies!), Resident Evil 3, Horrors of War-just a few examples of current movies depicting the undead as friggin' Ironman-triathletes. RE3 had them doing Kung-Fu!!! Yes I agree, Mr. Snyder should have kept his hands to himself and let a classic be. Mr. Romero is the king of the genre(I also agree that Land of the Dead was a bit off point, but Diary of the Dead was great-some unusually quick zombies in that come to think. Oh no!) But in the end Zack just gave people what they want-A diluted version of a great story thats easy to digest, replacing ol' school undying zombie menace with action scenes broken up with some levity and weak introspective pauses that gives the illusion of acting(let's people think they're watching something riveting), and of course breasts(see.mall sex scene). Yes, I don't think that we should look to attack Zack so much as we should look to ourselves and demand better from those who make a living from the undead.
 

Daezd

New member
Mar 1, 2008
343
0
0
Lol kung-fu zombies


give em an eye patch and an internal combustion engine and you've got yourself a zombie pirate ninja robot


brb...making the next greatest hit
 

PurpleRain

New member
Dec 2, 2007
5,001
0
0
Ah Zombielifecoach, a man after my own heart. I haven't seen the new RE3 and like hell I will after the dreadful 2nd, and now hearing that it stars kung-fu zombies?! (shudders) As for 28 (time period) later, I have to admit, I did enjoy those movies. The first one had a lot of real horror not so muched based on the zombies but more so on the absolute feeling of fear; fear or dying, fear of the unknown, fear of being alone and fear of conrtacting the disease (most likely based around the ever present Aids).

But it now seems that to capture an audience Hollywood has decided to pump the zombie to the TOTAL AWESOMENESS!! So that the movie explodes out of the screen and into your brain!! Or so the producer would say. Die Hard 4, Transformers, Rambo 4, AvP, while enjoyable as some of these movies are, it seems that Hollywood just can't keep a slower pace anymore. Everything has to have something explode and spend about a million dollars on CGI and explosives.
 

monodiabloloco

New member
May 15, 2007
272
0
0
PurpleRain said:
Ah Zombielifecoach, a man after my own heart. I haven't seen the new RE3 and like hell I will after the dreadful 2nd, and now hearing that it stars kung-fu zombies?! (shudders) As for 28 (time period) later, I have to admit, I did enjoy those movies. The first one had a lot of real horror not so muched based on the zombies but more so on the absolute feeling of fear; fear or dying, fear of the unknown, fear of being alone and fear of conrtacting the disease (most likely based around the ever present Aids).

But it now seems that to capture an audience Hollywood has decided to pump the zombie to the TOTAL AWESOMENESS!! So that the movie explodes out of the screen and into your brain!! Or so the producer would say. Die Hard 4, Transformers, Rambo 4, AvP, while enjoyable as some of these movies are, it seems that Hollywood just can't keep a slower pace anymore. Everything has to have something explode and spend about a million dollars on CGI and explosives.
I have to back you up on all of that. I refuse to see RE3.. and I love movies like 'Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things' and 'Zombie Honeymoon'! I just don't get how hollywood can take an IP and destroy it when there are so many examples from the original work to draw on. Movies based on books, comics, games, etc nearly always destroy the IP with NO reason for it. RE, Doom..(F-ing Doom!), Dungeons and Dragons, most of the comic translations (except Sin City).. and almost any book (with a very few exceptions like the Green Mile and LOTOR). I will blame not just Hollywood, however, but the masses. Most of the IPs we love are unknown to the non-gamer/non-geek masses. So, the movie makers take IPs and try to make them presentable to the masses so that they can absorb them without the rich history. They also don't feel that the masses will enjoy a movie that's not bigger and louder than the previous one, so all the sequels tend to be more explodey, more outrageous, and thus more crap. The X-Men series is a perfect example. The 1st was not bad. They cut to the chase, omitted a ton of history with a brief explanation, did well in introducing the characters to those who would have no idea who they would be, and then proceded to the action pretty quickly. From there, the plots became more convoluted, the movie needed bigger effects, etc... Until we have XMen 3.0--Total Suck Edition. So, next time you see a favorite IP being raped by Hollywood, flip the 'bird' to Hollywood with one hand, and all the masses about you with the other.
 

Gormless

New member
Mar 4, 2008
32
0
0
On the subject of fast zombies being new, its been a while since i saw night of the living dead (george romeros first master piece) but i definitly remember the zombies in that shifting at a pretty high speed. They werent exactly sprinting but the werent slowly staggering forward either.
 

DravenX23

New member
Mar 4, 2008
14
0
0
I wrote up a whole thing on this but with my luck for some reason the site went down when I did it. But oh well.

Fast zombies aren't a 'new' thing. The Return of the Living Dead had them. But yes quicker zombies makes it scarier. Did you see the Tom Savini remake of NOTLD? The slow zombies there were kinda sad. I mean you could seriously just walk by them unless they grouped up.

And the reason in the DOOTD remake that they went to the boat is because Steve had a boat and Anna remembered that their weren't many people on the islands. and technically you never know if everyone dies. The fact they didn't eat the dog in the tunnels was odd. But hey maybe PETA was against the idea of the dog dying by zombies.

But horror movies are supposed to be Escapism. If you go in looking for mistakes you miss the whole point of the flicks. While I love most crappy horror flicks and enjoy them for what they are I do have standards. I think House of the Dead was crap. I did like the DVD sequel though. 28... Later, Dead Series, Living Dead Series, Slither, Night of the Creeps and a couple of the RE movies were fun. Yeah the 2nd RE movie was pretty bad but i actually enjoyed the 3rd.

If you are judging a horror flick on artistic merit you miss the point. I do not remember any true Horror flicks winning OSCARs or Golden Globes. Go watch Shaun of the Dead again. Everyone can enjoy that.
 

danimal1384

New member
Sep 18, 2007
76
0
0
personally, i found the remake to be or supprisingly decent quality. It wasn't overly bad, and for the most part, did the original a measure of justice. Granted, it wasn't necessary to remake Dawn of the Dead at all. And frankly, it was just an early example of Hollywood's lack of originality, and that they would more the rather produce meager sensation-fests than create unique works of art. However, the remake does exactly what it was intended to do; entertain and make money. While everyone complains that Hollywood has sold out and is no longer worthy of the glory once held, they are good at selling out. They know what will sell, and how to appeal to the idiotic masses; who would rather watch 7-10 uber-gory deaths than have their intellects stimulated by a provocative ideology.
How saddening. To know that we the people are the reason that movies are not what they once were, and that remakes are of all the rave these days.
 

m_jim

New member
Jan 14, 2008
497
0
0
I really don't understand all the love for the original DotD. I felt that the anti-capitalist message was rather ham-handedly delivered. If the social commentary is going to be so forced, I'd rather have my movie without it.

DravenX23 said:
Go watch Shaun of the Dead again. Everyone can enjoy that.
I second that. That movie was, start to finish, absolutely priceless.
 

excessum ado

New member
Dec 27, 2007
274
0
0
Some remakes are just generally shit. Low production values, cheap actors and they dont remain true to the material of the previous movie. I thought Dawn of the Dead was brilliant. Probably one of my favourite horror movie. Ive seeen the original yes. But still the newer version much improves on the formula. Then again I am a sucker for a great zombie flick so it may just be me.
 

PurpleRain

New member
Dec 2, 2007
5,001
0
0
DravenX23 said:
Fast zombies aren't a 'new' thing. The Return of the Living Dead had them. But yes quicker zombies makes it scarier. Did you see the Tom Savini remake of NOTLD? The slow zombies there were kinda sad. I mean you could seriously just walk by them unless they grouped up.
I haven't seen Tom Savini's Night and nor do i want to. He's a fantastic makeup artist and nothing more. I remember Return of the Living Dead, a sort of sequel to Night, but I'm saying this is the first time blockbuster Hollywood gets their gruby little multimillion dollar tenticles on in and make it mainstream.

DravenX23 said:
The fact they didn't eat the dog in the tunnels was odd. But hey maybe PETA was against the idea of the dog dying by zombies.
Haha, PETA zombies?!

DravenX23 said:
But horror movies are supposed to be Escapism. If you go in looking for mistakes you miss the whole point of the flicks. While I love most crappy horror flicks and enjoy them for what they are I do have standards. I think House of the Dead was crap. I did like the DVD sequel though. 28... Later, Dead Series, Living Dead Series, Slither, Night of the Creeps and a couple of the RE movies were fun. Yeah the 2nd RE movie was pretty bad but i actually enjoyed the 3rd.
I love good movies, even so-bad-it's-good. I'm a fan of Evil Dead and most good slasher films. But there are movies out there that just boast on how awesome they are and try to wow everyone, but in the end they aren't that great. RE1 had some good fun moments while RE2 didn't. I own and love Slither to the core, I like James Gunn (even though he wrote the screenplay for DotD?!).