Dawn of the Dead (1978) - OUT OF PRINT

[tob]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Eh, I watched it again a few months ago and it's starting to get REALLY creaky IMO. I enjoyed the Savini remake far more.

I like the remake more and for Tony Todd's performance.

[MechaGodzilla]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Eh, I watched it again a few months ago and it's starting to get REALLY creaky IMO. I enjoyed the Savini remake far more.

Originally Posted by Michael24

Same. I finally saw the original maybe 5-6 years ago and . . . didn't care for it. Creepy atmosphere but that was about it. Like Geoff, I find the '90s remake by Tom Savini to be much, much better. It's actually one of my favorite zombie movies.

Originally Posted by tob

I like the remake more and for Tony Todd's performance.

I'm having a "George C. Scott in the theater scene from Hardcore" reaction over here.

Dawn and Day are plenty fun, but the original just has such an effective, creepy atmosphere. Low-budget and rough around the edges, sure, but I'd say that applies just as much to its sequels. And in the original more so than the sequels I find it really works to its advantage.

But different strokes for different folks and all that. We all get off on zombies, I just prefer them in black and white.

[Michael24]

Originally Posted by tob

I like the remake more and for Tony Todd's performance.

Him and the fact that Barbara is much more likable in the remake. I hated her in the original, and kept wishing they'd just wrap her in bacon and throw her to the zombies. But Barbara in the remake is a much more rounded character, frightened and panicky at first but then overcoming her fears to stand up and do what needs to be done in order to survive. And Patricia Tallman, for being mostly a stuntwoman who hadn't done a whole lot of acting yet, gave a really good performance.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by MechaGodzilla

I'm having a "George C. Scott in the theater scene from Hardcore" reaction over here.

Dawn and Day are plenty fun, but the original just has such an effective, creepy atmosphere. Low-budget and rough around the edges, sure, but I'd say that applies just as much to its sequels. And in the original more so than the sequels I find it really works to its advantage.

But different strokes for different folks and all that. We all get off on zombies, I just prefer them in black and white.

No worries MG, I mean I've always held the movie very dear to me (I've owned the red-case Elite DVD for years, and one of my first ever DVDs was the previous Elite edition) but that recent viewing was the first time I'd seen it in ages and...yikes. The atmosphere is still good and creepy but the acting is just terrible from some of them, it really took me out of the movie. And (I've just been ninja'd on this point by Michael) I just really love how kick-ass Barbara is in the remake, Patty Tallman FTW!

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by MechaGodzilla

How come you guys continuously forget to mention Night of the Living Dead, the Original and Best?

I agree. Night of the Living Dead was so utterly new and different in 1968 it shocked the world and shook up the industry. Nothing remotely like it had ever been screened before. It rawness and documentary realism help to put it across. The non-actors keep it real and believable. Creatively it ushered in a new area -- well, perhaps ushered is not the word. The changes came slowly. I did not see it until late in 1970. It played on Long Island for several years. No sooner did it leave one theater than it started at another. It just kept playing, either on its own, or as a co-feature, or as a midnite movie, and it always filled the house. As a co-feature it sold more tickets than the main feature. Even after it played on television, it was still doing well in NYC area theaters. I saw it many times.

I remember reading in the paper that it was Stanley Kubrick's favorite movie. Haven't seen that mentioned since. Brilliant and powerful though Night of the Living Dead was when it was new, and still is, Dawn of the Dead is a more complex and richer work. But I love them both. I'm not a gore hound, as a rule, but Romero's Living Dead are the only gore films I can watch. The rest I pass on.

[The Great Owl]

For me, the original 1968 Night of the Living Dead is still the best George A. Romero film.

The scene with

[Show spoiler]the little girl killing her mother

is one of the most insanely disturbing horror moments in cinema. Dawn of the Dead shocked me on a visceral level, as I mentioned earlier, but that scene in Night of the Living Dead is just off the chain.

[Jim Purcell]

Do you think Shout Factory will ever put out a Dawn of the Dead collector's edition to go with their Day release? Or is there a rights ownership issue? It's strange to me that Day got one, and Dawn is out of print from Anchor Bay

[starman15317]

Both NOTLD and Dawn are masterpieces and I always go back and forth on which one is better. Both were filmed here in the Pittsburgh area and it's always fun to walk around the Monroeville Mall.

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

For me, the original 1968 Night of the Living Dead is still the best George A. Romero film.

The scene with SPOILER is one of the most insanely disturbing horror moments in cinema. Dawn of the Dead shocked me on a visceral level, as I mentioned earlier, but that scene in Night of the Living Dead is just off the chain.

That's the scene most of us remember as the most disturbing in a film loaded with more than its fair share of disturbing ideas and images. It hasn't been topped since, not even by Romero himself.

[bigdaddyhorse]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

That's the scene most of us remember as the most disturbing in a film loaded with more than its fair share of disturbing ideas and images. It hasn't been topped since, not even by Romero himself.

That scene made no fricking sense.

[Show spoiler]Every other zombie (ghoul) did nothing but bite and rip with teeth and nails. This one picks up a fricking tool?

I'm torn on the original vs remake. I have nice memories of the original from my youth, but just feel everything was amped up perfectly for Savini's. Think I lean towards the remake, it is a more fun watch. I do have mad respect for the daddy of all of them though.

[Thomas Veil]

I know it's wrong but I prefer both the Night and Dawn remakes to Romero's originals...by quite a bit actually. Power to him for being the father of it all...did what he did with small budgets so not a knock but I enjoy the remakes more. Actually like Land a lot...has a nice feel. Day has held up better over time I think than the others.

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by bigdaddyhorse

That scene made no fricking sense.

[Show spoiler]Every other zombie (ghoul) did nothing but bite and rip with teeth and nails. This one picks up a fricking tool?

I'm torn on the original vs remake. I have nice memories of the original from my youth, but just feel everything was amped up perfectly for Savini's. Think I lean towards the remake, it is a more fun watch. I do have mad respect for the daddy of all of them though.

I follow your reasoning. You have a continuity point. But the scene makes sense. If you look carefully

[Show spoiler]at the dead shuffling into the house some of them pick up things to use as weapons but are too uncoordinated to hold onto them

.

Savini's remake is wonderful, isn't it. I understand the Australian blu-ray has the correct color timing at a decent price and I'm picking that up on my next go-round. Wish now I had bought the soundtrack CD when it was still in print.

[startrekkin58]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

I follow your reasoning. You have a continuity point. But the scene makes sense. If you look carefully

[Show spoiler]at the dead shuffling into the house some of them pick up things to use as weapons but are too uncoordinated to hold onto them

.

Romero basically continued that trend (for better or for worse) in LotD.

[zbinks]

Originally Posted by bigdaddyhorse

That scene made no fricking sense.

[Show spoiler]Every other zombie (ghoul) did nothing but bite and rip with teeth and nails. This one picks up a fricking tool?

Within the first ten minutes of the film,

[Show spoiler]the first zombie in the film, Bill Heinzman, went and picked up a stone to break the window of the car when he wasn't having any luck with his bare hands.

[cakefactory]

Originally Posted by MechaGodzilla

I'm having a "George C. Scott in the theater scene from Hardcore" reaction over here.

Dawn and Day are plenty fun, but the original just has such an effective, creepy atmosphere. Low-budget and rough around the edges, sure, but I'd say that applies just as much to its sequels. And in the original more so than the sequels I find it really works to its advantage.

But different strokes for different folks and all that. We all get off on zombies, I just prefer them in black and white.

Agreed completely. The remake is definitely not BAD, but it feels incredibly inconsequential. I've watched it three times now (I just got the Australian blu-ray) and have liked it slightly more each time, but I'd still give it something like a 6/10 compared to a 9/10 for the original.

I like that it did something else with Barbara, but I don't consider it to be necessarily an improvement. Barbara in the original really added to the mood of the picture, considering she starts out looking like she's going to be the heroine, and instead gets completely messed up by what she's seen and remains catatonic for almost the rest of the film. It gives it real stakes, and I don't think it was at all common to pull the rug out from underneath the viewer in that way, or focus on a character that was just completely broken by trauma. It adds to the realism.

Tony Todd gave an all-time horror performance in Candyman, but I don't see anything special about him here. Ben in the original is one of the most iconic characters in horror history, and similar to Barbara, I love how the situation gets so messed up that even our hero is

[Show spoiler]reduced to hiding in the basement like he said he wouldn't. And that ending is a shocker!

"Trowel Girl" also packs FAR more of a wallop than ANYTHING in the remake. That's another all-time great horror scene. The remake actually feels censored a lot of the time, even if you see the deleted scenes. I know in the interviews Savini talks about intentionally making it a lot less gory than other zombie flicks he was known for, but it makes it feel almost like a TV movie to me in conjunction with that DTV-style synth-string-flailing score.

Many other aspects of the remake are just so close to the original as to feel pointless. The ending is the other area in which they at least did something else. I think it's a good ending. I think the original ending is an all-timer, though, so again I don't consider it to be necessarily an improvement like many people seem to.

I think the score alone makes the remake feel way more dated than the original, despite being in color.

EDIT: On topic, those more anal among us should get conniptions over the condition my Dawn of the Dead arrived from Amazon UK:




I'm STILL finding shards of blue plastic from when I opened that package a couple weeks ago

[buck135]

Originally Posted by Jim Purcell

Do you think Shout Factory will ever put out a Dawn of the Dead collector's edition to go with their Day release? Or is there a rights ownership issue? It's strange to me that Day got one, and Dawn is out of print from Anchor Bay

My understanding is Shout! tried when they obtained the rights to Day but the cost New Amsterdam Entertainment wanted to license Dawn was astronomical.

[buck135]

Originally Posted by bigdaddyhorse

That scene made no fricking sense.

[Show spoiler]Every other zombie (ghoul) did nothing but bite and rip with teeth and nails. This one picks up a fricking tool?

I'm torn on the original vs remake. I have nice memories of the original from my youth, but just feel everything was amped up perfectly for Savini's. Think I lean towards the remake, it is a more fun watch. I do have mad respect for the daddy of all of them though.

Hey BDH. Miss you on Horrordigital. Romero actually commented that Hinzman also runs at the beginning (for the most part). They were making it up as they went along. The rules hadn't been established yet. Most of the beginning was shot and then Image Ten had to stop production to secure more funds.

Later in the film the zombies use rocks to knock out the headlights on the truck. Romero has stated that his zombies can utilize tools because it is a primitive instinct.

[DenOfEarth]

Maybe Criteron or Arrow or Scream must do a new blu-ray with all cuts even the new 4K scanned version

[Jim Purcell]

Originally Posted by buck135

My understanding is Shout! tried when they obtained the rights to Day but the cost New Amsterdam Entertainment wanted to license Dawn was astronomical.

I figured it had to be something like that. Unfortunate.

[rocknblues81]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Eh, I watched it again a few months ago and it's starting to get REALLY creaky IMO. I enjoyed the Savini remake far more.

Not me.

It almost feels like a made for TV remake. It really doesn't have any atmosphere, and the isolatiolation factor is not as big. In fact, Savini sort of kills any drama when Barbara points out that they could get away so easily.