Dawn of the Dead (1978) - OUT OF PRINT

[Jim Purcell]

Originally Posted by KillaCam

I really enjoy Dawn of the Dead. It's a great film and I usually watch it a couple of times a year. Day of the Dead is more enjoyable to me overall but Dawn is still up there.

I would love for arrow to release Night of the Living Dead on BD. It's in the public domain correct? I wonder why none of the specialty labels have decided to release it. I know there is a good Japanese release but I've yet to order it.

I think that while it's true the original film is public domain, various desirable cuts of it aren't? And getting enough material together from the relevant parties for a collector's edition might prove tricky? Possibly getting original film elements from relevant parties might also be difficult for putting together a new HD scan?

And then there's the risk of putting out a comercial release of something consumers can get for free.

[El_Fez]

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.

The problem I had with NotLD90 is two things: The constant synth soundtrack. The original occasionally backed off from playing the soundrack and just let the silence work wonders. That and the synth didnt date very well at all - it's like listening to 80's Doctor Who.

The other thing? EVERYONE IS ALWAYS SHOUTING AT ALL TIMES!!! Okay, sorry about that - but yeah, everyone has two volumes: not talking and turned up to 11. Okay, Ben and Cooper should be ready to throw down at a moments notice, but the others should have been more calm.

I liked the ending. I don't know if I like it better than the nihilist ending of Ben getting killed, but I do like Barbra being a badass dispensing justice on Cooper like that.

[Gargus]

Originally Posted by El_Fez

The problem I had with NotLD90 is two things: The constant synth soundtrack. The original occasionally backed off from playing the soundrack and just let the silence work wonders. That and the synth didnt date very well at all - it's like listening to 80's Doctor Who.

The other thing? EVERYONE IS ALWAYS SHOUTING AT ALL TIMES!!! Okay, sorry about that - but yeah, everyone has two volumes: not talking and turned up to 11. Okay, Ben and Cooper should be ready to throw down at a moments notice, but the others should have been more calm.

I liked the ending. I don't know if I like it better than the nihilist ending of Ben getting killed, but I do like Barbra being a badass dispensing justice on Cooper like that.

What's the other ending? Only one I've seen is Ben getting shot at the end being mistaken for a zombie.

I liked it. The brave hero who made it through dies simply due to a mistake and everything keeps going on in the world. Made it seem more realistic since people die all the time despite their actions and everything just keeps going and nothing changes. That made me want to see more about that world, seeing someone else's story, or imagine what else was going on. It just made me think of it as more than just what happened there and it being over.

[prkchopexpress]

Originally Posted by rocknblues81

I think sometimes the horror remakes make the older movies look dated. Such as The Blob. Now, I like the Steve McQueen film, but the remake is just way more entertaining and it makes the original look dated. I don't feel that the NOTLD remake does the same to the original. It just makes me want to go back and watch the original.

a movie is always a product of its time. that doesnt mean we should remake every movie when there are new technological advances.

and yes. gaylen ross was in ONE OTHER MOVIE BESIDES DAWN OR CREEPSHOW. foree did have OTHER ACTING ROLES IN HIS CAREER SINCE dawn.

let me say it again for the cheap seats...

I WISH WE HAD SEEN A TON MORE OF FOREE AND ROSS IN OTHER OFFERINGS. WHERE THEY PLAY THE LEAD AND ARE NOT JUST SUPPORTING CHARACTERS OR CAMEOS. MY DREAM ROLE FOR KEN FOREE IS NOT AS THE FATHER IN A NICKELODEON TV SHOW.

from beyond, he gets a lot of time. he is even in death spa. but he is not headlining the movie. and i feel like he would be great headlining a movie.

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by GasmaskAvenger

Meh. Why can't we have both? I'm all for both plenty of suspense and tension as well as buckets of gore.

We're all different. Excess gore bores me. I'd rather a little used effectively.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by prkchopexpress

night of living dead is a perfect movie.

dated? why, because they're not on cell phones? when did this pretentious nonsense start? did people on the 60s and 70s complain that frankenstein and dracula and creature from the black lagoon were dated because they didn't have tvs in them?

You realize none of this what we were saying. You're arguing against points no one made. The issues with it for me are acting, direction, editing, etc. Has nothing to do with it being set in the 60's, which is often a plus for me actually. I'm saying the movie was a huge cultural influence but as a film it falls a little short for me, because I don't think it's performed, written or shot that well. It's fine, it's important, I own it on BD (twice!), but it's flawed and not a favorite. The remake is better because it's a better movie.

[prkchopexpress]

your avatar makes this post seem less insulting that i would expect it to be otherwise. i do just like shouting sometimes though.

i feel like anyone and everyone should always look at my posts as comical rants from a wise apple. im not shouting at anyone in particular, just the idea. like abe simpson shouting at a cloud.

i think as a student and devotee of the genre, night is almost the landmark of the genre. i think its just from a technical aspect so perfect, that it boggles the mind that someone could not appreciate its brilliance. kinda like psycho. or the birds. or jaws. its so good that it transcends the genre and the medium.

as for the acting... the first time i watched it, i felt so involved in the story, i didnt even stop to notice the acting. it feels real. it doesnt seem like it is acting. and the fact that none of them are stars adds to it. the music is stock music, but its a low budget movie and they didnt have money to hire a composer. i think all the choices made by romero in the movie are the right and perfect choices.

i also completely do not understand this idea that is more prevalent is that people will always say something newer is better than older for no real reason that it is newer. why is there such an attitude that something made from a long time ago is just unworthy of checking out, for the younger generation. that makes my head explode. its like there is no reverence for the classics and what came before.

the remake is completely awful and wouldnt even be mentioned if it wasnt trying to piggyback on the name. i dont even know why it exists. and its so poorly made. its not even at the level of a syfy original movie. a subversive story that was metaphor for the times, rich with deeper meaning is now reduced to being a bland, substanceless void. and to see someone saying that the remake is better. HOW DOES SOMEONE POSSIBLY COME TO THAT CONCLUSION? i would rather watch the awful cinematic abortion of the 30th anniversary edition where they add a priest at the beginning and throw in debbie rochon. AND THAT MOVIE IS A CRIME AGAINST CINEMA.

but if you come to that opinion, you are exactly the person being talked about in the statement "you wouldn't know your butt from a whole in the ground." i dont care how pretentious i come off saying that.

these are pinnacles of the genre that we won't get anymore and that everyone filmmaker should aspire to. i mean these are some of the definitive horror movies of their era and they stand up because they are so well made.

when i think that some of my favorite horror movies are ones that i did not love on the first viewing. mainly, texas chainsaw massacre, dawn of the dead and inferno, and recently, possession and crash. looking back, i cant believe i could have been so wrong about some of these movies.

[Michael24]

Originally Posted by prkchopexpress

and its so poorly made. its not even at the level of a syfy original movie.

Pffft!

Originally Posted by prkchopexpress

and to see someone saying that the remake is better. HOW DOES SOMEONE POSSIBLY COME TO THAT CONCLUSION?

By simply watching it.

I can appreciate the original's place in genre history and all that but that's about it.

[GeoffOliver]

Is there any word on a new Blu-ray for Dawn of the Dead? I don't own it, and I'm holding out on a new edition before buying it.

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

You realize none of this what we were saying. You're arguing against points no one made. The issues with it for me are acting, direction, editing, etc. Has nothing to do with it being set in the 60's, which is often a plus for me actually. I'm saying the movie was a huge cultural influence but as a film it falls a little short for me, because I don't think it's performed, written or shot that well. It's fine, it's important, I own it on BD (twice!), but it's flawed and not a favorite. The remake is better because it's a better movie.

I enjoy both films, but I far prefer the original 1968 film because it's so raw and gritty. It was a microbudget film shot with local actors and cheap newsreel film stock. There's a special indie "homemade" quality that felt so real and adds to the experience for me, as opposed to the more clean and polished 1990 film, especially since the original film still managed to be so creepy and suspenseful with all it's limitations. Also I prefer the ending where everybody dies, although Barbra was still a badass in the 1990 film. They're both great, but the original left a much bigger impact on me, and I think it's a far better, more memorable film.

[Todd Tomorrow]

I've only seen the NOTLD remake once and never felt like watching it again. It's a bland and completely redundant remake. I watched all three of Romero's original Dead trilogy many times. Each is its own film and they are very different from each other, but they all have this desolate atmosphere and a tone which is uniquely Romero's and this is the essential thing which the remake lacks.

The grainy B&W cinematography is one of the originals greatest assets, it gives it this documentary "this is really happening" quality which amplified the horror of it. It's a film where the shortcomings due to it being a very low budget film, actually work in its favour, they give the film a sense of authenticity which the remake lacks. Whether it was on purpose or not, the original is also politically interesting for featuring a black lead without ever referencing his race but which also adds poignancy to the end. The remake tries for relevance by making Barbara a badass, but by 1990, after Ripley, that was hardly groundbreaking. Setting Barbara up as the lead in the original and then having her spend much of the film in a catatonic state due to her being in shock was surprising and yet believable.

[Giant Machine]

I hope DoTD eventually gets the Ultimate Edition treatment on Blu-Ray, much like the DVD format in 2004. That was a masterful box set.

Has anyone seen the Mall Hours fan edit? It's pretty sweet.

fan edit

?

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

I've only seen the NOTLD remake once and never felt like watching it again. It's a bland and completely redundant remake. I watched all three of Romero's original Dead trilogy many times. Each is its own film and they are very different from each other, but they all have this desolate atmosphere and a tone which is uniquely Romero's and this is the essential thing which the remake lacks.

Romero's films are *about* something... racism, class struggle, independence from government control. The remake of Dawn of the Dead was just a zombie movie set in a shopping mall. I saw Night of the Living Dead first when I was too young to discern any of the subtext, but Dawn of the Dead hit me right between the eyes. I realized I was watching a zombie movie that had more to do with Karl Marx than it did monsters.

[Geoff D]

But you know what? I don't need to have every one of my zombie movies say something profoundly important. And I'm not just being glib, as I do understand that people are stating that in the context of why the remake of a Romero zombie film is a piece of dog shit next to the insightful brilliance of the original, but in the annals of all the mindless garbage that apparently populates the horror genre I still think the NOTLD remake is a cut above the rest and I genuinely enjoyed it more than Romero's original, for whatever silly reasons I may have.

[balthazar_bee]

Night of the Living Dead '68 straight up OWNS Night of the Living Dead '90.

That is all.

[Show spoiler]Maybe I'd add one thing to the capable folks who've leaped to the defense of '68.

Yes, social commentary is awesome, and when Romero's doing it right, it's hilariously on-the-mark and yet doesn't hurt the on-screen drama one iota. (The story about Romero and co. driving the film to one of its first screenings and hearing about the assassination of MLK on the radio is horrifying in its art/life symmetry.)

And yes, it's an "important" film -- kick-starting one of the most formidable subgenres in film history.

But it's wrong to suggest that the film's merits start and stop there. It was made on a microscopic budget, true, but that doesn't mean it's a poorly made film. Not at all. Sometimes the "social commentary" reason and the "important" reason get trotted out right before commencing to slag it as some kind of "culturally necessary" schlock.

It's a great film.

I think the performances are quite strong (even Barbara, whose catatonia is held up as an proof of everything from retrograde gender politics to just plain terrible acting), and serve as a nice counterpoint to the shrill performances in the remake. The sense of dread is more palpable, the black and white photography is evocative and even quite lovely at times (thanks for the blu-ray, Japan!) and the writing, well, it gets the job done. I'm especially fond of the way the original uses radio and TV broadcasts. The sense of "the world is ending", while not quite as effectively rendered as in Dawn of the Dead, is unsettling.

I like the remake fine. But better?

[Giant Machine]

For the record, the Dawn of the Dead remake is straight up garbage, in my book.

[WhySoBlu?]

I thought I was just about the only one who liked the Savini remake more than the original. Here's what I posted back in April:

Originally Posted by WhySoBlu?

I do, too. It helped that I saw this one first, in the theater back in the day. When I got around to watching the original, I kept waiting for

[Show spoiler]Barbara to stop being a basket case and start taking charge, and then she died and I was like "well I guess that's not happening in this version."

I've also always liked Tony Todd's Ben better.

[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by Giant Machine

For the record, the Dawn of the Dead remake is straight up garbage, in my book.

I find it far more watchable than the NOTLD remake and the first third is pretty good. The main problem I have with that film is that it's overloaded with characters and therefore has little time to develop them or their stories. Why cast a great actress like Sarah Polley in the lead and then forget about her for much of the film.

[rocknblues81]

The Dawn of the Dead remake is a fun action/horror movie. I really love the opening to it. It's not as good as the original Dawn or Night, but it's better than the rest of the series and the made for TV version of Night of the Living Dead.

[GasmaskAvenger]

Originally Posted by Giant Machine

For the record, the Dawn of the Dead remake is straight up garbage, in my book.

For my money, I do like the opening credits montage set to Johnny Cash's "The Man Comes Around" a lot. Probably one of the few shining moments of greatness in an otherwise mediocre remake.

[cakefactory]

Originally Posted by rocknblues81

The Dawn of the Dead remake is a fun action/horror movie. I really love the opening to it. It's not as good as the original Dawn or Night, but it's better than the rest of the series and the made for TV version of Night of the Living Dead.

It might have some rather eyerollingly EXTREME bits in it, particularly the unbelievably terrible post-ending ending, but I was a bit impressed by how far it was willing to go at times with other aspects. Particularly the

[Show spoiler]baby.

I saw it in the theater and was very surprised by how potent it was. It's nowhere near as good as the original, but it's not even trying to play in the same ballpark, which I appreciate. It's not one of those garbagey remakes that copies the original almost exactly while adding extra gore and jump scares. There are too many characters and most of them suck, but some scenes are quite good and the general tone works well. I like the opening and the celebrity sniping scenes in particular. Sarah Polley is wasted, but still a good person to more-or-less base the movie around. And yes, it most definitely doesn't feel like a TV movie.

It's still Zach Snyder's best movie!!