Which is the better film: Night of the Living Dead vs Dawn of the Dead

[Mr. Mojo]

Dawn of the Dead (2004).

[Trekkie313]

Originally Posted by Mr. Mojo

Dawn of the Dead (2004).

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by Mr. Mojo

Dawn of the Dead (2004).

[Trekkie313]

Dawn (2004) is not bad, just really bland in most areas aside from snarky dialogue and a dumb CGI baby.

Certainly better than all the unofficial remakes of Night and Day.

[Mr. Mojo]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

Okay?

All of Romero's zombie films are one-note and lacking in genuine tension or general competent filmmaking technique. He's a pretty poor visualist, his writing is often inept to the point of being insulting, and his actors are pretty typically high-school drama level in terms of ability.

[Mr. Mojo]

Originally Posted by Trekkie313

Dawn (2004) is not bad, just really bland in most areas aside from snarky dialogue and a dumb CGI baby.

Certainly better than all the unofficial remakes of Night and Day.

Tom Savini's Night of the Living Dead is many times better than Romero's. Many.

[ThatOneGuy]

[Trekkie313]

Originally Posted by Mr. Mojo

Tom Savini's Night of the Living Dead is many times better than Romero's. Many.

Well that was sanctioned by Romero. Yes, I agree it improves upon the original and make it fit in line with the other two films.

[Popcorn_Bliss]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

I think Halloween has to be on the Mount Rushmore of horror films.

Not sure which of your selections I would take out.

Maybe Night Of, because Psycho covers the 1960s.

Or The Exorcist, because neither the writer or the director view it as a true horror film.

...but Halloween has to be on there imo.

Most indeed think "Halloween" is the Mount Rushmore. Which I can understand. It's not an opinion I share. I'd take any of the four that I listed which came before it. I actually prefer the sequel myself to the original. Still, "Halloween" is well-made and indeed influential. But I kinda consider that a "modern horror" film. The four I posted are just the ones I felt laid the groundwork for all modern films that followed before horror films became more...polished.

And, you're right, "The Exorcist" works precisely because it isn't a horror film. Yet most people consider it as such so I couldn't help but include it. Even Friedkin himself has given up trying to explain why it isn't.

[CZAR]

My Horror Mount Rushmore would probably be:

Friday the 13th Part 2
Halloween (1978)
Phantasm
The Return of the Living Dead

Top 2 slashers along with best zombie film, and best demon type film. Got Em!!

[Pedderrs]

Originally Posted by Mr. Mojo

Okay?

All of Romero's zombie films are one-note and lacking in genuine tension or general competent filmmaking technique. He's a pretty poor visualist, his writing is often inept to the point of being insulting, and his actors are pretty typically high-school drama level in terms of ability.

I don't mind people having a different opinion but you're speaking in general terms here. What exactly is one note about "Romero's zombie flicks"? I find that criticism particularly baffling seeing as the tone shifts from film to film, and in the case of DOTD often from scene to scene. So, yeah, I'm struggling to accept "one note" as a genuine and valid criticism here.

Also, what parts of the writing in DOTD cause you the most concern?

[Pedderrs]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

I think Halloween has to be on the Mount Rushmore of horror films.

Not sure which of your selections I would take out.

Maybe Night Of, because Psycho covers the 1960s.

Or The Exorcist, because neither the writer or the director view it as a true horror film.

...but Halloween has to be on there imo.

Just out of curiosity, why are you so adamant about Halloween's inclusion?

[dallywhitty]

Day is better than Night is better than Dawn.

[Abby is Q]

Night of the Living Dead had more of a historical impact on the horror genre and defined zombies as we know them. It is a transitional movie that connects older atmospheric horror to the bloodier character driven modern horror that followed.

However, Dawn is the more fully fleshed out vision that is the pinnacle of the zombie subgenre. Every major zombie movie, book, comic book, TV show, etc etc has taken cue from this movie if not blatantly ripped it off. It is possibly the greatest horror movie ever.

For me this has always been tough. Night of the Living Dead impacted me more than any other movie ever. It's the reason I love horror. But Dawn of the Dead is a better movie in many ways. I was young when I saw both, but Dawn was the movie that made me realize just how good horror could be. It was wide in scope, lots of fun, but legitimately unsettling too.

I usually go with Night, but they're really just 1a and 1b as far as best horror movie ever for me.

[Pedderrs]

Originally Posted by Abby is Q

Night of the Living Dead had more of a historical impact on the horror genre and defined zombies as we know them. It is a transitional movie that connects older atmospheric horror to the bloodier character driven modern horror that followed.

However, Dawn is the more fully fleshed out vision that is the pinnacle of the zombie subgenre. Every major zombie movie, book, comic book, TV show, etc etc has taken cue from this movie if not blatantly ripped it off. It is possibly the greatest horror movie ever.

For me this has always been tough. Night of the Living Dead impacted me more than any other movie ever. It's the reason I love horror. But Dawn of the Dead is a better movie in many ways. I was young when I saw both, but Dawn was the movie that made me realize just how good horror could be. It was wide in scope, lots of fun, but legitimately unsettling too.

I usually go with Night, but they're really just 1a and 1b as far as best horror movie ever for me.

The sheer scope of DOTD makes it clear to us that the zombie epidemic is an irreversible phenomenon that is widespread across the globe. There is no hope. I'm impressed that Romero had the nerve to find humour in all of this as early as 1978. It doesn't make the film any less unsettling for me though. I used to look outside the window as the credits rolled just to reassure myself that the world wasn't being overrun with zombies. I always felt a little uncomfortable afterwards.

[Mr. Mojo]

Originally Posted by Pedderrs

I don't mind people having a different opinion but you're speaking in general terms here. What exactly is one note about "Romero's zombie flicks"? I find that criticism particularly baffling seeing as the tone shifts from film to film, and in the case of DOTD often from scene to scene. So, yeah, I'm struggling to accept "one note" as a genuine and valid criticism here.

Also, what parts of the writing in DOTD cause you the most concern?

One note means one note. Each film has a singular idea and does nothing the least bit interesting about it. We get it, cold war fears. We get it, consumerism. We get it, people are shitty to each other. Beyond that, his filmmaking abilities are sorely lacking. There are moments in the films, especially Dawn and Day, where it appears to have been directed like television episode from the period. It's amazingly banal.

Snyder's film is intense and funny and visually attractive in ways that Romero has never been capable of.

[esteban²]

Night. No doubt.

We have a poll section for these things ...

[Astro Zombie]

Night of the Living Dead is one of my favorite horror films. So that one.

The last time I watched Dawn of the Dead, I didn't like it as much as before. Still a good movie though, but I kinda prefer the remake. Maybe I'll give it another watch soon.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by Pedderrs

Just out of curiosity, why are you so adamant about Halloween's inclusion?

It's the quintessential slasher film and slasher films have been the dominant sub-genre in the modern era of horror imo.

[Pedderrs]

Originally Posted by Mr. Mojo

One note means one note. Each film has a singular idea and does nothing the least bit interesting about it. We get it, cold war fears. We get it, consumerism. We get it, people are shitty to each other. Beyond that, his filmmaking abilities are sorely lacking. There are moments in the films, especially Dawn and Day, where it appears to have been directed like television episode from the period. It's amazingly banal.

One note means "unvarying in tone or emphasis". With that in mind, I don't think your statement is at all correct. Romero's zombie flicks all express different ideas and vary dramatically in terms of tone and execution. You've touched on at least three of those themes yourself, which is quite ironic seeing as you described all three films as being "one note". Describing Friday the 13th and it's many sequels as one note would be more accurate, because if you've seen one then you've seen them all, but the same cannot be said of Night, Dawn and Day. Different themes, varying tones.

Your other arguments are more convincing. I personally don't have any issues with the level of acting or the writing in DOTD, but I can understand those things as being genuine criticisms for some.

Snyder's film is intense and funny and visually attractive in ways that Romero has never been capable of.

Well you would hope Synder's film would be more visually attractive given the budget and equipment he was using, but intense and funny? I never considered Synder's film to be particularly funny.