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

[Mr. Mojo]

Originally Posted by Pedderrs

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.



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.

There are three films and I mentioned three themes or undercurrents each pertaining to one of the three films in his trilogy. Hence, each film is "one note".

Please, think.

[Rodney-2187]

1. Shaun of the Dead
2. The Walking Dead
3. 28 Days Later
4. iZombie

[Pedderrs]

Originally Posted by Mr. Mojo

There are three films and I mentioned three themes or undercurrents each pertaining to one of the three films in his trilogy. Hence, each film is "one note".

Please, think.

Not that I think a film should be classified as one note for exploring only one theme, but are you only aware of the one theme underpinning Night of the Living Dead?

[L.J.]

Night started it off and is a horror classic. Dawn(original) tho is my favorite, its story is better to me.

[Thomas Irwin]

Though I might consider Night of the Living Dead to be slightly superior on a technical level, Dawn of the Dead is definitely the one that I enjoy a bit more. In a way, I think I'm biased though, as I've always loved films, particularly Horror, that take place in shopping malls or amusement parks (Chopping Mall, Dawn of the Dead, Nightmares, Funhouse, Ghoulies II, etc.). Growing up in the eighties, malls were such a central part of culture, and as they continue to become more sterile and outright homogenized - or are slowly vacated and replaced by big-box stores and converted in strip malls () - I find myself appreciating such celluloid time capsules all the more. The same with cinematic depictions of classic amusement parks. To me, they represent a far happier era that is slowly being eradicated. I just don't connect with Night of the Living Dead on that same emotional level. Strictly as Horror films though, both are absolute classics, and it would be far harder to choose one from that more objective standpoint.

[IroquoisPliskin]

Dawn of the Dead 2004 is better than both of them.

[Abby is Q]

Originally Posted by Pedderrs

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.

What always struck me about Dawn of the Dead (even watching it when I was a kid) is the human element and how desperate and savage people would become in that situation. It starts off pretty funny and when they're driving around the mall you think, "Wow, I really wish I could do that." However, towards the end you start thinking, "Wow, that would really suck." Most zombie movies prior to that, the zombies were the main obstacle and danger. Ever since Dawn, most zombie movies have changed that thinking, making the desperate survivors more the villains than the zombies. Until Dawn of the Dead, I hadn't seen a zombie movie that was like that. I think that's why the movie always left me with so many different emotions when it was over.

[Bonzi]

I tried giving Dawn of the Dead several tries, watched different versions, but it just doesn't do it for me. I think it's the weakest entry to the Romero's original trilogy.
Night of the Living Dead and Day of the Dead are both much more fun, especially the latter.

[cinemaphile]

I'm not terribly impressed with either. The Dawn of the Dead remake was leagues better than both of these.

[James_Younger_Gang]

This is a tough one. Both are personal favorites of mine and I consider them to be on the same level. I guess I'd have to go with dawn having a bigger budget and better effects and cinematography, but I don't think it's fair since night did the best it could with a small budget. I guess my answer is both are the better movie.

[Pedderrs]

The admiration for Synder's shocking remake is inexplicable.

[FilmKoala]

Originally Posted by Pedderrs

The admiration for Synder's shocking remake is inexplicable.

I'm sorry but that's a silly statement.

[Zivouhr]

While I like Night of the Living Dead, Romero's Dawn of the Dead is a classic epic Zombie film where location and the sense of adventure play a huge role in why the film is such a success.

Instead of being stuck in a single house, this crew hop into a helicopter, explore the countryside, then finally settle in on a giant mall to take over. The mall is a landscape in itself, with so much to see and floors to cover. The roller rink, the open hallways, the JCPenney's, the backrooms and utility halls, the parking lots, the A & P trucking yard...

And then there are tons of zombies of all walks of life that seem like push overs, but it only takes one scratch or bite from their infected teeth and it's the beginning of the end as the zombie disease takes over the mind and body.

It's at times a leisurely paced movie, when they afford themselves enough time to enjoy the benefits of the mall, but that joy is short lived.


For those interested in 3D, Rubinstein just premiered Dawn of the Dead 3D at a few festivals, but still no word on when it'll be on blu ray 3D. Tom Savini reported he saw the 3D version and enjoyed it. Some will say it was never meant to be in 3D, but the good news is, they can continue to enjoy the 2D version as it's not going away just because 3D appears. I enjoy both 2D and 3D, though if the 3D is strong, I usually go for 3D.

Day of the Dead, from Romero in 1985, is one of his goriest zombie films of all time if you stay for the end. The final act is awesome as far as zombies go. The beginning scene in the city is great, but I really wish they explored a lot more of the city instead of just being isolated in the underground tomb. Even so, it's my favorite zombie movie of all time.

[P-Rock]

Shaun of the Dead.

[Pedderrs]

Originally Posted by FilmKoala

I'm sorry but that's a silly statement.

I turned it off after 30 minutes on second viewing. An unnecessary film altogether.

[ThatOneGuy]

Originally Posted by Pedderrs

I turned it off after 30 minutes on second viewing. An unnecessary film altogether.

That one is a better horror film. Romero's is a better social commentary (which is what Romero likes to do).

[Pedderrs]

Originally Posted by John Klein

That one is a better horror film. Romero's is a better social commentary (which is what Romero likes to do).

Unfortunately I can't agree with that. The remake didn't unsettle me or evoke anywhere near the same level of creepy, unnerving atmosphere that Romero's film does. I may give Synder's version another watch today so I can expand on all of the reasons why I think its existence is entirely pointless.

[Troll2fan]

Originally Posted by Pedderrs

I turned it off after 30 minutes on second viewing. An unnecessary film altogether.

I enjoyed the original when I was younger, but I found that I could no longer sit through it once the remake was released. I found the remake to be much more entertaining and that's what matters at the end of the day.

[Oscar Rothman]

Originally Posted by cinemaphile

The Dawn of the Dead remake was leagues better than both of these.

Only if you're thirteen.

[Just Jimmy]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

After two viewings, I could never really get into NOTLD. I don't know what it is about it, but I just find it boring and bland. Nothing about it shocked or repulsed me. Felt no tension. Couldn't care about any of the characters or anything they did. The only thing I really remember is the dude nailing boards to the door--I guess that summarizes the point of it, just like the last half of The Birds people are trapped and desperate.

DOTD, however, is much more up my alley. It's much more colorful--not only because it's a color film, but also because there's more camp, but also more extreme gore and more color to the characters. It goes through episodes of tension, which rarely drag or wear out their welcome. Its social themes engage me much more. Of the two films, this is the one that does it for me.

It's like comparing the first two Terminators (of which I always liked the second more than the first, even though the first may be a better film). NOTLD may be regarded as the superior film for its notoriety, legacy, reputation, and for being an original influence on so many other films. But I believe DOTD refined all of the previous films' strengths and delivered a unique classic in its own right. Something bigger with more zest.

this is such a great response, not only did i thumb you but i also had to tell you as well and give you 2 more here... so yeah 3 thumbs...loved the response and probably because i completely agree.