Dawn of the Dead (2004)

[Kai Lord]

Five minutes of gore and five minutes of character development were cut (gore by MPAA to get an "R" rating ,

Five minutes of gore? Damn...that's going to be one nasty ass movie on DVD, and considering the original was unrated its pretty much a guarantee the DVD release for this one will be as well.

 

[Tom Cashel]

Spoiler

Because he was contractually obligated to fulfill his role as Hudson/Gorman by cursing the horde of monsters attacking him before taking them all out with him in a giant fireball.

And I really wish the first poster had just put "Spoilers" in the subject header so we wouldn't have a page of this semi-annoying blacked out text.

The real question is...would revealing it make it any less "semi-annoying"?

I have yet to see any commentary on this flick that doesn't compare it to the original, or take issue with the actions of the characters. If everyone did everything logically in horror flicks, they'd be boring as hell.

I liked this film; I thought it was creepy, and the front-to-back adrenalin rush is just plain harrowing. Images of that island are still in my head.

If the film had any social commentary at all to make, I think it had to do with apathy. The fact that some people just don't have any sympathy for those affected by horrible violence, even when its happening in front of them. I'll tell you...those zombified news reports don't look much different from what's on the news channels every day. Violence on a massive scale, with a collective "whatever" from the TV-fed American public.

If the film is actually about apathy and numbness, then it's also neat that it is the #1 film this weekend. It has gone meta. The only film relentlessly violent enough to be more popular than "Passion" in America. A film about the destruction of that last thread binding us together earns comments like, "There's no way that dude would've gone all Hicks with the propane tank."

The sequel should be about a bunch of gamers trapped in their FLGS. Maybe then everyone would make the "correct" decisions.

But as a film, it would suck.

 

[Villano]

I have yet to see any commentary on this flick that doesn't compare it to the original,

Well, it's a remake, what do you want? Criticizisms that it isn't as good as the original are valid. If filmmakers want their films to be judged as original works, they should do something original.

or take issue with the actions of the characters. If everyone did everything logically in horror flicks, they'd be boring as hell.

Return of the Living Dead. Nearly everyone did the correct thing, but things only got worse.

Spoiler

Destroy the zombies' brains? No effect. Burn the bodies? Only spreads the chemicals. Call the cops? Zombies eat the cops. Call the army? They nuke the place. Army nukes the place? Spreads the chemicals further.

Characters who are morons in movies are only that way due to bad writing.

 

[Jim Hague]

I own all three original Dead movies, inlcuding the '91 remake of NotLD on DVD. I've watched 'em about a billion times. I've shaken George's hand personally and talked about zombies for hours on end. Y'know what?

The original and the remake are apples and oranges, like Alien and Aliens.

I enjoyed the remake, enough so that I've seen it twice. The characters were believeable, and despite their sketchiness, the primaries actually did have enough meat that you cared about them. And Matt Frewer's character ("Don't you take your eyes off me...not for...one...second..."). And Andy, the gun shop owner across the street (Sign: Hungry). I gave a damn when something happened one way or the other. If there's a fault with the characters in the film, its that the ones who're meant to be zombie chow are clearly marked as such. Bit of character bloat, IMO, but I can live with it.

As far as subversive social and political commentary...think about it. It's there. James Gunn, the scriptwriter, was tricky...he didn't pin down the commentary to a single timeframe, but managed to get in shots at the intervening time from the end of the original to the 21st century. Steve looks like an extra from Wall Street, f'r chrissakes.

The nastiest message, though (available only to folks who sit through the credits) is that the universe is written by Locke: life is nasty, brutish and short. Or as I like to put it: Nothin' means nothin'. Stripped of identity, the whole world descends into chaos and ultimately self-destructs. A nasty metaphor for how America is feeling right now. Are we the brave frontiersmen (Michael)? The caring souls (Ana)? Are we righteously kicking ass (Ken)? Are we just trying to make a better world (Andre)? Maybe we're breaking away from what doesn't work to something that does, abandoning the old predjudices (CJ). But ultimately, what the world wants is for you to just conform, don't ask questions, it's us versus them (cue zombies).

But that's just my opinion.

 

[WayneLigon]

I have yet to see any commentary on this flick that doesn't compare it to the original, or take issue with the actions of the characters. If everyone did everything logically in horror flicks, they'd be boring as hell.

Hmmm, I didn't, and didn't. Well, I compared the method of spreading, which is important as a meta-plot kinda thing. In the original NotLD, it just said 'the recently dead are returning to life'. After that point, I forget if we see anyone die of some other means than being bitten by a zombie, but still return to life. Anyone know?

As far as their actions? I have tremendous wiggle-room on this within many horror films, depending on the character. In most horror films, you have people under terrible, terrible unrelenting stress. That alone cause people to do stupid things. Even you. And you there in the back, you too. Not even combat-trained people make the correct decisions all the time under stress, especially stress they have not been trained for. And no one is trained to deal with flesh-eating dead things rising up and coming after the living, or any other supernatural horror.

I think it was certainly within character for the kid to go after the dog; she's a kid, she's had her entire family killed which means she's probably just a shade away from screaming insanity at the drop of a hat, and she's a 'civilian', meaning most likely the most stressful thing she's ever had to do is drive in downtown traffic. It would have been possibly out of character for Ving's character to do such a thing.

Given the mental problems such massive amounts of life-altering stress would induce in amost anyone, it's probably a mercy they were eaten at the end (I can't see any way out of that situation).

Theme.

Hmm, I'm not sure 'apathy' would be correct. The first one (and here is where I do make a comparison ) is almost famous for being seen as a commentary on modern consumerism. The zombies come to the mall not solely in search of food, but because something deep in their brains tells them 'this is an important place'. The nurses actions near the start might be construed as some form of apathy but I think not. If I heard the word 'epidemic' while switching stations, I might stop at that station.. or I might not. And who's to say she did hear it. She was just tuning out everything to get to some relaxing music after a tough day at work.

I think at the end of the day the theme, if there is one as such, is like it is in many horror films: it doesn't matter who you are or what you've acheived. In the end, you're just food that walks.

 

[mmadsen]

The nastiest message, though (available only to folks who sit through the credits) is that the universe is written by Locke: life is nasty, brutish and short.

Thomas Hobbes, in Leviathan: "No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

 

[Crothian]

If everyone did everything logically in horror flicks, they'd be boring as hell.

No they wouldn't. They would flow better and seem intelligent. It might actually get horror to a new level besides how many ways can we gut a human. I think the horror genre needs to evolve some. We basically haven't seen anything new except for Scream and even that was not different enough.

 

[barsoomcore]

The horror genre doesn't need to evolve. It doesn't need new ideas.

It just needs talented artists who take it seriously. It needs George Romero. Stephen King will do in a pinch. As does Wes Craven from time to time. John Carpenter gave us hope once, but no more.

Horror is simple. Brutally simple. People suffer and then die horribly. It's not rocket science, which is why you get so many horror movies made by people who neither know what they're doing nor care to learn -- as long as they can make some cash with a minimal investment. The whole trick to horror is to create characters the audience cares about, develop that concern and then slaughter the whole lot in front of their eyes and spare them as little of the agony and terror as possible.

It is, in one sense, a rather nasty thing to want to do in the first place.

To complain because a horror movie is a remake of a sequel of a rehash of an adaptation of a copy of a... There's only ONE horror story. We keep going to see it because when everyone dies screaming and you think at last the monsters have gotten you, too, the lights come up and you realise you've survived. This time.

The artists who understand this and take what they're doing seriously can deliver a wallop like no other storytellers can. But they don't need good ideas. They just need to be really, really good.

 

[Kai Lord]

If everyone did everything logically in horror flicks, they'd be boring as hell.

*chuckles* Right because Dawn of the Dead would have been mind-numbingly boring if they didn't have the scenes with the guy wandering off by himself to "secure the mall" or the girl doing the assinine doggy rescue. Those two utterly stupid "oh yeah these are poorly written characters who cares if they die" scenes were absolutely *pivotal* to it not being a boring flick.

A film about the destruction of that last thread binding us together earns comments like, "There's no way that dude would've gone all Hicks with the propane tank."

I think its great that you gleen valuable social commentary from a zombie movie scripted by the writer of Scooby-Doo. Whatever speaks to you man.

The sequel should be about a bunch of gamers trapped in their FLGS. Maybe then everyone would make the "correct" decisions.

But as a film, it would suck.

Totally, because Dawn of the Dead without the few stupid parts would literally be the equivalent of a bunch of gamers trapped in a store. God forbid they actually think up a plausible reason to have a girl try to "rescue" something like in Aliens or the Texas Chainsaw remake.

 

[Jim Hague]

*chuckles* Right because Dawn of the Dead would have been mind-numbingly boring if they didn't have the scenes with the guy wandering off by himself to "secure the mall" or the girl doing the assinine doggy rescue. Those two utterly stupid "oh yeah these are poorly written characters who cares if they die" scenes were absolutely *pivotal* to it not being a boring flick.


I think its great that you gleen valuable social commentary from a zombie movie scripted by the writer of Scooby-Doo. Whatever speaks to you man.


Totally, because Dawn of the Dead without the few stupid parts would literally be the equivalent of a bunch of gamers trapped in a store. God forbid they actually think up a plausible reason to have a girl try to "rescue" something like in Aliens or the Texas Chainsaw remake.

Like, I don't know, the fact that a human being stripped of everything she held dear might become attached to something like a pet, and when that pet is in danger, do something irrational? Naw, people never rush back into burning houses to save heirlooms or beloved pets.

Kai, why don't you just say you didn't like the movie then leave the thread? You've done nothing but bash since you hopped on, and your points really don't hold water once they move past personal preference.