On the hottest day of the summer, a Milwaukee nurse named Ana has just gotten off work to cuddle up with her husband, not paying any attention to an emergency broadcast involving a plague that is sweeping the nation. When her next door neighbor, a little girl, wanders into her bedroom, she sinks her teeth into the neck of Anas husband Louis and no sooner does Louis die from blood trauma, hes back on his feet and trying to bite Ana. Taking off in her car, Ana watches in horror as the city becomes a virtual hellzone as people begin to feed upon people, until she crashes her vehicle. Rescued by tough lawman Kenneth, Ana and a group of other survivors decide to hide out at the local Crossroads mall where they begin to learn through news broadcasts that the plague is turning civilians into primal, carnivorous cannibals with an insatiable hunger for human flesh and the only way to take these bad boys down is by shooting them in the head (which should terminate all brain activity). The group decides to hold up at the mall until a rescue team can come back and pick them up, but problems begin to arise when the infected start making their way toward the shopping center in search of more survivors. At first the group gets along well just doing normal day to day things, but one of the survivors keeps a nasty little secret which causes an incident and resorts in more human life being lost. With food supplies dwindling, ammo getting low, no communications and the undead finding new and more inventive ways to get inside the complex, Ana and company decide to devise an inventive strategy for escape in an attempt to avoid becoming one of the undead. HD 720p PC, Mac, PS3 and XBOX 360 COMPATIBLE
|Dawn of the Dead Movie(DivX)||Resolution: 608x256 px||Total Size: 588 Mb|
|1||Dawn of the Dead Movie(DVD)||Resolution: 720x288 px||Total Size: 643 Mb|
|2||Dawn of the Dead Movie(DVD)||Resolution: 720x288 px||Total Size: 639 Mb|
|Dawn of the Dead Movie(HD 720)||Resolution: 1280x544 px||Total Size: 1848 Mb|
|Dawn of the Dead Movie(iPod)||Resolution: 480x208 px||Total Size: 383 Mb||
|Dawn of the Dead Movie(HD 1080)||Resolution: 1920x816 px||Total Size: 8133 Mb|
|Dawn of the Dead Movie(HD)||Resolution: 852x368 px||Total Size: 778 Mb||
Spoilers: A lot of comments seem to knock this remake. I went expectingthe worst, but I think it is a lot better than the original. George A.Romero's 1978 version had an awesome beginning scene with the SWAT teamat the tenement building. I would have liked to see a modern crew tryto top that, but Zack Snyder wisely avoided the best scenes from theoriginal. In the new version, the Mall is not full of Zombies. Themotorcycle gang battle is also gone. There are very few scenes ofZombies eating humans. In that sense, this new version is not reallymuch of a Zombie movie. Any fan of the genre can tell you that unlessthere is a decent scene with a Zombie ripping open someone's guts andthen eating them, it is not a Zombie movie. DOD2004 has a couple ofscenes of Zombies eating people, but they are hardly more thanglimpses. In this sense, the movie really wimps out. Even the firstscene where the little girl bites the man is strictly for wienees.Unlike Romero, who in similar scenes had several veins sticking out ofthe wound pumping blood into the air; DOD2004 has a lot of bloodpumping from what looks like a vampire bite on the guy's neck. No goryclose-up of his ripped aorta, and the guy dies in about ten seconds andis back as a Zombie in about five seconds. He really needed to chillout. Then all the Zombies seem to have their lips ripped off or curledup so that they can bare their teeth like rabid dogs. And there is anew dog exception to the Zombie virus. Anyone who has seen Demons 2 orZombi 2 knows that animals can be victims too. Especially a big fat dogpacked with sandwiches who is sent to walk across the Mall to visitAndy, the gun-shop owner. And if Andy has tons of guns, why didn't hehave a couple of shotguns pointed at the little doggie-door when heopened it up to let the dog in?? Seemed like an unlikely lapse injudgment that allowed a bunch of Zombies in to kill him. And where werethe Zombies that bit Andy when the dog-girl (Carol?) went to get herdog?? Sure, there are some gaps in the story, but DOD2004 is a greataction movie that has something to do with Zombies. It is better thanBloodsport. It is Zombie Kumite! The Best of the Best Zombies versus abunch of misfits. While the cast in this version is very large, andsome characters (like the old man and the girl he chain-sawed) werecompletely unused and could have been left out (except if they werejust in the movie so the chain-saw special effect could be used),DOD2004 ends up being a lot better than the original. The reason isthat the original spent a solid forty minutes of the movie justdocumenting how much fun it was for the four survivors to live in amall, eating at the Mall Restaurant, robbing the Mall Bank, playing IceHockey at the Mall's Ice Rink, etc. When I first saw DOD1978 at themidnight movies (several times), and every time since, thosemall-shopping scenes drag on forever, and it is impossible not to fastforward through them when watching DOD1978 on video or DVD. The newDOD2004 does not have any flabby excess scenes. DOD2004 is action 90%of the time, and every scene is worth watching. Especially good is thebirth scene, which would have been great if Black Sabbath's BORN AGAINsong had been in the soundtrack! By the end of DOD2004, all of themarginal characters were killed off, and most of the best ones weredead too. DOD2004 is definitely a grim movie, even though it has lessgore than the original. If you watch through the end credits, at theend of the movie all the people on the boat run out of water and gasand arrive at an island (tribute to Zombi 2) which is full of Zombiesand they apparently all get killed.
Okay, when you're remaking a movie satirical to consumerism what's the first thing you do? Hire a director whose only experience is commercials. That's like getting Michael Moore to direct 'Red Dawn'. Now, I don't mind a dumb horror movie ever so often but can't Hollywood have a dumb horror movie that doesn't smack a good original in the face and desecrate everything good about the movie in question?Apparently not. Zack Snyder's 'reÃmaginging' or 'reconceptualizing'a good movie for a quick cash in scares me more than his wretched movie did. Lets break the problems down piecemeal...PROBLEM 1: Too many characters. The original got it right when it spent time on only 4 characters rather than waste screentime on morons I don't care about that are going to die soon anyway. You could actually connect with the original's 4 (Peter, Roger, Flyboy, and Francine. See, I know the names and I've only seen the movie 2 or 3 times.) But when someone dies in the remake I don't even know or care who they were half the time. Remember when those 2 people get chainsawed to death in the bus, I'd probably have to watch it again to find out who the hell they were. For awhile I thought the rich guy was having sex with the nurse but it turns out its some other blond. Also, the characters aren't characters; they're types. The rich jackass is a prime example. Instead of developing him he's just an a-hole and instead of developing others they're just considered the 'good guys.' The cast could've easily been shaved down to 6 or 8, but I guess fanboys want to salivate over more deaths and more carnage despite any real relevance to any story.PROBLEM 2: Nothing new to the table. Snyder nixed the "Masque of the Red Death"concept but for what? All his movie is about are people trapped somewhere who want to escape elsewhere. Wow, that's original. Nothing new comes to the premise, not even within the zombie subgenre. Even the pregnant mother was ripped off from Dead Alive and the fast zombies copied from 28 days later. PROBLEM 3: Logical loopholes. How come in this post-modern time haven't people in zombie movies not seen or heard of a zombie? The logic behind most of the characters is to forward the plot and for no other reason. Why did that girl go through a horde of zombies to rescue a dog? Why did the zombies just happen to be near the mall hanging out (Its explained in the original but not this one)? Why did the security guard kill himself on the bus when he could've easily fought his way out? The characters make the dumbest decisions anyone else would've avoided. There are of coure more idiotic things but I've got to do something with my life now.
For a horror flick, someone definitely had to be having a bit of funwith this one. We all pretty much know this story from the original andit's sequels, in which a bunch of people are turned into zombies andbegin eating other people. What made this version unique was its gore(way up there) and some of the comedic scenes. In this film we(SPOILER) even get a zombie baby! Our "heroes" are shacked up in a mallmost of the film with Ving Rhames as Mr. Macho, playing a weird game of"Shoot the Celebrity Look-Alike Zombie" from the mall's rooftop. Theystay there so long that people start making their own homes out of eachstore and begin forming relationships (the scene with the couple andthe store video camera is ridiculously funny). In fact, that woulddescribe much of this movie, except for the fact we have to take itsomewhat seriously just due to the amount of blood and gore (much likeCabin Fever). Don't expect a happy ending in this one (remember "Returnof the Living Dead"?). If you watch the ending credits, you'll get abit of Blair-Witch-type footage which is pretty good. 6/10
The original "Dawn of the Dead" was a masterpiece, one of the greatesthorror movies of all time. This remake of "Dawn" is not as good, but howcould it ever be? I'm not familiar with director Zack Snyder, but no doubthe did his homework on 70's horror films and studied the Romero picturecountless of times.The saturated colors, camera speeds and bloody violence pay homage to thosemovies. There's also a rather inspired use of Johnny Cash's "The Man ComesAround" during the opening title sequence. Like the original film, a numberof survivors find a safe haven in a huge shopping mall. They have their funin it, but soon it becomes clear to leave the party behind.There's a nasty sequence involving a pregnant zombie woman. The scene inwhich a survivor uses a sniper rifle to blow the heads off the undead isdemented. And the climax in which the living attempt to escape in armoredbuses works well. In fact, the picture is a good exercise in style, visceralthrills, horror and pacing. Zombies don't just drag their feet and groan inthis remake, they run in record speed.As mentioned before, it's not a masterpiece, but this is a good horror moviefor the MTV audience. Once the action gets going, it's fast-paced andintense. Grade: B P.S. Why Universal Studios would release this film and yet axe the equallybloody "House of 1000 Corpses" from their lineup is far beyondme.
First of all, this was the biggest waste of $6.00 i haver ever spent. Itisrare you see a good zombie movie, but this is definetly one of the worst.The screenplay sucked, as did the storyline. Nothing was explained, exceptagroup of renegade survivors who steal guns and soup up buses to kill thezombies> pathetic.The ending of the movie sucks. Why does the girl take the boat keys? Shedoesnt know which boat is that guys, or where its parked!!! This totallyruined what already was a dumb movie. I sat there laughing half the movie,watching them play chess on the roof, why all their friends die. The onlygood part of the movie was the celebrity game.Definetly a waste, it must be easy being an editor, letting things likethisgo UNEDITED, and still get payed for it.
This film remake, considered alone, is very reflective of those thingsthatdefine theaudience mentality today (or perhaps how Hollywood perceives the audiencementality...or possibly some combination of the two).Whereas the 1970's classic was thought-provoking, smitten withanti-consumerismpropaganda (zombies CONSUME CONSUME CONSUME...at a MALL, no less), andactuallyhad a plot, this rehashing of only the most superficial themes is typicalofMillenniumHollywood.It's been done before. Take the zombies from 28 Days Later, put them inRaccoon City(ala Resident Evil), and tease the opening and closing credits with BlairWitch Project-esque clips.Lots of visual stimulation, ridiculously loud noises (often the scariestnoises were of themost mundane origin-i.e. sharp, grating doors opening, etc) lots of shockvalue,craptastic dialogue, limp thematic or moralistic exploration.In this day and age, if you are looking for the opposite of theaforementioned in azombie flick, then take your patchouli-stank esoteric arse elsewhere.Because that's notwhat Hollywood is about anymore, as we all know. If you're looking forthefilm to showto be true to its progenitor and tell a tale about the unraveling ofsocietyvia mindlessconsumption, then this is not your film.This is for the button-happy kids who love consoles. It plays out likethePlaystationinspiration from which this film draws upon.The lighting in the film makes everything vivid and uncomfortable; likebeinginterrogated under a searing lamp. Details of gore are exploited, throwninyour face,and charged at you with the force of 1000 running zombies.Taken merely at the entertainment level, the film is indeed entertaining.It's fun tocower in a seat for 2 hours, this stuff is really freakish. The plotmovesso quickly, thatyou have about 2 minutes to get comfortable before you are thrown into themadness.The film will certainly please those with short attention spans (leave theRitalin at homefor this one, folks).A bit of a zombie-epicure, I would've liked to see some social criticism.The most youcan get out of the film is ambivalent: "the mall provides asafe-haven/salvation for theuninfected," and/or "the mall is where thousands of mindless, insatiablezombies flock,like Eddie Bauer-loving yuppies to a 2-day sale." The mall is used,becauseit was in theoriginal. That's the only reason. It's clear that Romero and Co. missedthe point.It's like taking a classical, well-established library, gutting theinside,and replacing allthat was sacred to the place with a bunch of Starbucks kiosks and somechain-bookstores. But still calling it a library.Then again, THIS is just a movie about some zombies, with explosions andthegraphicterrorizing that ensues. It's entertaining. Yes. See it, it will freakyou out. It's fun to bescared.The finest part of the film is the soundtrack. Johnny Cash and Disturbed,Muzakrenditions of ironic proportions. Excellent. This will be a must-havesoundtrack, if onlyfor the brilliant, smarmy lounge cover of the "Down With theSickness."It's sad, though, that the time is gone, when zombie movies could be somuchmore.
Dawn Of The Dead Is A Decent Horror Remake from director Zack Snyderwhose admirable in making this movie about a group of people who holdfind themselves trapped in a shopping mall with aggressive flesh eatingzombies outside waiting for them to make a mistake. The cast for themost part are good in their roles including Sarah Polley, Ving Rhames,Jake Weber, and Mehki Phifer. The rest of the supporting cast are okayin their limited screen time. This remake felt more like an action filmthan horror because it didn't really scare me but that didn't hurt themovie. The action sequences most involving the character being killedin gruesome ways by the zombies or vise-versa are well executed. Thezombies did look terrifying and were fast too but you could help butget this feeling you've seen before. The effect worked none the lessthough. There was a little suspense but the ending was a bitpredictable. Despite some flaws Dawn Of The Dead really isn't that badof a movie because it's sure to please any die hard fan of the genre.Overall Dawn Of The Dead has just enough gruesome deaths, chases, somesuspense, a little humor, and decent performances by the cast who makethis one of the better remakes out there.
Rating: *** (out of *****)I hereby pronounce that the remake of 1978's Dawn of the Dead is among thebest of the cheap horror films that I've seen in the last few years. Slickand gory without becoming too camp, it doesn't cop out, doesn't bore andeven has some wit. The message of the film is simple - stop the zombies from spreading. They'reeverywhere! As the poster for the film says, there wasn't enough room forthem in hell. And even if you do manage to escape, don't let thembite!The film doesn't have the kind of character that great horror really needs,but I don't think it ever aspires to such a level. It's just a slasher filmwith the enemy within being zombies instead of deranged psychos, serialkillers or werewolves. It has a tone reminiscent of the overlooked Britishwerewolf flick, Dog Soldiers - that is, quite sardonic & clever, as well asgenuinely chilling when you least expect it.Capable casting is one of the reasons that the film works at all - duringthe film, you really do feel suspense and a certain degree of pity for theprotagonists, even though the character-building moments seem prettyobligatory. It's especially nice to see Sarah Polley (who I haven't seensince 1999's Go) back in action, and Ving Rhames's presence is alwayswelcome (though it's odd to see him in a low budget film).OK, Dawn of the Dead is silly and unoriginal. But what would be the point ofit if it wasn't at least a little of the former? All I know is, after theWrong Turns and Michael Myers' unwelcome resurrections, you'll find this tobe quite a scary surprise.
I know it's very rare that a near all-around decent film comes out ofthis genre. Especially from it's sub genre (zombies). Almost from thestart this film had a lot of decent fright sequences and especiallygore. One of the beginning scenes where the little girl bites Anna(Sarah)'s husband still actually freaks me out a bit. I was actually alittle surprised when I first watched this film. I've learned; afterwatching several horror films, to lower my standards a bit when judgingthem. They almost always have less drama, character development, andlower-grade acting then other movies. However, this is one movie thathits above average when it comes to horror films. It is a bitoverly-gory sometimes, and the characters don't really have a whole lotof background or personality. Most of them simply get picked off afterhaving a few scenes each. That was actually the main flaw I saw in thismovie. Even the main characters have little development, other thanbeing people that came to a city mall during the zombie crisis.The ending was rather interesting however. I mean the ending thatcontinued even into the credits. It also seems to warrant a sequel asit's unsure if the last 4 characters survived or not.. I think I cansafely say that this is one remake that at least lives up to, if notsurpasses; the original. Making the zombies fast moving and slightlymore intelligent than previous zombie movies was a good move in myopinion. It sort of reminded me of 28 Days Later in that aspect. Thezombies are more frightening when they can actually catch someone onthe run (and even keep up with moving cars!). Blood runs rampant inthis movie, so it's definitely not for the weak of heart. It stillremains to be one of my favorite horror movies, and an overall top-tierhorror movie in my opinion.
I can't say I'm a big horror movie fan, but this was a decent, funmovie to watch. The movie was put together well, and beginshorrifyingly. The sweeping shots of the unbelievable chaos going on asSarah Polley escapes her neighborhood are well done.I was really taken with the opening montage, portrayed with a JohnnyCash song, which I'm guessing is called "When the man comes around".Very good movie opening; well done, and provides a visual and musicaltaste of the ugliness to come.The movie provides a little black humor in the middle, as the occupantsof the mall indulge in silly fantasies to temporarily escape theterrifying situation they are in (Sex, rooftop golf, dress-up, etc.),all done to a tune that seems to be called "Get down with thesickness". There is also a segment of "Zombie-Celebrity-look-a-like"shooting gallery that is humorous.Ving Rhames, Jake Weber and Mekhi Phifer are excellent actors who lendname recognition, and strong screen presence to this remake. The otheractors all do a fine job rounding out the characters trapped in themall.Not overly gory, but an enjoyable, and well done, horror movie.Stick around for the end credits, for a montage hinting at the fate ofour heroes.
When I saw this version of Dawn of the Dead of course I didn't expect thisto blow away and be even better then the 1979 version of Dawn of the Deadcause hey a remake can not beat a masterpiece. But the nontheless I stillthought this version was a great movie and I enjoyed it greatly, theendingwas a bit of a suprise and honestly sort of reminded me of another zombiemecalled well Zombie back in 1980 cause of the whole island and zombies ontheisland thing. Ving Rahems, Sarah Polley, Mihkei Phifier, Jake Webber andthe rest of the cast was excellent and didn't do a poor or cliche actingjobas other zombie movies do often. The violence and gore was good, butcouldof been more graphic and violent like the original Dawn of the Dead was,butof course the MPAA won't allow it so I understand (I guess we will have towait for the unrated version to come on DVD lol) the fast, running zombiesis a depature from the original and traditionally slow moving zombies, butwe are in the 2000's now so hollywood has to conform to today's standardssothe running zombies are ok. Anyway to end my comments I do not think thismovie in anyway will be nominated for an academy award, but this shouldcertainly mark the return of the living dead or if u don't get what I'msaying the return of the zombie movies. Now I'm just wondering if theItalians are going to remake Zombie since they made the original Zombieright after the original Dawn of the Dead was made. Anyway from the looksof it this movie will be a huge hit as I'm writing now 4/2/2004 it grossedalready $44,000,000 and still counting. Shout out to the cast, director,and crew who made this version of Dawn of the Dead u guy's did an awesomejob.
Not a particularly bad movie, no. There are good things about it. Oneexample: the fast zombies. Special effects are newer than in GeorgeRomero's original, but not THAT newer, after all. And: gory sequencesare not as scary as in the original movie. I believe the feelings offear, claustrophobia, pain and horror are not as vivid as in theoriginal movie. This movie is occasionally scary, but it just does notmanage to reproduce fully the "magic" that Romero was so good at. Onemore thing: I did not like the pseudo-philosophical junk that"explained" the zombie plague: we are corrupt, we are evil, there areprostitution, homosexuality, drugs, abortion, blah blah blah... I cando without such "lectures", thanks.
George Romero's '78 classic "Dawn of the Dead" gets a cosmetic faceliftin this Ã¼ber-gory remake from newcomer Zack Snyder. I will say this:it's a terrific movie if you've never seen the original. Snyder puttogether a pretty good zombie movie. But it's clear that he (andscreenwriter James Gunn) wanted no part of the satirical humor of theoriginal. Snyder just set out to make a kickass zombie movie, while atthe same time upping the ante. And in some respects, he succeeded.The action this time around takes place in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Thepandemic (like the original) springs from out of nowhere, taking thecountry by surprise. A group of survivors bands together and seeksrefuge in an abandoned shopping mall while they formulate an escapeplan. All the while, zombie hordes gather on the outside of the mall,looking for a way in.The most noticeable change is in the zombies, themselves. No longer dothey shuffle around like geriatrics. Snyder turns it up a notch withrunning, leaping and screaming. His zombies are indeed much more of athreat (not to mention terrifying). But the makeup here (compared withRomero's original) is on a whole different level. The pallidcomplexions of 1978 give way to bloody, decaying pieces of meat(nothing like a zombie with half a mouth!).What's interesting about Snyder's version is that it's almost moreaction movie than horror. Here, running and gun-play are just asimportant as blood-spatter and severed limbs. It makes for a lean, meanzombie flick, and in that regard, I think it works. I tend to wonder ifthe powers-that-be should've just concentrated on upping-the-ante withthe zombie movie, but not even associate it with "Dawn of the Dead"(1978), which is why I was ultimately disappointed. It's as if Snyder &Co. made this movie because they found the original "too boring", andfelt it needed to be faster, bloodier, etc. Lost in that update is thesense of fun inherent in the original. The remake also eschews thesocial commentary of the zombies being attracted to a shopping mall(mindless consumers), in favor of the shopping mall just being a placeto convene in relative safety. In that respect, it seems ratherarbitrary to set the movie in a shopping mall in the first place.It's clear they used the same title for brand-recognition, but itshould've been its own thing; Snyder's throwing down the gauntlet withhis own movie, not a remake.5/10
Zack Snyder's remake was quite a fun watch. Horror fans will enjoy thisone. It's been ages since I last saw the original remake and my memoryis a little clouded but this one has some good special effects, decentacting, a nice soundtrack and effective cinematography. Due to highproduction values, it looks good. I remember that it is not as gruesomeas the original wear you can actually see the zombies ripping off bodyparts of live people and devouring them. The 'good' main characters arequite likable as they are more humane than the stereotypicalcaricatures one has witnessed numerous times in such films. I wassurprised to see Sarah Paulie who has a reputation of being selectivewith her films. This was quite an unusual choice for her and she didquite well as the heroine. Jake Weber and Ving Rhames are fine too.Overall, it is a good effort by Snyder and an entertaining flick forhorror fans.
Somehow or another, when every other 2000-something remake of an oldhorror movie set off most horror purists' "Hollywood BS" alarms, thisone managed to sneak under them. The irony is that this might be theworst of the lot, as well as the most insulting considering theoriginal's incisive anti-consumerism subtext.Zack Snyder's directing style is everything soulless, overproduced andsuperficial about Hollywood regurgitated and dumbed down 10 times over,left in the freezer for a year and microwaved. Who needs grisly andgrainy when everything can be shot super-clean and "sexy" like an MTVmusic video? Ah, the art of missing the point.The running zombies are stupid. I don't care about or want realism inmy walking corpse movies, but turning zombies into athletic killersaffects something fundamental: fear. With slow but savage, drone-likeenemies, you get a sense of hope, and your mind starts mapping thingsout. Conversely, when everything starts falling apart, there's genuinepanic, balanced and exacerbated by a faint possibility of survival.When the characters are surrounded by a thousand leopard-fast killingmachines, there is no hope, so you don't care what happens, thus, thereis no fear. More importantly, though, the characters are cardboard cutouts. To topit off, when the movie ends and the credits roll, we get nu-metal. Thecycle of 13 year old appeal is complete.Horrible.
This remake was better than I expected. The only major complaint I have isthat there is a little too much comic relief, but otherwise this is a fineaddition to the "Dead" world. I hope that it makes mega bucks, so thathopefully George Romero can get the financial backing to make a top-notchfourth and final film in his original series. The special effects andzombies are well done, the quality of acting is far above any found inmostzombie films, and it is not overly gory. It will be interesting to seewhatdeleted scenes will be added back in the DVD version of the film. Somepurist fans of the original Romero version will probably be full ofcomplaints about this movie, but I say to them ,the original version wasnota perfect film by any means either, so give this one a chance, I think itwill grow on you.
When I first saw this movie, I thought it was enjoyable andentertaining, but that it only existed on a superficial level. Ibelieved the sole purpose of this film was to provide an action-packedreformation of the original Dawn of the Dead. Being that I had been afan of Romero's a year prior to the release of this film, I had thenotion that remaking Romero's vision would be hard, if not impossible.Although nothing will equate to the original Dawn of the Dead, thisfilm is not that bad at all. It's just an alternate outlook on aclassic zombie film.Zack Snyder's envisioning of such a classic concept prevails. Thevisuals of this film are stunning. Snyder knew the vision he was tryingto create and it simply worked. The film closely follows the theologiesof the end times and the Rapture; it achieves a sort of apocalypticalvision. Except instead of Satan, the Anti-Christ and demons... you havezombies. Everyone is trying to protect themselves and their homestead,some with brute force, and they are just trying to cope with this sortof "Hell on Earth." This film really does excel visually and retains asort of nightmarish quality to it. And one aspect of the film I particularly like is the transformationand the stages of the zombies. In the bonus features to this film, ZackSnyder tells us that he created different stages and levels of the"zombie infection." I found this idea to be very creative and unique.Good film: 7/10.
This is why I give DoTD a 10. The storyline, plot, acting, action, eventhe atmosphere. I actually laughed my a** off at several points. Thismovie is definitely one for the hall of fame. Just because it's aRomero movie gives it 2 points instantly. If you haven't watched it ordidn't like it, then how do you know what they'll be like. Dawn of thedead is an immediate hit & will be seen as a cult classic for a fairwhile. My Rating = 10/10 My reasons = acting, direction, writing, plot,action. My verdict = Rent it out & watch it till you know the mall offby heart. Dawn of the dead is an instant comedy hit but not one to letthe kids sit and watch.
I saw the original Dawn of the Dead and wasnt blown away like i thought iwould be. The zombie effects were sweet but the story and characters werepretty lame. When i heard a remake was coming out, i was excited. TheTexas Chainsaw Massacre remake came out, and i loved that. I figuered ifits a remake it only means that the story is better, and the visuals topofthe line. I was right. This movie was more fast-paced and will keep yourattention the whole time. The actors also did a great job. Oh, and tothose of you who commented direspecting the whole "Mall" idea, shut yourjealous mouths, and dont hate on Romero like that. Anyways im out- Seethismovie!
I've always loved horror movies. I REALLY like zombie movies and I knowthat the zombie survival guide is a must read. I've always wished foran Solanum outbreak in real life, as I was sure I was prepared to dealwith them properly. Not any more. This movie makes zombies scary again.Now I'm not so sure I could survive. This is how horror movies aresupposed to be, and if you haven't seen it, then you haven't seenenough zombie movies. Plus the ending is perfect.Overall it's a great remake of the original (which is a must-see aswell). I was told that some of the original cast was involved, which iscertainly cool, although you can enjoy this version on it's own.POSSIBLE SPOILER:Don't stop watching until the credits are over.