Genres

Visitors Review

2012-05-22 23:49:36

just a satisfactory terror action movie

this is a terror action movie that is just satisfactory, we havewatched many movies like this before and i can say that it doesn't giveus new things. the beginning of the movie offers a biggest expectationof what it finally delivers. i am not saying that this is a bad movie,but i would recommend to the general public watching this movie just ifthis is on TV unless u are a really fan of this kind of terror actionfilms.the movie is about a group of people who try to survive in a mallthe attacks of an epidemic that makes alive to dead people, and thisliving dead beings try to bite the normal people to turn them in one ofthemselves.

cult_of_sucktitude 2012-05-22 15:26:10

Kinda sucked ...

I was looking forward to seeing this film. Missed it at the theatersand then I didn't get around to renting it until recently. Caught thefirst ten minutes of the movie when they showed it on TV- greatpromotional idea for this movie (bad promotional idea for Elektrathough, but that's another film altogether ...)I personally didn't get the sense that this phenomenon was global, justthat this was a small town gone bad. I do like the opening creditsequence with Cash's vocals and all- very cool! Loved the chaos thatensued at the beginning, loved CJ and the security mall a$$holes oncethey got inside. After that it become a bit muddled and boring. CJ'scharacter becomes a likable guy for some reason which really suckedbecause he played such a great bad guy! THe film went from being ...well .. semi-serious to comedic from moment to moment. The Mikhi Pfiersequence didn't really have a good payoff for me. And the single worstpart of the movie is when the red head girl risk her life and theirrescue mission to save a damn dog!!! WTF? Just like when Rippley savedthe cat in Alien, this is a terrible cliché that should not be broughtback! Horrible, horrible. Of course, things pick up towards the end and it becomes fun to watchonce again. But you know ... the stuff in the middle was just plainterrible. Sarah Polley was really great! So was Ving Rhames. I liked him but i'mnot sure why, I guess I just like Ving and that's good enough for me. Ienjoyed the zombies as well. Especially Polley's bf that guy justwouldn't stop! I won't compare to the source material, even though I ama Romero and zombie fan but all in all it just wasn't that great of afilm. It's all pretty disappointing in the end.

Theshapeshifter 2012-05-17 19:19:00

Zombies in mirror are closer than they appear...

When I first rented this film, I was astounded. Simply astounded. Ifound this film to be the best zombie film that I had seen in ages. Theeffects were amazing, and the story was riveting.In the film, it appears as though a young woman works as a nurse whowakes up one morning and finds out that almost every single person is aflesh-eating zombie who wishes to bite the other people that they too,may be the undead. With this happening, she drives off, hoping toescape, but crashes her car, only to be rescued by a police officer, apregnant woman and her husband, and a man who once sold televisions.The five seek refuge in a mall, and are almost refused by some securityguards, who the five civilians imprison to save themselves, and save atruckload of some refugees who escaped the zombies' wrath, when theylock up the place. With this, the zombies stay tirelessly andrelentlessly outside of the mall in the hopes of capturing the peopleinside, while the people themselves have a multitude of conflictswithin the building.This film is clearly for those who enjoy a horror with a plot twist init. One such flaw with this film is that it depicts zombies in adifferent direction than that which most fans are acclimated to seeing.While the story itself has its weak points, it is not without its goodsides.

reservoirdogs07 2012-05-17 11:09:39

Typical Horror film, nothing out of the ordinary

I had high hopes for "Dawn of the Dead". It looked like a typicalhorror/action movie, with just a little more style then the majority offilms in its genre. However, the only thing that surprised me was how littlethe film had to offer. Yes, its a pretty cool movie while your watching it,but beyond that, its your run of the mill hollywood horror production thatsultimately forgettable. The movie had cool scenes here and there, butfailed to develop an interesting plot besides a bunch of people shootingzombies and telling corny jokes. The performances were decent, but thenagain, it's not like it would be a challenge to play the part of ascreaming, sarcastic idiot in an emergency situation. In other words, Iprobably should have waited for it to come to DVD.

Sky_Captain_Joe_Sullivan 2012-05-13 22:13:58

Superior to the original.

Like Steven Soderbergh's "Ocean's Eleven", this remake of George A.Romero's "Dawn of the Dead" is superior to the original.I disliked the original because it dragged on and didn't go anywhere.Thankfully, the remake is exciting and is actually suspenseful. Thezombies, once slow and brainless, are now more threatening and muchfaster. The movie begins at a Hospital and when Ana (Sarah Polley) goeshome, she doesn't hear of a special news bulletin. When she wakes upthe following morning, all hell has broken loose. Meeting up a group ofnon-infected, including Ving Rhames, they take refuge in a mall.Director Zack Snyder and writer James Gunn create a zombie movie thatmanages to be entertaining while remaining intelligent. The gore factorhas been pumped up so the squeamish take warning. Tom Savini has acameo as cop shown on TV.I'll probably get flack for preferring theremake to the original.Rating:***1/2 (out of ****)

Tomas Thiemel 2012-05-13 06:36:37

Nothing new. Just average ("B" class) film with some special effects and a lot of blood. Mix of the "28 Days Later" and the "Resident Evil"

This film did not bring anything new or original. The storyline is almost the same compared to the film "28 Days Later" (http://imdb.com/title/tt0289043/ ). Some new disease started to spread. Nobody knows what it exactly is,how does it spread, how to stop it. Few people comes together to someshopping mall and try to survive. And the ending is a bit pessimistic.(You must watch whole ending-titles to see whole end of their story!)So this film has more special effects compared to the 28 Days Later -explosions. It is more bloody, too. And main "heroes" kill undead byshooting them into theirs heads. Isn't the same killing method used inthe "Resident Evil"? ( http://imdb.com/title/tt0120804/ )It pumped adrenalin into my blood, like other films, but I wasdisappointed by the storyline. Worse then the average.

supah79 2012-05-10 12:42:27

These things don't win Oscars, but they're darn entertaining!!

Zombies take control of small-town America, only for the inhabitants torealize that it's a global plague. They take refuge in a mall and tryto fight off the undead.Remake of Romero's classic is very well executed by first-timer Snyder.The characters and the script are entertaining and the action's good.Director Snyder finds a good balance between action, horror and comedy.I thoroughly enjoyed this flick. It isn't more than it tries to be:fun, popcorn entertainment.Be sure to watch the end credits!! Perhaps this is the only weak spotin the film.

Coventry 2012-05-09 22:32:22

When there's no more room in hell...the zombie fun moves to earth!

Now, THIS is a remake worth watching! Director Zack Snyder proves herethat nowadays remakes don't necessarily have to be uninspired,overbudgetted productions meant only to make money at the expense ofthe original films. George A. Romero's Dawn of the Dead was awfullyclose to being perfect…And Snyder seems to realize this too! He didn'ttry to add (or change) anything to the substance of the film, butmerely focuses on disgusting and amusing the audience. Respectivelywith filthy prosthetic make-up effects and some of the blackest humoryou'll ever see. Without any explanation or logical cause, the dead areraised overnight. The reanimated corpses attack the living and onceyou're infected…you become a zombie as well (notice that this wordisn't used once in the movie, though). A group of survivors gather inthe local mall and watch the place getting surrounded by an endlessarmy of the bloodthirsty undead. At first, the remaining hillbillieskeep themselves entertained by playing wicked games (shoot that JayLeno look-alike!!) but soon the situation becomes more and morecul-de-sac and the growing internal intrigues result in dramatic,needless bloodshed.The atmosphere in Dawn of the Dead is light-headed, but Zack Snydernever really loses that brilliant apocalyptic touch. The feeling ofhopelessness is upheld constantly and even wonderfully stressed byJohnny Cash' great song 'When the man comes around'. The film is filledwith great references towards Romero's original, with the appearancesof the original cast members as an absolute highlight. Initial zombiewarriors Ken Foree, Scott Reiniger and Tom Savini all star briefly inthis new version of Dawn. The main actors are worth praising as well.Ving Rhames was a great casting choice and the beautiful Sarah Polleyimpresses as the female lead. Snyder's style of film-making is loud andvolatile, but it never becomes too irritant or boisterous. You can seehis roots lie in shooting ads and commercials but he's obviouslytalented and capable of doing more. A comment I've heard a few timesalready is that this remake outshines the original…. Of course it doesNOT! Frankly, if you share this opinion you haven't got the slightestidea what the original stands for as a horror film. But it is terrificentertainment, for sure. I saw Dawn twice in the cinema already and Ican't wait to buy it on DVD. Highly recommended horror fun!

amy25_1 2012-05-06 16:10:16

fast moving zombies

Enjoyed the film but my only query is that all other zombie films haveportrayed zombies as slow,cumbersome and clumsy creatures so why now dothey move so quickly(as they do in this film).Surely this is acontradiction to the term "zombie".The scene where the are shooting zombie lookalikes was fun.What aboutif celebrities really came back as zombies.Would Al Pacino be a veryloud zombie?Would Michael Owen be a very fast zombie?Would Jude Law bea very horny zombie?Would there be a special Jerry Springer show forzombies?-(Could we tell the difference?)Would Keef Richard look anydifferent?

MairegChernet 2012-05-05 23:26:16

This is how remakes should be made.

I have not seen the original Dawn of The Dead. However seeing thisawesome remake I want to see the original and compare the two. ZackSnyder makes this unforgettable remake by taking George A. Romeo'sscreenplay and adding the new millennium's CGI effects. 90 percent ofthe film is filled with zombie action and blood splattering all over.The other 10 percent focuses on the main characters' back ground infoand characters turning on one another.Although I shouldn't say this this without watching the first This isperhaps the best remake of all time. A new era for Zack Snyder. OverallA very Good slasher movie.

fct4nyi-1 2012-05-05 01:02:03

IT could have been....

This movie could have been easily the best of the "Zombie genre" andhad a chance to be one of the greatest horror movies of all time. Thena certain scene happens known as the "baby scene" that while notwanting to ruin it for people who have not seen it makes you think thatyou have suddenly been shuffled into another movie. Its not the sceneitself I have such a problem with, but its what the characters doimmediately after the scene is over. What was a tense, edge of yourseat thriller became a clichéd horribly thought out third act thatbasically ruins the greatness of the first two thirds. What thecharacters choose to do is so asinine and stupid you just throw yourhands up realizing another Hollywood blown opportunity to do the horrorgenre justice. Think of it this way, and Boston fans can understandthis, your up 8-0 in the bottom of the 7th in game 7 of the WorldSeries and your set up man and closer wind up blowing the lead behind 6errors and horrid pitching. I cant remember a movie where I have beenmore upset over a movies sudden nose dive because this could have beena classic.FCT

Zor Prime 2012-05-04 17:06:59

DOTD and Zombie Theory (not really a spoiler)

Not really any big or important spoilers in this article...As a big fan of zombie movies (for some strange reason, I am somewhatsenselessly entranced by zombie theory), I would have to say that thisis one of the finer zombie films I've ever seen. Although some viewersmight call it campy or spoofy even (due to some of the very well-placedcomic relief), I believe it was a great effort on the part of ZackSnyder (never heard of Zack Snyder before this movie?--me neither).Some of the DVD extras are a testament to the attention-to-detail thatwas given to this treatment of the old Romero flick.Plot: The plot is roughly based on the original Romero film (so I won'telaborate much here), but it has a pretty hard edge (not to mentionimproved zombie theory). The story follows survivors in a Wisconsinburb (yeah, it's a REAL Wisconsin Death Trip!) that's suddenly ravagedby zombie hordes. Note: If you watch the extra materials, you find thatthe incident happens on a global scale. Incidentally, the productioncompany seems to be called "Strike", but the first few times I watchedthe movie, I wondered if the word "Strike" being shown in the openingsequence was significant of the incident(s) being an intentionalterrorist "strike". My guess now is not, but I wondered if anyone elsethought that.Characters: The characters are believable (all but the kid in thebegging sequence). I mean, who doesn't like a Ving Rhames joint? Ithink the other relatively unknown actors do a pretty great job, too.Not-to-mention the zombies: The thought that went into creatinganatomically correct zombies at various stages of decomposition wasapparently immense. I especially liked the Andy character, apersonality close to my heart, in a situation like that ;) Interestingfeatures: I was excited to see that this treatment incorporated the'fast-moving' zombie mobility. 28 Days Later was (to my knowledge) thefirst realistic movie to theorize that zombies could be more thanlumbering sub-human blobs. The idea that your first encounter with asituation like this would give you very little reaction time, is prettyscary to think about (if you allow yourself a little right-brainindulgence to really imagine it). In contrast, I'd have to sayslow-moving blobs would be much easier to deal with. Which scenario(slow-movers vs. fast-movers) might be closer to a realisticpossibility? You'd have to read my Zombie Theory to find out what Ithink (coming soon). I enjoyed the placement and appropriateness ofboth versions of Disturbed's Down With the Sickness.Negative/detracting features: The girl in the opening scenes (herlocomotion and biting 'bit' seemed a little cartoonish. The zombiebirthing/baby scene was unnecessarily stupid (reminiscent of a Chuckymovie--blech). The head and spinal column still 'alive' in the fishingboat's cooler. I didn't like what happened in the very end scenes(embedded in the credits--you missed it if you left the theater early).The ending before that would have been fine, IMO.In conclusion, I am a big fan of this production of Romero's Dawn ofthe Dead. I honestly feel that this film would have been much betterreceived by audiences had it not been a "remake". It would have beengoing a little further out on a limb, but what went into this filmcould have produced an extremely good original movie. I guess ZackSnyder (or someone at Strike, etc.) had to make the decision early onto go with a "remake" for the famesake/namesake, or somethingpotentially better (or at least as good) that would be original and notconnected to the Romero film. I enjoyed the film in the theater and athome, and it is a thought-provoking inspiration to my Zombie Theory.

2012-05-04 16:48:12

An impressive remake of a classic.

A very impressive remake. I didn't think it would be as good as it was. I was quiet happy to be proven wrong. While it doesn't surpass the original, it does put forth a solid zombie movie. It hits on all the marks for what you want out of a horror movie. Bloody, scary, people making stupid decisions, and a not so happy ending. Oh, I thought the zombie baby was a nice touch. I bet Paul Booth enjoyed it.

Nezz 2012-05-04 04:27:14

Funny but eerie.

Just finished watching this movie. Well, in my opinion, this movie was areally well done movie. Although I thought that the first scene wasabsolutely hilarious. Anyway, the movie did start very extremely fast. Themakeup for the zombies was fantastic. The biggest problem that I had with the film is the fact that there wasabsolutely no build-up whatsoever. It wasn't eerie or creepy like the firstone. It pretty much just jumps right in and after that, everything movesreally fast. You don't really even get time to "bond" with the maincharacters so you end up not really caring if they live ordie.Also, they changed the location! I know to most people, that doesn't matterat all. Other than that, it was a really fun movie. Some really great killscenes and the zombies totally kicked ass. Some of the characters werereally likable and funny and it was nice to see Tom Savini make acameo.And I don't think any movie that is supposedly remade can be called that atall. Since every director who remakes a movie wants to put there own littlespin on the movie (I'm referring to Texas Chainsaw Massacre) which I loved.The only part I was really hoping to have seen in the new TCM was the partwhere the old grandpa guy was sucking blood outta her fingers, and well, thesledgehammer part. If you have seen the original, you will know what I amtalking about. The nastiest part in that whole entire movie.Back to DOTD, good movie, it started really fast, I love the celebrityshoot-out, I loved the zombies, the ending was depressing, and it was a goodtake on an old movie.6 out of 10.

2012-05-01 22:57:39

Add this one to your dvd collection

I liked the trilogy.The remake of DOTD was certainly more realistic than the original.This one takes it self much more seriously.The ending was a shock to say the least,but it makes you wonder,and maybe that was the point.My only objection was the motor capabilities of these DEAD folks.My God they run faster than most 18 year olds.It certainly doesn't give you much hope for the human race.They also seem to be able to reason somewhat,(the episode on the stair case)and that can't be good. All in all I liked the movie ,and can only hope another is just around the corner.

clamman27 2012-05-01 09:18:59

It's NOT the original so deal with it.

I can't get over the guy who posted his review that said he might be a "tad bit biased" to the orginal because he saw them film the original in Pittsburgh back in 1978.I have no problem with people updating or redoing movies if they bring something new to the party, unlike the god awful Psycho remake a few years back.Yes, THESE zombies can actually move and run. Did they do that in the original? No. And so what? This isn't the original. Its someone else's new spin on it. There are probably a million ways to interpret and create undead zombie characters and Romero stuck to them walking slow like retards. That was fine for his interpretation, but you know what, as a horror buff I never found that too terrifying. Just me.This film has a lot to offer and recommend. The original is certainly a nostalgia piece at this point and yes they don't use the whole mall, etc. But you know what, if they had the Romero freaks would be complaining about that too.This movie shouldn't be compared to the earlier film of the same name because really aside from the title and the premise they are very different. Which ever vision of Dawn you like or speaks to you, they both have very strong points and very weak points. I mean, lets be honest the acting and dialogue in Romero's Dawn wasn't exactly memorable. It was his vision of the future that made the cheap film creepy. Ironically, that's what is probably the most effective thing about the new Dawn.Check it out if you are a horror buff. Its certainly worth a look. It offers a new take on a familair nightmare, and I enjoyed it. I'll add it to my dvd collection alongside Romero's Dawn in place of the really dreadful Day of the Dead which I wouldn't own if you bought it for me.

jwrethamel 2012-04-26 11:50:09

Unexpectedly Great

Since seeing the original Dawn Of The Dead as a teen back in 1992, Iwas definitely pumped about seeing the new DOTD as soon as it came out.Of course, "remake" is basically the kiss of death when it comes togetting fair and unbiased reviews before the movie comes out,especially when such a genre-defining film such as DOTD is remade. So Ihoped against hope that my dreams of seeing a modernized DOTD that wasworth seeing would materialize. Did it ever!! I entered the theater onMarch 21, 2004 (by myself as my girlfriend would have nothing to dowith it) with great anticipation. Strangely enough, I was one of maybea dozen or so people in the theater (which makes sense as I went about2:30pm on a weekday) and got comfortable. The first ten minutes wasamong the scariest and best openings of a movie that I have ever seen.It was simply a rush to see the world go completely insane so quickly.The opening theme song ("The Man Comes Around" by the late, greatJohnny Cash) was perfect in setting the mood of hopelessness. For me,the tension and the action did not let up until the end credits (and ifyou've seen this movie, there is still plenty going on during thecredits as well). The fast-moving zombies and the sheer numbers ofthem, especially during the end "escape" really was great, too. I wasalso pleased that this film did not resort to the now Hollywood-clichéof computer-generated every thing. There are some (not many) spotswhere CG was used (most notably during the escape where there appearsto be about 100,000 zombies in the mall parking lot attacking theshuttle buses. About my only complaint is that I wish there was more ofa lead-in (as well as action) of getting into the mall as there was inthe 1978 original. However, I came away very satisfied and hoping for asequel to this fine horror film.

Eliason_Collateral10 2012-04-25 14:05:11

You scared of horror films? If so, don't watch this for a hundred bucks.

I don't really like horror films. Add action, I don't like them. Addthrills, I don't like them. Add buckets of gore, I don't like them.However you can slightly persuade me over with comedy inserted (i.e.Shaun of the Dead, Scary Movie Trilogy). On a beginning note, when Iwas young I watched the original Dawn. Let's just say it scarred mydreams for years. All those damn zombies...However, on a thrill filled January 2004 day, I saw the trailer for thenew Dawn of the Dead. Let's just say during the first 30 minutes of TheButterfly Effect, I was petrified with horror. Call me a sissy if youmust but how can any human watch this filth? This is against all whatwe've been taught by religion and the screenwriters must have had someserious problems during their child hood.I don't feel like starting a whole thing here so I'll just quote one ofthe summaries."A young female nurse, named Anna, is caught in the middle of aworldwide chaos as flesh-eating zombies begin rising up and taking overthe world and attacking the living. She escapes into the streets and isrescued by a black police officer, named Kenneth. Together they findshelter in a mall along with a group of other survivors. For a whileeverything is OK, but pretty soon, they start running out of food, thepower goes out, and the dead keep finding ways to break through theirdefenses. Realizing they're sitting ducks, they make a plan to head foran island by using two armoured mall shuttle buses to get across thesea of zombies." Thanks you Mr. Anonymous for that. Just by reading that, I'm trying tocount how many things are wrong with it.However it accomplished something the monstrosity Sky Captain and theWorld of Tomorrow couldn't do and that was to build its characters.It's too bad Ving Rhames and Sarah Polley have to continue theircareers with these kind of performances but I liked the hero approachRhames brought to the screen and Polley did a good job. Overall, Dawn is one of the scariest horror films ever. The screenplayis just plain frightening. The CGI or whatever they used for thezombies is just crazy. Sometimes you just want the survivors all to dieand I found that wasn't the point they wanted to get across. I thinkthey were trying to show what to do when humanity is at need alike to adisaster film but I found it failed mostly on that. The parts when itsscary, it's scary. The parts when it's not, it's just plain boring. Itdidn't feel like much a movie experience at all. To horror fans, you'llbe satisfied by the chills but it can get very boring and pointless.Find the courage to watch this film and refer to the summary line formy personal experience...NOTE: For more reasons to bash and hate this film, refer to this link.The guy has a great review.http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363547/usercomments-722My Rating: 2.5/10 (A Low 2.5) Eliason A.

billyfish 2012-04-25 05:03:21

Oh, bite me!

I have to tell you, I took this movie home out of sheer boredom, but wasvery pleasantly surprised indeed! OK, so you already know it's a zombiemovie, and you don't expect much realism. This film, however, is done insuch a realistic style that you find yourself thinking "yeah, that's how itwould be." The characters are developed FAR more than you would expect in agory horror movie, and once again, there is much realism in their portrayal. You have a street punk, a jaded cop, a nurse, a sarcastic smartass, andsome blue-collar mall security good old boys. Everyone stays in character,no matter what kind of gruesome zombie scene is thrust upon them. There is also a lot of humor in the movie. One of the funniest scenes wasan elevator door closing on a mob of zombies trying to get the livinginside. One minute it's run for your life, and the next it's a small groupof people listening to elevator music and looking at the flooruncomfortably. One of them says "I like this song." Hilarious!Anyway, for what it is, I think it's a great remake of the classic, withmuch scarier and more dangerous zombies, and more people making gooddecisions (as opposed to dopey horror-movie "oh gee maybe I should leave mysafe room and go outside unarmed to see what that scream was" decisions). Go see it or rent it, and don't turn off the player or walk out just becausethe closing credits have started!

Prolox 2012-04-25 00:51:53

Remake is pretty good!

Very loose remake of the 1978 George Romero original, seems to have noconnection to that series or the 1990 remake of NIGHT OF THE LIVINGDEAD. Instead were dealing with yet another deadly virus, that turnspeople into hissing, running zombies, that go about taking bites out ofpeople, transforming them into more zombies, while a group of peoplehold up in a shopping mall to fend them off. In all honesty, it wouldbe unfair to call this an actual zombie film. The zombies here, unlikein the 1978 original, do not eat human flesh. Nor are they rottedcadavers that have just rising from the grave. And all though the filmwas enjoyable. I had the feeling throughout the whole movie that I hadseen this film before, but under a different title which was 28 DAYSLATER. In fact, this reminded me so much of that film, that I wasthinking, was this really a remake of the 1978 Romero film or a remakeof 28 DAYS LATER, or was it a sequel to 28 DAYS LATER? it also kind ofreminded me of the film DEMONS since the creatures of that film & 28DAYS LATER & DAWN acted the same, running around, scratching & bitingpeople that kind of thing. Nonetheless being a zombie picture the filmhad moments of drama. The scenes with the COP communicating & playingchess with the SHOP OWNER that lived across the street was well written& the film has some nail biting suspense & lots of action. But I stillprefer Romero's film to this. THIS IS A MUST SEE nonetheless!. Now ifonly we can get Hollywood to stop making zombie films into a bunch of28 DAYS LATER remakes! **** (stars)