THE GOLD STANDARD 4
Added 11/7/2009
this is an enGROSSing , absorbing , gripping , unique , scary , intelligent , fun pre CGI horror picture . others will go on at great length about its' attributes . they're right . i really haven't anything additional to add but my vote . they make lots of great film now . this is how they did it circa 78' on a relatively modest budget (that's an enormous understatement) . GEORGE ROMERO is a genius .
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Dawn Of the Dead.
Added 11/1/2009
Well, For some Gore counts as Horror, Especially Canablism Cheap Gore and Zombies to round off this so-called classic, nothing impressive, except body parts falling.Not what I would describe horror but much more Shock value and what generally is wrong with people.
0 out of 3 people found this helpful.
|
Anachronistic and doesn't hold up well when compared to slick new zombie / infected movies.
Added 9/30/2009
Had to see what the hubbub was about with Romero's original "classics." So, I got suckered into seeing this steaming pile. I'm giving it two stars pretty much on Romero's name alone, as an innovator in the zombie genre. NOT because it's high cinema, which I really DON'T think it is.
To be frank, the movie seems anachronistic and rather tame by today's standards. Sure it was made in the 70's and for the time it was considered to be pushing the envelope. Today, well, it just doesn't hold up against modern zombie movies.
I mean, the zombies are just people in blue makeup. Terrifying, I know! (Not so much...) They shamble... Slowly. Like you could get away from them with a brisk walk! (Horrifying!) There was no tension. There was no foreboding terror. Not even a little good-natured shiver going down my spine. Really it was a few hours of boredom. I think at one point I even checked how much longer the movie had left to run (about 1/2 an hour), that how bored I was. I was waiting all movie for some serious zombie munching and was disappointed at its overall absence outside of the last 1/2 hour (and even that was fairly tame and movie-esque, in my opinion; though perhaps forgivable given the era of cinema it was released in).
I kept wanting the people to stop being dumb arses and go on a zombie killing spree. I mean, the zombies are slow. They have NO evasion skills. They have no "strategery" skills (yes, I know, I mean strategy, geez!). The humans have access to a gun store and about all the ammo they can possibly use. The reason they couldn't simply walk around methodically (and briskly!) decapitating zombies or blasting them in the skull with shot guns was WHAT now? I mean, if your first thought is survival isn't the object to eliminate the walking dead so they don't sneak up on you while you're using the can? But no, they just let the zombies go about their business for the first third of the movie.
This movie didn't frighten me. It didn't disturb me (unlike 28 Days Later, which was rather disturbing insofar as the "infected" kept vomiting blood and stuff all over the place). There was maybe one scene of a guy getting ripped apart for being a dumb arse and sticking his arm into a blood pressure monitoring machine's arm strap in the middle of an ongoing zombie invasion. Frankly he deserved what he got and I had zero sympathy for him. That and he was part of a roving band of marauders, so I had double the zero sympathy for him (what's two times zero?)...
Yeah, it may have been considered pioneering at the time, but today it's just a piece of tame, anachronistic tripe. If you want something a considerably less tame try the Remake or the Resident Evil Trilogy or Slither or Planet Terror.
Sure, the classics are "classic." They're the genre's "origins." They're good for film school classes and for seeing "how far we've come." But do the stand the test of time? Honestly, I've seen better and scarier and less overtly boring.
1 out of 8 people found this helpful.
|
I must not be sophisticated enough to appreciate this movie
Added 9/21/2009
Judging from the huge pileup of 5-star reviews, I must not have what it takes to appreciate this film.
I have no problem whatsoever with zombie movies. I've watched and enjoyed many of them. Dawn of the Dead is a horrible movie. One of the worst I have ever seen.
The dialog is ludicrous. The actors are utterly unconvincing. The plot is absurd. The special effects are laughable (even for its time).
The makeup was the high spot and it wasn't all that great.
There were way too many shots of the dead wandering around. Cut them out, and this movie would be better (and 30 merciful minutes shorter).
I am an extraordinarily patient movie consumer, but sitting through this was excruciating. There isn't a friend, enemy, or total stranger to whom I would recommend this film.
2 out of 13 people found this helpful.
|
Not worth all the hype
Added 9/16/2009
I had never seen this movie until now, but for years had heard that it was great. I don't think I've ever seen a review less than 3 stars for this movie, and Roger Ebert, who is usually pretty rough on horror films, gave it a lot of praise. Don't forget, he's the guy who along with his co-host the late Gene Siskel, devoted an hour long TV special to talking about how slasher films were undermining the moral character of America and were examples of cinema at it's worst.
Now that I've seen Dawn of the Dead I'm somewhat surprised. It really is a terrible movie. It's not scary, funny, disturbing or entertaining in any way. It's just a big bore. It has none of the elements that fans of horror films usually seem to go for: no good looking women, not much gore, not much comic relief, and not even any campy bad acting. The acting is bad, but not in an amusing or entertaining way. There are no known actors in this, and they have no acting talent at all. They sound like they are just reading lines - no expression in their voices and body language is way off. There's not even any nudity.
The gore and special effects are laughable. The zombies are not even very gruesome-looking (some of the non-zombies are actually uglier) and the blood (what little there is of it) just looks like bright red paint. This is just a total disaster in ever conceivable way. It is not worth anyone's time to watch it. I don't know how anyone who was involved in making this film ever had a career after this. What I really don't get is why so many people like this movie so much. This has had multiple DVD releases while so many other great horror movies have never even been released on VHS.
I'm just glad that I got this at my local library instead of buying or even renting it. If I'd laid out any money at all to see this, I'd feel cheated. It has to be one of the most overrated movies ever, even more than Titanic, The Exorcist, The French Connection, and Risky Business. I didn't like any of those movies very much, but this one makes them look like masterpieces. It really is that awful. Most of the slasher films Siskel and Ebert condemned, even the ones I thought weren't so great myself, are light years more entertaining than this.
0 out of 12 people found this helpful.
|
THE GOLD STANDARD 4
Added 11/7/2009
this is an enGROSSing , absorbing , gripping , unique , scary , intelligent , fun pre CGI horror picture . others will go on at great length about its' attributes . they're right . i really haven't anything additional to add but my vote . they make lots of great film now . this is how they did it circa 78' on a relatively modest budget (that's an enormous understatement) . GEORGE ROMERO is a genius .
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Dawn Of the Dead.
Added 11/1/2009
Well, For some Gore counts as Horror, Especially Canablism Cheap Gore and Zombies to round off this so-called classic, nothing impressive, except body parts falling.Not what I would describe horror but much more Shock value and what generally is wrong with people.
0 out of 3 people found this helpful.
|
Anachronistic and doesn't hold up well when compared to slick new zombie / infected movies.
Added 9/30/2009
Had to see what the hubbub was about with Romero's original "classics." So, I got suckered into seeing this steaming pile. I'm giving it two stars pretty much on Romero's name alone, as an innovator in the zombie genre. NOT because it's high cinema, which I really DON'T think it is.
To be frank, the movie seems anachronistic and rather tame by today's standards. Sure it was made in the 70's and for the time it was considered to be pushing the envelope. Today, well, it just doesn't hold up against modern zombie movies.
I mean, the zombies are just people in blue makeup. Terrifying, I know! (Not so much...) They shamble... Slowly. Like you could get away from them with a brisk walk! (Horrifying!) There was no tension. There was no foreboding terror. Not even a little good-natured shiver going down my spine. Really it was a few hours of boredom. I think at one point I even checked how much longer the movie had left to run (about 1/2 an hour), that how bored I was. I was waiting all movie for some serious zombie munching and was disappointed at its overall absence outside of the last 1/2 hour (and even that was fairly tame and movie-esque, in my opinion; though perhaps forgivable given the era of cinema it was released in).
I kept wanting the people to stop being dumb arses and go on a zombie killing spree. I mean, the zombies are slow. They have NO evasion skills. They have no "strategery" skills (yes, I know, I mean strategy, geez!). The humans have access to a gun store and about all the ammo they can possibly use. The reason they couldn't simply walk around methodically (and briskly!) decapitating zombies or blasting them in the skull with shot guns was WHAT now? I mean, if your first thought is survival isn't the object to eliminate the walking dead so they don't sneak up on you while you're using the can? But no, they just let the zombies go about their business for the first third of the movie.
This movie didn't frighten me. It didn't disturb me (unlike 28 Days Later, which was rather disturbing insofar as the "infected" kept vomiting blood and stuff all over the place). There was maybe one scene of a guy getting ripped apart for being a dumb arse and sticking his arm into a blood pressure monitoring machine's arm strap in the middle of an ongoing zombie invasion. Frankly he deserved what he got and I had zero sympathy for him. That and he was part of a roving band of marauders, so I had double the zero sympathy for him (what's two times zero?)...
Yeah, it may have been considered pioneering at the time, but today it's just a piece of tame, anachronistic tripe. If you want something a considerably less tame try the Remake or the Resident Evil Trilogy or Slither or Planet Terror.
Sure, the classics are "classic." They're the genre's "origins." They're good for film school classes and for seeing "how far we've come." But do the stand the test of time? Honestly, I've seen better and scarier and less overtly boring.
1 out of 8 people found this helpful.
|
