 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (2)big recycle ...and 308 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614123 Today 2 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
go see it this weekend. 2 times if you gotta. check out the game on this site too its amusing for a while. thank you. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You're welcome. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
this is one of those films that I'm kind of scared to go see. not because it's supposed to be scary, but more because I hope it won't disappoint, Romero being great 'n all. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i don't think he's so great. i've seen three of these films and only night was "good". i enjoyed dawn of the dead because it was so cheesy. day of the dead was unwatchable. so what's so great about him? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
man, "dawn of the dead" is a incredible! fucking hell! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah it was fun, but it was fun in the way that die hard is fun. am i missing some integral part of the puzzle that makes these classic cinema and not popcorn zombie movies? ;) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
tons of thinly veiled social commentary. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
if that's true, i must be an idiot and i'll have to rent it again. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
most obvious one: a mall filled with zombies..? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah, i definitely remember picking up on that. i thought that was kind of funny but not deep or interesting. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah, romero basically invented modern zombies as a metaphor for droves of depersonalized beings... a thoughtless canibalistic collective. then he applied that analogy in gruesome different ways. i'm sure alex p could expand on romero much better than i can. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i didn't realize there was another side to that movie. i guess i stand corrected. i usually "get" the meanings of movies or even read into them finding more "meaning" than they intended. i guess i missed something with this one. will watch again. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
are you talking about the 1978 dawn, or the 200(whatever) one? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
... cause, i don't think the newer one commentarys as much as the older one. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the original, of course. nerdy film buffs scoff at remakes! scoff! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i like the remake. in fact, i liked it a lot. very fun slasher flick. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i don't think anyone could consider the two dawns to actually be comparable movies. one is an excellent social commentary and friggin awesome. the other is just friggin awesome. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh man, but i hate John Leguizamo so much. i hope he dies in the first three minutes. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ditto. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
His movies look cheesy b/c when they were made the movie studios didn't have or invest a lot of money in visual effects departments. many of the gags/bits they created were usually done on site...with whatever they could muster up for a shot. the contents of the exploding head in the apartment building according to tom savini were corn cobs cheez wiz and fake blood held in condoms...and then they shot it up with a shotgun. and at the time they were the coolest things you might have ever seen in a movie. Probably because they weren't done in some computer lab by a group of geeks with over grown calculators. Tom Savini's entire career started up from his work as a special effects guy by working on these films. its in a way hard to compare the remake and the original versions. i favor the original since...well its original. you can always go back and make something better. esp with all the advances in make up and CGI when its used to enhance a shot not be the shot...due to the work that guys like tom and george did on the original films. the story in the remake is weak. hardly any social commentary on Todays culture at fucking all. running zombies? okay its not the first time i've seen them i think Return of the living dead was the first time, but that movie was more comedy than anything...good in its own right. since the dead haven't technically come back to life. we can't prove if they'd run. but something tells me they'd be slow bastards. at least in the original you cared about the characters, in the remake they were just zombie food. the original out weighs the remake in many respects. it just comes down to the viewer. if you're younger you probably like the new glossy version. if you're an old fart like me well you like the original since it was the shiznit. to whomever said day was unwatchable. go fuck off. yea there was a lot of dialog but the gore level in that movie was off the fucking scale. fleshed out the series in my opinion, its the first trilogy i totally dig. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the thing is, the original is simply a classic well done film, the remake wasnt a completely badass zombie movie, i dont consider it a remake even really. the best part is all of the homage shots, tons of t2 and alien refrences. and that huge heli shot at the beginning that shows the whole city in ruins, and then those cars blow up..... holy fuck was that cool to see in the theaters. and the ending kicked ass as well. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
slasher flick huh? these are zombie movies epohs |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the remakes ending wasn't kick ass. lots of homages to other zombie flicks. fulci's for example. i thought it was really lamish. but thats just me. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
