[bosng]

i wasn't ready for the sheer enjoyment that is this film. definitely rises to the top of the genre. i enjoyed this quite a bit more than the much lauded 28 days later.


the only similarity would be the fast moving zombies/sickos.


picture quality was very good. sound very good and an enjoyable soundtrack as well.


the pace moves like an all out action movie with some breaks. some funny moments break up the rising body count. lots of blood and gore (you are warned). this movie pulls no punches.

try not to compare too much with the much loved romero version. i don't mind saying i like em both. watched it twice so far and still enjoyed it.


the version i watched was the directors cut hk release region 3

anamorphic widescreen 235-1 dd5.1 runtime 109 min directors commentary dd2.0


us release october 26

 

[magtour]

I thoroughly enjoyed this film as well. I am also an avid fan of the original Romero film of the same name (minus the 2004).


I can't wait for the Region 1 release of this. It's good hear it having great feedback from R3.


Thanks

 

[PooperScooper]

Yes, a very popular movie...
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...99#post4202599
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...91#post3702091
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...42#post3550342


larry

 

[falser]

I wasn't a bad zombie movie, but it got completely eclipsed by Shaun of the Dead. It's better in every respect, except perhaps in the 'gore' category.

 

[Sergei Esenin]

I thought it was unremarkable at best. It seemed very empty and facile--the original had wit, humor, and even an insight or two. That isn't to say that it wasn't good as a meaningless action flick--but that's all it was. No wit, no charm, and very inferior to its predecessor. While Ebert is far from always right, his commentary hits the mark on this one:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...403190301/1023


For me, extraordinarily disappointing not for what it is, but for what it should have been. I just can't jump for a script that's so inferior to the original; it's like remaking *Casablanca* with Brad Pitt and J-Lo and replacing the clever, punchy dialogue with contemporary Hollywood platitudes. It may very well be a watchable standalone movie, and yet so "wrong"...


About *28 Days Later* , though--what I loved about it was that it was a zombie movie about the people and their relationships and psychology, rather than about the zombies. The zombies are just a catalyst for what is essentially a psychodrama about brutality, not unlike the dubious classic *Straw Dogs* but with better purpose, preceded by an extraordinary portrait of the empty, forlorn husk of the city. The lonely visuals of the opening chapter are striking, while the closing chapter is increasingly stomach-churning starting with the realization of what appears to be in store for poor little Hannah and building to the crescendo of violence.


Just my take though. *28 Days Later* seemed to have more intelligence and emotion, which for me are key to enjoying any film.

 

[Nich]

I thougth it was boring.....lousy zombies too...


Nicholas

 

[PooperScooper]

There is no such thing as a lousy zombie!


larry

 

[bosng]

i thought 28 days later had something going for it, until

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) the two main characters magically became the opposite of what they were thoughout the entire movie. the tough gal became this wilting flower in a dress and the much more timid guy suddenly became rambo



also i sat rather close to the screen at the theater and the low budget video really stuck out. lots of flickering like flourescent lights about to go, and picture breaking up.


but lots of people seem to have liked it despite those facts.


for me, dawn of the dead (2004) was way better.


shaun of the dead is another story, loved it.

 

[Sergei Esenin]

Quote:

Originally posted by bosng i thought 28 days later had something going for it, until Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) Spoiler   Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) the two main characters magically became the opposite of what they were thoughout the entire movie. the tough gal became this wilting flower in a dress and the much more timid guy suddenly became rambo

I have to disagree with that interpretation. I thought those two characters stayed very much in character. As for the "tough gal":

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) She's a hard-edged survivor, and she knows the best way to survive when faced with a whole platoon of crazy, armed soldiers who *are* going to rape her and Hannah one way or another, is to cooperate until she can find the right time to make a move. Fighting back from the start instead of laying low until she can make a move that has a chance of working would just get her beaten as well as raped, and probably caged or chained up like the zombie in the courtyard and thus in less of a position to eventually escape. She also immediately thinks of young Hannah, and how to make it less traumatic for the 14-year-old by giving her a lot of valium to make her "care less" and trying to help her through it. Under the circumstances a tough, smart, streetwise woman like her couldn't do anything else.



As for the "timid guy"--who's really more average than timid; timid would be the Dustin Hoffman character in *Straw Dogs*--I think his development is also inevitable under the circumstances:

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) Put yourself in his position. You, a woman, and a kid you feel a bit responsible for are lured into a compound by a platoon of soldiers who've lost it to brutality, and you're unarmed and outnumbered. You've only got three choices--


1) You've been invited to "join" the soldiers, which basically includes raping your new friend and a 14-year-old girl to prove you're "in the club." This is probably not an attractive proposition for most of us.

2) You can let the soldiers just march you into a field and kill you. This was the choice our man in the film was taking, until he saw a chance and took it.

3) You can at least *try* to fight back and save the girls. When our guy sees a chance to get the drop on the soldiers who were going to kill him, this is the option he takes.



I think under the circumstances everyone acted understandably...

Quote:

also i sat rather close to the screen at the theater and the low budget video really stuck out. lots of flickering like flourescent lights about to go, and picture breaking up.[/b]

Things shot on video never look their best up-close to a 35mm blowup. Looks great on a 100" home theater screen, though.

 

[bosng]

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) Put yourself in his position. You, a woman, and a kid you feel a bit responsible for are lured into a compound by a platoon of soldiers who've lost it to brutality, and you're unarmed and outnumbered. You've only got three choices--


1) You've been invited to "join" the soldiers, which basically includes raping your new friend and a 14-year-old girl to prove you're "in the club." This is probably not an attractive proposition for most of us.

2) You can let the soldiers just march you into a field and kill you. This was the choice our man in the film was taking, until he saw a chance and took it.

3) You can at least *try* to fight back and save the girls. When our guy sees a chance to get the drop on the soldiers who were going to kill him, this is the option he takes.



from what i remember

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) he suddenly flips on a dime and becomes resolved to do something,anything,to rescue/save his friends. ok, i'm with that, i expected him to use his wits to win the day or die trying, but (this is how i remember it) he becomes this action hero who knows how to move and fight, and does it better than the ones who've trained for years at it. no slip ups. i would've accepted that he migt have gotten lucky at combat against the army dudes once...heck let's get crazy and say twice, but the way it was handled was not believable. the movie ended for me at that point. i saw his character fighting back in the shelly duvall kind of way in "the shining" as opposed to what happened in 28 days later.




as for the woman
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) would you expect schwartzeneggar or any other toughguy to wilt suddenly and let someone else save the day? this is the character who up to that point handled herself expertly, was smart and physical. i expect that kind of character to wait and plan for the right moment.

i don't remember the ending very clearly now, did she revert to being a strong character at the end when the time was right or did she need to get saved by the suddenly "rambo" guy?

 

[TheCatchphrase]

I do not at all see why everyone lauds the Romero version as "the greatest ever". It was an okay movie, but it is not a better one than the remake. The characters, who were mostly unsympathetic, managed to die for profoundly stupid reasons. There was no character development except for the girl, and the campy music just killed any tension in the film. The film did have some interesting ideas on how to barricade a mall though. I would rank the films from highest to lowest as DOTD 2004, 28 Days Later, and then DOTD Romero version.

 

[falser]

Quote:

Originally posted by TheCatchphrase I would rank the films from highest to lowest as DOTD 2004, 28 Days Later, and then DOTD Romero version.

What no Return of the Living Dead? That is far an away my favorite zombie movie. It's funny, has great build-up, memorable characters, and some outrageous scenes (stripping punk chick!). Only Shaun has come close to it's awesomeness.

 

[TheCatchphrase]

Never saw it, however Shaun would be number four.

 

[jeffleonard]

Quote:

Originally posted by TheCatchphrase I do not at all see why everyone lauds the Romero version as "the greatest ever". It was an okay movie, but it is not a better one than the remake. The characters, who were mostly unsympathetic, managed to die for profoundly stupid reasons. There was no character development except for the girl, and the campy music just killed any tension in the film. The film did have some interesting ideas on how to barricade a mall though. I would rank the films from highest to lowest as DOTD 2004, 28 Days Later, and then DOTD Romero version.

What? What? WHAT? WHAT???


Does not compute. DOTD 2004 has better character development than Romero's? The new one was chock full of zombie fodder cardboard cutout characters.


I liked the 2004 version, and it had some very cool sequences (everything with Andy at the ammo store was good, and the end credit coda was nice). But it doesn't hold a candle to the original. I mean, it is the Citizen Kane of zombie flicks!


And the Goblin soundtrack is campy music?