George A. Romero's Dawn of the Dead

Amanda Edwards78 said:It’s obvious you don't care about substance; any movie will do as long as it’s packed with zombies running around, laughing, shooting, and tossing grenades. It doesn't matter to you.
I suppose I should suggest soap operas to you instead—though, naturally, they would have to feature zombies.

Perhaps you should refrain from commenting on matters outside your expertise...
If you aren't a fan of George A. Romero and his work, then perhaps you should seek out something else entirely.
Good day...👋

And who exactly gave you the authority to sit there and meddle? George A. Romero's earlier work was exceptionally strong, so it’s a shame he missed the mark this time. If you have commercial tastes, just own it. Honestly.

Amanda Edwards78 said:And who exactly gave you the authority to sit here and meddle? George A. Romero’s older films are exceptionally good, so it’s a shame he fell short this time. If you happen to have commercial tastes, just accept it... lol. Honestly, stop being so difficult.

Pathetic, truly pathetic.👋

I'm practically forcing your mother into something 😁

Amanda Edwards78 said:And who exactly gave you the right to occupy this space and stick your nose in? George A. Romero's older films are exceptionally good, so I am disappointed that he underperformed this time. If you happen to have commercial tastes, just accept it. lol. And stop bothering your mother.

I truly cannot fathom what you believe justifies your claim that the film was a failure.
Is it perhaps because it didn't gross $100 million at the box office?
Furthermore, having an appreciation for this recent work by George A. Romero does not equate to having "commercial taste." He doesn't churn out movies like they're on an assembly line, and his entire catalog of zombie films has garnered critical acclaim—including this latest one...

If this thing had actually pulled in $50 million at the box office, it would’ve just been some mainstream piece of crap 😉 instead, it’s just a solid zombie flick for the 21st century... and honestly, let's skip all those comparisons to the "golden era" from the late seventies and early eighties... those were just different times entirely 😁

I genuinely enjoyed it. I mean that sincerely; I wouldn't want anyone to mistake my opinion for more of my usual cynicism or provocation.

I think the movie's actually pretty good, but since I work in finance, I just can't get past one silly detail. The money—specifically the cash—is totally unrealistic; like, the main villain just runs off with two massive bags of USD? It's kind of ridiculous, but hey, I guess I'll let it slide for the sake of the story.

Wait a second, has this already played in theaters in Seattle?

Lawrence Booth2 said:if this movie had pulled in 50 million, it would’ve just been some mainstream garbage😉 instead, it's just a 21st-century zombie flick... and stop trying to compare it to the golden era from the late seventies and early eighties... those were different times entirely😁

Totally agree. You can't make a good movie anymore. That's it. It's over. We're doomed as a species.

No, in Night of the Living Dead, he started the whole zombie thing. The hook was simple: zombies are slow and easy to kill, but they're still dangerous. Half the movie happens inside a house while people are boarding up windows. All that arguing about whether to stay in the basement or head to the attic. Brilliant.

In Dawn, he used zombies as a tool to create a masterpiece. That... I mean... that shopping mall, that muffled music playing in the parking lot, then once they get inside and start frantically running through the stores—you get fifteen minutes of just people sprinting through aisles to upbeat music. And all of it mixed with fighting zombies. Plus the conflict with other humans, which this movie actually predicted.

The best parts of this movie for me:

-The fact that the zombies are watching fireworks (kind of implies the government turns people into zombies just by giving them a little fireworks show)
-The way the zombies act like people trying to cross the border into the USA
-That Mexican kid saying he's gonna start a Jihad on that guy
-The main character deciding to head to Canada
-And stuff like that

But the American satire feels played out. It wasn't the backbone of the film like it was in Dawn; it was just a random detail here and there. Too much mindless action. The action wasn't "zombified." It lacked that feeling of "they're slow, but there's so many of them and they're constantly closing in and they're dangerous." It was just "they sneak up on you and you don't know where they'll jump," and that is NOT zombie action.

So yeah. Such a shame.

And why on earth did they think zombies couldn't just cross a river?

The classroom enemy is back, and this time, it’s got teeth... honestly, George A. Romero was basically a communist 😁 😉

In the original zombie flick, you can really see this underlying tension regarding racism and an armed-to-the-teeth America—kind of gives off those Bowling for Columbine vibes. There’s this one specific scene where someone opens a cabinet and out pops a little American flag right next to a shotgun 😁

And then at the end, when they just go after him without even checking the facts... it hits you with that whole... you know... "Black people... they're all the same" mentality 😠

Amanda Edwards78 said:And why on earth did they think zombies couldn't just cross a river? :/

They don't have brains, obviously.
🙄
Fear 🙂
they can't swim 🙂
they don't know how to dive 😁

I mean, sure—a river acts as a natural barrier, but even for a perfectly healthy adult human, it's an obstacle. 😎

Oh man, I am so excited to go see this soon!!1

Woohoo! Just do me a favor and don't go spoiling any of the plot for my mom 🙂

If you'll permit me, I'd like to stir the pot in this thread just a little bit...

I actually held off on hitting the theater until the DVD arrived, which allowed me to watch it properly in peace. I suppose the film is definitely the weakest link in the tetralogy, though it isn't quite as bad as the new Dawn... this marks the first time George A. Romero has played around with a more serious budget and higher-caliber actors (setting aside Creepshow, of course), and it’s his first attempt at the 2.35:1 aspect ratio, so as an experiment, I guess it's quite successful.

Where it misses the mark for me is that the genre feels a bit played out. I don't know about you all, but when those zombies crossed the river and started moving through that greenhouse, I didn't get that classic "end of the world, we're all screwed" feeling that haunted me during the original Night of the Living Dead, or even Day.

The explanation is pretty obvious—Romero drew some very clear lines. What kept the previous Dead films so gripping was the tension and that sense of the unknown—just a few people barricaded in a house, a shopping mall, or a bunker, having no clue what's lurking outside. Is there anyone left? Will this pass? Here, there is a distinct divide between "us" behind the fence and "them" out there, so that whole sense of mystery just sort of evaporated. It's no longer "oh god, how will we survive," because everything is laid out: the whole de-zombification procedure is clear as day.

Romero has never been shy about political commentary, but I think he nearly overdid it here. At certain points, I felt like I was watching a horror movie directed by Michael Moore—“we don't negotiate with terrorists,” “I'm gonna go jihad on his ass” kind of stuff... it seems the subtlety found in Dawn, Day, and even Night belongs to a different era. It’s incredibly blunt that the zombies represent the "proletariat," and their "uprising" at the end is just a textbook cinematic version of the old "rise of the working class" trope.

That said, there are plenty of bright spots. The cinematography is lovely with those cool blue tones, and there's a solid atmosphere in the human settlements that vaguely reminds me of a WWII-era ghetto. There aren't many groundbreaking new zombie effects, though that headless zombie turned out to be quite decent (if you know, you know). The acting is good too, for the genre, especially Simon Baker and Dennis Hopper... Asia Argento is pure eye candy, though you have to ignore how her accent shifts from rehearsed American to something resembling that Italian colonel from Allo, Allo. Some characters feel totally redundant, though—like those commandos Kaufman sets on Riley, or specifically that "tough girl" from Detroit.

The DVD itself is a real treat. You get 2.35:1 anamorphic with 5.1 and DTS options, plus a massive pile of extras—director's commentary, an exhaustive making-of, and various little featurettes. The most interesting one might be "When Shaun met George," which is basically a video diary from Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright during Shaun of the Dead, where they make cameos in Land as... well... zombies. Of course, I'm talking about the US import; I have no idea what the international version will look like, but I specifically wanted the US version knowing how much tends to get "lost in translation" when things are converted for our region.

To wrap things up, Romero mentioned he wants to keep the franchise going with the same cast... I really hope he doesn't, honestly. Land has already reached the point where any subsequent attempt will probably feel hollow. Go do something else, George; we both know you've already mastered the zombies.

To feels like pure satire of modern society to me—even if it’s a little over the top—much like how every previous installment served as a social commentary on the specific decade it was born into.
The whole fireworks bit is honestly brilliant.

....
That said, I still think 28 Days Later did a much better job of actually capturing the zeitgeist.

Richard Hernandez13 said:I see this as pure satire of modern society—even if it’s a bit over the top. It seems like every previous entry served as a social commentary on the decade it was born into.

I don't know if I'd go as far as calling it satire... I suppose it's more like a cinematic assault on an entire ideology, or a specific regime.

In the DVD commentary, George A. Romero doesn't mince words at all; he straight up says, "this part is Bush, this part is Dick Cheney," and so on. It's actually quite interesting that Dennis Hopper was a registered Republican, and apparently, in his own words, he "doesn't have the same understanding of the film as Romero." I guess George might have been leading him astray.😁

So, for George A. Romero, it’s all an allegory. Honestly, I can't say I disagree; that's pretty much how I interpreted it too.
The funniest part for me had to be that ending where the heroes just decide to pack up and head straight for Canada. 😁
It’s actually pretty fascinating how many of this year's releases can be read as political allegories or metaphors—you look at things like Batman Begins, War of the Worlds, or Star Wars: Episode II and see the patterns.

Wait, Dennis Hopper was a Republican?! Lol, I seriously had no clue. I wonder what on earth caused such a massive change of heart? 😁

Richard Hernandez13 said:Dennis Hopper was a Republican?! Lol, I had no clue. I wonder what kind of drugs turned him around like that. 😁 [/B]

Given how massive the list of substances he was using back in the 60s and 70s actually was, I probably shouldn't try to pin it down to just one specific thing...

Honestly, at this point, the real question isn't whether he used drugs, but rather which ones he actually managed to avoid?

I’ve got this pretty funny little story from the set of blue velvet. In the original Lynchian vision, Hopper's character was actually supposed to be inhaling helium! When he mentioned that playing a total > with a voice sounding like > just wouldn't work, Hopper ended up suggesting a whole list of chemical substances that > had absolutely never even heard of (😁). To help him narrow down the options, Hopper tapped into his extensive personal history with chemistry and gave him a rather vivid demonstration of what the high from those specific compounds would actually look like.
🤣