Dawn of the Dead remake

[Living-In-Clip]

Bad acting? Check!
Bad editing? Check!
Plot-holes galore? Check!
Lack of scares? Check!
Lack of overall mood? Check!

Seriously though, the first ten mintues that was shown on the USA Network are simply amazing and get you pumped. Then the 11th mintue starts and it only goes downhill from there. No, that\'s not over reacting. You watch the first ten mintues, amazed and then the credits roll and the 11th mintue of the film starts. The only thing the credits serve in this film is to seperate the great part from the rest of the crap.

Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
Bad acting? Check!
Bad editing? Check!
Plot-holes galore? Check!
Lack of scares? Check!
Lack of overall mood? Check!

Seriously though, the first ten mintues that was shown on the USA Network are simply amazing and get you pumped. Then the 11th mintue starts and it only goes downhill from there. No, that\'s not over reacting. You watch the first ten mintues, amazed and then the credits roll and the 11th mintue of the film starts. The only thing the credits serve in this film is to seperate the great part from the rest of the crap.

You are way off, LIC.  WAY WAY WAY off.  I can\'t believe you support complete SHIT movies, calling them "popcorn flicks," yet you tear up this one like it was Gigli or something.  I have no idea what you were expecting out of this.  What\'s your idea of a GOOD horror film, so we have some way of evaluating your taste?  

This movie does not quite meet the standard of the raw, visceral high energy horror cinema of the 70s, but it only BARELY falls short.  This is an awesome horror film, and it genuine ROCKS AND ROLLS.  I honestly wonder if you saw the same movie I did.

"Bad acting..."  Ving Rhames and Jake Webber are far beyond the typical BULLSHIT hollywood male roles in horror films.  They were honest and believable.  The other performances were not as impressive, but I don\'t think you could call any of them bad.  Please specify which actor was bad.

Editing?????  I noticed only one scene that was poorly connected, but that\'s about 10 fewer than in a typical Hollywood horror film.

Plot holes... give me a break.  In a story this simple it would be very hard to manufacture a hole, let alone overlook one.  There are no holes.  Please explain.

I can\'t respond to "Lack of scares" because nothing in motion pictures scares me anymore.  Instead of looking for scares, I\'m satisfied if something is just interesting or ballsy.  If you insist on being scared, I think your standards are too high.  Only babies are scared by Hollywood.

Lack of mood.  I don\'t know where to begin with that one.  Your expectations must have been astronomical if you expected this to be some brilliant masterpiece of cinematography or suspense, or however you define "mood."  It\'s a REMAKE of a great film, it was suppose to be shit.  It was a hell of a lot better than I expected.  

Ende

[Bladez]

Shit now I\'m confused!:confused:

Originally posted by Bladez
Shit now I\'m confused!:confused:

The moral of this story:  Decide for yourself.  Don\'t listen to what other people tell you.

[Living-In-Clip]

What are you smoking? What film that is "complete shit" did I endorse? And I\'m sorry, this film was complete crap. The editing was terrible, one mintue they look at the mall, next minute they are smashing through a window. Or how about the fact they interduce around seven characters at once, none of them are developed worth a damn... Or maybe the fact they throw a Propane tank into the zombies, explode it right next to the bus and they are A-OK? What the hell? It was downright terrible.

Plot Holes? How about the fact they go in a parking garage, it\'s filled with zombies. A-OK. Next thing we know they are back in it and working on the damn stupid bus.  

This movie didn\'t even try to be a horror film. It didn\' try to do anything \'cept be a stupid, very badly done action movie.

And yes there was bad acting. The lead blonde? Sucked. The black gun that carried a gun? Bad acting.

And the simple fact I can\' name one character in the film is just proof the story and characters was under developed.

[Jumpman]

I deem this thread:

Worthy of my spam.

[GmanJoe]

Originally posted by Living-In-Clip

The editing was terrible, one mintue they look at the mall, next minute they are smashing through a window. Or how about the fact they interduce around seven characters at once, none of them are developed worth a damn... Or maybe the fact they throw a Propane tank into the zombies, explode it right next to the bus and they are A-OK? What the hell? It was downright terrible.

They did fudge up the part where they broke into the mall. Other zombies should have gotten through. About the propane explosion, I guess the sheer number of zombies helped buffer the concussion of the explosion. Also, the fuel explosion should have cracked the windshield but it was supported with all that metal in front of it.

Character development? Well, it\'s a zombie flick. I wouldn\'t expect too much in that department.

Originally posted by Living-In-Clip

Plot Holes? How about the fact they go in a parking garage, it\'s filled with zombies. A-OK. Next thing we know they are back in it and working on the damn stupid bus.  

It was filled with zombies (which they killed off) in a locked garage. Remember they had to crash through the closed garage door?

Originally posted by Living-In-Clip

This movie didn\'t even try to be a horror film. It didn\' try to do anything \'cept be a stupid, very badly done action movie.

And yes there was bad acting. The lead blonde? Sucked. The black gun that carried a gun? Bad acting.

And the simple fact I can\' name one character in the film is just proof the story and characters was under developed.

Again, it\'s a zombie flick. Why are you expecting Lawrence Olivier caliber acting?

they gave tom savini a cameo

thats enough for me to recommend it

character development?  who needs that when we\'re expecting them to get eaten at any second

oddly enough, it kept me entertained

[Living-In-Clip]

Originally posted by mm
they gave tom savini a cameo

thats enough for me to recommend it

character development?  who needs that when we\'re expecting them to get eaten at any second

oddly enough, it kept me entertained

I never want to hear you lecture about good cinema again. So, what, they gave Tom a cameo? We all know Tom would take a cameo in a Disney film if gave the chance.

And I\'m sorry - I do expect character development in my zombie films. Why? Because Romero delivered it.
This film was a diaster.

Seems your the miniority in thinking that LIC.

lemme fill you in on something

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0811583/

take a look at that and tell me what you see, or better yet, dont see.

did i say dotd was good cinema?  far from it.

character development in zombie films?  wtf?


here\'s the character development that should be standard

{enter jane - stage left}
{jane may die at any second}
{jane almost dies}
{jane dies}

[Living-In-Clip]

James Gunn wrote the 04 script, do you know what else he wrote? Scooby Doo, for crying out loud.

And the original Night and Dawn had character development.
 You of all people should know this.

I haven\'t seen it yet but I hope there is some zombie development.

oh, i forgot to menttion.  it has johhny cash in the soundtrack, another bonus point

LIC, a character talking about what happened to them earlier is hardly "development"

[Living-In-Clip]

I am just glad to know that if a movie gives Savani a cameo and has Cash in the soundtrack, then it is a entertaining film. Sorry, I don\'t set my standards that low.


And I\'m sorry - but I cared about the characters in the original Dawn, where as in this one, I don\'t know any of their names and I just wished it would end. I would say the Texas Chainsaw Remake was better and it wasn\'t all that good.