- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Dawn of the Dead (2004)
Posted on 12/4/10 at 10:29 am to Scoop
Posted on 12/4/10 at 10:29 am to Scoop
quote:
Eh, smells like a nerd post.
I wear no Romero-colored glasses. Outside of Night and Dawn, Romero has been a pretty bad filmmaker (and, yes, I have seen the putrid Survival entry).
The fact remains, the original Dawn can't be touched in terms of action, tone, comedy, and satire.
The new Dawn is a sad imitation that uses budget and cast as a way to gloss over its lack of substance and ideas. I've just never understood why people thought this film was so good. And I've seen it several times. Because it's newer and had a higher budget with more contemporary effects?
This post was edited on 12/4/10 at 10:30 am
2
Posted on 12/4/10 at 10:35 am to shutterspeed
i liked the new one, but i was not blown away like many were
the best subplot of the movie is how the chick looks real hot in some shots and ugly in others
the best subplot of the movie is how the chick looks real hot in some shots and ugly in others
Posted on 12/4/10 at 10:36 am to shutterspeed
quote:
I've just never understood why people thought this film was so good.
Because it's a great action movie. That's all it tries to be with a few nods to the original like Ken Foree's cameo as a priest. It has great gore effects, it doesn't shy away from sensitive subject matter (zombie baby), and the characters are generally likeable.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News