930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: grotty on March 23, 2004, 10:48:00 am
-
Anyone see this yet & care to offer an opinion?
It's getting mixed, but mostly decent, reviews.
Like this about the soundtrack:
Dawn has plenty other selling points, including an inspired soundtrack - the film kicks off with Johnny Cash's "The Man Comes Around" and ends with the Jim Carroll Band's "People Who Died," while the elevator Muzak is always cheerful tripe like "Don't Worry, Be Happy" or "You Light Up My Life."
***********
btw...this is a great site that I found for gathering movie reviews:
Movie Review Query (http://www.mrqe.com/lookup)
Wish there was something like this for records & books.
-
I saw it on Friday night, and I thought it was pretty great. For a first time director, the film was shot really well. There were a few weak points, and it isn't as smart as the original, but as a stand alone movie, it's good. They did take some interesting new angles in the story which makes it a seperate entity; not like the remake of Psycho from a few years back.
It's kind of like comparing the original Terminator to Terminator 2. It's easy to get blown away by the special effects and pacing of the movie, but the original is exactly that: the original. The new one will never impact me like the original did.
Oh, and before any super fanboy horror fans give me a hard time, I didn't like 28 Days Later at all, so it's not just my sort attention span that thought the movie was so good (with the fast zombies and slick production and all).
-
for amassed movie reviews i like
Rotten Tomatoes (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/)
-
Originally posted by nkotbie:
I saw it on Friday night, and I thought it was pretty great. For a first time director, the film was shot really well. There were a few weak points, and it isn't as smart as the original, but as a stand alone movie, it's good. They did take some interesting new angles in the story which makes it a seperate entity; not like the remake of Psycho from a few years back.
It's kind of like comparing the original Terminator to Terminator 2. It's easy to get blown away by the special effects and pacing of the movie, but the original is exactly that: the original. The new one will never impact me like the original did.
Oh, and before any super fanboy horror fans give me a hard time, I didn't like 28 Days Later at all, so it's not just my sort attention span that thought the movie was so good (with the fast zombies and slick production and all).
Here's a review that also discusses the essence of what you are saying - the importance of considering & judging it on its own merits:
the gate (http://www.thegate.ca/reviews/dawn-ofthe-dead.php)
-
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
for amassed movie reviews i like
Rotten Tomatoes (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/)
that's very cool Kosmo - I like the way it compiles the ratings into a composite.
-
Originally posted by grotty:
btw...this is a great site that I found for gathering movie reviews:
Movie Review Query (http://www.mrqe.com/lookup)
Wish there was something like this for records & books.
Not as many reviews, but I love metacritic (http://www.metacritic.com) for movie, DVD and album reviews.
-
Originally posted by nkotbie:
[QB
Oh, and before any super fanboy horror fans give me a hard time, I didn't like 28 Days Later at all, so it's not just my sort attention span that thought the movie was so good (with the fast zombies and slick production and all). [/QB]
I am not a horror fan, but I liked 28 days later, quite a bit, even watched it again on DVD. I was a bit like John Wyndham's day of the triffids, with zombies.
-
I guess I should re-phrase that last part. I didn't really like it as a zombie flick. I just went in expecting a different movie all together. It started off great, but as soon as they entered the second half of the movie, it seemed to lose it's way, in my opinion. I just wanted to clarify for people that are hardcore horror/gore fans that I'm not easily wooed by the faster pace and better effects of a movie like 28 Days Later.
Originally posted by mark e smith:
Originally posted by nkotbie:
[QB
Oh, and before any super fanboy horror fans give me a hard time, I didn't like 28 Days Later at all, so it's not just my sort attention span that thought the movie was so good (with the fast zombies and slick production and all). [/b]
I am not a horror fan, but I liked 28 days later, quite a bit, even watched it again on DVD. I was a bit like John Wyndham's day of the triffids, with zombies. [/QB]
-
Originally posted by nkotbie:
better effects of a movie like 28 Days Later.
which version did you see?
-
I'm not sure whether you're being sarcastic or not, so I'll give an answer for both:
If you're being sarcastic and implying that 28 Days Later had subpar special effects, you should take a look at some of the zombies in the original Dawn of of the Dead. Some are simply actors painted blue, which, if you were to watch the movie for the first time today, you'd think was pretty ridiculous.
If you're being serious, I really didn't know there were different versions (unless you're counting the different endings and all on the DVD).
Originally posted by pollard:
Originally posted by nkotbie:
better effects of a movie like 28 Days Later.
which version did you see? [/b]
-
Originally posted by nkotbie:
I'm not sure whether you're being sarcastic or not, so I'll give an answer for both:
If you're being sarcastic and implying that 28 Days Later had subpar special effects, you should take a look at some of the zombies in the original Dawn of of the Dead. Some are simply actors painted blue, which, if you were to watch the movie for the first time today, you'd think was pretty ridiculous.
If you're being serious, I really didn't know there were different versions (unless you're counting the different endings and all on the DVD).
sorry, I was being sarcastic, the original was made in 1978, of course it did not have great special effects
28 Days Later hardly had great special effects by today's standards, that is why you rarely saw a clear shot of the zombies
-
Originally posted by pollard:
28 Days Later hardly had great special effects by today's standards, that is why you rarely saw a clear shot of the zombies
That is what made it so scary. Just like Alien... Not being able to see the foe, makes it more scary.
I agree with NKOTB that it was a bit disjointed, but it least it didnt go in a predictable direction. Although in the end the whole plot is somewhat similar to the day of the triffids....
-
I saw this over the weekend & liked it.
I understand all the praise over the original - social commentary, consumerism, etc. - but if you watch it today, it's more funny that scary. Bad acting & cheap special effects. Maybe all ground breaking for their time, but sometimes hard to watch now.
I found this version to be so much better. It was actually one of the 'scariest' movies I've seen in a long time. It freaked me out for a couple hours after. I was so tense from literally sitting on the edge of my seat.
It's worth going to just to see the 1st 15 minutes or so that occur even before the intro credits. It's an amazing depiction of just how quickly society can unravel.
If you do go, be sure to stay through the end credits too. The movie continues to playout during these & the final ending is entirely different than the one from the 'official' end.
-
one of the guys from anthrax said it was really good....