Hey Max, you keep talking about the old days, you starting to sounds as old as me LOL

Seriously tho, I see exactly where you are coming from mate. For me a story is most important, it doesn't even have to be that good, just as long as it captures my imagination.

hence why utter bollocks like "The Hulk" get to the top spot in theatres.

Hey, hulk wasn't that bad. To be fair the original series was shit too

I don't know why, but I feel it may be somehow connected with problems with concentration many people are experiencing nowadays. They simply prefer movies on which you don't have to concentrate, you can start and stop watching them anytime.

just let them live in their own world....

im only 21 but anyone whose ever met me knows that i was born a few decades too late lol.

Hey, hulk wasn't that bad. To be fair the original series was shit too

Btw, in the version I saw there was a scene where the hulk's trousers flickered on and off a few seconds.

This one needs to be seen on the big screen

..... (plus that damn feeling all modern horror films have, its hard to describe... kind of a fake and unatmospheric overture... Its been present ever since scream).

and it does get better IMO

i would have gone to see it again today but i had a bitching hangover so didn't fancy all that surround sound doing my head in

i know what you mean, i think tis studio lighting and the fact that the pictures are a lot clearer now then say in the 70s 80s etc, so a lot of movies look lighter where its meant to be dark and because of clearer picture quality it means you can see everything right down to the sweat on someones forehead from 60yards away, while this may be good for some things with horror it takes away the feeling of "did i see something move in the background etc.

yep,there's a 2 svcd telesync over at suprnova.org....

I'm just gonna put cheese in my ears for the next 6 months or so

Wanna see it on a big screen

Everyone dies in the 'original' original. It was cut during filming for a few reasons, the major one being it couldn't be shot well enough.



I've seen it twice now (once at cinema, one at home ). I was overly harsh on it, it did got better. However, it wasn't a zombie bite on the original. I like the communication of the roof but everything was so post-scream cliche, and everyone's fucking stupid too

I thought the captain oats bit was a bit laughable, Romero would never have done that... he knows a hell of a lot more about human nature than shown in this movie.

The running zombies were good in some respects, but the 'oh i'm a zombie and i'm on tv ma' was over the top. See the first zombie seen in the clip. WTF was that jump about. That stuff crops up all through the

The fact that they left the Shopping Mall (pronounced MAL people, not maul ) was just wrong. I mean wtf, they had it sweet... nothing like the prison atmosphere of the Romeros. In Romero's you really feel like they are trapped and there's nowhere to go, whereas in the end of this; oh well, lets sail off into the sunset shall we? In the end of Dawn of the Dead (proper), its humans that screw humans and imo this makes the ending all the better and profound. I would have thought the originally intended ending, or something to that degree would be much better in Romero's but the basic ending is still established.

What this one did 'better' was scale, the trendy intro sequence does well at showing this is international (yes, there are other countries!) and its fucked up everywhere (and no1 knows wtf is going on). I thought this part was by far the best. There are more zombies, there are more people alive and you know that this is just a microcasm of what's happening everywhere. This really pulps up the chaos which this film does to cover up the post-scream shallowness of modern horror movies. It works pretty well, but ultimately, this, and I'm going to have to state the obvious, fails to come anywhere near as groundbreaking or enjoyable as the original.

In contrast, Romero took the trapped side (and imo, the reason Dawn works so well). Whilst you see other people, it has nothing to do with them and you don't expect people to just show up willy nilly. This also focues the audience on the fact that its a handful of people, in a huge mall, surrounded by people who want nothing more than to eat them. Another great context pumped out by the original is that whilst they are there and surrounded by all these products, all of them are completely useless, shallow items doing nothing more than showing them how shallow their lives are. This simply isnt shown in the new one (apart from a brief clip of them 'endulging' themselves). Character wise, cannon folder here. I doubt most of them existed until the writer/director thought 'hmmm we haven't killed someone in 5 minutes' and then pencilled them in as afterthoughts.

An other unfortunate incident is the over endulgance in the little grey box, yes CGI. Now whilst I think CGI in post production is a god send in some cases, heightening atmosphere (its used so well in many films when you don't realise its there), you can tell some scenes were like "oh well we'll do that in CG afterwards". The problem here is, it looks like shit and its totally unbelievable. However, they weren't over using it so I'll let em off

After all that, it is still a decent enough film (best zombie movies in quite a while), and I can only hope pumps a lot more funds in to the horror genre (and zombie movies especially!). It beats the likes of Resident Evil (which everyone knows was a huge dissapointment and abandoned everything that made the games great) which was still an okay film.



Indeed, but its no Star Wars / LOTR epic, if you have a sound system and a decent display of any description, the experience will be just the same come DVD release date. It isn't earth shattering in anyway, so 'a must see at cinema' comment is an overstatement if you hear it from anyone.

Best zombie movie in a while, but not the best zombie movie by quite a while

they're making a new suspiria too...