The miraculous rescue of the main characters knocked down the five plus... Compared to the first film, I liked the main team more, they were even sorry. But still, the doom of the first film is closer to me. And again - you can survive the attack of a stupid undead, but there is no way to save people with automatic guns and power : In both films, panic, the desire to dominate, senseless cruelty are very humane. But the second one went a little further, making murders grotesque, killing corpses so much fun! It is more painful to watch scenes with reincarnation. And about Supermarket I want to add: morally, our heroes are no different from marauders, greed played in the Pilot, for which he paid. I think a lot of people fantasized about what they would do if they were allowed to walk around in the mall, it would be hypocrisy to blame the heroes for robbing the box office and playing dressing rooms. After that, without society there was boredom, and the stolen ring, the offer to get engaged is no longer worth anything ("this is not real"). It seems to have found a utopia, but even it will not save you from everyday squabbles, everything is always not enough :
I remember how I felt watching Dawn of the Dead in 2004 and how badly it hit me. But the 1978 movie is a completely different level. A real classic of the genre. Which I am convinced of.
George Romero is an amazing director who shot horror stories about zombies very cool and very natural. You can't even say the 1978 movie. If the Night of the Living Dead frankly lacked tin and more action, although everything was very cool, then the director broke away to the fullest. A large amount of blood that looks very spectacular and very natural even in 2023, and of course Zombies. Zombies are the way they will be remembered. Slow, hungry, insatiable and there are many. There were a couple of really creepy moments. There are no scary, but very nasty emphasizing creatures about which the film is told. That was really cool.
I would especially like to highlight Ken Fori. Peter Washington, from the beginning to the end, commanded great respect. Of course he made mistakes, too. Who doesn't? But his game was very interesting to watch. He is very intelligent, fearless and very confident in himself.
I will also highlight Scott H. Reiniger, who I also call one of the favorites of this film. Roger, from time to time, seemed very cool. So light and cold and confident. The tandem with Peter was very cool.
I want to especially highlight the denouement of the film very creepy turned out. I didn’t expect Romero to be able to show such a tin in the 1978 film. That's definitely not the way they're filming. Natural, qualitative, realistic and very creepy. And all this to a very fun music.
The Dawn of the Dead is a true classic of the genre. Romero opened the way to the world of the dead and showed a real horror that never gets old and will always be relevant. Contemporary zombie movies are also cool, but the way Romero shot it is a separate song. The bar is very high. Drama is enough. In the case, this picture is considered the most appreciated of the films about the Living Dead. Very cool.
Romero and his dead. Part 3 The Disappointing Sequel
After the cult ' Night of the Living Dead' which laid the foundations of zombie movies, Romero gained fame and fame. Without betraying himself, the director continued to work in his favorite genre. However, his next picture on the subject of zombies, was released only ten years later. Now' Dawn of the Dead' 1978 - is considered a real classic and a sample of zombie horror, setting the standards of the genre for many years to come. Knowing about the universal love for this picture, I was extremely intrigued and immediately began to view. But, on the first view, I was disappointed, the second viewing further strengthened this feeling.
First of all, the plot. It's standard for the genre. The epidemic from the last film has acquired the scale of a global pandemic. The focus is on a group of survivors who decide to fly as far away as possible in a helicopter and find refuge in a large supermarket where much of the story unfolds.
It is worth noting that the beginning of the film is perfectly executed. The segment in the TV studio gives a clear exposure, and the subsequent capture of the police special forces of the apartment building is perfectly filmed and introduces the viewer to the atmosphere. Problems begin with characters. They introduce us to them again well, but they have almost no further development. Yes, in ' Night of the Living Dead' we didn’t know much about the characters either, but there were important events here and now, there was no time for special disclosure, while here the characters are kind of supposed to be interesting, but for the most part I didn’t feel anything about them, and this is a verdict for a story that is completely built on the survival of these same characters. But how can you get intense when you don’t really care about the characters? Yes, sometimes there are attempts at disclosure and personal drama of the characters, but it is simply not revealed to the end. The actions of the characters are sometimes incomprehensible, as are their reactions to events, not to mention the many situations in which the characters do not even try to help the other, the minute they are about to be eaten alive by a zombie. Actors also do not save the situation, in most cases, their facial expressions are quite detached and even bored, although not always. Obviously, the author was interested in something else.
The development of the plot and characters fade into the background in favor of caustic satire and ridicule the American way of life. The themes familiar to Romero that took place in his past works are reflected here. All the elements of the film play to this very satire, here we have: confusion and chaos in the government and the media, a gang of bikers marauders led by Tom Savini (best role in the film), and of course the zombies themselves, who seem to remember the most important thing in their past lives, instinctively reach for the mall as the main bastion of happiness. Also, civilians with weapons have nowhere to go, for whom shooting dead people has become something like shooting at bottles, sometimes the authors decide on rather bold things, such as killing children in the frame, and even though they are zombies, but still. And this is a really interesting topic, to make a horror with such a sharp social background. Only the serious questions that Romero raises in the story conflict with the presentation of the material. Directing is lame, you can not call a spectacular picture either. There is a lot of blood and cruelty here, and Savini as a makeup artist, as always, coped perfectly with his work, but in most cases everything looks somehow faded. It's artificial. Even the weapons are plastic and the shots from them are appropriate. Of course, you can write it off on a small budget, but after all, with ' Night of the Living Dead' it was even smaller, and the cheapness did not catch your eye so sharply due to the camera nature of the tape. Immediately, aiming at a larger scale, the authors themselves cornered, and the falsity became noticeable to the naked eye. Also in the picture there are many noticeable blunders and very long scenes.
The musical accompaniment to the film was provided by the Italian rock band Goblin. And I probably don’t understand something, but pick up the music so far, not with a note, not corresponding to any scene – you need to really try. Of course, there is also the fault of Romero, who apparently thought that such a soundtrack is a good find for the film.
As a result, it turns out that the film does not work as a social criticism, because the setting is not quite suitable, and the artistic toolkit of the director is extremely scarce, and does not work as an entertaining horror. It is impossible to call the picture a blatant failure (after all, it is not without reason that it is so loved) there are good moments and successful decisions, but this is only a small part of the numerous shortcomings. It’s a pity, because given how much the tape had on the genre, it was expected quite different.
In our time, there is already a generation of people who are disliked ' slow & #39; movies. I can’t say that I don’t sometimes feel a strong desire to rewind some of the masterpieces '. However - if you like good movies, it is very strange if your list is not 'Dawn of the Dead'
And it's not so much about genre affiliation - if you like zombie movies like me - then 'Dawn' definitely on your shelf. But for an ordinary moviegoer, this film is of interest, since it is first of all a well-made story of the survival of very realistic characters in completely unrealistic conditions.
' Dawn of the Dead' creates an oppressive atmosphere of the classic zombie apocalypse, which takes place almost behind the scenes - minor characters talk about it, certain actions occur, and the viewer is slowly fed complete madness and chaos of what is happening. And then the main characters meet him and methodically try to fight for survival. The viewer, in turn, is invited to watch all this.
In the end - one of the highest quality zombie Movie. Deep, multifaceted, slow and low-budget. This was possible before - now the studio is unlikely to allow anything like this to be filmed. The remake from Zack Snyder is a completely different movie, but, oddly enough, quite worthy of viewing.
The vector chosen by Romero, by the end of the 70s, is a little more than a decade old and the author of this text may well criticize the approach of the director, who just 10 years ago and composed (not without the help of other authors, of course) a cult picture that marked the beginning of a zombie movie in its classical sense.
Over a dozen years in the culture there have been great changes, but not only that the creators of this picture did not find a more creative name (which to this day makes you confused in all these “dead”), and all the components, including acting, hung in the same 60s.
In fact, “Dawn of the Dead” is the same debut Romerov’s work, with the difference in that it was made a little larger and what to do, by the way, was absolutely not worth it. Having the same production tools, this part looks critically depressing professionally. And yes, to criticize the classics is not quite accepted, but the feeling that the director has no development does not leave from beginning to end. Naturally, this is reflected in the atmosphere, which should be sinister (the black-and-white version and the chamber nature of “Night of the Living Dead” wins with a head here) and on the acting ensemble. It is even shameful to talk about the latter - to endure two hours of acid mines Emji, Fori and Reiniger real torture.
In fact, for the horrors of this kind even hurt – today children are afraid of walking corpses, and tomorrow shoot themselves in the temple because of the Internet shutdown. Fear is a progressive element and, sadly enough, at the time of the 78th, Romero provides only some nostalgic achiva, and not a quality zombie horror for 1.5 million “green” (this is a lie, by the way).
5 out of 10
The slogan of the picture makes it very clear that the dead will thoroughly squeeze the living people. Displaced from their home planet. And after all, the logic is simple, for where further to press people from the earth, since there is no place left in hell?
It's the late '70s. America is enjoying the fruits of a consumer culture. And, from Romero’s point of view, this delight did not go at all to where he was initially directed by the bright and utopian dreams of ordinary people just some conventional decade ago. Society is at an impasse, no other way...
There is a real crisis in the country. The crisis is, without a doubt, comprehensive, but above all, social. A crisis that has managed to turn into a form of global mental pathology. That acute stage of pathology, when the consciousness of an individual has already become so confused that a person does not see the actual problem in which he is stuck up to his ears.
Before the fatal outcome, there is very little time left - here the hand of the clock will pass the last circle to the fatal mark, and the whole world will collapse. So much so that after you can not collect and pieces. The collective consciousness that has seized the reins of power is the gloomy world of the future that director Romero is trying to recreate in his film.
However, the media completely cut off freedom-loving creators even the stingiest opportunity to convey the terrible truth to the minds of consumers.
There is nothing to do about it – this is how the information business as a whole works, and the media – and even more so – a dark conglomerate of domination, mainly focused on obtaining superprofits.
In such conditions, it is definitely not necessary to wave a creative brush widely on the plot canvas. As an option - shed more fake blood, but to feed the viewer excellent meat, alas, also decorative. Although the blood and meat in the film look unrealistic, grotesque and not serious, but to dare to scold the film for this and only for this is a bad tone.
After all, unless a fool does not understand the obvious - this picture, like any Romero work in general, is not about meat and blood, but about living people and problems that forever dominate humanity - social tragedies, survival and the search for their place in this harsh world.
And yet, Breaking Dawn does not attempt to drive the viewer into depression. It should also be remembered that this story is not only about the difficulties of survival, but also about how people, remaining simple and almost helpless mortals, find the strength, albeit at their last breath, to cope with these inexorable cataclysms.
Dawn of the Dead is the second metaphorical message from the director about the urgent problems of society. The message is that humans are inherently adaptive to environmental conditions. To a greater or lesser extent, but still adapters. Creatures are much more amazing than any zombie and stronger in spirit any plague of mass destruction.
This is Romero’s basic message: this world will always be a challenge to humanity, and each time their number will increase and their character will become more aggressive. And large masses of people will continue to die from more and more disasters. And yet, there will always be separate groups of individuals who will surely survive.
And they won't survive because they're some special, chosen, or tagged lucky star from the sky, no. These people will survive because they (and only they) decide what to do, whether to survive, or to die, to put up with their fate, succumbing to the influence of an unconscious collective state, or to overcome these mass social psychoses and disturbances with dignity, but in the end to remain alive and free.
The conclusion is simple: to decide what to do and how to live – only the person. This is the law of evolution.
The film was very pleasantly surprised. At first, I didn’t really count on the film and expected to see a three-horror movie with bad makeup and liters of artificial blood. I got it all, except for thrash.
For me, as a spectator in our years, this film as a horror film is very naive and simple, because it is the distant seventies. But I was very pleased that the essence of the film is not in zombies, and not even in horrors. It's about how four people survived the deadly dangers around them. How they changed, getting everything that any consumer wants. How they helped each other. How man was more terrible than a monster. What distinguishes a good work of art from ordinary and bad? It is relevant at all times and at all times is able to convey emotions and feelings to the viewer. And because of the ridiculous blue makeup, low-quality special effects and an old topic, you can easily see a really good movie about people who are trying to survive.
7 out of 10
The franchise "Night of the Living Dead" from George A. Romero is a unique phenomenon that opened the eyes of the mass viewer to the zombie cinema. Only the main line includes 6 films (we will consider each, it is a matter of time). But how many more films-parasites, which are also for the sake of interest we will consider (in the series “Low budgets” already). Also world famous remakes from Tom Savini and Zack Snyder. Well, a mockbuster from The Asylum, where without it. But, as I mentioned, the main lineup consists of 6 films, so we will consider them (and two remakes) first.
So, here is the horror George A. Romero Dawn of the Dead. The film is a cult, because if you have never seen the original, you are probably familiar with the idea of a remake of Zack Snyder, which used to be played on different channels almost every weekend. Well, either by parody in "South Park" - this is enough to understand that Romero created a unique plot, which was then sent, which was then parodied, and this means one thing - the idea is alive and will live.
The film begins with a total mess. As in the last film, Romero doesn’t go into details – where the epidemic came from, how to treat it, what’s going on there at the state level – it doesn’t matter. In 1968, the maestro allowed himself a brief introduction to the scene in the cemetery. In 1978, the director from the very first seconds plunges us into action, into the total chaos that broke out in the local television studio. Romero gives us a few minutes to assess the situation and immediately switches to the characters - a technique that worked flawlessly in 1968 does not fail in this film. Literally two short situations on the TV studio and the assault of the police show us the hopelessness of what is happening. And now - from the total mass separated 4 main characters, their goal is to find a secluded place. They find him in a forgotten shopping center.
The plot of the film is described in one sentence - a group of 4 people trying to survive in the mall. That's it. And most interestingly, it's really enough to show a 127-minute movie.
Gradually, the heroes abstract from the living dead, an idyll comes. Of course, not all 2 hours show us how the characters have fun in the shopping center, but this is also an important component of the whole film. There are also tense moments in the “outside world”, and dramatic moments, where without them, even comedic moments appeared. Romero again shows us people against the background of the disaster, not vice versa. It's life, not fighting zombies. Although the story is flavored with good visual effects (making a discount for 1978). And the soundtrack is generally engaged in the band Goblin (hello, Argento).
Needless to say, the second film in the series turned out to be famous. To be honest, the first film was closer to me, there is a completely self-made (in the good sense of the word) tape, but I do not impose my opinion on anyone. Having made more money, the director remains true to himself - the oppressive atmosphere, the focus on people rather than explosions / special effects make this film a real cult classic.
Thank you for your attention
7.5 out of 10
P.S. I watched the film in the director's version of Romero for 127 minutes - I read that this version was the final editing, where everything is said to the end and there is nothing superfluous. Now it would be interesting to see in the version of Argento, as the friend re-edited the film, adding more Goblin music and put more emphasis on violence.
I will try not to return, I will try not to return.
(roughly 89th minute of the film)
Dawn of the Dead
Many moviegoers begin the story with how four heroes fly by helicopter to the shopping center, but what happens before that, for some reason, ignored. Two scenes. The first one, Romero, shows different people on TV screaming with foam at their mouths, building various theories about the living dead. Second, a group of soldiers clearing a house of looters and dead men.
My personal opinion is that these scenes can not be ignored, because the director creates an atmosphere of general chaos, when you really do not understand anything and want to dump somewhere in a quiet place. And only then does the beloved cult begin. Two military (Fori and Reiniger), a pilot (Emge) and a television studio employee (Ross) are trying to find shelter and sit on the roof of the shopping center.
I adore this story with all my heart. One of my favorites in all of horror. Cool editing, deep message, good acting, magical atmosphere and crazy biker Tom Savini (as a bonus, aha ha). Night came out in 1968, Dawn ten years later. Half of the budget was contributed by Dario Argento. By the way, George will shoot Asia (his daughter) in Land of the Dead. There are several versions of the film, I like the American version (126 minutes). Romero himself praised her.
Let me remind you that in the film “Night of the Living Dead”, the main characters often argued with each other, so they did not succeed. In Dawn, the opposite situation occurs, getting into a huge shopping center, the heroes act together. And they will be all right and they will be all right. But inside you know it's an illusion. Calmness for Romero is a little forward. The old man again shows people as weak creatures, through a gang of anarchists.
For one really good person (like the hero of Ken Faury), a dozen bad ones. Humans cannot create. And all the efforts (those who are still capable) will be covered with copper. Plus, George doesn't forget the dead. They're slowly crawling into the mall. They remember that they used to go shopping here. A subtle irony from Romero. A mob of dead is a herd of people. We depend on things, we are a damn consumer society.
Great movie. For all time. Romero entered the river for the second time. The result is another masterpiece. "Dawn" quietly climbs on the same level as "Night", although some even claim that this film will be even better than its predecessor. In any case, we have a living classic and a zombie cult. Watch and review. Thank you Father for "Dawn."
“When there is no place in hell, the dead will walk on earth,” says Ken Faury. You're right, buddy. You need to know these things.
P.S.
About the old makeup of the dead. Guys, let's scold Chaplin for making black and white silent movies. It's classic, it's history. You know? Cinema does not stand still, it moves, it develops. “Dawn of the Dead” by George Romero is a masterpiece with a capital letter!
10 out of 10
The second Romero film is about the walking dead, and again zombies go by the wayside, being more guns in the hands of people who shoot at their own fault.
People today make the most of what is happening, ranging from simple fasting and harmless pranks with the dead, and ending with vandalism taking advantage of the current situation.
The main action takes place around two fighters of the elite police unit SWAT - Roger and Peter, as well as a couple of lovers - an employee of the television studio Fran and pilot Peter. They fly to what they think is the safest habitat, a huge hypermarket. Having cleared the territory and settled there, they realize that soon a bunch of scumbags will visit them who want to take this place for themselves.
The film is not the fastest pace, it is a kind of blockbuster from the world of horror films about zombies of those years. Nevertheless, the plot that suggests very true thoughts, not second-rate characters, not bad for those years, and the available budget visual, as well as brutal, bloody scenes - all this makes the film a classic of its genre.
9 out of 10
Exactly a decade after his successful debut, Night of the Living Dead, George Romero continued his zombie franchise, Dawn of the Dead. This time, the film had a more solid budget (highlighted by the master of Italian horror Dario Argento and his own written soundtrack in collaboration with his band Goblin), the presence of color, and bloodier special effects created by the famous Tom Savini. It would seem that all the makings for a larger, improved and thoughtful film about the zombie apocalypse, but something went wrong.
The film is often considered almost the perfect example of a zombie movie, and the rare case when the sequel surpassed the original. I totally don't understand that. If the first film really feels the atmosphere of a zombie apocalypse and a sense of growing despair, empathy for the main characters, then this is not even close. Instead, Romero gives the audience a satire of consumer society in the face of zombies walking around the mall. Serious scenes are sharply replaced by comic ones, which completely loses the atmosphere of fear and anxiety from the realization that somewhere near the heroes walk living corpses – their presence is often forgotten.
Characters came out not memorable, "flat", respectively, do not cause empathy (except that Ken Faury - the only actor from the whole cast, who subsequently developed an acting career - turned out to be a very interesting character), dialogues are tortured, and bloody special effects look very unrealistic and artificially made - even for 1978 (in the thrash "Bloody Feast", shot at a meager budget 15 years before that, the effects look much more realistic) - and this is despite the fact that they were created by a true master of his craft - Tom Savini (the bloody special effects look very unrealistic and artificially made - even for the role of the film, by the way, which served as the head of the film in the finale). Besides, the movie is godlessly long. If Romero had removed the scenes in which the characters fool around in the mall, nothing would have changed absolutely - the film would only win in the dynamics.
The result was an extremely long, tortured and rather boring zombie film, which is not suitable for the first film. This is Romero’s most profitable zombie movie. But to me, this is the worst movie of the entire Romerovo zombie franchise.
The history of a department store in the period of the invasion of the living dead
George A. Romero. The man who actually reinvented and from scratch created the zombie world that we see on screens to this day. The living dead, who became so as a result of exposure to an unknown virus - such a plot is exploited to this day. And this virus was released in 1968.
After 10 years, after scandals and showdowns associated with the Night of the Living Dead, Romero still removes the continuation of the story of the gradual decline of mankind. The budget was much larger than the "Night" but still symbolic by today's standards - $1.5 million. Today, very few people manage to make a good movie for such money. But it was Romero’s principle to never make a zombie movie for a lot of money. A year ago, he said big budgets would ruin the genre. Maybe he's right... And maybe time will not stop and soon the genre will disappear as a zombie, which has nothing more to eat. I really don't want to.
But anyway, "Dawn of the Dead" is a cult film and one of the best creations of the director. Workshop, arthouse, satirical and, most importantly, independent! Romero filmed the way he saw it. The problems of the then society, the condemnation of moral principles, satire on politics and religion - that is hidden under the cover of the zombie apocalypse, in almost all Romero's creations.
The story is about a gradually deteriorating world. People are fighting among themselves, bandits are worse than usual, the police and the military are unable to contain crime and the living dead, who are more and more every day.
A girl from a radio station, two soldiers and a helicopter pilot decide to escape and fly away from an angry crowd of the living and dead. On the way, due to a lack of gasoline, they sit on the roof of a giant shopping center.
After examining the room, in which almost everything is untouched by looters and in which crowds of zombies walk, the four decides to equip a nest there and live there.
And that's where the first aspect of the film comes in: an attempt to create order out of chaos, an idyll in total destruction. Find a place where you can live peacefully for a day. For in this world, no one plans anything; everyone lives day by day. Every day is a gift from God.
But the point is that there is no such thing as this idyll. In this world, fear is not the dead - the dead are only a helping lever for the movement of the plot. The main link, because of which everything collapses - both in the film and in reality - people.
And that's what Romero does beautifully. He tears off the masks and exposes their true nature. Beasts... Victims... Dead... Resurrection... This is the world now.
Human nature is very unpredictable. And its changes, its diversity, can be very clearly seen in situations that are out of the ordinary. Resurrected corpses, eating the living - what is not a suitable case for the manifestation of human qualities?
The strongest in the film is the 30-minute finale. He, in full, reveals the theme of despair, which the director revealed slowly but surely the whole film. Sharp, bold, bloody. Sad, scary and even stupid. It is foolish that instead of uniting for the sake of war with a common enemy, people are fighting among themselves. It's stupid that people don't learn from mistakes. It is foolish that people do not change.
It is the message in this film - the most important thing - not action, no crowd of zombies, not even makeup or visual. It is the meaning and the message.
As for all of the above – for $1,500,000 and 1978, everything is very good. Zombie makeup is standard, and it doesn't scare anyone now, but in 1978 it was creepy and even very scary. The dismemberment and blood are delivered perfectly.
The actors play very well. The music is at a level that maintains the atmosphere. Operator work and installation are also good.
The atmosphere of the film deserves special attention. Gloomy, oppressive, giving an acute feeling of hopelessness and the nightmare that brought the zombie apocalypse.
Dawn of the Dead is the perfect example of the zombie genre, which is one unique and unique. Stylish, atmospheric, with great meaning and the right message. Perfect in all respects, which has become a real classic of the genre. Hardcore and brutal in all aspects. A really great movie!
The picture, which is considered a recognized classic of a zombie movie, does not stand the test of time and remake.
George Romero's second film, about the attempts of a few uninfected people to survive in a world filled with the living dead, was shot a decade after the release of Night of the Living Dead. Most fans of the genre he is regarded as the main creative peak of the director, who gave us zombies in their modern form. It is for good reason that many followers are guided by it, voluntarily or unwittingly copying the plot. It is not for nothing that after 26 years, a remake of Zach Snyder was shot on it, resurrecting the glory of the picture. The tape became a kind of canon, a model. And I, not being an ardent fan of the genre, but just a novice lover of individual samples of zombie movies, do not want to question this. But my review is colored red, because in three views I never found anything interesting or exciting in it. I will not write much, but only outline my main claims to the film Dawn of the Dead. I know that almost all of them come down to what I lacked in the tape. So the movie could have been much more interesting, had the team worked on it a little more seriously.
1. There is no indication of the time of events. It is in this tape that you wait for the exact answer whether the Romero zombie franchise is a chain of sequels, or each film should be considered as a separate story. How many days, months and years have passed since the events of Night of the Living Dead? Ten, how's the reality? Or less. What happened between these films? I think it's important to understand what's going on.
2. The stories of the main characters are not written. What’s important in this kind of movie? In it, you want to empathize with the hero, worry about him, hurt your soul. In Dawn of the Dead, we are asked to immediately start worrying about the abstract four heroes, about whom we know absolutely nothing. I couldn't empathize with them. The writers begin to draw the characters of the main characters with bold strokes somewhere in the middle of the film, and only by the end their images become more or less clear. The film in this regard seems to be turned upside down. Almost an hour of screen time we are offered to watch the run for zombies and zombie heroes, about whom we know nothing. Therefore, in the scenes of especially cruel massacres of some zombies even more pity than live characters. This error in the remake, by the way, was corrected by Zach Snyder. The characters are all right from the start.
3. We don’t know anything about the nature of zombies. Yeah, absolutely nothing. Not about how the epidemic spread across the country, not about how it was fought, not about why slow and not too dangerous creatures managed to control the lives of people. After “Night...” it seemed that a well-trained small army unit could solve the problem. Suddenly everything went into chaos. One can defend Romero by arguing that the film’s main message is to show our social indifference and ridicule the growing consumer culture. But this is too global a task for a picture with such a weak script. Swing for a million, strike for a ruble.
You can also write about bad acting and disgusting makeup. blood in the form of ketchup and plastic meat. But this is generally typical of horror films of that time, so I will not be too picky. Better to emphasize that unlike the first, original and quite watchable, with an interesting script of the movie about zombies Romero, “Dawn of the Dead” is a poorly implemented idea that lacks many important components of a good movie.
5 out of 10
If there were a list of the stupidest and dullest movies, there is no doubt ' Dawn of the Dead' J. Romero would have been in the front row.
Nowadays, remakes usually come out worse than the originals, mostly clinging to their special effects rather than the plot and atmosphere. But here, apparently, the whole atmosphere, acting and a good implementation of the idea went to the remake of 2004. And the main special effect of all films is to make the viewer empathize with the characters and have at least some interest in watching what will happen next.
And what kind of stupidity is it to hide in a supermarket, if the looters quietly enter there, just mocking the zombies, and so would leave if they were not killed by the main characters, and these characters sit there for a month waiting for something. And, of course, it is incredibly boring to watch the dead moving at the speed of a snail. How they managed to capture the whole city is unclear. According to the plot, with such zombies, a house somewhere in the wilderness and with the main characters aged 8-10 years would be more suitable.
In the end, thank you to George Romero for the idea, which perfectly embodied in the remake of 2004.
As the one-legged scoundrel John Silver bequeathed, the day will come when the living will envy the dead, for, as we know, the dead do not wear blankets or sweat. The boundary between “that world” and this is erased as easily as a prostitute throws off her pants at the sight of a bill with three zeros. Faith will be a waste of time, and fears are in vain: while there is a sign on the gates of hell “There are no free places”, the Last Judgment will have to be postponed.
A long-awaited dawn will follow the anxious night, but hope is still written with a small letter and its last glimpses are drowned in the measured crack of radio interference, dissolved in the television "white noise." Four fugitives in a private helicopter hastily leave the devoured city in the hope of finding a secluded island of security. However, the zombie pandemic has already spread far beyond megacities, and, losing the remnants of composure, citizens land on the roof of a large shopping center. And they discover a consumer paradise untouched by the apocalypse. Temporary shelter could become permanent, but carelessness, stupidity and banal human idiocy will inevitably lead to tragedy.
All Romero’s classic zombies are beautiful because they are filmed without reference to specific geopolitical realities, existing “somewhere here” and “sometimes now.” The main characters are just victims of circumstances, they are nobody, nothing and call them monosyllable, they teleport from nowhere right into the epicenter of the mess to see the end of this fetid world and either play in the box at once or drag their terrible ending to the final credits. Romero deliberately avoids pathos in the narrative: the characters of Dawn of the Dead seem to be taken out of the context of their own lives, but do not seek to comprehend the situation globally. They still live one day, sincerely hope for good news from TV, collect the surviving money and habitually hold their eyes on the price tags, as if these numbers still matter. Their plans for the future are limited by the procurement of supplies and ammunition in case of a raid by looters and reproached glances at a pregnant companion, whose gradually increasing belly reminds the other survivors that sooner or later will have to get out of a cozy mink. A frozen cast of banal consumerist happiness: like children left unattended in a chocolate shop, unwitting guests of a hypermarket sweep goods from street shelves, hoping to prolong the feeling of unknown why and where freedom of choice was taken. And carefully store rotting corpses in the freezer, so that they do not scare away a brief moment of delight with their stench.
Later zombie horrors, including Romero, even lazily, but still try to find the root cause of the “rebellion from the dead”. Early George didn't care about this petty shit. He did not paint a picture of an era, but simply cloned a fictional parallel reality in which there was no room for underground laboratories, deadly viruses, shadowy government conspiracies, warrior experiments or the machinations of fucking aliens. It doesn’t matter why the world is in agony, it’s more interesting to watch its convulsions than it is to diagnose a disease. The patient is more likely to be dead than alive.
If in his famous “Night” the director still pretended that he was concerned about the social consequences of the apocalypse, then in “Dawn” the conflict of people and zombies already looks more like banter and mockery, which is not only the fault of clumsy makeup, but also deliberately playful music accompanying peacefully wandering around the shopping center zhmuriki. Is there anything human left in them, except for the primary reflexes, Romero asks through the mouth of his hero and closely examines the camera of an imbecile baseball player with an avatar face or a dead fat bastard trying to master post mortem escalator riding. Or maybe the hunters did not evolve so far from their victims, he asks, looking at the happy faces of rural morons, savoring beer in hand details of another cleanup of their native gardens.
A quarter of a century later, aspiring filmmaker Zack Snyder reanimated Dawn of the Dead for a new viewer, already overgrown with the aesthetics of death and special effects, but although he succeeded in the dynamics and visualization of nightmare monsters, he did not come close to unraveling the charm of George Romero’s early masterpieces. For the latter, the horror was not in the skillfully made-up faces, not in the amount of blood spilled, but in the pulling, fascinating, soothing atmosphere of general degradation. With the onset of Armageddon, the living really have something to envy the departed: their souls, alas, decompose faster than dead bodies.
After the beginning of the total, worldwide zombie apocalypse in one helicopter are four people: the pilot Steven (Emgie), his girlfriend-television star Francine (Ross), and two soldiers of special forces Peter and Roger (Forie and Reiniger). All these brethren land on the roof of a big supermarket. A little tinkering, they manage to free the room from the crowds of the walking dead and begin to live a more or less calm life. Sooner or later something will go wrong.
No, of course, I knew who Romero was, what he did for cinema in general and for the horror genre in particular, and that Dawn of the Dead. Zack Snyder is a remake of an old classic film directed by Romero. But before viewing all hands did not reach. There were more important things and pictures. And then it all came together. As usual, the verdict is this: the film is undoubtedly important for the development of cinema and represents a certain milestone, but, unfortunately, in our time it can only be viewed from a historical point of view. “Dawn of the Dead” does not suit the modern viewer either in rhythm, nor in editing, nor in makeup, nor in special effects. I know that high-brow aesthetes-movies can yell at me right now, but let's call things by their proper names: "Everything has its time." I do not deny the influence of this picture on the development of cinema, but in the current realities, it often looks simply ridiculous and helpless. And that's certainly not Romero's problem, me, time or cinema. This is just how it works.
Let's talk about the movie. Since in those years in fashion were slow and clumsy zombies, the heroes of the picture in general it was not difficult to fight them off. By and large, the problems that people had with the dead were based on the underestimation of their strength and excessive stupidity of one of the team members. In a good way, they could live in this supermarket until they died or ran out of food. However, since zombies are not a particular danger, it was wise to include a showdown between people, as it happened. The main idea of the film is that in any situation you can find a way out, if other people around you allow you to do it. And this, of course, is sad, because man is a creature for the most part evil and jealous.
I liked the musical accompaniment of the picture - such an interesting electronics. I like actors, some bigger, like Ken Faury, some smaller, like David Emgie. I didn’t like the rhythm of the narrative, which was constantly confused by slow, viscous dialogues, in which pathos was exactly in half with meaning. Because of this, the timing stretched for more than two hours. Well, I didn’t really like the zombies themselves, but it’s silly to make claims – 78 years after all, and the budget is frail.
Despite all the above, Romero’s Dawn of the Dead is worth watching, at least, for fans of cinema in the broadest sense of the word. Just to be familiar with a landmark event in the world of horror and once again remember that everything flows, everything changes, and that it is impossible to compare old movies with new ones - they are no worse or better, they are just different.
Lately, if you make a movie about zombies, then there is no deep meaning. And such films, intended, probably, for fans of the genre and just for thrash lovers, in the end, the audience does not cause strong sympathy, as they show only a senseless massacre, arranged by the walking dead or the people themselves. And if you think back to the time when George A. Romero introduced us to this subject, you get a sense of nostalgia. By the way, I loved his Dawn of the Dead even more than the first work that came out 10 years earlier. In principle, in each part, the director showed the ridiculous behavior of people that occurs both in everyday life and will occur in such a zombie apocalypse.
What to say, Romero's script and directing is great. It seems that the scene is not far from the typical house from the “Night of the Living Dead”, but the plot is still unmatched, and the atmosphere of the horror film is catchy. The script is completely not boring and keeps in suspense while watching. He also helps excellent music that can catch up with the viewer a feeling of something terrible and terrible. The cast did a very good job. There are almost no known names among them. But all the actors played equally well, which is sure to please. And while critics think this is George A. Romero’s best zombie movie, I think at least the next one deserves a lot of praise.
Magnificently staged, tense and atmospheric, really worth a classic movie. Dawn of the Dead is one of my favorite movies I definitely recommend watching. Maybe there is no computer graphics, but the movie looks very decent and with cool special effects Tom Savini, a master of his craft.
10 out of 10
Once again, I am convinced that the remake can be better than the original films, and the “dawn of the dead” is direct proof of this. From the first seconds of watching this film, it seemed as if this was some kind of joke: people consider this “masterpiece” a classic zombie movie, and Romero is equated with the geniuses of the genre. I don't think that's true. Let me tell you why:
The cast:
Let's face it, there's nothing to look at here, no one to look at. The actors do not cope with their roles, playing as if in a staged scene of the “Big Theatre”, and according to external data, neither the heroine, played by the little-known actress Gaylen Ross, nor Peter, whose role was played by Ken Forey (by the way, who played in the remake of Dawn an evangelist who tells on television about God’s punishment) did not like. There is no point in talking about other actors, since they, in my opinion, also failed to cope with the task.
Plot:
I think almost the only plus is the storyline of the “dawn of the dead”. There is no objection in this regard. The idea of “survival in the twilight market” is relevant even now, and it is used by many directors in the creation of a zombie movie. In the film 28 Days Later, for example, the characters have fun and dance stuffing bags with food and other utilities. In the film “mgla” (albeit not a zombie theme), but I think the idea was also to some extent taken from “dawn”.
Grim:
It doesn't matter that it's 1978. The makeup was created absolutely poorly, and the zombies looked as if they had accidentally stumbled, and fell face in a bag of flour. Compare the film with the “flesh eaters” directed by Lucio Fulci, which was released only a year later: it looked several times more spectacular. The sight of decaying flesh was very plausible, sometimes disgusting with its realism, and the dead of the "dawn" caused a careless smile on his face, and that's all. Where $1.5 million has been spent is a mystery to me.
Compare it to the remake:
You can find many differences, but the remake has the main thing, without which a real horror film can not do: the atmosphere. In the original version it is not as such. If in "dawn of the dead" Zack Snyder could enjoy more than quality makeup, excellent acting and a sense of hopelessness throughout the viewing, then in the “dawn”. J. Romero is simply not there.
Bottom line:
And the result was a boring, low-quality (even for those years) film that will appeal only to avid fans of classic films, as well as fans of George Romero. I think the best work of the director was the film “Night of the Living Dead”, which you could stop at.
May the fans of George Romero forgive me.
3 out of 10
Blaming Jora Romero for anything related to zombies is probably a bit of a joke. This man brought these cute and pleasant creatures to the cinematic soil, holyl, cherished them and, as a result, the modern viewer has to reap the fruits of the zombie tree periodically to this day. The author himself has, of course, retired for almost five years, and in the foreseeable future, he apparently does not plan to return. But there are other craftsmen who are full of enthusiasm.
To accuse Mr. Romero of the fact that Dawn of the Dead, in general, the picture will be a bad tone and even worse. The film has earned the status of a cult, the status of a classic zombie movie, a picture from which not only a remake of director Zack Snyder grows, but also many films on this topic that have come out, are coming out and those that still, quite possibly, will be released in the future. But sitting here in 2013, for some reason, I really want to blame. And it’s not even that the film is morally outdated, it’s not a big deal. That’s exactly what I understand.
The main emphasis in the film was placed on socialism: on ridiculing the public interests, even then, thanks to the ever-developing capitalism, reduced to consumption, on denouncing television crews who skillfully used these same public interests for the purpose of zombification (no matter how paradoxical it may sound), on the discovery of wolfish habits among the human population. Romero has always wanted to make more than just movies about corpses, and Dawn of the Dead is one of the best proofs of that. By and large, this is not a bad thing, because zombie Movie would be too dull and boring genre, if it did not appear in it something like this. Another thing is that Romero’s desire to make Dawn of the Dead a kind of social manifesto failed to pay attention to another aspect of the zombie movie: zombies. Whether you agree or not, the viewer goes to a zombie movie primarily to look at the living dead: at their actions, at actions against them, at what they do in force majeure situations, at how they play funny, in the end. Any slogans and manifestos can be seen in any kind of dramas, comedies and other movies, where they will look organic, clear, beautiful, where they will come to the place; zombies, as a rule, can be seen only in a movie about zombies. And when in the nine years since the release of Night of the Living Dead, the actual living dead have hardly changed and remained just as stupid and amorphous; when almost all the scenes with a lush biting of flesh are shown from the back of the head of her biter; when there is only one scene with a dismemberment in the entire film, it is a little alarming. Exactly as alarming is the similarity of ketchup offered to the viewer as an alternative to real blood. The monotony of methods of dealing with zombies throws into yawning with the exception of a couple of fun moments.
The film is full of noise and without it. For example, the characters use only one way to get rid of zombies, while the other stipulated - the separation of the head from the body - in the film is absolutely not beaten, despite its attractiveness. Heroes behave simply incredibly recklessly, once in a shopping center, and their volition in behavior, their cheerfulness and carelessness look suspicious. Would you go ice skating, for example, knowing that a couple hundred cute zombies are banging on doors outside? And Romero's heroine skates. Naturally, the heroes spend all their free time not knowing where and how, although it would be logical to go to the roof and shoot the enemy with all the cruelty. In the future, it will turn out that this is just a plot move, the attractiveness of which cannot but be surprised. There are no dialogues in the picture as such, and tragic electronic music does not create the desired effect. Plays in the background and plays, but it was possible to make at least the music in the picture was scary. But alas. It is pointless to talk about the advantages of the film - absolutely all of them can be seen by watching only "Night of the Living Dead" of 69. “Dawn...” holds a certain bar, but to put it on the same level with “Night...” or even higher there are no reasons, although due to its relevance and topicality in the social sense, it is perhaps worth considering it an important milestone in the development of the zombie movie genre.
“Dawn of the Dead” 1978 is a magnificent horror, in the best traditions of cinema.
In this masterpiece of the outstanding director of thrillers George A. Romero, everything is combined: an exciting plot, a magnificent game of actors, fascinating scenery (by the standards of the 70s, she is happy with a good scale in special effects).
The previous film, Night of the Living Dead, tells the story of how the world is gradually filled with bloodthirsty zombies rising from their graves in search of human flesh. In this picture, we see the continuation of history. About how people try to survive where it would seem impossible to survive. Four heroes hide in an abandoned shopping center and gradually come out to shoot monsters.
Unlike all the novelties of this genre, “Dawn of the Dead” of the 78th year is characterized by a depraved spirit, where the very idea of fear prevails. To think that planet Earth is devastated and only a few people still believe in their salvation. Here you will not see the filthy dismemberment, squeezing of the eyes and rotting of human flesh. In this film, zombies are ordinary people, well sprinkled with powder, which gives them a pale appearance. The picture is distinguished by its innovation, within the framework of that time. Large-scale scenes, explosions, more than 200 extras and an unexpected finale.
I don’t think they make movies like that anymore, they just can’t be made. It is for this reason that the films of the past years look like something cinematic, with a magnificent atmosphere and truly classical scenes, modern became a legend.
I'm putting
10 out of 10
For a quality horror film, which is not suitable for the “dawn of the dead” in 2004.
After “Martin” – a film in all respects ambiguous and weak, George Romero was really lucky. His creative alliance with Dario Argento helped create Dawn of the Dead.
Dario and Claudio Argento were very helpful. Dario prepared the plot, wrote music, and Claudio co-produced. As a result, Dawn of the Dead, in my opinion, is Romero’s first truly understandable movie to a mass audience. I think that if it were not for the success of Dawn of the Dead, Romero would hardly have continued the theme of zombies.
In his first paintings there was an invisible “plaque” of a Western. Heroes were verbose, and the director never sought to explain the details. Moreover, each of Romero’s first films showed obvious disruptions in human communication. Of course, this was a special charm, but the director probably aspired to great success, and for this it was necessary to like many viewers.
In Breaking Dawn, that’s not the case at all. It feels like Argento's team helped and suggested Romero a lot of things. As a result, the movie looks much more spectacular. The color scheme of the film became warmer, and the plot less gloomy.
This film reminded me of Dario Argento’s other production film, Lamberto Bava’s Demona dilogy. In both films, we encounter the supernatural in a crowded place. Romero’s film takes place in a department store and Bava’s in a cinema.
Like Night of the Living Dead and Mad Men, Romero had a social overtones. The shootout between live people in a supermarket, which takes place against the backdrop of a zombie attack, is remembered for a long time. After all, the subject of the dispute are goods that are unlikely to be needed by most participants in the shootout.
It seems that the film itself is the author’s disclosure of the topic “Zombie and the Consumer Society”. It is enough to pay attention to the choice of the director of the film. Zombies in the supermarket are sometimes very similar to ordinary customers.
In the end: It is obvious that the film was made with the great creative support of the team of Dario Argento. George Romero made a more commercially attractive film than all his previous works.
Taking into account the huge number of zombie films of various quality, it is very difficult for me to assess Dawn of the Dead. Meanwhile, cinema can not be attributed to masterpieces. In addition, the film spoils his excessive drag.
Nine years after the release of Night of the Living Dead, George Romero releases a sequel to the cult horror. “Dawn of the Dead”, released in 1978, had a serious budget and a more meaningful level of production, which is why the picture could not be called an amateur thrash.
The plot of “Dawn of the Dead” somewhat repeats the events of the first film, only now the surviving heroes are hiding not in a shack riven from time, but in a supermarket. In fact, all the events of this tape are built on the shooting of the main characters of zombies surrounding the supermarket.
Dawn of the Dead is much more professional than the first film. The tape became colorful, the camera work of Michael Gornick is impressive and now its realistic manner, although there are no particularly bloody scenes in the film. All the emphasis in the picture is made on the escalation of tension, because the finale makes an indelible impression, because it happens really suddenly.
Despite some protracted picture, “Dawn of the Dead” is a great example of a quality classic zombie horror, so I recommend it to all fans of the genre.
9 out of 10
The zombie epidemic has become so huge. A group of 4 people with a personal helicopter travels far away from the big cities, while making stops in search of food and fuel, until they come across a whole shopping center. In it, they arrange housing, transferring everything they need to the top floor, having access to a gun store and a quick access to the roof, where they parked their helicopter. Over time, they cleared the mall of the walking dead and lived entertaining themselves with everything from slot machines to the rink. And so it was for several months, until their helicopter was not noticed by looters.
If Romero shot the first film for pennies, for almost nothing, then on the second he already found sponsors and permission from a friend to shoot at least every day after closing in the shopping complex. In a word, the film has become larger, the characters have become more confident, and everything that happens makes sense.
Of course, the film is outdated, and the approach to the style of shooting and in general everything (clothing, news and other trifles). But how not to twist the plot is simple and brilliant: to close in a place where there is everything, but through negligence one after another to die, and so on to the end.
I think that all fans of the genre have already seen this film, but if suddenly there are those who did not watch: “Forward!”
8 out of 10
Impressions from George A. Romero's Dawn of the Dead. Part 2.
1978. It's been 10 years since George A. Romero made his debut film about the living dead. Romero did not associate himself with the dead, and subsequently directed an independent low-budget drama that was popular in the 70s; one documentary and several horror films. George seems to have forgotten about zombies, but in 1978, his second film about the living dead, Dawn of the Dead, was released. Romero pulls the bicycle he invented out of the closet, dusts it off and shows it to everyone again... only from a different angle and with new details.
Since the beginning of the film, Romero plunges the audience into the chaos that is happening on earth. There are many more dead people, the media is intoxicated, the army shoots ordinary citizens for company with the dead, and people are trying to find salvation. "Dawn of the Dead" is one of the lucky moments when the principle of "everything is twice as big" works correctly, and even the intense violence (for those times, quite audacious) in the first episodes of the film looks like an image of the agony of mankind, rather than an attempt to scare us with "meat."
By setting a rather active action at the beginning, Romero slows it down to the middle, and without changing his principles, puts living people at the forefront. In Breaking Dawn, the emphasis is on the characters of people and their actions. These things are quite well revealed in the picture, which makes one involuntarily think that the dead are not the main trouble on earth, but the people themselves. A gang of bikers, one of whom was played by Tom Savini (a significant figure in the special effects niche in horror films), becomes the main problem for the main characters.
George is not only going to scare us, he's going to make us laugh. There is also a classic pie fight scene, no less classical musical composition The Gonk, walking the living dead through the mall (a magnificent allusion to living people) and many other moments competently complement the Dawn of the Dead showing that Romero is not averse to experiment. For Romero, the dead in Dawn are already more significant than in his first film. To these are added small memories and skills from past lives, and to the rules about the dead is added another rule: Zombies are not personified in the face of the main dead and they have no hierarchy. One could say that Dawn of the Dead set the trend for Romero to evolve his living dead.
“Dawn of the Dead” was definitely released, not inferior to the first brainchild of George A. Romero. More atmospheric due to the increase in scale, the picture does not slide into a continuous shooting of the dead, but out of habit shows the psychology of people against the background of a hopeless existence, cementing horror and drama with mild comedic moments. Romero proved that he could make another original film about the living dead, taking care of the original and following his principles.