|Subject: Even the characters of Dawn 2004 are way more credible...||Date: Mon 3-Oct-2005, 18:02:54|
I have recently seen both movies Dawn 1978 and 2004. My point about credibility is that, considering humankind is most likely facing the end of the world, anyone on this planet would react different than in Romero's film. For instance, when blocking the entrance of the mall with the trucks in Dawn 1978, the blond guy reacts in a way no one would, and therefore gets bitten and eventually dies (grabbing the bag he dropped on the road came at a high price). Both SWAT guys can freely walk around a mall full of zombies like not giving a rat crap about them. They obviously are not afraid of them because they are harmless. Come on!!, if a Romero's zombie walks towards me aiming my throat, I'll still have time to sit down, enjoy a beer and think of 10 different ways of blasting its rotten head (OK if i am ever cornered by 50 Romero's zombies I might get concerned about my safety, I'll give you that). Anyways, if just two SWAT memebers can "clean" a mall infested by zombies; wouldn't the US army be able to clean up the nation? I think yes. They certainly would.
One last thing about it. I am just confused about this: at the beginning of the movie we are shown a bounch of rednecks teaming up with the army are wiping out the zombies of a certain area of Pennsylvania pretty easily. And yet, the earth is overrun by zombies...??? What the...??? Absurd.
In Dawn 2004 all survivors are scared to death (which is real!!!). They know there's no place safe out there. They pretty soon realize they can't go outside, not even packed with the most updated modern weapons, because the enemy is certainly strong, hungry, lethal and will tirelessly chase them without giving them a single chance to survive. Remember how they all decline to go outside over and over again: "I'm not going out there" - that's what they always say. The movies sells pretty well this idea: Going out there is committing suicide regardless of how well armed you are. Just by comparing the behavior of both groups of survivors one could tell right away who is facing the meaniest enemy.
My point. Romero's Dawn is entertaining (I truely enjoyed it) but it's not a horror film (zombies are way beyond ridiculous), neither it's action nor comedy (even though some people enjoys watching a man's torso being torn appart) Snyder's Dawn is obviously a horror-action film, because there's plenty of thrilling action (awesome first 10 minutes) as well as scary moments. I have read about a remake of Day of the Dead, Zack Snyder could very well be involved in it, and I just hope it is as half entertaining as Dawn 2004.