|
Post by fartyfartsalot on Nov 19, 2018 5:14:41 GMT
Ridiculous ratings like that are part of the reason I think you're pretentious. There are so many others though. I do have to say, I've been on numerous film and tv sets and I've NEVER seen anyone look so pleased to be holding a clapboard. It's bizarre you are so oblivious to so many good films. He also gave "Chinatown" a 4
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Nov 26, 2018 11:36:46 GMT
He also gave "Chinatown" a 4 No, I didn't.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Nov 26, 2018 12:26:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Nov 26, 2018 14:14:00 GMT
Another classic landmark film reduced to being 'average' cinema. 4 or 5, what is the difference. Another one of my opinions reduced to meaningless, this time with an emoji. Why do you bother asking if you're going to reply that way if I don't give the answer you want? And not why not ask me the reason why I gave it said rating? Also, there is a difference, which is why I always choose the numbers carefully. You shouldn't dismiss the art of criticism that way.
|
|
|
Post by redhorizon on Nov 26, 2018 15:43:19 GMT
5/10
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Nov 26, 2018 22:39:09 GMT
vits, I am really not sure if your art of film criticism is worth honoring. For someone who appears to be a film aficionado, you sure do have some strange opinions. Whatever the reason is, is yours to behold, but you can't expect other to find what you write meaningful, especially when your ratings don't appear to rate up. 1) The art isn't mine. It's not anyone's. I was talking about how you don't think there's a difference between a 4 and a 5. There's a reason why a numeral system has been used for decades. My taste might not be the same as you and some other users, but at least I respect the legacy left behind by critics. 2) The funny thing about statements like that is that there are no middle grounds, only absolutes. That means that the (many) positive ratings I've given to classics and the (many) negative ratings I've given to anti-classics also aren't "valid." 3) You can't expect me to find what you write meaningful when you don't even bother to ask me the reason behind the number.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2018 22:39:55 GMT
8/10
One of my favorite horror movies. I love the mall setting and how over the top it is.
|
|
|
Post by fartyfartsalot on Nov 27, 2018 22:45:06 GMT
Does the 2004 remake measure up?
|
|
|
Post by James on Nov 28, 2018 17:05:16 GMT
Does the 2004 remake measure up? Yes, almost as good. It was the one I saw before the original.
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Dec 2, 2018 2:03:11 GMT
9/10.
Romero's finest achievement. Not a fan of the soundtrack, however.
|
|
|
Post by movielover on Apr 17, 2019 14:28:59 GMT
7/10
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jan 27, 2020 15:58:10 GMT
7/10.
|
|
TheSowIsMine
Junior Member
@thesowismine
Posts: 2,652
Likes: 1,684
|
Post by TheSowIsMine on Feb 5, 2020 11:39:24 GMT
9/10
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Feb 5, 2020 18:05:17 GMT
I gave it a 9/10 I give the original expanded cut, before it got shorn of about 15mins a 10. The theatrical cut is technically Romero's directors cut and for the most part with films, I prefer the tighter edits. In this case, I think the extra plot exposition and extended sequences enhance the theme of Romero's zombie epic. Not big on zombie films, but this one is terrific. 👍 Two years ago I gave the movie an 8. This time around I gave it a 9. "They're coming for you, Barbara!"
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Feb 5, 2020 18:24:01 GMT
After making a horror movie (NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD), George wanted to make an action/horror movie . In that genre, the main characters aren't just victims; they fight back... but they still have to be inferior to the threat. During the majority of this movie, the main characters feel in control of each situation. In fact, there are many moments where the zombies get near them and they just push them away. Due to these issues (how ironic that the directing (which isn't the same as technical quality) and the writing in this sequel (made 10 years later and with a bigger budget) is worse), there's no suspense. The goofy make-up doesn't help. A couple of moments during the last part (including the use of that ear poison known as Herbert Chappell's THE GONK) suggest that this was also meant to be partly a comedy, but they feel out of place because the story's overall tone isn't consistent. I can see the point you are making within the context with the first. That they fight back though, is part of what the game of survival has become to survive in this zombie apocalyptic world. Even Francine and Flyboy had to learn this. Toughen up or perish. That they had 2 skilled and trained members of the SWAT team with them was to their advantage and Roger's own egoism and foolhardiness was getting them into some hot water. It was simply a matter of life and death and I feel Romero fully exploited this ideal and within his imagery, he also managed to reflect some subterfuge of substance and the best horror films are effective when they have simple or meager stories and the substance is mirrored in the style\visuals. Life is never consistent, it has it ups and downs and even those living a hellish existence can find humor in their predicament.
That I don't find Dawn Of The Dead that scary or suspenseful like you, doesn't mean I don't buy into the 'frightening' predicament of the situation and when I saw this about 4 yrs after its initial release date at the cinema—and I hadn't seen the original—I had never seen anything quite like it. That the make-up effects might seem a little quaint today, I think that also works in favor with the film as well, when taken in context of when it was made and the austere and sincere approach the entire production took to bring this classic zombie epic to the screen. The setting is great and something most of us will relate too, even today, and this was maximized to its fullest potential. There is nothing wrong with this production and was made on a low budget of around $700,000.00 and the finished product belies what was afforded to it. The success was deserved.
Liking a film is all subjective and in the mind of the beholder. I just feel you may are being a little too stringent or harsh with your rating of it. It needs to be taken in context of when it was made and what it achieved. In relation to other horror films of the era and what it presented, this is by no means a 1 star—or in your case half star film—horror film and at the very least it could be considered average if someone was in a bad mood, but then they would likely not be horror movie aficionados or just random casual viewers.
LOL! For some reason, the image of Ida being grouchy - "I have to put up with all that damn hissing and wheezing!" - came into my mind.
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Feb 5, 2020 18:27:50 GMT
The soundtrack to this movie is just all over the place, isn't it? Parts of it sound like typical, mellow 70's keyboard-heavy prog, some of it sounds like cutting edge (for its time) electronic music, then there's that ridiculous mall music and incongruous ragtime you hear at one point and then a rock song by the Pretty Things(!) during the scene when the rednecks are hunting zombies. Only a few parts of the score seem like it was written with the action and tone of the movie in mind. I much prefer the traditional horror score of 'Night of the Living Dead.' And, some spectacular gore scenes aside, I prefer 'Night of the Living Dead' overall as a movie. I love Goblin's score to this movie. Mesmerizing and hypnotic and grand. Love, love, love the score. www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExLyoiifdcU
|
|