MovieChat Forums > Dawn of the Dead Discussion > Not worth all the hype

Not worth all the hype


I had never seen this movie until now, but for years had heard that it was great. I don't think I've ever seen a review less than 3 stars for this movie, and Roger Ebert, who is usually pretty rough on horror films, gave it a lot of praise. Don't forget, he's the guy who along with his co-host the late Gene Siskel, devoted an hour long TV special to talking about how slasher films were undermining the moral character of America and were examples of cinema at it's worst.

Now that I've seen Dawn of the Dead I'm somewhat surprised. It really is a terrible movie. It's not scary, funny, disturbing or entertaining in any way. It's just a big bore. It has none of the elements that fans of horror films usually seem to go for: no good looking women, not much gore, not much comic relief, and not even any campy bad acting. The acting is bad, but not in an amusing or entertaining way. There are no known actors in this, and they have no acting talent at all. They sound like they are just reading lines - no expression in their voices and body language is way off. There's not even any nudity.

The gore and special effects are laughable. The zombies are not even very gruesome-looking (some of the non-zombies are actually uglier) and the blood (what little there is of it) just looks like bright red paint. This is just a total disaster in ever conceivable way. It is not worth anyone's time to watch it. I don't know how anyone who was involved in making this film ever had a career after this. What I really don't get is why so many people like this movie so much. This has had multiple DVD releases while so many other great horror movies have never even been released on VHS.

I'm just glad that I got this at my local library instead of buying or even renting it. If I'd laid out any money at all to see this, I'd feel cheated. It has to be one of the most overrated movies ever, even more than Titanic, The Exorcist, The French Connection, and Risky Business. I didn't like any of those movies very much, but this one makes them look like masterpieces. It really is that awful. Most of the slasher films Siskel and Ebert condemned, even the ones I thought weren't so great myself, are light years more entertaining than this.

reply

This is just a total disaster in every conceivable way. It is not worth anyone's time to watch it.


Exaggerate much? It's one thing to not like an acclaimed classic and appropriately criticize it, it's quite another to lambaste it across the board as a "total disaster in every conceivable way." Hilarious!

reply

im just not gonna respond to the op, especially as he'll never see it.
...
aw crap!

reply

Hate to say it but I'm pretty much in the same boat as OP. Not for quite all the same reasons, but nevertheless. Imho Night is great and Day is pretty good. There are a few elements in Dawn that I like, like the score and the opening scene. I will get wicked hoisted to put on the soundtrack any day. (Sometimes a really great score can elevate a not so great film up to be something special, like Cannibal Holocaust for example, but Dawn is a case of awesome music pasted on top of a mediocre movie for some reason. Not totally sure why that is but it's interesting to wonder about.) For me it's just marginally better than Zombi 2 and 3, and I'd probably pick 3 to watch right now if I had a gun to my head about it. Love the Shining, love The Exorcist, don't see Dawn having a place among them at all. I'd sooner put The Living Dead at Manchester Morgue up there if we're talking zombie films, and I really wouldn't. It's weird because when it comes to horror I like a lot of flicks that are not very well made or not all that scary, and this is also neither well made nor scary, so it's not that. It's neither schlocky and charming enough nor truly masterful and compelling enough to amount to anything I have any feeling about. It's neither here nor there for me in just about every way. I do agree that strictly on quality of filmmaking it's unfairly hyped. The "social commentary" is super eye-rolling and I think that might be the element above all that makes me kind of hate it. Every time I watch it I want to love it but I just don't. ; (
Not trying to talk smack to feel superior, it's actually annoying to me that I can't get into it.

reply

The special effects are mostly make-up and practical effects. I thought it was fairly realistic instead of the 2004 version with its CGI and faster zombies. This one had the better story. I did like the beginning of the 2004 version, but the story could not sustain itself.

reply

Let me say this, the best part of you ran down the crack of your mothers azz

reply

I can understand not finding it scary but I have watched dawn many times and never find it boring or unentertaining. To me its the ultimate zombie filma

reply

If you're a horror fan, especially if you like zombie movies, you'll appreciate this one for what it is. Romero's Dawn of the Dead set the standards for zombie fiction and codified a lot of the tropes about zombies.

His earlier film Night of the Living Dead was the first in the genre as we know it today, but it was Dawn of the Dead that built the foundations of the genre as a whole.

If you don't like horror films, then maybe this isn't your cup of tea and I can get that.

But there's no denying that this is a whole lot better than the god-awful Zack Snyder remake from 2004.

reply

[deleted]