AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

Merolliv I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

Haven Kaycee It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

aaronlbacks This sequel in the Living Dead trio improved upon the original in almost every way. Romero directed this film a full decade after the first and the advancements in technology, technical effects, and a bigger budget take the zombie uprising premise and put a new and fascinating story to it, and explore new territory literally and figuratively. Dawn presents the idea better that this phenomenon was world-wide. While it is still mostly filmed in the shopping mall, similar to how the first's setting was solely filmed in an abandoned house, we get a picture of how serious the massacre is through aerial helicopter shots. We get continued racial undertones taken from Night, but these are extrapolated, and a new consumeristic theme is added into the mix. Romero makes the statement blunt, but he says it well: people buy, buy, buy mindlessly like zombies. He almost mocks the American public with how humorful he has all the zombies walking around and slipping on ice rinks and falling in ponds. This comedy was not present in the original, but it certainly was a welcome touch, and there was not a single time a joke or gag did not flop. This movie had me laughing out loud several times. Another improvement was in the special effects department. There is no shortage of gore and cheesy gross-out scenes (my favorite being a crowd of zombies pulling intestines out of a man). I can tell that they are fake, and perhaps if this movie took itself more seriously it would be a detriment, but I feel the over-the-top fake blood actually adds to the movie. The group of four - Stephen/Fly Boy (David Emge), Peter (Ken Foree), Roger (Scott H. Reiniger), and Francine (Gaylen Ross) - play their well-crafted characters fantastically, especially Ken Foree. There was a strong influence from Duane Jone's performance in the original coming through in his part. I thought the symbolism, which was lacking in the original, was a nice touch. And lastly, the steps the four took were smart and logical and had me guessing what would happen next. I really appreciate how Romero added a sort of meditative part halfway through. The characters have built a room and are experiencing restlessness and ennui as to what they could do next, wondering if they could be doing more to help others. Even though they were thrown into this situation, they are still products of their environment and resort to normal life no matter how drab it is, waiting for the excitement of a new purchase, a new hit. The only part that bugged me a little was that there were a few too many shots of zombies just walking around. They were funny, but they began feeling like a litany. But aside from that, it's a brilliant film, and I can't wait to get my hands on Day of the Dead.

Anssi Vartiainen The zombie apocalypse has started and our story follows a small group of survivors as they flee towards safety, having to fend for themselves in the midst of the walking dead. Their flight leads them to an overrun mall, which they realize would make for a handy fortress if they can empty it from the walkers.This original version is was directed by George A. Romero, who was also behind Night of the Living Dead. Having two of the biggest and most influential zombie movies ever made to your name is nothing to be sneezed at, and Romero certainly has a style of his own and many of the clichés still used to this day have their origins in these movies. Romero's zombies are slow, rotting and only threatening in their sheer numbers and in their relentlessness. They're a force of nature. They can be avoided with human ingenuity, but they're always there, and they will never go away. And even these early movies contain the essential truth of any good zombie movie. That the other survivors are the true threat.Also, comparing this movie to the 2004 remake of the same name, it's interesting to see what was changed. The essential setup is the same, as is the closing climax, to a certain extent. But whereas the remake has heaps and heaps of characters, simply to provide the film with cannon fodder and zombie chow, Romero's cast is only four characters strong. As thus we get to learn a lot more about them throughout the course of the film. They all start with clear, identifiable personalities, but they also grow as the story progresses. We learn more about them and they also change due to the events they have to endure. And between these two films, less is definitely more.This movie is heavily recommended for all fans of the horror. It still holds up as a great story and a true zombie horror masterpiece.

Aaron1375 This film is the second of Romero's "Dead" trilogy; granted, he did make a few other zombie films after this one: "Land of the Dead", "Diary of the Dead" and "Survival of the Dead", but I do not really count those three as part of his first three dead films. They just seem in a separate world as this series shows us the beginning of the zombies, the zombies taking over and gaining more footing and the end of civilization as we know it as by the last film the zombies outnumber the humans. This is the second film and it shows the structure we humans have established beginning to crumble. This one is also the most action oriented of the three "Dead" films. I would say the first is the most horror oriented and the third has elements of horror, action and science fiction. Of the original three, this is my favorite one. It has really cool zombie action and I like the main characters especially Peter and Roger...Fran and Stephen got on my nerves from time to time. The third film would have a myriad of annoying and unlikable characters with the most likable by far being Bub. Bub also happens to be a zombie so that should tell you how they are. That one features some really good zombie action and a better climax than this film though. The climax here almost seems like Romero thought he had to have some zombie munching and could not quite figure out a way to do so seeing as how there were only four main characters and so the ending, while featuring some awesome zombie munching, also seems kind of thrown in as an after thought.The story has things beginning to break down rapidly as two people working at television station plan to nab the company chopper to try and escape the horror that the city has now become as marshal law is in effect and things are going badly quickly. Two guys who are in a raid of an apartment complex that goes horribly also join the two reporters and there are some tensions at first as they fly through the countryside and witness the growing number of zombies first hand. They soon find a mall with a helicopter landing pad on top of it and decide to stay and rest a bit at first, but then Roger and Peter decide that perhaps they should stay a little longer as the place has everything one could need to survive out the zombie outbreak. They convince Stephen, though Fran is never too on board with the idea as apparently her and Stephen's original plan was to get to Canada. Soon they all work together to try and blockade the mall, lock down the mall and then rid the mall of the zombie infestation. All looks well until the here some people on the radio who do not have the best of intentions.This one is the most action oriented of the first three films as I have said and I liked the characters in this one more than the other two films as well. The zombie effects are okay and there are some good kills, but both of those two things would be improved upon in the next entry. I am always a bit surprised that the guy playing Roger did not appear in all that many films as he was actually really good. About the only one who would go on to appear in several films is Ken Foree who would appear in a lot of horror films during his career.So this film is rather good, but it is dated a bit. You watch this film and you are looking at a time capsule of the 70's that is for sure. The fact that they reference the indoor mall makes it seem like that was a relatively new and happening thing thing when these days it is the outdoor malls that thrive more often. I would hate to get stuck in a mall these days as you just could not find the supplies that a mall had back in those days. Not even talking about guns, I am talking about food, tools and several other essential items that just are not going to be in a mall nowadays. Most malls only really have clothing shops so you are not going to survive very long unless you are good at crafting hangers into weapons or eating clothing and converting it to energy! Still, it is a fun ride and a very good zombie film.

SlyGuy21 Oh yeah, I went there. This movie shares so many similarities with "Fifty Shades of Grey", don't believe me, allow me to educate you. Both films have no character development, both films have no plot, both films have no conflict, both films are 40 minutes longer than they need to be, and both movies are boring as hell. I would rather get eaten alive by the undead than watch this again. It's shocking how terrible this movie is. Let me give you some examples.So you'd think zombies would be the biggest threat in a zombie movie right? Not here. In fact, the zombies in this are about as terrifying as a bowl of oatmeal. They're a joke, they're not a threat, they are the most unintimidating zombies in movie history. The cardboard cutouts trying to be characters overpower an entire horde of zombies by just using their fists. Once they get to the mall, the plot comes to a dead stop, I hope you like cardboard cutouts that have no chemistry with each other running around a mall for 100 minutes, cuz that's what the rest of this trash is.Oh wait, there is character development, an hour into the movie, but it's easy to miss, because it adds nothing. White cop cardboard cutout gets bitten, he's dead, end of story. So of course we have the cliché of the others trying to save him and he eventually turns into a zombie. The problem, is that I don't freaking care!! He had no character, he had no personality, he had zero chemistry with the other characters. It's sad how I cared more about the kid in "Night of the Living Dead" (a character who had 2 lines of dialogue) than this guy.The zombie effects are terrible. The practical effects are OK, nothing special, but the zombie face paint is laughably lazy. I'm not saying the effects in the first movie were perfect, but a movie made a decade before this, had better zombie effects, there's no excuse for that. The bikers also serve no purpose, other than to slow the movie down more. The scene of them stealing things and treating the zombies like jokes drags on for what feels like an eternity. It served no purpose, at all, and they get eaten anyway, so what was the point? So the zombies could overrun the mall again?!? You could've just had the doors break!! It would've save 10 minutes of my life! The fact that there's a version of this that's almost 3 hours, scares the hell out of me. This is worse than "28 Weeks Later", this is the worst zombie film I've ever seen!