Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Movie News

CANNES: Our first report from the 14 minutes of LAND OF THE DEAD that screened!

Ahoy, squirts! Quint here with our first report on the 14 minutes of LAND OF THE DEAD that Universal and Romero screened at Cannes. This is a very, very enthusiastic fan reaction. I don't know about you, but I'm totally jazzed about this! If anybody else out there reading this was at the screening, drop us a line and let us know your thoughts!

Hi Harry!

Bad weather here today around the Palais, but that doesn't matter, because yesterday at midnight, the sun was shining!

George Romero showed the first 14 minutes of his new work, or i should better say epos, because it sure looks so. LAND OF THE DEAD! Also, he brung along Asia Argento, John Leguziamo, Dennis Hopper & Wife and some dude called Simon or something.

Anyway: The 14 minutes rocked hard. In fact, those 14 awesome minutes were even better than that whole DAWN OF THE DEAD remake. Romero uses incredible good animatronics for his zombies and some CG that you can almost not see. It was totally awesome.

It starts with a nice slow shot of a wedding gone bad: all the people are zombies. The first thing that i noticed were the absofuckinglutely creepy masks. Damn, they were the best zombie masks I have ever seen. The makeup is so good, makes you wanna slap your mamma. You have never seen something like this before. Fuck 28 Days Later, fuck Dawn Of The Dead, this is the real deal. They're bad and hungry, and you can see that. Anyway, after that sweet zombie shot we see Leguziamo and a team drop two wooden boxes with zombies in them at some trashpoint with lots of trash around. Suddenly they see an alive zombie near them on the ground, and BLAM there you have your first headshot from Leguziamo. 2 minutes runnning, one down already.

In the next 10 minutes it will be about 25 dead people, because that team from Leguziamo drives with really cool vehicles into an city to grab goods there. They use fireworks to shock the zombies, and while these are watching up in the air, they drive by and shoot them. But then that firework machine has a defect, and the zombies begin to hunt these humans. Not that they really have a chance against the machine guns, but this scene is to show you that they develop in some way. Some angry black zombie grabs a machine gun from a bike while the team leaves the town! Holy shit!

Well, and then there is the last shot, which is beautiful: The zombies start walking in the direction that the humans have left. Now, thats a Stylebreak, but goddamit, it was Romero, who invented zombie movies, so a discussion is unneccessary. He orientates the zombies at 28 Days Later, but they dont run here. So, it's all okay.

As I said, this movie is gonna kick ass really hard. It's gonna kick Dawn Of The Dead in the balls, for ever being made. You can taste it.

Can't wait to see the final film. It's gonna be a horror masterpiece!

Call me

yakobusan


Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • May 14, 2005, 8:44 p.m. CST

    Can't Wait

    by JediStryker

    Just watched Night through Day, and they still hold up as some of the best zombie flicks ever. Bring this shit on!

  • May 14, 2005, 8:48 p.m. CST

    Romero Rules!!

    by gollum38

    All you zombie-movie naysayers can kiss my ass because he's back baby!!

  • May 14, 2005, 8:57 p.m. CST

    Additional generic Romero compliment....

    by Archduke_Chocula

    Nothing like a Romero film to kick some summer ass..

  • May 14, 2005, 9:01 p.m. CST

    the trailer

    by Rearden

    I dig the trailer. It tries to introduce the general viewing public to the fact that there is a dude named George Romero, and that they should care. (that this isn't the sequel to House of the Dead)

  • May 14, 2005, 9:09 p.m. CST

    Learning Zombies

    by JediStryker

    It is kind of weird; but Romero already sort of went down that road a bit with Bub in Day of the Dead. I suppose that the part of their brain that's been reactivated might start to sort of evolve, albeit very slowly and in strange ways. They may only be able to replicate what they see, or something of that nature. If they can create 'zombie memories', then they'd be sort of like dogs, where repetition=learning.

  • May 14, 2005, 9:12 p.m. CST

    SWEET!

    by DAS JANKE

    ...even though the trailer looks like a WB movie, complete with a WB cast. Fuck it, I love zombie movies, though I hold reservations as to whether this will surpass the greatness of the Dawn of the Dead remake.

  • May 14, 2005, 9:14 p.m. CST

    It's just too bad

    by JediStryker

    that THE PEST had to be in it. At least Hopper is a badass choice.

  • May 14, 2005, 9:18 p.m. CST

    CarnivalOfSouls

    by JediStryker

    How many zombie movies can we see where the whole thing starts again and again? I'm interested in seeing the progression of the world after that first night. A whole world full of zombies...that kicks ass. I don't want to keep watching shitty remakes of Night of the Living Dead.

  • May 14, 2005, 9:19 p.m. CST

    That's how

    by JediStryker

    shitty movies like Resident Evil get made.

  • May 14, 2005, 9:25 p.m. CST

    "it was Romero, who invented zombie movies"

    by Gruesome Wedgie

    Actually, there were movies featuring zombies (some were even in serialized form) back in the 30 & 40s if memory serves. Vincent Price in the Italian version of Richard Matheson's I Am Legend was made well before Romero got busy. Sorry, but there it is.

  • May 14, 2005, 9:26 p.m. CST

    Illiterate bastard

    by kuryakin

    Seriously, can't you guys at least proof read this shit before it's posted? It's a fucking embarassment to every one of you. At least it should be

  • May 14, 2005, 9:37 p.m. CST

    simon pegg

    by 81666

    maybe??

  • May 14, 2005, 9:56 p.m. CST

    When someone is so eager to slate other recent zombie ficks....

    by cockknocker

    It kind of destroys their credibility

  • May 14, 2005, 9:59 p.m. CST

    There can never be enough zombie movies

    by SgtElias

    NEVER! Especially of this vintage. I love the scene from Lemony Snicket where Aunt Josephine is going to be spared but chooses to correct Count Olaf's grammar. A plague of carnivorous leeches on all you grammar douchebags.

  • May 14, 2005, 10:12 p.m. CST

    What is old is new, only rotten

    by JohnIan

    The answer is quite simple. The ghoul

  • May 14, 2005, 10:14 p.m. CST

    George Romero.....

    by MattCG

    ....I love "Night" and "Dawn" as much as the next guy, but I still hold that "Day" was serious bullshit. Making the zombies smarter is stupid too. It takes the focus off the people and puts on the zombies. Zombies in case you hadn't figured this out yet, are a means to an end. They're there to make the human characters react with each other. Period. Occasionally they'll get in and cause some shit, but making them smarter makes them NOT ZOMBIES! By definition, SMART ZOMBIES and FAST ZOMBIES are NOT ZOMBIES! Also, Romero hardly fucking invented zombies. He's just made the best two movies about them so far. But, think about that for a minute. The acting in both "Night" and "Dawn" is hardly what I'd all great. The movies work as free-for-alls and have been propelled forward into something they really aren't by completely a blind-to-their-flaws fanbase. I've yet to see a zombie movie that I'd call a great film. Despite everyone's assertations that Romero is the definitive zombie kingshit, "Shaun of the Dead" was a more emotionally intelligent film. The "Dawn of the Dead" remake featured acting that was far and away better than anything Romero squeezed out of his "Dead" films. Not only that, but his constant use of isolation has got to stop. If I see another zombie film where the characters are trapped in one location for the duration, I'm going to fucking kill someone myself. It's boring. (See: "The Walking Dead". If some bright soul would pick up that comic and turn it into an HBO series, it would be the best zombie related anything ever made.) But, the smart zombie thing really bothers me. Bottom line, he's gotta work harder.

  • May 14, 2005, 10:15 p.m. CST

    True

    by JediStryker

    Zombies are still rotting corpses, but new zombies would be created as time went on. Maybe their rate of decay is being suspended by the Venus radiation somehow. Hopefully it'll be explained, though if it's not I'm not gonna bitch about it. I love the original movies, and am eagerly looking forward to this one too.

  • May 14, 2005, 10:16 p.m. CST

    I would also....

    by MattCG

    ...like some explanations to things. Why are the zombies around at all? What caused them? How do they distinguish between live and dead? Why aren't they decomposing? How long do they live? Do they eat animals? Are there animal zombies? Etc, etc, etc....

  • May 14, 2005, 10:23 p.m. CST

    "Smart" zombies?

    by JediStryker

    Who said they were smart? Turtles can learn that certain humans feed them and thus follow them around the yard and bump them with their heads in the hopes of getting a treat. Does this make them smart? No, it means that they can learn, based on repetition. It stands to reason that if zombies can create new memories, then they can "learn". This does not make them smart; if anything it makes them more like animals which in turn makes them potentially more frightening. And I beg to differ on your opinion of the acting in Night and Dawn. For horror movies, particularly of that day, and taking into account the use of unknown actors, the acting was just fine. Some of the dialogue might have been cheesy, and some circumstances contrived, but that's hardly the fault of the actors. (I'm talking about the original NotLD, not the shitty 90's remake. Sorry, Tom.)

  • May 14, 2005, 10:27 p.m. CST

    Q&A

    by JediStryker

    "Why are the zombies around at all?" A probe that was sent to Venus was destroyed while returning to Earth when the scientists monitoring noted that it had been contaminated with a strange radiation. The pieces of the probe, however, apparently made it to Earth, and it was believed that the radiation began reactivating the core of the brains of the recently deceased. "Do they eat animals?" In the original Night of the Living Dead, zombies could be seen eating bugs and the recently bbq'd remains the teens who blew up in the truck. It would seem that they eat dead, but not reanimated. Perhaps they can sense the radiation in the living dead?

  • May 14, 2005, 10:29 p.m. CST

    I've come to the conclusion that no matter how cool the news, th

    by Chastain-86

    Explains why I rarely talk back anymore. I'm flat tired of the jaded jerkoffs that frequent AICN -- you know, the ones that haven't a positive thing to say about anything? Not even angry about it -- just...bored, for lack of a better term.

  • May 14, 2005, 10:40 p.m. CST

    Simon Baker I think.

    by red_weed

    He's in this movie i believe. Well we all know him here in Australia.

  • May 14, 2005, 10:50 p.m. CST

    Zombie decay (as in why they don't)

    by MrSwifty

    There's some background exposition from Dr. Logan in "Day of the Dead" in which this is kind of explained.

  • May 14, 2005, 10:50 p.m. CST

    Do zombies poo?

    by kuryakin

  • May 14, 2005, 10:52 p.m. CST

    A theory

    by JohnIan

    Just a thought to MattCG

  • May 14, 2005, 11:07 p.m. CST

    Excited, with reservations

    by Zoviet Squid

    I've been waiting for this movie. The original 'Dawn...' ranks as one of my all-time favorite movies ever. However, I'm a little worried that this is just going to smack of nothing but cheap zombie-killing while all the social commentary and surreal atmosphere is left out. I couldn't care less about how much it kicks this or that movie's ass--if it's to be something truly special, there'd be no comparison. Romero's zombie movies should be in a league of their own--their own genre even--rather than fight in the school yard with the smaller kids. This review makes my blood run cold--Romero's versions have always been the 'thinking mans' zombie movies, so using a body count to rate its excellence is like giving your brain a colonoscopy and still finding shit.

  • May 14, 2005, 11:25 p.m. CST

    Let's take the above as fact and move forward

    by kuryakin

    Hahaha, let's fucking not. Seriously, it's one thing to talk about zombie movies, it's quite another to start spouting half-baked (Christ, not even that, this kirlian nonsense is the worst kind of laughable pseudo-science) ideas about auras and life force. That's LIFE FORCE people! And by the way we never evolved from monkeys cos we don't got tails

  • May 14, 2005, 11:27 p.m. CST

    Bub wasn't growing more "intelligent"...

    by Osmosis Jones

    ...he was just giving a Pavlovian reaction to Dr. Logan's experiments. Bub doesn't bite Doc Logan because Doc Logan gives him plenty of dead human flesh to eat. Bub knows how to chamber a gun and salute because, in the dim vestiges of his rotting brain, he vaguely remebers dong these things when he was alive ("Maybe he was a soldier!"). He speaks the only like said by a zombie in a Romero movie ("Hel-lo...aunt...A-li-cia.") because he's prompted by Doc Logan, not dissimilar to a parakeet mimicking human speech. Remember, even in the original Night, the zombies were capable of using tools (clubs and such), indicating that they *do* have vague remnants of their former selves buried deep within their rotting shells. That said, they're not "learning" in the classic sense.

  • May 14, 2005, 11:32 p.m. CST

    simon from shaun of the dead

    by mikep

    pegg is a guest zombie.

  • May 14, 2005, 11:34 p.m. CST

    "makes you wanna slap your mamma."

    by dr_dreadlocks

    This is the type of stylish news coverage that makes AICN so great. I mean, I'm slappin' my mamma right now, though I see no pleasure in it, I certainly understand the reasoning.

  • May 14, 2005, 11:45 p.m. CST

    All of Romeros movies have an underlying theme...

    by Weird-Coma

    ..."Night was about the old generation being replaced by the new (New devours the old), "Dawn" was a dig at consumerism, and so on. When Romero spoke at my school (God, he was cool as all hell!), he said the underlying theme for this movie was Quote: "What happens when you ignore the problem." :End Quote. It is supposed to be an elaboration on what he touched on in "Day", which by the way, is his least favorite of his films. He was forced to scale back a lot of the scenes and remove some entirely, due to budget, the ratings system (The first two movies were unrated, "Day" was the first R-rated), and the studio butting in. Thats one of the reasons it took him so long to make another, he didnt want to be constricted by the ratings system.

  • May 15, 2005, 12:02 a.m. CST

    Simon - Baker Denny....

    by Brundlefly

    He's an Aussie actor - he played the young struggling actor who turns a trick for Danny 'Hush Hush magazine' Devito by screwing Ron (Sloane from Alias) Rivkin in 'LA Confidential'....he ended up getting his throat slit and Kevin Spacey finds him in the motel room. He's done other films but I think 'Land of the Dead' is one of his bigger roles of late....

  • May 15, 2005, 12:04 a.m. CST

    Uh, Day *was* unrated.

    by Osmosis Jones

    In fact, it's the specific reason why Romero couldn't get the budget he wanted, because he refused to cut the film to an R-rating, and the budget got slashed in half.

  • May 15, 2005, 12:07 a.m. CST

    Dawn Remake Saved George's Ass...

    by stlfilmwire

    This move wouldn't have been made if it wasn't for the success of the remake. Now, I am real excited that the movie is coming out and all, but I don't understand why you need to dis other movies just because u like Land of the Dead. I hope it is as good as you say.

  • May 15, 2005, 12:07 a.m. CST

    The reason Romero gave for what caused the zombies and why they

    by Weird-Coma

    ...Quote: "I dont care!" :End Quote. No bullshit, thats the answer he gave to the guy that asked that question at the Q&A. The crowd almost laughed itself to death.

  • May 15, 2005, 12:18 a.m. CST

    Ok, thats weird then...

    by Weird-Coma

    ...because that came right from him. According to him, that time period was the beginning of the end for the independant film houses, and unrated venues werent as readily available anymore. There were, according to Romero, only a few movie houses that showed the unrated version, and then only for a short time, because the studio stepped in and cut it up for mass release. Shit, I hope he's not developing alzheimers like Stan Lee. Lee keeps changing the story on how he came up with the concept for Spider-Man. Before long, its going to go something like, "Well, I was taking a dump one morning, and I was struck with this idea for a character that eventually became Spider-Man!".

  • May 15, 2005, 12:33 a.m. CST

    Not the remake per se

    by JediStryker

    But just the sudden infatuation with zombie films. Resident Evil (which I didn't like), 28 Day Later (which isn't even a zombie movie), and Dawn of the Dead (which is watchable, but the 'fast zombies' were terrible) are all partly responsible for Romero being able to get his film out. Originally, if I remember correctly, it was going to be years after Day, and humans had pretty much taken back the planet and were repopulating. Zombies were like the homeless; they were around but people pretty much ignored them. I'm not really sure how exciting that would have been. ;) I do think it's funny that he would make the comment that he didn't really care what made the zombies. It seemed like he went out of the way to explain it in the first and third movies. Not that it ultimately matters, but I always found Dr. Logan's scenes in DotD to be among the most interesting.

  • May 15, 2005, 12:45 a.m. CST

    Weird-Coma

    by Jabba the Slut

    Go and find any Day of the Dead box. Flip over. Scroll your beady eyes to the bottom. Read where it says NOTHING ABOUT A FUCKING R RATING! The fucking movie is unrated. This will be the first "Dead" movie to recieve a rating from the MPAA. Romero would have rather let his movies go unrated than compromise his vision and take it up the ass. *SIDE NOTE* An R-rated version of Dawn was released on a double bill in the early eighties with Creepshow. And we all know the story by now about how the "Day" that exists is NOT the original vision, just a cliffnotes version.

  • May 15, 2005, 12:48 a.m. CST

    "the 'fast zombies' were terrible"

    by krullboy

    JediStryker, the zombie genre is not my forte, and in no way am I trolling you on your post. That being said, the running zombie stuff is a hell of a lot scarier than guys just stumbling around, case in point the "pie in the zombie face" scene in Day of the Dead. I think the DoTD remake guys figured that audiences would not buy the slow zombies as threatening as ones hauling ass to eat you. I know it does not make a whole lot of sense, but frankly neither does the zombie stuff as it is. Personally, I think the ghost/spirit stuff is more plausible than the Undead, but that is just my opnion.

  • May 15, 2005, 1:02 a.m. CST

    Zombie are not supposed to be

    by JediStryker

    scary like typical movie monsters. They are supposed to be psychologically frightening. With one or two of them, they're nothing. The zombies in the living dead movies were not scary because they could catch you and overpower you. They were scary because they were the majority. In each film, the human survivors are the minority. They're literally surrounded, and there's nowhere to run. Not to mention the fact that you can become one of them. Of course, everyone's going to find different things scary. You may not find the zombies from the original movies all that scary, I do (in as much as I can find an imaginary thing scary). I don't find ghost/spirit stuff scary at all. To each his own.

  • May 15, 2005, 1:16 a.m. CST

    No plant

    by JediStryker

    would be that obvious. They've learned how to be more subtle than that.

  • May 15, 2005, 1:16 a.m. CST

    And anyone who says that 28 Days Later isn't a zombie movie

    by Monkey Butler

    is just a wanker. They look like zombies, they've got no real brain function, they eat people, and anyone who gets bitten turns into one. That's fucking close enough.>>>>>>And to anyone who doesn't yet know (there's been a few tbs here about it), LotD is about class stratification - the Human city still divides into the Haves and Have Nots, even when they're under siege from millions of zombies. So don't worry, it's not just a pointless gore-fest.

  • May 15, 2005, 1:22 a.m. CST

    Touche, JediStryker, Touche

    by krullboy

    I have heard a lot of Romero fans say that the original was, in essence, a social commentary of the Civil Rights movement. Being surrounded and outnumbered is a dominant theme, and I agree with Harry's comment in his "Assault on Precint 13" review that you could substitute the rogue police with zombies, and it would be the same movie. And I do find the zombies in the movies creepy, especially the women zombies (Freud explanation anyone?), it's just that with the running ones you have no chance. And JediStryker, could you answer another question for me? At the end of the Dawn of the Dead remake, when we see the video camera footage while the credits are rolling, are we to assume that when the survivors got to the island they were overcome by the zombies? And what was with the real quick "flash scene" of two hot chicks kissing? Some sort of immorality=apocalypse commentary? Thoughts?

  • May 15, 2005, 1:27 a.m. CST

    I can smell the

    by drumstick

    clorophyl

  • May 15, 2005, 1:27 a.m. CST

    "they eat people"?????????

    by krullboy

    MonkeyButler, I thought that the "Rage" virus just caused them to become vicious, homicidal maniacs? I didn't think they ate their victims, more that they attacked like a wild dog would, using their teeth, hands, fingers, and brute strength to kill. I do agree with you in the aspect that 28 days later should be mentioned in the same genre. The thing I liked about it was that the virus burned itself out, and that those infected eventually died off. Have you heard about the sequel "28 weeks later"?

  • May 15, 2005, 1:31 a.m. CST

    It's not a given...

    by Hail

    I want this movie to work. Reeaall baaaad. But, other than the references to his origianl zombie triology, I wasn't too impressed with the trailer. Now this news about smart zombies? I think I'll wait to the reveiws come it to figure whether or not to open my wallet for it. America needs good horror movies. ORIGINAL horror movies. I hope this works...

  • May 15, 2005, 1:34 a.m. CST

    28 Days Later

    by JediStryker

    Zombies, in the movie sense, are walking corpses who are mindless and have only one desire: to eat the flesh of the living. The things in 28 Days Later do not fit this model, no matter how close they come. They were not zombies; they were infected humans who were alive. "And JediStryker, could you answer another question for me? At the end of the Dawn of the Dead remake, when we see the video camera footage while the credits are rolling, are we to assume that when the survivors got to the island they were overcome by the zombies?" My guess is that this was left ambiguous for a reason. Whether to allow for a possible sequel, or just to give us a sense that nothing is certain and that there is no happy ending, I couldn't say for sure. My personal feeling is that they died and it was the end. "And what was with the real quick "flash scene" of two hot chicks kissing? Some sort of immorality=apocalypse commentary? Thoughts?" Morality? In a Hollywood picture? ;) I think that this was more to flash between what most might find to be an idealic scene with the 'worst possible scenario'. Sort of a compare and contrast: this was how it could have been, this is how it is, see how bad it's gotten. I don't think that morality was being played on, even though I don't think that's a bad idea, because morals today are so subjective, that it would be meaningless to anyone who didn't share that particular set of morals.

  • May 15, 2005, 1:41 a.m. CST

    Thanks, JediStryker

    by krullboy

    I appreciate your answers to my questions. If they did indeed survive, and a sequel was made, it would be interesting to see what the concept could be. Did the zombie stuff affect, say Greenland? You could have a "Thing" type scenario, where you could have zombies attacking in the snow, or something along those lines. I also liked your description of the lesbo stuff as "the ideal" juxtaposed with "absolute hell". I think a scene that would be cool to see in a zombie film would be a plane landing at an airport, with zombies getting splattered all over the runway. The pilots and crew would be able to tell what was going on on the ground by monitoring radio traffic, but it would set up an interesting scenario of "where do we land", "what will we do there" , and "how can we get through this", kind of like a Robinson Crusoe, set in a Zombie context.

  • Yeah, sure, 28 Days Later isn't a zombie movie. The rage-infected just don't fit the model. Right. It couldn't be any less of a zombie movie if it tried to. Guess it's the best zombie movie that isn't really about zombies ever made, then.

  • May 15, 2005, 1:54 a.m. CST

    32 billion

    by JediStryker

    But seriously, I'm not saying that 28 Days Later is a bad movie; I have the DVD. What I'm saying is that it's not a zombie movie, it's a horror picture. When I went to see it in the theater, I didn't sit there and think 'Wow, this is a zombie movie!'. I never even made the comparison until someone else I was talking to referred to it as a zombie film (I saw it while I was stationed in Iceland, so I wasn't inundated by the same media buzz). I'm not trying to disrespect the film, but it's not a zombie flick.

  • ...period! (and anyone who thinks it is a zombie movie is a wanker, a SERIOUS wanker!) It's a great horror movie, with excellent social commentary, good acting great characters and story, but those "ragers" just aren't zombies. That is all...

  • May 15, 2005, 2:09 a.m. CST

    ZARDOZ---The greatest Sean Connery Film ever!!!

    by krullboy

    Just kidding, but great user name.

  • May 15, 2005, 2:16 a.m. CST

    14 great minutes? Well,so i guess it

    by Judge Doom

    Day had a great opening and that mofo jawless zombie on the pos-apocaliptic city, and after that was all crap. Machine gun zombies, eh? And people bitch about the pipe hangging zombie from Dawn remake (A great movie by the way)

  • May 15, 2005, 2:22 a.m. CST

    I liked Day of the Dead

    by JediStryker

    It had this feeling of helplesness that was prevalent in every scene. The characters were actually pretty decent, and the gore was excellent. "I hope you choke!" Classic! I prefer Day to the remake of Dawn, but I guess it's all a matter of taste. Day is by no means the best of the trilogy, that's for sure.

  • May 15, 2005, 2:49 a.m. CST

    Jesus Christ JediStryker, get bent out of shape much?

    by Weird-Coma

    Like I said, I was going with what was said at the meet and greet. I figured I could trust what he said, but like a lot of people when they get older, maybe he's got problems keeping his shit straight. Either that, or I got the meaning wrong. If its inaccurate, its inaccurate, but thats no reason to lose your shit.

  • May 15, 2005, 2:52 a.m. CST

    lol

    by JediStryker

    I think you meant to address that to Jabba the Slut. ;)

  • May 15, 2005, 3:01 a.m. CST

    The reason the zombies came back?

    by Ridge

    During the course of the last three movies, we've heard everything from scientific reasoning, through to the occult 'When there is no more room in hell, the dead shall walk the earth.' What Romero has prided himself on to this day, is never having to explain why the zombies are there. Moreso, hes more to the point of showing how we handle them. I personally don't think it would make a spittle of difference to find out why they're there. It was never said why, just alluded to in three or for different terms. The satellite coming back to earth was a theory. As was a comet passing earth etc etc. It leaves it open to interpretation, is it a disease? Is it radiation? Is it a voodoo curse? Is it because Fox finally bored everyone to death... and theyre back for revenge. Who knows? Essentially, I point it out this way : I'd rather not know, and live with the mystery of it, than get a sub standard answer and have everyone bitching about how 'Its not how I wanted it to be'.

  • May 15, 2005, 3:03 a.m. CST

    One other thing...

    by Ridge

    Orientate : Big deal if he/she used a word like that, we got the meaning of it... do we ever go off at people who use spelling mistakes on the net in chat?

  • May 15, 2005, 3:04 a.m. CST

    In Day

    by JediStryker

    they even say that there's no point in trying to find out why they're coming back. At that point, it hardly mattered.

  • May 15, 2005, 3:10 a.m. CST

    Exactly.

    by Ridge

    Oh and by the by, anyone who hates the idea of zombies learning etcetera... If you're of the group that wish Day had of used its original script, I find that rather interesting. In the original Day script, Zombies were being trained to be soldiers again, infact, some wearing orange vests were marching around during the movie, firing off guns. Essentially, Land seems to have a lot of stuff in it Romero has been wanting to do for a while. For instance, the underwater river crossing the zombies perform. Apparently, this scene wasn't in Pirates of the Carribean at first (the part with PIRATES, not zombies, so dont flame me...), and coincidentally ended up in theirs. Rumors persist it was stolen, it may just be coincidence but who knows. All I know is, to quote Romero "I finally have the budget I want, Im finally making the movie I wanted to make." Also, think of this, he hasn't sold the rights to this one yet I believe, and if it's succesful, how cool would it be to get another one or two Romero zombie movies in the next decade or so?

  • May 15, 2005, 3:34 a.m. CST

    The problem with Dawn of the Dead remake I thought ...

    by Shan

    ... was with the dog. The zombies attack people when they see them, chase moving vehicles when they see them, even if they can't see the people in them but not the dog which they can see and is moving and alive ... It would have been much more consistent to have them attack all moving things really. Ie they should have come up with something else for that scene, really.

  • May 15, 2005, 3:40 a.m. CST

    Also on that scene ...

    by Shan

    ... with the guy in the gun shop, do you think it would have helped if they'd told him that he'd turn into a zombie if he got bitten during the many days to weeks they were communicating with him before sending the dog across. Maybe, just maybe he might have taken just a bit more care not to get bitten then.

  • May 15, 2005, 5:02 a.m. CST

    I don't think of them as "learning" zombies...

    by TheLastMan

    I think it's more of a case of "monkey see, monkey do". The way I see it, when the dead came back to life its like trying to teach an infant, or an invalid who is regaining motor skills. To those who previously had said that Romero doesnt like Day, if you listen to the Anchor Bay commentary on the Dawn of the Dead DVD, he says that Day has grown to be his favorite. We don't need a zombie movie to show a sign of the apocalypse, we have the Olsen twins for that.

  • May 15, 2005, 5:55 a.m. CST

    28 Days Later

    by John-Locke

    Started well, The bit when the girl quickly turns on her just infected buddy with her Machete is fricking sweet. As soon as they leave London the film turns seriously shit. In fact I remember the exact moment when I lost my suspension of disbelief, They are in the tunnel in the Cab and they stop for a flat tire (like you do when you are being chased by rage infected zombie wannabees) they then drive over about a dozen derilict cars that block the way. Total bollocks. The rest of the film is a Day of the Dead rip off with a few okay moments but mainly it sucked Diseased Mongolian Lama Testicles.

  • May 15, 2005, 6:03 a.m. CST

    LOTD and Romero will own all your collective Asses this Summer

    by John-Locke

    My favourite Death scene is in Day (although Dawn is a better film IMHO). There are those two soldiers with beards, one of them has been bitten and opens the gates to let in his Zombie Brethren, who quickly surround the other Soldier and tear him apart. As they tear his gut's open and Rip his head off he is still screaming, as the cords in his throat tighten before they snap (which you can see because the skin has gone) you can clearly hear the pitch of his scream change as his Vocal chords struggle to stay in one piece. Fucking Superb SFX, I don't think it's ever been done better.

  • May 15, 2005, 6:29 a.m. CST

    John-Locke

    by DocPazuzu

    I'm with you on that one. That scene always freaks me out. Especially the way the guy goes from incredulous, screeching laughter to screams and then on to what you described. You keep expecting the camera to cut away to something else but you follow him right to the end (and beyond). The use of sound effects there is what really makes it chilling.

  • May 15, 2005, 6:35 a.m. CST

    Anabis

    by newkie brown

    It's worth remembering that Romero intended the zombies to 'evolve' from the very beginning. He wrote an original short story, Anabis, as long ago as 1965 in which the zombies develop an interest in all the guns that are left lying around and hunt the last surviving humans to extinction. It's amazing that Romero has stayed true to his original concept for 40 years. By the way, anyone who thinks that running zombies are better just doesn't get it. The *entire* point, at least of the Romero series, is that the slow-witted, slow-moving zombies themselves are a minimal threat and that it is humanity in all it's greed and spitefulness that brings the apocalypse on itself. I love Romero's movies. He makes actual horror films; something which is getting increasingly rare. Day of the Dead is the real deal. It's got teeth, and IMHO it's the bleakest darkest horror film ever made. Anyone who says differently should just go watch that shit-stained remake of Dawn again...

  • I liked it a lot, however the shallow non-existant characters who weren't Ving, basically were forgettable. Comments such as 'Romero owes Dawn remake' are a bit cracked... doesn't it come full circle and become : DAWN REMAKE owes ROMERO for the ability to actually BE in existance in the first place? So essentially, Romero in a round about way, is responsible for Land being approved. He made Dawn, Dawn got remade and was a hit, Land got approved... Thanks Romero :D

  • May 15, 2005, 7:08 a.m. CST

    Anabis

    by Ridge

    I could not agree more. Day of the Dead, has the most intense 'Humanity is doomed' feeling ever in a movie. I felt a twinge of it in Dawn remake, but Day just completely pummeled you with it. The scene with the street full of zombies was just intense. I wouldnt say Dawn remake was shit stained, it had some good points, usually unintentional, and the useage of cgi to enhance the gore was just the *best* we've seen so far. The use of amputees such as the jogging zombie was excellent. It was by all means 'better than it had a right to be' to quote a chatter in AICN, but for all those whos Zombie experience begins and ends with Dawn... For gods sake, go watch Night, Dawn and Day, hell even watch Savinis remake which has some redeeming parts, then watch Argentos Zombi and Zombi 2. Truly some great movies there. Running zombies, whilst not the norm, certainly have a place in zombie lore, as do shambling ones. I prefer shambling zombies, more entertaining, a slower threat, an encumbering threat thats growing... a running zombie tackles you and bites you, a stumbling walking zombie, walks after you, whilst its numbers grow, zombies add to the crowd, eventually the crowd is too big for you to escape as its coming from all directions. Its this kind of growing fear I love in these movies. As for the learning part. There is NO rule that says Zombies cannot, anywhere. Ive read the script and basically, it makes sense. The zombies organs still essentially work, their body still pumps a thick black ichor blood, just not the same way it used to, their brain still provides a response to the rest of their body, so it stands to reason that the brain, still being functional, wouldnt have say, a goldfish memory. Thus the zombie would be able to slowly, gain new skills. I equate this to the level of someone with severe retardation. (No Im not being cruel and saying spasticity or mental disability = zombies before any of you flamers out there start.) Romeros finally made the movie he wanted to make, and I know I for one, will be in line for it first day, first session with ticket in hand.

  • May 15, 2005, 7:08 a.m. CST

    Hey Ridge, that makes total sense to me buddy

    by John-Locke

    I liked the dawn Re-make alot, The Opening 15mins (until they got to the Mall) were the best. I thought that some of the other characters were memorable though, the Head security dude was my fave, what a complete cuntleman.

  • May 15, 2005, 7:42 a.m. CST

    Action movies

    by newkie brown

    OK, I admit that I'm a film snob and Ridge makes some fair points. Shit-stained was probably a tad harsh. Only a tad, mind. It had *some* redeeming features. All of that stuff at the beginning where you see the quiet Wisconsin town falling apart was fantastic, and Ving Rhames is always good value, but that's what, 10 minutes out of an entire film? Those guys had a very classy template to work from in Romero's original, and they turned in a completely hollow facsimilie. I mean really, what was the point? The problem is that it was an action film masquerading as a horror film, and I don't appreciate that; especially when they're calling it Dawn of the Dead. I likes my horror to be, well, horrific. The Dawn remake had none of that. I've got nothing against the running 'zombies', I loved 28 Days Later for the most part, and I agree that the power-sprinters have their place in zombie lore, but the idea has no place in a Dawn of the Dead remake. Steering the conversation back towards Land of the Dead, can I say how much I'm looking forward to this and that Universal should get it's head together and release it in Europe at the same time as in the US. As it stands now there is a two month lag time. Shit, and then they wonder why they are losing money hand over fist because everyone is downloading movies from the 'net.

  • May 15, 2005, 7:46 a.m. CST

    Yeah, my bad...

    by Weird-Coma

    ... I should know better than to post shit at 4 in the morning. Sorry man.

  • May 15, 2005, 7:59 a.m. CST

    Believe it or not, Romero didnt HATE the Dawn remake...

    by Weird-Coma

    ...He just didnt see any reason for the remake. He also didnt like the idea of zombies that, to quote him, moved like rocket-ships. Other than that, he didnt really care one way or the other (Though the more he talked about it, the more he seemed to dislike it.) And while I do think the Dawn remake brought him and the genre back into the mainstream, he wasnt starving for work. He's at a point in his life were he really doesnt have to work, he just does projects he likes. On top of that, he's very good friends with Stephen King, Guillermo Del Toro, James Cameron, Wes Craven, Sam Raimi, pretty much every maverick horror film maker. He's got a couple of films on the burner, including an adaptation of King's novel The Girl Who loved Tom Gordon, all of which were in the process before the Dawn remake. Did it give him more clout, sure, but it didnt resurrect the man by any means.

  • May 15, 2005, 8 a.m. CST

    Jeez mate you think YOU Have it bad

    by Ridge

    Here in australia? At the moment? OCTOBER...

  • May 15, 2005, 8:06 a.m. CST

    Romero created Zombie movies. Yes. But that doesn

    by Judge Doom

    Stan Lee created Spiderman and X-men, however he

  • May 15, 2005, 8:08 a.m. CST

    One thing to remember when Land comes out...

    by Ridge

    Is that Dawn Remake ripped off the idea of armoured trucks from it. So anyone screaming otherwise, should research their facts. And youre quite right, Romero doesn't own the genre. I give kudos to the team who remade Dawn for changing it so much, keeping the idea, but updating and modernizing it more. None of them have had much plot, thank god, and that was to their benefit realistically. I don't think Day was shitty, but thats my opinion, I thought it was great, it had no likeable characters, and was an excellent character study of a bunch of assholes turning on each other... and hilarity ensued in bucketfulls...

  • May 15, 2005, 8:15 a.m. CST

    Goblin?

    by HarryKnuckles

    Why did Romero choose to make his last two Zombie movies without Goblin? Goblin and electronic score has become synonymous with the Zombie genre the way John Williamson has become synonymous with the Star Wars saga. I WANT MY GOBLIN!

  • May 15, 2005, 8:25 a.m. CST

    It would be nice

    by Ridge

    If Dario Argento and Goblin would be involved, I heard a rumor that one of their tunes appears somewhere in Land, but is more of a background thing than a main song

  • May 15, 2005, 8:28 a.m. CST

    by The Librarian

    i read this review after reading the charlie and the choco factory review and i think i`ve actually lost brain cells. the people writing these reviews are either very stupid or english is not their native tongue. so stupid, i`m gonna go kick my mama!

  • May 15, 2005, 8:30 a.m. CST

    It would be nicer

    by John-Locke

    If Argento finished off his three sisters/Witches trilogy (Susperia/Inferno), His last couple of films haven't been great but maybe seeing his old buddy Romero having a return to form will inspire him. Goblin Rules

  • May 15, 2005, 8:31 a.m. CST

    Um.......

    by Jabba the Slut

    Romero's original screenplay for "Night" was called "Night of Anubis", not Anabus. It was in reference to the Egyptian God of the Dead. Oh, and people who say PLANT are fucking jerkoffs.

  • May 15, 2005, 8:35 a.m. CST

    Why hate on the Dawn remake. It was a good film. They respected

    by Mr. Profit

  • May 15, 2005, 8:45 a.m. CST

    Lets not get back into the slagging please

    by Ridge

    For gods sake the thread was beginning to be civilised. Anyhow, if you guys want a movie to hate? Seek out "DAY OF THE DEAD 2 : CONTAGIUM" on the internet. What a low budget horrendous looking piece of shit... apparently, according to them, the whole zombie holocaust was caused by a russian spyplane... it looks awful, I saw the trailer for it and felt like spending the day washing my eyes with disinfectant from how bad it was. They have 'superpowered zombies' that create lesser zombies to serve them...........riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

  • May 15, 2005, 8:55 a.m. CST

    Hope it's good, but...

    by danowen

    ... after the recently glut of zombie movies I think the genre is over-exposed right now. I don't think Land Of The Dead has anything new to offer - 28 Days Later and the DOTD remake have given us enough new "gimmicks" already. LOTD will hopefully have some surprises, but somehow I doubt it.

  • May 15, 2005, 9:13 a.m. CST

    Plant

    by I Dunno

    Sue me, I liked the Dawn remake. The make up FX and use of CGI were excellent and I thought the drama and "message" from the original were there.

  • May 15, 2005, 9:13 a.m. CST

    I've been reading everyone's rants, so here's mine...

    by gollum38

    Night of the Living Dead (1968) - Romero didn't invent zombies, but he invented this type of zombie movie (apocolyptic, claustrophobic, scary as hell horror with strong social commentary). Brilliant. Dawn of the Dead (1978) - Continued the above trend but added an epic feel to the proceedings. Everything's brilliant about this except some unfortunate bad acting and editing in places (and too bad the blood looks like orangish/reddish paint). Day of the Dead - Flawed because it wasn't what Romero originally wanted. It's stated several times, very clearly, on the Anchor Bay special edition DVD that Romero had to cut out half the movie or go with an R rating (sorry, Weird Coma, but Osmosis Jones and Jabba the Slut are right about that). But still, great commentary on the state of the world at the time with a terrifying and dark vision of the apocolypse with the best Savini effects ever (and some of the best and most memorable zombie moments in movie history). This one's also hurt by some bad acting and it's too bad for the lame happy ending. Night of the Living Dead (1990) - Decent remake by Savini and good tribute to his buddy, Romero, with some good actors and cool zombies, but why the crappy happy ending this time? That's what ruins this one. Resident Evil - Another tribute to Romero, and I didn't hate it. The only thing I personally didn't like was what was changed from the video games (which are the best Romero tribute ever btw). 28 Days Later - And another tribute to Romero, but like others have said THIS IS NOT A ZOMBIE MOVIE! This is as much a remake of Romero's The Crazies (not a zombie movie) as it is any of his Dead movies. Good movie and good tribute, though. Dawn of the Dead (2004) - Yet another tribute to Romero. The runnning zombies are not right (I agree that the slow, lumbering Romero zombies are the creepiest), and the lack of "epic" feel to it and too many characters ruin it, but there's some great stuff to balance it out (like Andy the gun store guy and the super strong opening 15 minutes), so overall not too bad. And yes, this helped to get Romero the greenlight on LotD, so I appreciate it for that too. Shaun of the Dead - Another tribute to Romero, but in this case, it's the best tribute ever. Pegg and Wright got it right and this is easily the best zombie movie since the original DotD. Land of the Dead - Obviously haven't seen it yet, but the script was decent (not great, but decent), and the trailer was one of the best trailers I've ever seen (and no it didn't look like the DotD remake at all and no it didn't look like another WB horror movie, so get over it you naysaying wankers). Can't wait.

  • After reading the script time and time again, starting at 'liking' it and ending up absolutely loving it, I can state that it is above and beyond all, primarily an action movie. However, it is an action movie with a message like the others. The message is a little clearer this time, "Those that you ignore, will come back stronger than ever and bite your ass to get your attention" to put it in laymens terms. An allegory to 9/11? You bet. Shaun of the Dead was indeed the best tribute to Romero, it was fantastic stuff. I never get sick of seeing it. With Dawn, I have no problem whatsoever with the remake in believing that that situation would be happening all across the country, hell, even I think a shopping center is the perfect place to hole up! So, personally I consider it more a side story than a remake due to all the changes etc. Im surprised noone pointed out my 'coming full circle' thing, Im guessing most would agree. Essentially, as said before, Romero didnt create zombies, we know that, but he did create *this* sort of zombie. Beforehand I believe they were just things that lumbered around scaring people, now, they're undead things lumbering around eating people.

  • May 15, 2005, 9:33 a.m. CST

    EVEN MORE THAN EPIII - PLEASE DO NOT SUCK... WE'VE WAITED 20 FUC

    by alucardvsdracula

    ...or else a Savini style head shot is on its way to your career revival.

  • May 15, 2005, 9:40 a.m. CST

    Dawn of the the Dead remake was pretty good i thought.

    by doobieflixx

    I mean, it never claimed to be better than the original. the acting was pretty good. I like the fast Zombies. I like the slow ones too. DOTD DVD was a blast too with the gunshop owners video that he made while he was all alone. I am anticipating this movie. Romero is the OG Zombie man and knows his stuff. Should be good. But I still loved 28 Days Later and Dawn of the Dead. If they weren't made than this one wouldn't have even been concieved or given the budget it had. Or the actors.

  • May 15, 2005, 10:02 a.m. CST

    This is my kind of Cannes coverage!!!

    by where_are_quints_hobbit_set_reports

    LAND OF THE DEAD!!!!!

  • May 15, 2005, 10:06 a.m. CST

    Theres an easy way to think of this!

    by Ridge

    Zombies = horror movie love. And we're bathing in it at the moment. Regardless of if they're fast or slow, we're getting zombie movies! I'm thinking Land wont be a smash hit as such, but with a 20m budget, it's a guaranteed success. Just hopefully Romero will make one or two more on that kind of budget, without falling victim to 'mega' budgets... Imagine Day made on a 200+ mil budget lmao. The street scene would no longer be a matte painting!

  • May 15, 2005, 10:45 a.m. CST

    headless chickens

    by DrLektor

    What's great here is that in all his movies, Romero never once uses the word "Zombie" it's become essentially a buzzword to describe the animated dead. So to say they could never evolve and learn is strange when you have no exact definition as to what the hell these walking corpses are, or more importantly, the cause. The Doctor in Day of the Dead talks about ancient, reptilian centers of the brain, very basic predatorary response, their only desire is to consume. But we've seen that's only the start of it, there's something more inside them, they can learn and adapt. It's also shown that the different characters talk about the nature of god and hell, it's supernatural too? I suppose it depends on how religious you are. All in all the movies are a fantastic social commentary, whether it be racial, consumerism, science versus religion or now, the classic tale of class distinction, rich versus poor. Plus you have the gore... which is nice.

  • May 15, 2005, 11:02 a.m. CST

    Where does this one take place?

    by theotherchrist

    I vaugely remember he wanted to use pittsburgh because of the three rivers isolating the city. I know they didn't shoot it there but if you have a few zombies wandering around with steeler jerseys on and we'll get the point. lol

  • May 15, 2005, 11:07 a.m. CST

    Finally, a movie that WILL own you.

    by indiephantom

    'nuff said.

  • May 15, 2005, 11:30 a.m. CST

    For some theories....

    by hellboydan

    Trawling through some of these talkbacks can take some doing, so incase it hasn't been suggested if you need to satiate your knowledge of zombie biology and what have you, try obtaining a copy of "The Zombie survival guide" by Max Brooks (Three Rivers Press)it's a diverting read and provides some decent ideas (whys & wherefores) Oh and "The Walking Dead" as said earlier is how a zombie movie should be done to a tee. But more importantly when said it is just a movie.

  • May 15, 2005, 11:43 a.m. CST

    Gruesome Wedgie

    by Roger Thornhill

    You wrote, "Actually, there were movies featuring zombies (some were even in serialized form) back in the 30 & 40s if memory serves. Vincent Price in the Italian version of Richard Matheson's I Am Legend was made well before Romero got busy. Sorry, but there it is.".....That's true, there were zombies in movie prior to Night of the Living Dead, however, I think what people are referring to are the modern version of zombies. You know. blood thirty hoards that devour people. In older movies there are only one or two zombies and they didn't eat people.

  • May 15, 2005, 11:54 a.m. CST

    " It is supposed to be an elaboration on what he touched on in

    by Roger Thornhill

    That's not what he says on the "Day' DVD commentary. He says its his favorite of the Dead films.

  • May 15, 2005, 12:16 p.m. CST

    Typo

    by cliMAX

    No such word as "orientate".

  • May 15, 2005, 12:19 p.m. CST

    THIS Is The Movie Event of the Summer / DOTD '77 vs. DOTD '04

    by ZombieSolutions

    not adding anything new, just showing my support. Can't! Fucking! Wait! / DOTD '04 was a cool, fun zombie move. a worthy entry in zombirific carnage, BUT it's nowhere near as good as DOTD '77. really, they are two completely different movies. DOTD '77 is a classic epic horror film. it has horror, pathos, social commentary, and humor. DOTD '04 merely uses the name and makes a fun action horror film. theres no real social commentary, the characters aren't very good or interesting, and you never get the sense of overwhelming claustrophobia that you did in '77. also, with the exception of the Johnny Cash song at the brilliant opening, the rest of the music sucks. DOTD '77's musical score, however, is perfect. From the Goblin stuff to the canned music, it's all perfect. everytime i hear that goofy carnival music, i get chills and grins. in short, DOTD '04 is a worthy fun action movie that i enjoyed, DOTD '77 is an EPIC horror masterpiece that I (and many others) LOVE. and I can't wait for LAND OF THE DEAD. (or the CITY OF THE DEAD videogame due next year!!!)

  • May 15, 2005, 12:29 p.m. CST

    The Number One Thing I Don't Understand About Fast Zombies

    by ZombieSolutions

    okay, i could see how if a guy dies and comes back instantaneously, that their muscles would still be intact, rigor morits wouldn't have set in, so, perhaps they could be able to move about as fast as they could before. BUT, how the hell would they be FASTER and more agile? so, in death and decay they become superhuman? It makes no sense. the slowmoving robitussin version of zombies perfected by Romero is dead on. not only because it makes *sense*, but because of the overwhelming sense of an inescapable, slowly creeping, apocalyptic dread. it really seeps into your bones. the speedzombies might make for more excitement, but it sure as hell doesn't make for true horror. it's action movie stuff. that's fine and all, but it ain't zombies. IMHO, Shaun of the Dead was a much better zombie picture than DOTD '04. and that was a comedy! a romzomcom, apparently.

  • May 15, 2005, 12:32 p.m. CST

    Well, thats what he told us...

    by Weird-Coma

    ...He said if he had to pick a favorite, he would pick "Day". I dont know, maybe its because we put him on the spot. He DID say it was like trying to choosing your favorite child, so who knows. Of all of his films, he did say he had a particular fondness for Bruiser. Cant elaborate on that, since its one of the few I havent seen yet. I always thought he would pick something like "The Crazies.", but you never can tell.

  • May 15, 2005, 12:37 p.m. CST

    Wrong!

    by theoneofblood

    "What's great here is that in all his movies, Romero never once uses the word "Zombie" it's become essentially a buzzword to describe the animated dead." - BZZ! Sorry, but that isn't true, as cool as it might sound. Peter clearly mentions the word "zombies" during the biker raid on the mall.

  • May 15, 2005, 12:44 p.m. CST

    Fast moving zombies...

    by hellboydan

    I think the idea behind that was because once the victim has died then been re-animated to come back as a zombie, none of the previous rules apply in that it can no longer sense or feel (basically its nervous system is all shot to shit because it is dead)so that if you were to run a marathon at some point your body reacts to those sensations i.e perspiration, breath intake and the muscles being used would feel the strain. Because zombies wouldn't feel this "pain barrier" they could keep pursuing regardless of the fact that their muscles and so on are probably tearing themselves apart. Like when they eat flesh, food can no longer be digested properly so it collects in the stomach etc and at some point this would have to go somewhere, so they could carry on eating even if their intestinal tract had exploded from so much content. I guess?!

  • May 15, 2005, 12:46 p.m. CST

    Athough

    by hellboydan

    I still think fast moving zombies is a cock-eyed idea.

  • May 15, 2005, 1:13 p.m. CST

    The reasoning behind fast zombies

    by JediStryker

    was that right after they first died, their muscles and stuff hadn't rotted away yet. So theoretically, the zombie would be in whatever shape the body was in when it died. An avid runner would still be able to run, at least for a while. Of course, the zombies never changed in the remake, so go figure.

  • May 15, 2005, 1:15 p.m. CST

    damn

    by DrLektor

    you're absolutely right theoneofblood and I bow to your knowledge. Nice to know someone loves Dawn enough to remember that. I myself knew as soon as I wrote it that I could be wrong so I had to check the script and movie to be sure.

  • May 15, 2005, 1:27 p.m. CST

    You guys are fuckin stupid

    by Sicuv Uyall

    Mattcg, especially. Idiot. Write a fuckin script, direct the movie. Seems that's what most of you need to do in this mutherfucker in order to shut the fuck up. Goddamn whiny bastards sound you like u all have some sort of authority. Well guess what, 100 years from now we'll all be dead and this zombie shit won't matter except to the ancestors of the people who actually created it and made money off it. Once again, I am Sicuv Uyall.

  • May 15, 2005, 1:42 p.m. CST

    No problem...

    by theoneofblood

    Always happy to help a fellow zombie fan :-), I've actually worn down two VHS copies of Dawn! The only movie I've done it to twice.

  • May 15, 2005, 1:57 p.m. CST

    Why Do People Refer To Movies In The Past Tense?

    by Roger Thornhill

    Okay, I'm going to be really nerdy here, but why when people discuss movies do they use the past tense? For example, "Dawn of the Dead remake was pretty good." "I thought Day of the Dead was flawed." You're supposed to use the present when talking and writing about movies. It should be, "Dawn of the Dead remake IS pretty good." "I THINK Day of the Dead IS flawed." It's not like these films no longer exist, they still exist in the present. When discussing albums people don't say, "I thought the white album was a good album." Use the present when discussing movies...it's a pet peeve of mine. Sorry to be so academic about these things but it's very annoying.

  • May 15, 2005, 2:12 p.m. CST

    by JediStryker

  • May 15, 2005, 2:46 p.m. CST

    The past is a tense place

    by newkie brown

    I suppose it's true that when discussing movies, Roger, one should use the present tense, but aren't we discussing an ongoing series of films? Surely that qualifies using the past tense, especially as it's 20 years since Day was released, 27 since Dawn debuted and a mighty 37 years since Night first saw the light of a projector. Doncha just love symantics? By the way, wasn't it Roger *O* Thornhill? :-)

  • May 15, 2005, 2:52 p.m. CST

    Sicuv Uyall...

    by hellboydan

    I mean aside from stating the obvious, why the hell waste your own time in replying? of course if it upsets you that much. In actual fact I don't necessarily disagree with you.

  • May 15, 2005, 2:55 p.m. CST

    DAWN OF THE DEAD remake is BETTER than the original

    by RIVERO

    There, I said it. And I am right. From the terrible acting(Scott Reininger makes Mark Hammil look like a Method actor) to the laughably fake-looking blood to the choppy, amateurish editing and stupid, cheesy 70's music....this is one of the worst so-called "classic" movies ever. Wow, so there are exactly three or four lines about how the zombies are "us and we are them" and they're coming to the mall because we always did go to malls like zombies. What brilliant commentary(rolls eyes). Get the fuck outta here, the only people who think this is some brilliant social satire are the same idiots who go on and on about that piece of shit STARSHIP TROOPERS being some fuckin satire just cause it has Doogie Howser MD. in a fuckin Nazi jacket. DAWN is all the more disappointing since the original NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD is such an expertly-made masterpiece of a film. Now THIS movie deserves all the accolades and praise. The terrific music. Great performances(especially Duane Jones). Great cinematography and lighting. The kickass ending. This movie was so ahead of it's time and still looks terrific today. DAWN however is a silly looking cheese-fest and looks worse and worse as each year passes. DAY OF THE DEAD is also the better film. Here's hoping LAND OF THE DEAD will be a homerun and prove that Romero really does know what the fuck he's doing.

  • May 15, 2005, 3:29 p.m. CST

    by Bishop Beesley

    "Zombies, by their very nature, are inconsistent" Alan Partridge

  • May 15, 2005, 4:17 p.m. CST

    Anything has to be better than Bruiser.

    by chickychow

    That movie is all kinds of horrible... I just hope this feels epic. The teaser doesn't give me that impression, it looks like a Canada-shot sci-fi channel movie (complete with Dennis Hopper, a lord of the straight to vid world). I'm a huge Romero fan, and I want this movie to be REALLY great, better than War of the Worlds and Batman...

  • May 15, 2005, 4:28 p.m. CST

    I prefer the Night remake to the Dawn. It's darker, more disturb

    by chickychow

    Definetly underappreciated. Savini (and Romero, who directed a bunch of it) did a very fine job with the remake, creating an unnerving atmosphere and some really creepy zombies (some really good performances don't hurt either). Of course, it's VERY unperfect and is at least a star and a half lower than the original, but its tough not to be completely engaged in it.

  • May 15, 2005, 5:30 p.m. CST

    Zombiehood for the Whole Family

    by The Ginger Man

    I understand the hate for the running zombies. But, and I could be wrong (if so, please forgive and disregard) Romero had kiddie zombies in the original Dawn that ran. Sure, they were the only zombies that ran, but the fact (if I'm recalling correctly) is that George had running zombies first.

  • May 15, 2005, 6 p.m. CST

    Fawk. Leguziamo?

    by fiester

    I doubt even zombies would eat that chump. They like brains not ham.

  • May 15, 2005, 6:08 p.m. CST

    So fast Zombies suck because they aren't realistic?

    by doobieflixx

    What? Listen to what your saying? enjoy the F'in zombie movies!

  • May 15, 2005, 6:27 p.m. CST

    newkie brown

    by Roger Thornhill

    To answer your question his middle name begins with an O but his name is not Roger O'Thornhill. Kudos to you for catching the Hitchcock reference. :-) You wrote, "I suppose it's true that when discussing movies, Roger, one should use the present tense, but aren't we discussing an ongoing series of films? Surely that qualifies using the past tense, especially as it's 20 years since Day was released, 27 since Dawn debuted and a mighty 37 years since Night first saw the light of a projector. Doncha just love symantics?"...I have to say I disagree wth this logic especially when you're stating an opinion of a film. Doesn't matter how old it is, but your opinion remains the same. If you say, "I thought Night of the Living Dead was boring" you presently believe it to be boring. So you should say "I think Night of the Living Dead is boring." It doesn't matter if it's 10,20,30, or 100 years old, your opinion of it is in the present. I know it's rather hard to swallow because the way most people talk about films is in the past tense. "Did you think it was good?" "I thought Dawn of the Dead remake sucked." We all do it. But when we're writing we should at least try to use the proper grammar when the topic is film or music. Most people don't realize that. If you don't believe me, then skim around on the internet and read some reviews of older films. You'll notice that reviewers always write about them in the present tense. Here's some quotes from Roger Ebert's review of Casablanca (1942)..."'Casablanca is one of the most popular films ever made...the film is not so much brilliant as absolutely sound...it plays like a favorite musical album; the more I know it, the more I like it...the dialogue is so spare and cynical...much of the emotional effect of 'Casablanca' is achieved by indirection." That's a 63 year old film that Ebert refers to in the present tense. The only times he uses the past tense when talking about it is when he's discussing the actual production such as, "no one making 'Casablanca' thought they were making a great movie." All his opinions of it are in the present. Okay, enough of the trivial nonsense.

  • May 15, 2005, 6:31 p.m. CST

    Wnanahara7

    by The Ginger Man

    You're probably right, more of a lunge than a run. And there is a difference between fast zombies, sprinting zombies, and whatever speed a particular extra happens to be moving. I just brought it up because no one else had and I couldn't see why. Now I do. Done and done.

  • May 15, 2005, 7:26 p.m. CST

    This person is too biased, plus why is it okay for Romero to mak

    by Darksider

    The first 14 minutes is better than 28 Days and New Dawn? Uh, no. I've read the script and the review sounds pretty close. Also that Simon dude is probably Simon Baker, the LEAD in the film. Just a guess.

  • May 15, 2005, 7:55 p.m. CST

    Blue faced dead human snails('77) vs. swift unstoppable onslaug

    by KongMonkey

    Lets face it. Though an obvious classic for the cool poster and memorable "no more room in hell..." tagline, the original DOTD lacked in the makeup department. Plus the whole slow zombie thing is just to easy to run from. When their fast, its a helluva lot harder to escape, thus more frightening in "sense" to the typical viewer.

  • May 15, 2005, 8:13 p.m. CST

    Quit invoking opinion

    by JediStryker

    as if it were fact. I didn't find the zombies in the remake as frightening as I do the "blue-faced dead human snails". You by yourself do not equate to the 'typical viewer', so unless you've done a scientific poll or survey that you can point to as evidence of your assertion, state your opinions as such.

  • May 15, 2005, 8:23 p.m. CST

    28 Days Later is a zombie film. "Zombie" does not always mean "

    by Darksider

    It can mean mindless or having no will of your own. Read a dictionary. As for zombies running, they are basically automatons without fear, reason, or feeling so if their sole purpose was to get your ass then yes, the human body can achieve great things. There was no superhuman feats by any zombies in my copy of new Dawn btw. And yes, Romero does owe Resident Evil, 28 Days, new Dawn, etc. for him getting his NEW film made whether you want to believe it or not because we all know how Hollywood has been banging down Romero's door before these films were released. I enjoy zombie films and hope Land does well, but this blind devotion to Romero I will never understand. Why can't we have zombie films made anytime by anyone. I like to have variety.

  • May 15, 2005, 8:27 p.m. CST

    Why they didn't attack the dog...

    by KongMonkey

    The same reason they all flooded to the mall. Memory. Though dead, their past lives do echo slightly in their other actions other than ravaging and consuming other human beings. They have no memories of harming or eating a dog or cat, thus they don't do it.

  • May 15, 2005, 9:07 p.m. CST

    I'm sure, unless there is a Jeffrey Dahmer zombie, they don't h

    by krullboy

  • May 15, 2005, 9:34 p.m. CST

    "In older movies there are only one or two zombies and they didn

    by Gruesome Wedgie

    At least, not on the first date...and what I don't get is, after they pretty well establish that zombie bites cause contagion, why in hell isn't everybody wearing leather? High boots, gloves, jackets...make it a little harder for the biters.

  • May 15, 2005, 9:39 p.m. CST

    land of the dead

    by coolv100

    the original day of the dead showed how zombies could learn.

  • It's scarier, smarter, sexier and so-well executed on it's miniscule budget. John Amplas gives the finest performance of any Romero movie. The 'was he' or 'wasn't he' ending fills me with glee every time I see that shot of his 'Grandfather' watering the flower bed. It's the film of George's I always come back to. And, finally, for those true Romero buffs out there who haven't seen 'Knight Riders' yet - you are not true Romero buffs. Get your ass in gear NOW! Oh, and 'Monkey Shines' is fab too.

  • May 15, 2005, 10:05 p.m. CST

    Mad Cow "Prions" cause Zombism

    by SgtElias

    That is the cause that should be used in these times. What a great start for a zombie movie. I mean the FDA has been concealing mad cows and all. You know it is only a matter of time till that shit is gonna hit. Prions are essentially indestructible (microwaves/grilling don't do squat) and reside in brain tissue hence the desire to "eat more brains" could be explained. I'd second the Zombie Survival Guide for a fun read (It is not tounge in cheek and is more fun that way). Its viral source of Zombism is a little weak though... Loved 28 Days, Shawn of the Dead (especially the chained up best friend at the end) and Sarah Polley in anything. Romero must rock.

  • May 15, 2005, 10:38 p.m. CST

    I don't recall all you people declaring that Romero was king whe

    by stlfilmwire

    All I am saying is that we should all sit back patiently and wait for the release. The more you anticipate it, the more likely you will be disappointed. I'm just grateful it is coming to be.

  • May 15, 2005, 11:11 p.m. CST

    Stephen King

    by JediStryker

    One of the greatest horror authors of all-time, and my favorite author. However, his stuff doesn't always transfer to the screen well. At least, not his horror stuff.

  • May 16, 2005, 12:34 a.m. CST

    Fast Zombies raped my childhood!

    by Silver Shamrock

    well they did.

  • May 16, 2005, 1:01 a.m. CST

    I don't know... I think Zombie films peaked with the dawn of the

    by TheGinger Twit

  • May 16, 2005, 1:42 a.m. CST

    All this talk of flesh eating is making me hungry.

    by cherrycola

    You can't "Explain" a zombie movie and argue the mechanics of a zombie or its habits, etc. Its called *fiction* and is not based on reality. I mean, If a hundred years went past with a zombie-nation then eventually they would all decay, right? Right. Then humans could start over again. Right. But we'll never see a film-maker ask AND answer that question in a movie because its something that main-stream america does'nt want to see. They want flesh eating zombies. Not fast, smart zombies. So, get over it. Quit arguing about silly shit.

  • May 16, 2005, 1:48 a.m. CST

    At the end of "land of the dead" it says "150 years later"...

    by cherrycola

    And shows a pale-skinned family sitting around the table watching the TV news and a "human watch" is issued and residents are warned to stay indoors. The father looks down at the fetus on the table in front of him and the kids stare off into space. The wife stirs up the black soup and slowly pours some into a mug for herself. Next up a commerical shows how you can support the fighting overseas and the effort to "liven up" your skin tone and love life.....

  • May 16, 2005, 2:25 a.m. CST

    A few comments from reading the talkback.

    by Ridge

    1. The Make up in Dawn 70s version versus Dawn 2004? Theres nearly a 27 year gap between the two. When Dawn of the Dead original came out, the special effects were top of the range, never done before stuff. Noone had made a 'mainstream' hit movie like it to that point. It's really like comparing chalk and cheese guys, I mean for some comparison? Lets compare why Episode 3's special effects are better than Flash Gordons thus making it a far far better movie. Not saying I love the Flash gordon movie, but the effects you really shouldnt be comparing... 2. George Romero does owe Dawn remake for one thing only. It enabled the studio to fund his movie. Before the remake came out, george was still optioning his script to movie companies. To that point he was asking for a 5 million dollar budget, but noone was biting. He even says this on the Dawn DVD. When Dawn remake was a smash hit, the floodgates opened, and his 5 mil was thrown his way plus another 15 or so. 3. Running zombies : Gunn originally intended for zombies to run only the first few days of their 'undeath', essentially until their muscles deteriorated from necrosis. In the end, they decided to stick with the idea of running zombies. Quit complaining, if you didn't like the Dawn remake then so be it. Dawn remake was a fast paced action horror, whilst Dawn 70s was a slow paced character study horror. Again, why compare the two when they both have extremely redeeming features and yet both have extremely severe flaws. NOTE : The talkbacker previously who mentioned Return of the living dead is indeed right. Running zombies are around 20 or so years old now, since that came out when... 1985 or something? 4. Jedistryker : You're quite right about Stephen King, I've read everything of his, from The Bachman books (seperately, not in the volume) to 'On Writing' and recently DarkTower 7. His horror is far more cerebral, relying on imagination and interpretation. Romeros is visual, obviously, whilst still retaining some interpretive moments. King wrote an interesting short story set in Romeros undead world about a pregnant lady as well. I don't believe Stephen King would do justice to a Romero zombie movie, I believe it would be too 'out of his niche'

  • May 16, 2005, 2:45 a.m. CST

    Home Delivery

    by JediStryker

    From Nightmares & Dreamscapes.

  • May 16, 2005, 2:50 a.m. CST

    A Note On Running Zombies

    by The Someday Man

    OK, I'll buy the whole "just came back, no stiff joints" jazz. So, yeah. The new zombies can be fast, I see that. BUT, shouldn't they run with the grace of a toddler? They shouldn't be so coordinated. A nearly non-functional brain wouldn't be able to send out that many signals. Fast? Sure. Coordinated? Not a chance.

  • May 16, 2005, 2:57 a.m. CST

    Fanboy's Invade Cannes!

    by Ratphink

    Chirst what an embarassment for Georgie-Boy if he trolls these boards. Does he really want to read an "F-layened, slap your mother, comparison to recent zombie flicks" review of his 14 minutes screening. The only thing this "journalist" forgot to say was it "pwned and roxxors joo noobs"

  • May 16, 2005, 3 a.m. CST

    Ultimately, I don't care if running zombies are realistic

    by JediStryker

    I just think that their being fast and coordinated takes away from their creepiness and makes them just like any other Hollywood monster. To me, what made them so scary in the first place was their relentlessness, their mindlessness, and their tendency to "hunt" in packs. When you're surrounded by them, they are slow and inevitable death. Getting torn up by a fast, running zombie is like getting torn up by a lion. It's gruesome, but it's not CREEPY.

  • May 16, 2005, 3:15 a.m. CST

    Darksider, Darksider

    by The Someday Man

    If you're using a dictionary, then yeah. People can TECHNICALLY use the word "zombie" for something other than the undead. Gotcha. So I can make a film about a certain tiny little bird, call it a "tit flick" and not be angry when a half dozen middle-aged pervs come knocking down my door? Take your technical interpretations and sit the fuck down. We all know what a "zombie" film is when used in this context and "28 Days Later" is not a "zombie" film. For your second point, see my post above. Zombies could feasibly run, but not with that level of coordination. Braindead, ya' know? No superhuman feats on your copy, eh? You must have gotten the FOX FAMILY version. How did a legless zombie get anywhere near the ceiling to climb on those pipes? My impression was that he flew up there with his little newfound zombie wings. That's fairly superhuman. And I'm using the alternate definition of "superhuman" that states, "anyone, living or dead, who does anything that makes absolutely no fucking sense (see DOTD remake)". Actually, that's bullshit. I agree there were no superhuman feats in the remake. Moving on. If Romero OWES "Resident Evil", "28 Days Later", and "DOTD" remake, then who do those movies owe? Where did they get the ideas for the apocalyptic chaos brought on by hordes of mindless human hunters? If Romero owes them, who do they owe? Everybody owes somebody, right? If Romero owes anyone, it's the guys and gals behind the creature feature "Last Man Standing". These new movies? All they did was prove to Hollywood that Romero's been right all along. And now they're having some crow with their lunchtime marguaritas. Here's a quote from Romero, "You payin' attention, motherfuckers? Keep your eyes on me. Your little pictures were cute and all, but here's how you get shit done."

  • May 16, 2005, 6:50 a.m. CST

    Zombie movies

    by Orphu of Io

    Zombies are not a subject that society ought to tolerate in its entertainment. How is watching people get chainsawed going to help you in life?

  • May 16, 2005, 7:15 a.m. CST

    ?????????

    by hellboydan

    You'd be surprised.

  • May 16, 2005, 7:31 a.m. CST

    Chainsawing people in real life?

    by Ridge

    Well... lets see... Im sure texas has an opening for 'Human skin mask wearing bandit with chainsaw' available...

  • May 16, 2005, 7:37 a.m. CST

    The director to the Dawn Remake has his head up his ass.

    by s437599

    Okay I enjoyed the remake to Dawn, I love the original Dawn of the Dead... And I really like Pulp Fiction. But the Director really made a disrespectful oversight. In the deleted scenes, there is one scene where the truck backs up, and they are opening the garage door to get to the door. There is half of a zombie and they shoot it. The shot is a worm

  • May 16, 2005, 7:59 a.m. CST

    Hope not

    by hellboydan

    There's more than enough Anal Retentives around as it is.

  • May 16, 2005, 8:56 a.m. CST

    technical interpretations?

    by Darksider

    It's called being right. Romero's zombies being the only type is an opinion, not a fact. Zombies can't have coordination? Really? Evey tested one? I'm sorry, but I thought they were fictional. Forgive me. Yes, Romero is right because of what exactly? His films don't make that much money? That the Dead films all basically involve the same shit? That it's taken 20 years to get another one financed because of the film industry conspiracy against George A. Romero? That the film industry is also against making money and that sequels and remaking films never yield profits? A sequel or remake in Hollywood? That never happens. Using ideas over again for the sake of making money? Yeah, right.

  • May 16, 2005, 9:59 a.m. CST

    more zombie info

    by JOESMOM

    hey all..for more info..follow my bottom link..you wont be disappointed...joesmom... up to the minute lotd news and insider stuff..

  • May 16, 2005, 1:59 p.m. CST

    Fresh bodies.

    by radio1_mike

    I liked 28 Days Later. The infected acted liked zombies but were not zombies. They can run, because they are living. They are too crazy and infected and driven by cannibalism not to notice the food lying around in supermarkets. I don't mind zombies (in the classic sense) that can run as long as their physical bodies look like they can handle it. But there is brainshock from death and reanimation and usually severe body trauma assocaited with becoming a zombie. So, perhaps that is why they were not seen. I prefer slow zombies. Fast zombies are great and scary for your own personal freedom and survival. You may not out run them, maybe you're confused from lack of sleep/food and you can think fast enough on your feet. Romero/classic/whatever zombies (remember all unburied dead will rise, as long as the head is intact...) are scary in reference to species survival. Sure, they're slow, you can out run them and even find a safe place for awhile. But they are like that thought you can't get out of your brain, or that tickle in the back of your throat. You'll join them eventually... On it's own merits I liked the remake of Dawn. The only thing wrong with it is no cannibalism on screen. No dread, no money shots... I dig Day because it is so god-damned depressing. Just being stuck in a bunker waiting for the inevitable. Ack. Land looks particularily intriguing just because the human nature of becoming used to anything and the defense mechanism or ignorance. I am pretty sure zombies are one thing you should not ignore.

  • May 16, 2005, 2:14 p.m. CST

    so many things to remark upon...

    by duanejones

    i actually didn't read most of the post as i don't wish for my experience of Romero steeping to the plate to be spoilt by expectation. those who consider the new DOTD as superior to the original probably liked Beatlemania more than the White Album, too. the acting in el jorge's films is definitely the weakest aspect of his oeuvre...and as MattCG implies, it don't matter none, since who cares about acting when THERE ARE ZOMBIES TRYING TO EAT ME! that said, my late, great namesake raised the bar for all romero actors no one -- not ed harris, not stanley tucci, my goodness, workshed, certainly not john amplas, great (read: well-cast) as he is in _martin_...try him again in _knightriders_ and _day_ and be glad you never saw his hamlet -- NO ONE has matched the mighty duane. and i sure as hell would have happily seen his hamlet, macbeth, roger marco, &c. stlfilmwire, i actually DID defend the first half of _bruiser_, while, admittedly, trashing the last 25 years of g.a.r.'s, uh, "career". and the truth that the new DOTD ensured there'd be a fourth romero dead flick is cold comfort indeed -- kind of like saying "sell out like a muhfuh on the off chance some good art will come out of it." please! i'm hopeful, but not holding my breath, for this latest installment -- compare the indelible starkness of _night_ with the _beyond thunderdome_ antics of _land_ and perhaps you'll see i'm bound to be disappointed by round 4...yep, i'm that romero freak who will never be satisfied. you know, continuing the shakespeare metaphor, i'm pretty sure fans of _othello_ were a bit put out by _titus_, and that's the artist's fault, EVERY time. could this be george's _tempest_? i doubt it/we'll soon see...

  • May 17, 2005, 7:32 a.m. CST

    Day of the Dead

    by Wild At Heart

    I like this movie a whole lot. Sure, I guess, constraints meant it was a truncated version of Romero's original vision, but it's still got some fantastic moments in it. I wish more horror films had the kind of character development this film has. I loved Dr Logan, and Rhodes is one of indie cinema's alltime greatest scumbags - in a totally good way, naturally.

  • May 17, 2005, 8:31 a.m. CST

    Wnanaanananan or however its spelt.

    by Ridge

    You really should watch the DVD of Dawn of the Dead. Romero HIMSELF says that he owes movies like 28 Days later and Dawn remake for studios waking up to themselves to fund his new movie. I am not saying Dawn remake is better. Learn to read a little. What I'm saying is their success opened the studios eyes to the fact we WANT to see more zombie movies and that there IS a market out there for them. Romero HIMSELF on the dvd mate, not me. ROMERO.

  • May 17, 2005, 8:32 a.m. CST

    Wild At Heart

    by Ridge

    Agree with you totally. He was potentially one of the greatest, you just absolutely loathed everything about him, from his lackeys to him, they were completely despicable. Just one more thing... like I said before, those were comments from Romero, so dont bother saying Im wrong wnrnrnrnenann or whatever its spelt as, go tell Romero himself hes wrong.

  • May 17, 2005, 8:43 a.m. CST

    Dawn 2004s takings.

    by Ridge

    Movie cost between 26 and 29 million to make. Worldwide it grossed over 102 million dollars. Studios consider that a hit. Might not be Starwars box office numbers but it surely was enough to make them think twice about Land. Plus theres also the fact it grossed enough for them to greenlight a sequel almost straight away.

  • May 17, 2005, 11:14 a.m. CST

    Learning Zombies

    by Darth Kosher

    Sure, Zombies may have some capacity to learn. But how much is the question. I've trained my zombie to do all sorts of things, including use the Internet. But he does prefer AOL, so I guess he is just a dumb animal. Never mind.

  • May 17, 2005, 2:45 p.m. CST

    Return of the Living Dead

    by Darth Kosher

    The only thing from that movie I'd like to see have a cameo is the naked punk rock chick.

  • May 20, 2005, 12:11 p.m. CST

    Dawn... Video Game???

    by Dookiee

    I'm not much of a gamer but I have played Resident Evil 4 & love it. It got me thinking how cool it would be to play a DAWN OF THE DEAD video game! Start your day however designers decide & suddenly find your neighborhood invaded by flesh-eating zombies! Make your way through town to the mall... close it off asap, kill as many walking dead as you can as you find supplies throughout the area and look for a way to escape. Various problems could occur including break-ins & whatnot. How cool would that be? I'm really surprised nobody's put this out by now. It seems a no-brainer (pardon the pun). Thanx for listening!

  • May 23, 2005, 12:33 a.m. CST

    Responding to MattCG -- *Very minor spoilers*

    by aCISITRO

    Well, the reason behind the zombies actually being isnt explained in LOTD. If you watch the original NOTLD, it says something about a comet coming near earth that has immense radiation. Second, im not sure about the decomposition thing. I guess by the zombies moving around, this slows down decomposition and rigor mortis. And as for the animal thing.. well lets just say you will for sure find out in LOTD. Personally, I think George has a great film coming out, it really has some great parts in it, and it really shows you how smart zombies can become. *Also, watch for a cameo from Tom Savini. He played the character 'Blades' in Dawn, and he comes back in this one in full zombie attire.*

  • May 23, 2005, 12:36 a.m. CST

    BTW - Response to Dookiee

    by aCISITRO

    You're in luck. George Romero is making a zombie game. Its being called 'City of the Dead'. Search google for info, it looks really neat. There's even a trailer for it, and it looks awesome! Tons of zombie gunning down for us to do.

  • May 24, 2005, 9:55 a.m. CST

    Reply to aCISITRO

    by Dookiee

    Thanx for the tip! I'll be looking for it, but I wouldn't be a bit surprised if it comes out on a console I don't own! *L* .... And after looking it up... yep, XBox360! I bought the Nintendo Gamecube for my son a couple Xmas's ago & figured to play w/ him so bought myself 1 late last year. Now it's already obsolete and the cooler games are all on PS2 & soon 3 and also XBox & very shortly XBox360 - which is the format that'll cover CITY OF THE DEAD. I'll hatfa get it tho cuz it does look too cool despite the fact that I can't stand Bill Gates in the least. Thanx for your time! Peace-