Fantastic!

A remake of the Romero film by non-Romero people, actually blows the original away in many ways. Following the same storyline as the original's, with a band of survivors trapped in a mall, the remake ramps up the threat by taking away the zombies' handicap - these suckers are FAST!

The gore effects also put Savini's orginals to shame. I understand Savini was working under the impression that the film would be shot in black and white, reulsitng in blue-faced zombies that looked like they had a facial mask on, and tomato-colored blood. I know he can do better, but still... The remake gives us perfect, anatomically-correct and thoroughly disgusting gore. It's, like, rilly kewl.

I have to say the acting is much better than Romero's little band of unknowns as well. But hell, that wouldn't be hard.

The extras are amazing. There are two additional short films based on events in the film. The first featurette is a video log kept by Andy the gun store owner, who we only see across the street from the mall waving in the film. Here we see his personal, lonely ordeal over the weeks he's trapped without food, with only his fish to talk to. The tape is spattered with heartbreaking flashes of the home movies he's taping over - his estranged wife and cute little daughter, and their idyllic life before.

The second featurette is a compillation of news reports, as one weary, astonished reporter (played by B5's Richard Biggs!) keeps us updated on the spread of the mysterious zombie plague as it inexorabley envelops the whole planet.

The rest of the extras are about the makeup and gore effects, and how one man and a team of makeup folk got several hundred zombies of varying detail ready every day. Fascinating stuff.

I agree. A superior remake.

There are a few moments of truly disturbing images. That's what this type of film is supposed to deliver - and rarely does.

The switch from slow, lumbering zombies to quickly moving ones is the key to making this sucessful. The sense of dread and urgency is much more ffective due to that bit of tweaking in the basic story. You can't simply outrun these mobs of undead.

Anyone else out there who appreciates the Night of the Living Dead remake from 1990? While it doesn't compare with the original, I don't think it ever tries to do so. It stands on its own as a terrific horror film. Tom Savini directed and did a great job. One of the more underrated efforts in my opinion.

As far as fast zombies go, "28 Days Later" is tha champ, making the "Dawn" remake seem even more derivative than it already intrinsically is.

I like the remake of Night of the Living Dead simpley because it's the only movie that actually stars Pat Tallman, and I love her madly.

I was ultimately disappointed with "28 Days Later." It started off with such promise and maintianed that promise through two-thirds of the film.

By the time the survivors reached the military stronghold, it lost me completely. The script veered wildly out of control and, to me, felt as if the film were drowning in its own visual style. By the conclusion, I felt that it became nothing more than a confusing, distracting bore.

Still, the treats that were offered early on made it a worthwhile experience.

I liked the remake as well, like the original "Dawn" I thought it's last 1/3 weren't up to the first 2/3rd's. The acting was really good and the "spread' of the disease was very effective. And it did a good job of being respectful to, yet different from, the original.

I still prefer the original, and love that there was actually a time when the helicopter pilot has to explain what a mall is! And there's nothing quite like seeing it in a mall at a midnight movie like we used to in the early eighties. Walking out and seeing the shoppers wandering thru the mall afterwards was a curious experience!

"28 Days Later' just didn't do it for me, maybe it was all the pre-release hype or the British sensibilties but I didn't think it was nearly as involving as either "Dawn".

this is one remake i actually enjoyed . very well done IMHO .
hb