Night, Dawn, or Day?

Dawn

I think that both NIGHT and DAWN transcend the genre and can be considered classic landmark films ....... What is very special about these two films is the fact that even with the recognition and all the accolades heaped on them, neither has lost any love from the horror fan ........ I love both these films: their impact is undeniable ...

For me, and with all due respect to its fans, DAY is nothing like either of its predecessors ...


If I had to go with only one, it would be DAWN

Day of the Dead for me. It has the best dialogue of all three films, imo.

It was a toss up between Night and Dawn for me.
Don't get me wrong, I love all 3, but Night is IMHO the greatest horror movie ever.
To me, Dawn is ranked #1A and Day is about #4......
Although, I think Day has the better zombies, and the best acting performance is Flyboy as a zombie in Dawn, (just a notch above Bub), Night just has that "feeling" that makes my colon twinge.

Night or Dawn??? I really can't choose!

Day of the Dead!
But i´m hoping that Land of the Dead will kick it´s ass!

Dawn. But a dificult decision.

I love Day for Bub and the payoffs at the end, but there's only so much I can stand of Joe Pilato yelling and screaming at everyone for 2 hours.

Foree is the man, and the mall setting was just too perfect. Zombie infestations call for mall takeovers.

They're all brilliant, but DAWN is supreme.

Day of the Dead. The best dialogue like Foy said, not to mention the gore and Capt. Rhodes!

I'd have to say Night, it is more of a straight up horror movie than the others, and it took some really cool risks for the time. (A black hero, killing the lead in the end, etc.) It also had some really compelling shots in it that have really stuck with me.

Although I enjoyed Dawn tremendously, it didn't really make the same impression on me, and it was less a horror movie and more of an action adventure/fantasy/social commentary.

Day of the Dead.

Day Of The Dead.

Great dialogue. Great characters. Jaw-dropping gore.

Great film - shame about the pace.

I cannot stand Day of the Dead. Too much time is spent with unlikeable people portrayed by bad actors standing around yelling at each other.

Dawn, all the way.

The acting isn't any better in Dawn. An Day's lunatic and prehensile characters is it's biggest charm.

I dig all of 'em immensely but I absolutely adore Day.

And here's why.

I cant remember how many of these I've seen, but I do remember being scarred for life many years ago as a child, my older cousins forced me to watch a zombie film, set in a shopping mall. I'm not sure which one it is, Dawn or Day, but in any case, it shit me up and I couldnt sleep properly for years.

Night ? An all-time classic. Scary.

Dawn? An overrated dull movie. Not scary, not funny. And the satire aspect isn't that powerful to reveal that.

Day? A good zombie flick. Funny at times.

Night by a narrow margin.
Dawn is great and all, but Night is much more of an intense ride of terror. Foreshadowed by Barbara's car accelerating backwards down the hill, the film gradually rolls along, out of control, until it's sudden crashing stop.
I also prefer it's analysis of human behavior over Dawn's analysis of society.

You're talking about dawn of the dead.

Did this film have arms breaking through walls and grapping a woman? I'm not sure if that was in the movie or on a trailer for a film before this movie started on the video, that was pretty terrifying to me too, lol.

Man, that's a tough one.

I gotta give it up for Dawn though. All three are some of my all time favs and I had to struggle a little internally between Day and Dawn, but the overall story of Dawn put it ahead imo.

I love Day's nihilism though, even though after Pilato, the other grunts were a bit too much on the one dimensional tip.

That's from DAY OF THE DEAD.

Interesting. Then maybe a trailer for Day of the Dead was on the VHS for Dawn of the Dead? Or my tortured memory is playing tricks with me. In any case: FREAKY SHIT. Dont see horror like that anymore thats for sure.

OH MY FUCKING GOD NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOo...

Watch it again. DAY is much more like EMPIRE.

I have a new found appreciation of Day, but it's still not in the same league as the first two.

Dawn.

The thing that hurts Day the most is that there are two different movies fighting for attention at the same time. The talky breakdown of society plot is at odds with the midnight gore show plot. In the previous films the two elements were blended seamlessly.

I recently re-watched Day of the Dead, and it was actually worse the second time through. The first time, I thought it even better than Dawn, but now I have switched. My favorite has always been Night, though. The feeling, the influence, the great shots...man, that movie is awesome. It took a while, but I finally respect Dawn a little more now; initially, I thought it was crap, but it grew on me.

Chuck

"I have a new found appreciation of Day, but it's still not in the same league as the first two.'
I agree. When I saw it in the theaters I thought that "Well, 2 out of 3 ain't bad" and wrote it off as a noble failure, but reviewing has changed my mind about it. It's a really good Zombie film. But still not quite on a par with the other 2. Oddly, paced, too much talk and Bob Clark's comment that the social satire and the horror elements never blend as well as they do the first two is dead on.
"Dawn" is my favorite.
And I am there opening night for "land".

Dawn. They did whip 'em.

Though I love all three films, I'd have to give the nod to NIGHT. It's easily the scariest of the three, was the the one that broke a new path for horror (imagine that, a horror film that makes a political statement, plays it completely straight with no comfortable hand holding with the audience, and had both substance and style) and was directed so well that the hideous acting by Judith O'dea and Karl Hardman didn't ruin it. Dawn is a pure classic also, but lacked scares in any form. Dawn, in my opinion was the best acted film of the three. It was easy to connect with the social commentary involved, having been in a mall around Christmas a few times too many. Day to me was the weakest of the three but was still good. I can't agree that Joe Pilato "played it to the hilt" or whatever. He was really bad and at times came close to actually ruining the film. I also find the special effects in Dawn more effective than those in Day. In my opinion the only really bad effects in Dawn involved the stock blue face paint on some of the zombies, and John Amplas' burnt Sienna makeup as Martinez. Day, on the other hand had the rediculous "shovel" zombie, the jawless zombie close to the beginning, and an obvious intent to 'outgore' it's predecessor with meaningless gore like the scene in Logan's lab where the zombie breaks it's bonds, turns to the side and it's guts flop to the ground. Ok, pretty impressive effect, but what was the point? It still didn't touch the first two bite scenes in Dawn of the Dead which still shock to this day AND have a point for being there.

I don't know, call me crazy but I'll watch a movie for gore maybe once or twice a year, and the general rule is I ENDURE the movie for the gore. Lucio Fulci anyone? Dawn is a perfect example of the opposite end of the spectrum: It's a great movie that happens to be gory.

Here's the order of greatness in my opinion:

Night
Dawn
Day

I'm really anxious to see which position LAND OF THE DEAD will occupy.

My choice is "Dawn", because while it's not out-and-out horror like "Night", it's one of the best post-apocalypse survival movies ever made. It also seems like the most plausible of the three in terms of society's breakdown.

Plus, Gaylen Ross was pretty hot.

I couldn't disagree with you more on Pilato EOD. IMO, he's the best thing about all three movies and is one of my favorite characters in any horror film.

That's cool Floydian, to each his/her own. Good acting to me is a realistic portrayal of a character with a depth and sensitivity, even in a villain or complete psychopath. Dennis Hopper as Frank Booth is the only person I've seen go completely over the top like Pilato and still make it work in a film. The man dripped 'dangerous' onto the screen in huge, slimy drops. Pilato was a cartoon. You never knew what motivated him, never cared about him. In my view, he could've been called 'head military guy' in the credits and it would have worked just as well. I'm not going to go off on some pompous actory thing here but I will say this: Hopper as Booth was a complete madman chewing on the scenery and it enhanced the movie. Pilato was a (at least partial) madman chewing on the scenery and detracted from the film. He couldn't act his way out of a wet paper sack.

"I just told ya I was willing to shoot ya if you didn't sit in your chair........You didn't sit in your chair." Give me a break. Let me point to his ongoing and brilliant performances in other films........wait a minute....THERE ARE NONE.

Feel free to pray at the altar of Pilato as much as you'd like Floydian. The man nearly ruined a Romero zombie film for me and that takes some doing.

Best death scene-- ever. "Choke on 'em.....Choooooooooke on 'emmmmmm...."

I'll agree with that. That was a good death scene. I don't think that proves Pilato can act, but it was a good scene.

I hate to ruin it for you, but the movie wasn't supposed to have any political statement. The hero role wasn't specifically written as a black man, that's just the actor they found for the role. It does wind up saying something that the man best suited for the leadership job was black, but this wasn't intended (I think it's also worth noting that if this was supposed to be a political statement during the time of integration, what does kind of political statment is it that his choice of remaining on the ground floor was the wrong one while the old white guy's suggestion of going downstairs resulted in survival?)

I also read an interview with Romero a few years back where he said "I love listening to all these critics talk about how bold and daring the movie was, and how deep the political tones were. Then I laugh, 'cause I just wanted to make a movie with dead people and cannibals."

While it is the scariest of the three (I prefer Dawn, simply because that movie is damn near perfect), and I agree that it broke ground on the horror front, I think it's funny that everyone ascribes all these political aspects to it when it was meant to just be a good, thrilling horror movie.

The political statement exists whether it was written or not. There is an unavoidable dramatic resonance that exists when you have a black truck driver fighting a white business man for control in 1960's America.

Oh, I know it's there, but I just think it's funny how everyone gives Romero so much credit for breaking all these walls, when he never meant to. It was all accidental. Doesn't change the fact that it's there and that it made an impact on cinema.

I must say it always cracks me up when someone replys to one of my posts to teach me the grand lesson about something I've obsessed over for way too close to 30 years. That said, I've heard and read some of these interviews from Romero where he clearly states his main objective was to make a scary film. I have no doubts about that, but listen to latter day Romero interviews like the brief series on THE 100 SCARIEST MOVIE MOMENTS special on Bravo network and Romero says there was an intentional, conscious political element in the making of NIGHT, and that from the beginning they wanted to do a movie that provided the scares but also actively said something.

The politics of NIGHT were not only the race angle but also included a revolutionary society rising up to literally devour the status quo. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that NIGHT made some form of statement about integration regarding the scenes you've mentioned, though I've heard Romero say one of the common threads of his DEAD films was that people working together could feasibly beat the zombies, but of course three out of three times so far, this cooperation hasn't existed. I think this is a statement about humanity in general, not only race, and furthermore I think Duane Jones' character eloquently described his reasons for not wanting to go into the basement: Down there you're trapped, at least upstairs you might be able to escape. Afterall, sometimes a cigar is just a freakin' cigar.

The Civil rights angle is clear, when you see the Crackers plug Ben in the head and in cropped stills witness his body being burned at the end. It clearly draws upon imagery of lynch mobs....BobClark is right, there's also a resonance to some of the black male/white male interaction in the movie that is undeniable. A black guy smacking a white man (and a white woman for that matter) around in 1968 WAS political, has been stated as consciously so by Romero, and is obvious through simple logic. I know that Duane Jones was cast in the lead not because he was black but because he was the best available actor in Romero's circle, but what came out of it was none the less charged with the added power of political subtext. Even if Romero didn't talk about it (Check out AMERICAN NIGHTMARE), to think they were doing these scenes in the late 60's at the height of the Civil Rights Movement and were completely oblivious to the symbolism is a little unbelievable, especially looking at Romero's body of work since.

We certainly agree it's a scary movie.

Oh, I know it's there. And I'm sure they realized the other political overtones. I just thought that it's funny that none of the racial stuff was planned from the beginning. Also, Night is my second favorite horror movie after Dawn.

I applaud your first and second favorite horror movies.

My favorite is Dawn, followed closely by Night. Frankly, I think Day is awful... until the zombies come down that elevator. Great great stuff. None of the Romero films have had a lot of great acting, but Day has nothing to compensate for it during much of it's run-time, the script isn't good, the location isn't utilized very well, and the villains are very one-note. I just think it's a bad movie, and not in a good way(except the end, which I love).

Day > Dawn > Night

I can't believe Day has the least amount of votes. Oh well, just goes to show...

I voted for Day just for the fact that I liked Cpt. Rhodes character. Pilato did act his lines over the top, but you have to realize that his character, Rhodes, was an overbearing control freak and completely insane! IMHO, I thought his constant screaming was consistant with the character.

The other reason I give DAY props is because it wonderfully conveyed the hopelessness and horror that the characters of Romero's world face. It takes place entirely after humanity has lost control. I don't know what it is, but that just floats my boat.

I almost voted DAWN because I believe that the first half-hour of that film (the news studio losing all composure, the swat team raid on the low-income apartment building, and who can forget the scene in the basement) might be the best part of all three films... but that is also the high point of DAWN. So after they get to the mall it's all down hill for me.

It's not surprising to me at all. The poll has turned out to be exactely what I would have predicted. While I loved Day and all its fantastic dialogue from the first time I saw it I would say that pretty much all of my friends hated it. Some have come around but some still see it as the weakest link. To each their own.

Didn't Romero once say that Day was his favourite?

I love Day, but it just isn't the exhilarating ride that Dawn is. Obviously, it isn't meant to be, but ultimately there isn't a single character that you like enough to care about. The Rhodes character is underwritten and (badly) overplayed. I don't find any of the military in Day remotely believable. If this was the best unit the US government could come up with, they must have left it very late in the day before establishing the research base.

All that said, Day is still a great zombie movie.