A remake as enjoyable as the original?

Rating: 8/10 (25 October 2004)

The horror genre is, at times, a contentious mix of everything from the sublime to the ridiculous. I know that's a well-worn cliché, but it is true perhaps more for this genre than for others. Audiences will often stay away in droves and consign otherwise good movies to cult status simply because they ARE remakes: indeed, often just because they are classified as horror. And let's face it - some remakes are woeful; some horror flix miss the point that INTENTIONAL humour and INTENTIONAL textual references add to the enjoyment. Even irony gets lost in the drive to be as gory as possible. The suspension of disbelief is made easier if there is at least a semblance of plot line and, in these days of fear re the use of biochemical and bacteriological weapons by terrorists, any film using same NEEDS humour to ensure the audience doesn't go home and commit mass suicide.
Dawn of the Dead (2004) is one of the best remakes ever. Zack Snyder has created something new - a juxtaposition, if you will, between the original screenplay, new editing techniques, and a fresh, vibrant cast.
Who is Sarah Polley? She gives a great performance as Ana. Ving Rhames is excellent as is Michael Kelly as CJ. Overall, an inspired casting of all the characters. We really FEEL for all of them and thus get "sucked-in" to engage with each. What happens to them means something.
The cinematography is excellent. Perhaps my only criticism would be the lack of unusual perspectives, i.e. unusual camera angles. This, of course, is more to do with costing than intent. One can only do so much within the strictures established by the bean-counters. However, Snyder and crew do a bloody-good job. (Pun intended.)
It is interesting, to say the least, that the dog becomes a central part of both the action and the pathos.
Sorry. There's a huge thunderstorm overhead and I don't want to fry the computer or the phone. More to follow...
Paul