A post-modernist's take on Romero's masterpiece- a good film, for what it's worth...

Rating: 7/10 (25 March 2004)

(SPOILER WARNING)
I won't be a complete close-minded critic of the remake of the new Dawn of the Dead remake, but I do have to be critical about it, not just for my own piece of mind, but because I think the original happens to have a crucial place in horror, and indeed all of cinema, history. When Romero created his film it was definitely original, or at least an original riff on what he had started a decade before. It had laughs, but it didn't over-do it in cheesy-ness, and there was a constant sense of doom and satire when dealing with the apocalyptic climate of his slow-moving, blue-ish & pale zombies roaming the country-sides.
Now we have Zack Snyder, working from a script by James Gunn, who has decided to take on Romero's view of society and sense of horror for 2004. As I left the theater I felt similar, coincidentally, to how I felt after I first watched Tom Savini's remake of 'Night' years ago - yes, the make-up and special effects are improved, yes there are some effective scares here and there, and yes, every once in a while there's a laugh at a zombie's expense. But, and here's a question for horror fans, why should it have been titled Dawn of the Dead? Yeah, it takes the concept of the survivors in the mall, and it has some bits of dialog lifted from Romero's script. However, there I would say draws the line for the similarities. In a way, I felt like the filmmakers could've just ripped Romero's material off, given the film a different title, and I wouldn't of thought and felt the story and attack sequences were not entirely improvements on the original but, well, mutations.
Because, as a zombie film in and of itself, set aside from the reality that it is a remake (this is for all you who didn't see the original yet and are thinking of seeing this one first), it's not a poorly made or deplorable work. The acting is also dependable, especially by the likes of a strong lead in Rhames, an interesting female lead in Polley, a chilling supporting role in Phiefer, and plenty of well-balanced work turned in by character actors like Weber and Burrell. As I said, the make-up is impressive (er, for it's Hollywood budget), and there's one scene involving a pregnant woman that did have me glued to my seat.
But then there came the problems I had with the film, and it wasn't just that not enough time and patience was given to develop the characters more appropriately or give the story a certain juicy-ness Romero had pouring out of him. Now, I don't think running zombies are a cause for total uproar - I thought it was highly effective in 28 Days Later, as prime example - yet I may not be the only one who thinks that there's something just slightly eerie and exact to how the living-dead moved in Romero's films as opposed to Snyder's. There are the explanations I've heard from various zombie fanatics (many on this site) to explain it, but it's almost irrelevant to explain it for a genre such as this. The living-dead exist entirely in the 'movie world', and since this film doesn't even bother to explain how the virus got started (the original didn't explain it either, but it didn't have to as it was a sequel to a film that did explain it in its sci-fi quality), saying one is more shocking than the other doesn't give much justice to how people will react person to person. As for the other flaws, I thought the dog element was a little under-cooked (is dog too good for their tastes, huh?), a number of times the dialog felt forced, and also the very end left a bad taste in my mouth. I won't say much about it, but the last scenes in this film remind me what separates such a remake from an original horror film from the 1970's - a minor lack of respect for audience intelligence and expectations.
Maybe I've been sounding biased in parts of my review, that I should recognize that it's a revision, and it should be respected. I do respect it, and it wasn't a disappointment. As I left the theater though, I realized something that also came to me after I left the Texas Chain Saw Massacre remake (which was a huge mess any way to look at it), and also after seeing the remake of Cape Fear recently (a film of which I haven't seen the original yet, which I fear I may not like as much, though time will tell). Some movies may be seen when we are young, and they may leave such an impression, especially after multiple viewings, that the first notion of a remake sounds ridiculous. It's not to say that when a director has an idea of how they personally want to improve on a classic it's not warranted. But, with some films, it's often very challenging to be equalized let alone top them. A number of films may improve on originals, giving the original director a taste of what new blood has to offer for the genre. In dealing with Dawn of the Dead, I won't be a movie-snob and say that a remake should not have been attempted let alone executed. It's not a failure - it's just not anything I'll pay to see again unless it's on cable. Note of interest to fans, they're (for gag value I suppose) cameos with original stars like Ken Foree and Tom Savini, though for not much other purpose than to remind viewers it's a remake. Oh well - (strong) B