Eh, could have been worse...

Rating: 7/10 (16 January 2009)

When I first found out about this movie and it being a remake, I was like !@#$ this is going to be awful, considering mostly every horror remake I've seen has sucked hard.
However when I popped this into the DVD, expecting horrible acting and scripting, I actually saw an entertaining movie that had some good moments...but it's just a bit silly...
I mean just for comparability, I watched the original and it was a lot more serious. I mean, it had a much smoother story and was just more serious in my opinion. For example, in the first 5 minutes of the movie. Now to me, if you see a little girl with gray died skin, a half eaten mouth and her just !@#$ing standing there, not crying and !@#$, you don't go and try and help her, you just stay away from that !@#$.
And the fact that ever since 28 days later came out with the 'running zombie' people now notice that this !@#$ is ten times scarier then the old walking zombie !@#$ no matter how many times George Romero tries to shove it down our throats that zombies shouldn't run because "their ankles would brake." !@#$, it's a !@#$ing zombie movie, I think we left physics behind when the dead suddenly started to walk.
Now the script, the script isn't as bad as I thought it would be. However, compared to the original Dawn of The Dead, it seemed that they were rushing with the plot of something. I mean, 10 minutes into the movie and they're already in the mall. The rest of the script is o.k, not super, but an o.k However, by no means do I think the movie is bad. No. Just a bit silly.
The original is a lot more serious however and will get more of a story out of it.