More of a nod than a remake *minor spoilers*

Rating: 8/10 (20 March 2004)

As the summary reads, this is more of a nod to the original Dawn than a true remake. True, the premise is the same but that's really where it ends. First off, the cast is much larger than the original so by sheer numbers alone, there isn't as much attention given to detailed character exploration as some would like. More due to the performances of the leading actors than the script, I did find myself caring about some of the people in this movie. A lot of the characters are one dimensional and even those fleshed out a bit are more broad sketches than multi-layered personalities. This really isn't a complaint because, for better or worse, this is a horror film and my expectations for such a thing in this genre have been lowered to the point thru years of viewing bad films that a little bit can go a long way in this type of film. Second, the journey to get to the mall is much faster than the original. I didn't feel it was necessary for the characters in this version to get there any later than they did because it would have really slowed the movie down. There isn't the sense of impending dread in the remake like there is in the original; this film simply moves at a different pace. Not really better or worse, just different. In fact, that can be said for the movie as a whole. It's not the original Dawn. They simply can't remake that film for many reasons, not the least of which is the social commentary in the original wouldn't seem particularly relevant to today's audience.
Now on to the review of the movie itself. I have very few complaints with the remake. I felt that segments were unintentionally funny, especially with Mekhi Phifer's (who really did deserve a better forum to showcase his skills than the tired subplot he was saddled with) character Andre. I also felt there could've been more background given on Michael (Jake Weber). There seemed to be hints given about him through out that I'm not entirely certain were born more from the screenplay or the actor's performance. Also, the romantic chemistry between he and Ana (Sarah Polley) was sadly lacking.
Now on to what I thought worked. Ok...I'll admit it: I liked the zombies. I've read some comparisons to 28 Days Later in the other comments which I do agree with due to timing more than anything else. The concept of zombies that don't stumble and stagger isn't really a new one, though. There's an Italian zombie film that features such beasties (the title escapes me). And, in all honesty, 28 Days Later did lift a bit from Day Of The Dead in the last 45 minutes or so... The opening to this film is great. I feel that it goes about showing the utter chaos of the situation in a more jarring fashion than the original. I realize I'm jumping on the band wagon here, but Ving Rhames is just awesome in this movie. This is a bit random, but I couldn't help but be reminded of Lucio Fulci's Zombie during the end credits...
I'd give this movie 6 1/2 out of 10 stars. It's not great, but it's wildly entertaining. It's not the original Dawn, either. I think if one walks in expecting a straight retread of the original than they'll be disappointed. If it's taken as a different film with the same premise, then I think that it stand on it's own.