Better than I expected, but Romero's version remains the best zombie film.

Rating: 6/10 (4 February 2006)

As a long-time horror movie fan, I was resistant to seeing this film when it opened in theaters. Like many who consider George Romero's original the best zombie flick made, the idea of remaking such a classic seemed unnecessary and, frankly, almost blasphemous. However, having read many fairly positive reviews of the film, I decided to get the DVD and see for myself. My comments, then, are for the 'Unrated Director's Cut', with additional scenes not found in the theatrical release. The film started off quite well; the ten minute pre-credit prologue delivered a real jolt, setting the stage for the rest of the film. While the basic premise was much like the original (see other reviews for story line), the inevitable comparison allows the differences to stand out. In this version, the main characters seem to easily walk into a nearly deserted mall; in the original, finding and getting into the zombie-infested mall was much more dramatic and realistic. This version, while entertaining, lacked the dramatic tension of the original, in large part because of the larger cast. There were simply too many characters, which detracted from the feeling of despair and isolation found in the original. There were, to be sure, some good performances. Sarah Polley was quite good as the no-nonsense heroine and Ving Rhames turned in another solid performance. The best acting, however (IMO), was that of Jake Webber as Michael, the television salesman who quickly shows leadership abilities. There were also less noteworthy performances. For me, the subplot involving Mekhi Phifer and his wife (played by Inna Korobkina) simply detracted from the overall effect. The whole business (spoiler alert) of Phifer's character, a petty crook, becoming Mr. Family Values in his unshakable desire to 'raise a family' didn't work. It really got ridiculous with his wife turning into a zombie (zombification is spread by the bite of one), and him making sure that she delivered a zombie infant (!). Those scenes stopped me cold, and seemed to be added simply to increase the gore factor. Now, the Director's cut reportedly contained more "gore and character development" than the theatrical release, but that may not necessarily be a good thing. In my opinion, there was just too much going on with these other characters, and they really didn't make the viewer care any more about them. On the subject of gore...yes, there are some very well-done effects (although not any more gruesome than the effects in 'Land of the Dead' or the original, for that matter). One thing that, to me, detracted from the film was making the zombies fast moving. During the film, the inclusion of 'news reports' and CDC (Center for Disease Control) spokespeople revealed that the cause of this infection is never identified, yet it is revealed that the zombies "are dead...their circulatory, respiratory and other systems no longer work." Okay, then how do the zombies manage to run like marathoners, break down doors, jump, etc. while their bodies decay? In the film '28 Days Later', one could accept fast-moving killers, since they were not the 'living dead' but rather people who turned into homicidal cannibals by a virus. Come on. If zombies are the reanimated dead, who are decomposing daily, it doesn't add up that they can run, jump etc. The bottom line for me is that, as another reviewer notes, it "didn't suck," but certainly does not put the original in any jeopardy. Entertaining, with some solid performances and good special effects, but still inferior to the original.