I Loved It! It Wasn't THAT Great! (mild spoilers)

Rating: Null/10 (21 March 2004)

When I stepped in to see the remake of Dawn of the Dead, I did not have any idea what to expect, but I must admit I halfway figured it to be a let down.
First, I LOVED IT: In a way unique from the original, the cinematography was shot well enough to really draw you into the action. This was the movie that, in my opinion, "28 Days Later" should have been. The atmosphere was very well conveyed and had a strong sense of realism, while maintaining a sense of Hollywood style, and I enjoyed the sudden thrills which were very unique from the original. The entire movie, everything about it in my opinion, is better than any horror movie has been for quite some time. I liked many of the situations, I liked the plot, all of the cameos, including the store called "Gaylen Ross", and I thought it was very seriously, and whole heartedly done by all of the main characters. I also LOVED the intro with the Johnny Cash song, which I thought conveyed a feel similar to what George envisioned for the original.
But, It Wasn't THAT Great: Nowadays, scary movies have to have soundtrack reminiscent of the Slipknot or Marilyn Manson sound to be considered a REAL scary movie. George's movie wasn't just scary, it was eerie and depressing. A big part of the "DOTD '79" atmosphere was that you could see them all around you getting closer and closer. The remake was more like, BOOM! they're here, now they're gone. While the new version is indeed a thrill a minute movie ride, the original was a work of art that had many things to say about us and our society which added to the eerie nature. I also liked the original's smaller cast. Since "Night Of The Living Dead" had already happened, it was more conceivable that there would be fewer people around, therefore making the situation more progressed and that much more hopeless. I also find a slower death more effective than the quick killings of the modern slasher flicks. And the nudity in the newer version was not artful/incidental nudity to help the story along like the very brief nudity in Romero's original. The original cast was more intimate, more dramatic, and more down to earth. Though the newer version had somewhat better acting (in some cases- i.e. Ving Rhames) and better effects, the original plot, script, and atmosphere, were of much higher quality and had so much over the new one given the time period. I thought the original was funnier, eerier, and I thought the make up jobs they did on the foreground zombies (not the plain blue faced ones) were better looking than the newer disease-esque zombie look.
Conclusion: Go see the new one if you're looking for a polished Hollywood style slasher/thriller type zombie flick. I'm going to go back and see it again. But as for the original, "Don't knock it, it's got it's own key."