Old vs New

Rating: 7/10 (1 April 2004)

Before I say anything about the movie I'd like to add my 2cents on the old vs new argument.
Hold the thought that "the old one was pants because ...". Just bear in mind that in 20 years time people might be saying the same thing about the current one. Does that affect what you think of the movie when you see it now?
The original Dawn of the Dead does look lame in many ways in comparison to the remake, but how could it not on a $1.5million budget compared to however many multiples of that budget the new one cost? If a movie could be weighed on the ratio of box office takings to budget, the remake would probably have to scrape $1bn to match the original's performance.
Now here's what I think of the 2004 one.
[potential SPOILERS follow]
A great opening and introduction to the characters. Sfx/gore pretty impressive so far but nothing to really make me cringe. The threat of the zombies is well realised and the sense of claustrophobia as with the Romero originals is achieved very quickly.
Now comes the middle section full of tension and "how are they going to get out of here" questions arising. A few more faces get introduced. Fat woman - pretty gross.
Pointless bit in basement where somebody dies and then they get back upstairs. Sorry, so they've gained a dog - not pointless. Definitely better however and more concise than the really drawn out bit in DOTD 78 where David Emge plays basement zombie hide and seek for 10mins.
Zombie baby - sod off you're crap. Second most pointless thing after zombie vs shark scene in Lucio Fulci's imaginatively titled "Zombie". Oh hang on I forgot the zombie family in The Video Dead (the worst film of all time). Anyway, hate the baby - what's up next?
Here comes the biggest drawback of the movie so far. The disease is only spread if you're bitten. This is VERY 28 days later and really should have followed the Romero theme where the *dead* are coming back to life and not just the bitten who then died. For me, that's what was really scary in the first place because there really was no way of stopping it. People die every few seconds.
Now the tough blonde lady brags to shoot man after he's dead. (Sarcasm)Well I don't know, whatever could be coming later then? A suggestion: in order to achieve the unpredictability of the Romero movies you'd have to start by reversing that one and have the guy shoot the woman after *she* were dead or something. Surely it's more likely to scare people if they *don't* know what's coming?
Now if like me you're from the Romero school of thought and you've been used to the baddies getting their just-desserts at the hands of the hungry zombies you were probably waiting for that super-gory climax ... which never happens. Yeah they chainsaw some zombies and a poor girl gets sawed in the shoulder (the highlight of the fx for me) but no drawn out ripping to pieces of those that deserve it; no guts & organ munching for the undead. Real light snackers these Snyder zombies, always up for a quick bite but nothing more. Surprising seeing as they have so much energy.
The ending? It's more of a stop than an end. Not poor though.
Overall, I've been pretty nitpicky with the above comments but then this film *did* have the budget where DOTD 78 did not so I'm backing the underdog.
If you've not yet seen either then I would recommend seeing the remake first as it is definitely more current and it'd be unlikely that you would not enjoy it. Although I've not stated them, this film *does* have many good scenes and ideas and will go down as a respectable remake. However, if you're a true zombie movie fan and have seen a few low-budget movies in your time then it's gotta be the original seen first and the remake after.
Recommended 7.5/10