So completely different from the Original

Rating: 8/10 (8 November 2004)

My Rating: *** out of ****.
Last year, A classic horror film called the Texas Chainsaw Massacre was remade. Although it was not critically acclaimed, I thought it was a solid horror film and a damn good remake. The same could be said for this years Dawn of the Dead.
However, the remake of TCM could at least be called similar to the original. In the 2004 Dawn of the Dead, its like a complete reimagination. There almost different movies. Yes, the plot is basically the same but there's a lot different here too. For example, the zombies move much faster, it takes place in Wisconsin (not Pennsylvania), and the film plays out in a much different way. The setting of a shopping mall is the same but here its only used as a place to hide where in the original it was used George Romero's brilliant(if not very subtle) satire on consumerism.
So how does this Dawn fare against the older one? It holds up but it is inferior to the original. Romero's Dawn of the Dead was a horror film mixed with satire, this Dawn is more like action and horror. Thats not a bad thing because it works but Romero's Dawn was more challenging to a viewer. It was an intelligent horror film and while its not fair to call this film dumb, its nowhere near as intelligent as Romero's film was.
That being said, this Dawn does a few things better than the original. First of all the look of the zombies is far more scary, the make-up is more realistic, and in some ways, this is a scarier film. Also, the zombies move much faster here which adds more tension to the film. First-time director Zach Snyder does an excellent job of raising tension throughout the film.
However, you can tell this guy used to do music videos. Although this Dawn has a more polished, slicker look to it than the original did, there are times, especially in the beginning, when it looks a little too much like a music video. Is this a bad thing? Well it is a little distracting but it doesn't last too long (it looks much more like a movie in the mall).
The acting does not disappoint though. Everyone in the cast does a solid job portraying their character. If there's a problem here, its that I liked the characters in the original Dawn better. They seemed more accessible and likable to me. In this film some characters come across as really selfish or just plain stupid. For instance, would you risk going to save a dog in a building that is not only surrounded by zombies but has one in it? And not even have a weapon with you? I mean even though that moment was very suspenseful it fell back to the horror movie standard that a character must do something totally idiotic.
Also, what is the big deal with the ending of this film? All I heard was the ending is the most horrifying part of the film. Are you joking? I could see that coming so it wasn't shocking at all. The opening 10 minutes were far more effective. Another minor thing bothered me in this film and it was the use of the line "When there is no more room in hell the dead will walk the earth". As we all know this is from the original and once again delivered by Ken Foree. However, it didn't feel right here, it felt liked it was tacked on to make a reference to the original. It doesn't have the same impact either. Why? Because in the original Foree's character mentioned something about voodoo to go along with the line, here its just randomly said on television. How the hell is that creepy?
For the most part, this Dawn of the Dead delivered. It has flaws but it is tightly-paced, graphic and yes, scary. In my opinion, its much better than the overrated 28 Days Later. While it isn't on the same level as the original, it works on its own.