Okay, but was it needed?

Rating: 6/10 (21 August 2010)

George A. Romero's Dawn of the Dead is a classic horror movie that really didn't need to be retold...but that's exactly what director Zack Snyder has done so I guess I should review it after having seen it twice. I admit there have been far worse remakes, but I can't help but sense how unnecessary this was especially since these two films are worlds apart in many ways. They don't really remake Dawn of the Dead so much as they re-use some elements from the original script and slap the title "Dawn of the Dead" on it to get attention.
In the original film George A. Romero had used the setting of a mall to make satire of human nature. In the Snyder film everything has been refit for zombie action. George A. Romero used the stumbling zombies from his 'Night of the Living Dead'. Zach Snyder uses the Olympic Sprinter Zombies from '28 Days Later'. Romero knew how to spread his movie out with a casual pace. Snyder in the vain of all modern action movies uses quick cuts and generally seems to have everything moving as fast as it can giving no time for character development other that easily recognizable stereotypes.
I think its clear that I prefer the original...
But I don't think this is remake is bad. Its just another zombie movie is all. Nothing really special, nothing really bad about it. It doesn't stand up to films like those of George A. Romero or 28 Days Later, but it is better than things like Resident Evil.
So, this new Dawn of the Dead is quite a bit of gore-filled fun, but as a whole is flat and uninteresting compared to the 1978 original.