Didn't this movie already come out as 28 DAYS LATER?

Rating: 6/10 (19 April 2004)

**POSSIBLE SPOILER**
This movie is less of a loose remake of George Romero's infinitely superior original than a not-so-subtle rip off of 28 DAYS LATER. It's even shot the same way. Then, to add insult to injury, there's a BLAIR WITCH rip off over the end credits. Despite that, the movie does have its merits, albeit few.
The opening scenes are great, then it's a sketchy ride the rest of the way. There are some truly great moments, and the tone of the movie is winningly basic, but this is supposed to be a remake of DAWN OF THE DEAD, and therefore the lack of any of the original's depth or subtext is disappointing.
The remakes of THE THING and THE FLY and CAPE FEAR took the original stories and reworked them, expanded on them and took them in new directions. This one doesn't. It takes the most threadbare elements of the original movie's story and stretches them out to ninety minutes. The rich characterizations and witty screenplay are absent here. The script is clichéd and one-note and the characters are the most one-dimensional I can recall seeing in a movie in years.
James Gunn is obviously a talented writer. He wrote Troma's best movie (TROMEO AND JULIET) and obviously is capable of writing that is far more interesting and challenging than this. Let's not even get into the egregiously awful SCOOBY-DOO movies.
DAWN OF THE DEAD 2004 is a pefectly okay zombie movie in its own right. It's better than, say, Umberto Lenzi's NIGHTMARE CITY or even the Australian disappointment UNDEAD. But that isn't saying much. If Gunn just wants to write screenplays for cash from now on, instead of writing anything with meaning or depth, that's fine. Just one more promising artist to throw onto the ever growing heap of hacks-for-hire.