Not bad, not great

Rating: 6/10 (24 March 2004)

I went into Dawn of the Dead 2004 with fairly high expectations, being a moderate fan of Romero's original trilogy. What I got was a completely different film that is good for completely different reasons. It's impossible to avoid drawing comparisons between this film and the 1978 film that inspired it because, let's face it, they consciously decided to slap the same name on it. If they had just set the movie in a police station or something, they wouldn't have had to bother paying for the name. But I guess that's just the point; the title has built-in recognition going for it.
That said, this is not nearly the abomination that other recent remakes have been (Texas Chainsaw Massacre comes to mind). It has lots of great action pieces, better actors than the original, and even some nice plot additions such as a character stuck on the roof of a gunshop across the street from the mall. You actually end up caring about the guy even though you only hear his voice in one brief scene.
The violence is certainly also potent, which I suppose some people will be looking for in a horror movie. I found myself terribly annoyed by the quick-cutting music-video style editing in the action scenes, but it's still a whole lot better than some other recent remakes (Texas Chainsaw Massacre comes to mind). What I admired about Romero's films, however, is that the camera never doubts the potency of a scene, and simply shows the action in mostly still frames. Romero sets up a scene, let's it happen, and then moves on. The beauty is in its simplicity. Dawn of the Dead 2004 is like a hyper-active child, which some people will surely appreciate over its wiser, if somewhat sluggish, grandfather. It's all a matter of taste.
As many other have argued, however, I did miss the original's depth and satirical sense of humour. Some may argue that it was cheesy, but I still see that as being the point. Sure, it had suspense, blood, and violence, but it was never an out-right scarefest. And, you know... I don't think there was anything wrong with that. I could understand if director Zack Snyder wanted to up the adrenaline a little, but why did all the characters have to become shallow caricatures? If the original Dawn had one strength, I would say that it respects its main four characters as human beings rather than throwing them into the fray for little purpose except to become zombie-fodder. Romero allowed us time to get to know his characters, understand their motivations, their weaknesses, their relationships, etc. Having 16 (or whatever number) people tossed into the mall over a mere hour and a half restricts character development (CJ suddenly turning nice doesn't count since he was a cartoon to begin with) and severely lessens the impact when things start to go wrong.
And that's another thing... As much as I hate to cram the whole "Romero's social commentary about consumerism" thing down more peoples' throats, its absence leaves no good reason for these characters to hide out in a mall. People in the theatre actually broke out laughing around me when one of the characters says something along the lines of, "Hey, let's go to the mall!" The mall isn't even in sight and so it seems like a ludicrously random destination, and probably not the safest at that. Snyder's undead seem even faster and stronger than when they were alive, so I can't imagine that 2000 (there are a lot of zombies in this film) of them wouldn't have been able to break through the mall's glass doors. Finally, although Dawn 2004 had its share of jokes, it was not as tongue-in- cheek as the original, which I thought was sorely missed. People may say the pie fight was stupid... I say it was funny. People may say the guy checking his blood pressure (while being eaten) was stupid... I say it was funny. Even the individual zombies in this film weren't vaguely memorable. You never see any of them up close for more than 2 seconds because the editing is always so fast. You always just see them as a moving mass. Fans of the original will know right away what I mean when I talk about the ghetto-apartment-huband zombie, the helicopter-sliced zombie, the zombie with the gun, the kid zombies, the bride zombie, the hare krishna zombie, etc. The zombies of Dawn 2004 are a faceless, anonymous mass. Maybe that's scarier, I don't know, but it's definitely not more interesting for someone who just wants to see some zombies.
Enough harping though. In summary, Dawn of the Dead 2004 is definitely not the Dawn we've always known, but if you close your eyes during the credits (missing the title), you might enjoy it just fine as a fun, mindless action/horror flick.