text: What a great word "re-imagining" is. Isn't that what they call Dawn of the Dead MMIV (2004)? A clever word indeed - it disguises the term that everyone has grown to hate, "remake" that is, and makes it almost sound as if the process of making one was creative and involved the imagination. Well, damn, was I misled. At least I was seduced more by the thought of countless gore and unbridled violence than by the idea of "re-imagining," though it played a role.<br /><br />Still, why make a remake? Directors do it for only a few reasons really: to update a movie for a modern audience, or because they personally love the original and want to make a tribute to it. An homage, if you will. Nonetheless, it all generally (I do admit exceptions) boils down to one thing: stealing someone's idea and reshaping it (or "re-imagining" it) so that those who would never see it or understand it would pay money to see it. It's like Coles'/Cliffs' notes; dump everything in a blender, purify all that is more puzzling and curious and throw in a few artificial flavors. In other words, a great marketing scheme.<br /><br />So what's wrong with this one? Well, I'll start with what I liked. I liked the opening scenes. Thanks to CGI and a bigger budget we could actually get a grasp of the chaos of the zombie holocaust Romero tried to communicate in the original through minimalist means. We see the city in ruins, thousands of zombies: chaos and death. Two words that look beautiful on screen. Then it all falls apart.<br /><br />This set-up leads nowhere. The movie does what almost every remake does. It adds more of everything except character, atmosphere, and story. It's noisier, (in some sense) bloodier, and more full of main characters who appear only to die in nonsensical subplots. The setting, the mall which played a crucial role in the original film's story and theme, is purely coincidental. The idea communicated in Romero's film, the pure ecstatic joy of having "a mall all to yourself as a fortress," is gone here. Further, this "re-imagining" has no moxie, no spirit, no balls. It assumes (probably quite rightly) that the audience has no attention span and doesn't bother to get us interested in the characters or the story. The film is rushed and misses the quieter interactions of the four characters of the original. You actually grew to care about those people in Romero's version because there was a certain realism to their existence despite the insanity outside the mall. Here, you don't care when or who goes: what matters is how they go.<br /><br />What else is their to say? The film is not scary. It has one or two "jump" scenes and it tries to make up for the rest with gore and loud special effects. As a story it's really too choppy to be followed and the conflicts between the characters are too underdeveloped to save it. The humor is also reduced to a few one-liners (and one really good character: Andy). After that, what remains? An ending that is plainly ridiculous and far inferior to the subdued, inevitable ambiguity of the original film. But, despite it being a pretty bad film (though not quite as bad as some other remakes), it should be remembered for one thing: it kicked The Passion of Christ from it's number one spot in the box office. Well done zombies.