Dawn Of The Dead

It’s become very fashionable to knock every single remake/reboot/re-envisioning that Hollywood comes up with. The idea it that they basically take a film that was popular a few years ago and film it again. Although what’s churned out has very little to do with the source material apart from the name. It normally ends up being a soulless attempt at cashing in on the original’s success via its name. Dawn of the Dead is one of the (few) exceptions to the rule. The original George Romero version is largely considered as the best zombie film going. It is indeed epic in length and has a smattering of social commentary regarding people’s obsession with consumerism and spending all their time in shopping malls. The 2004 remake still has the zombies and the mall and, although some Romero die-hards will lament the lack of social commentary, most will appreciate it as a truly modern re-telling of the story. At least quite a few of the old 1979 version’s cast make cameo appearances in the new version (playing new parts) which give us ‘old school fanatics’ a few in jokes to pick up on. Perhaps the 2004 version has its roots in the English film 28 Days Later which took the concept of zombies (or ‘infected’ as they were technically known) and made them run. Gone are the 1979 slow-moving ‘shufflers’ and here are some really nasty zombies who will even chase down a fast-moving car in order to rip apart their human prey. The 2004 version also has more characters. Granted some are a bit under-developed, but the majority play their parts well. The director, Zack Snyder, also deserves some credit at putting his own stylish spin on the direction, giving it a distinctive ‘look’ about it which elevates it over its numerous competitors. Granted Dawn of the Dead 2004 is not perfect. There are a few moments where daft things happen which are purely there to move along the plot and not really based on what would actually happen in such a situation. These faults I believe lie with the screenwriter. If you listen to the director’s commentary, even he questions the characters’ (and even zombies’) motives for doing what they do. However, Dawn of the Dead 2004 is a case of there is so much good and right about it, that I think most people should be able to see past the few flaws and just enjoy it for simply being a decent action/horror film. If you only want to see one modern zombie film, I’d watch this one (or 28 Days Later, but, as any zombie enthusiast will tell you, there’s NO zombies in 28 Days Later… technically).

good film but the disk was faulty so counldnt watch the last 10mins of the film, bit of a let down luckily weve seen it before!!

Brilliant for anyone below the age of 25 but mostly BLOOD-BATH filled film with no really storyline or ending :(

A quite respectful remake of the horror cult classic of the same name. I actually quite enjoyed this film and overall it was rather faithful to the original without losing any of its integrity of being a film in its own right. There were some great set pieces in the film, as well as some homour, and it was pretty well acted throughout.

The cast in my opinnion was not good at all,and the zombies had no bite, which is the complete irony considering this type of genre flick and to be honest it didnt make me jump one bit, but i still watched it all the way through to be certain. Besides there was another romero zombie flick that was not good in my eyes either. It makes me wonder given that a film has to go through alot of acceptable standards, as to how really bad films even get made. Yet someone else out there might have a really good idea and be repeatedly turned down.