Dawn of the Dead (2004) User Reviews (1,213)

Action rather than horror, but worthy remake

[Cube_TX · 7/10 · 20 March 2004]

As a HUGE fan of the original Dawn of the Dead I was very skeptical of this remake. I wasn't expecting an Academy Award winning blockbuster or anything, but I did want to see the remake do the original justice. I was impressed with the filming more than anything. This is an action movie rather than horror. The outdoor scenes are filmed with a grainy, hand-held camera which gave the audience the feeling of being disoriented much the same way the characters would have felt. The movie was not made in the MTV-generation style that the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake was. Dawn of the Dead stuck to the same mythology of the first without giving it a complete reimagining. I could imagine the two movies co-existing, but in different parts of the world.

One of the key differences that I did like was the idea of the zombies running. This made them come across as more menacing rather than being the slow clunkers that are seen in the original trilogy. The idea of being able to walk right past them was abandoned. I also feel that the movie did a good job of showing how quickly people would turn on one another and watch out for themselves only.

One of my favorite "realisms" of the movie is how the characters are too attached to their loved ones to shot them when they become zombies. I'm certain that many of us would react in the same manner if something like this were to actually happen (yes, I know it's impossible). Also, it was interesting to have so many people make it to the mall instead of only four as in the original. Of course some of these characters fit the generic stereotype of a movie such as this, but I'm not surprised considering modern audiences would need such characters to maintain their interest. This was a movie made for film viewers, not film makers. We have the strong and silent male hero, the quick-thinking blond heroine, the official dumb jerk, the official slut, the young and naive girl who loses everything and needs the group's protection, the angry challenger for group leadership who has a change of heart and becomes heroic, the young trainee who disagrees with the angry challenger yet follows due to a sense of duty, and the stupid follower who gets his comeuppence.

One aspect that was missing from this remake was the original movie's social commentary on the commercialism of people. Ken Foree's character of Peter mentioned this in the original whereas Ving Rhames' Kenneth was more of a silent action hero never having much to say. This was another reason that I saw this as a simple action movie -- though I will say that Rhames has more acting ability than Governor Schwarzenegger, Sly, Seagal and Van Damme combined. Rhames also LOOKS like an action hero rather than today's prettyboy "action heroes" such as Tom Cruise, Ben Affleck, Nicolas Cage and Keanu Reeves -- who all look like they couldn't fight their way out of a cooking class for senior citizens.

All in all this movie was not better than the original and won't be nominated for any Academy Awards, but if you're looking for entertainment and can stomach the blood it's worth checking out. I can't wait to buy it on DVD someday.

"Attention Shoppers! The mall is now closing forever.."

[filmbuff-36 · 8/10 · 29 March 2004]

How will mankind behave in the end times? Will we turn into raving lunatics and attack one another? Will we try to slavishly hold onto some fabric of our society? Will we kick back and accept what is happening?

`Dawn of the Dead' in some ways tries to answer that question. The movie, a remake of George Romero's classic 1978 sequel to `Night of the Living Dead,' throws a group of people together while society crumbles around them and allows the viewer to watch as humans seek to survive an onslaught of the undead.

The movie opens with the unimaginable happening. Hordes of zombies have overtaken Milwaukee and numerous survivors are both fighting off the monsters and trying to escape the city. One such group includes Ana (Sarah Polley), a nurse who is running scared after losing her husband, Kenneth (Ving Rhames), a tough-as-nails cop, Michael (Jake Weber), who tries to be two-steps ahead of any dangerous situation, and Andre (Mekhi Phifer), whose trying to care of his pregnant wife.

Seeking shelter from the waves of zombie attacks, the group decides to head toward a local mall and hole up there until help arrives. Once inside they join with security guards and use the shopping center as a refuge from the undead while trying to piece together what's left of their lives.

The plot is pretty straightforward, and relies mostly on cliché themes to move the story along. So as a rule, most films such as this tend to be predictable and quite tepid. Luckily, `Dawn of the Dead' has strong personalities to fall back on, making it thankfully every bit a character-driven drama as it is a horror-action piece.

As Ana, Polley convincingly plays a waif turned survivor with just the right amount of emoting. She is strong and vulnerable at the same moment, trying to remain reasonable in unreasonable times. Weber also fits this bill as Michael, a man with a shady past full of regret who tries to fill others with hope while remaining a stark realistic.

Rhames' performance clearly commands the most attention. As Kenneth, he becomes the group's de facto leader and top man of action. He keeps the clearest head when trouble is afoot and leads the group out of one scrape after another. Rhames gives the character a silent strength that provides the film with a much needed human edge.

First time director Zack Snyder moves the film along briskly and effectively, keeping the action scenes tight and the dramatic scenes quiet. There is no heavy-handed sermonizing here that tends to infiltrate most big-budget horror movies -- Snyder wisely lets the images speak for themselves.

The horror itself is shocking and grabs your attention, which is a plus considering most of the recent crop of thrillers. The fact that it is happening to sympathetic characters that we care about is another feather in the movie's cap.

All to often most horror movies are just excuses for numerous poorly developed characters to be killed in awful ways for the enjoyment of the audience. As far as recent zombie movies go, `Dawn of the Dead' thankfully remains closer to `28 Days Later' than `House of the Dead.'

However, despite all the movie's strengths, it still pales in comparison to the original. Romero's `Dawn of the Dead' took the premise of people trapped in mall and used it to make some pointed social commentary about consumerism. The first '`Dawn' had human characters selfishly hoarding material goods for themselves, using the mall not only as a refuge from zombies but also as their own personal palace that provides them with more items than they could ever need.

It's to the detriment of the new film that it never takes the concept to this level. Here, the story seems to take place in a mall because it's a cool place for a horror movie, not because it can draw out anything interesting in the characters themselves. Also, in the original the zombies wanted inside not only to eat the humans but also because they are drawn to the shopping center since is was an important place to them when they were alive.

It's a shame that this time around viewers won't get the chance to see zombies wandering around JC Penney or stumbling up and down escalators, the joke being humans amble about aimlessly themselves like the undead at the mall.

`Dawn of the Dead' is a very bloody and terrifying film but it lacks the superior gory effects from the 1978 movie. That should not stop the squeamish from twitching in their seats due to the horrific content onscreen.

Good acting and smart thinking elevates the proceedings among most other horror offerings, but compared to Romero's original it lacks the observations necessary to make it a classic. The first film remains an intelligent critique on human actions during the apocalypse, while this is just a suspense drama that is dressed to kill.

8 out of 10 stars. Not as good as Romero's original, but still one heck of a shot in the arm to cure the memory from most modern horror misfires.

Surprisingly great remake

[masonsaul · 8/10 · 17 May 2021]

Dawn of the Dead is a great remake that's funny, tense and emotional whilst also skillfully managing to stand on its own two feet. Sarah Polley, Ving Rhames, Jake Weber, Michael Kelly and Ty Burrell are all great. Zack Snyder's direction is excellent, really kinetic and visceral. The music by Tyler Bates and the soundtrack are both really good. However, it's brought down slightly by the ending (after the credits).

A Zombie Flick to Remember!!!

[TheExaltedOne · 30 March 2004]

Dawn of the Dead

I'm not sure I can recall witnessing an opening sequence quite like the one I saw in Zack Snyder's remake of the classic horror film 'Dawn of the Dead.' Besides being rather lengthy (it's over ten minutes before we see the opening credits), it has a bizarre creepiness about it. There's something about the cinematography employed to show us 'the beginning of the end' that I really liked: that extra long image of the little girl skating away, the skyview of Sarah Polly's car as she rides home from her shift as a nurse, the picture of perfect serenity, and those intimate scenes we see of her and her husband 'the day before.' It all makes it more tragic, when, quite unexpectedly, morning comes, and with it, the end of all that is sane. The pure chaos of the scenario, an outbreak of a dangerous break of a virus that turns those infected into ghouls, comes so suddenly that it grips us by the throat.

This is one hell of a horror movie. Even for someone as jaded as myself, who has become totally jaded to any real horror thrills, I was taken aback by how uncomfortable the movie made me feel. Our heroes, holed up at the now abandoned local mall, join small groups of survivors and find themselves fighting each other as well as the zombies when the plague starts creeping ever close to bringing them all to the brink of annihilation. The zombies have an easy-to-spot weakness: one shot to the head takes them out, but they're extremely fast, and a single bite from them leads to hopeless infection and mindlessness. Although some of the story makes little sense (for instance, if the zombies can only transmit the virus by bite and the heroes are in a mall, couldn't they don the heaviest attire imaginable rather than skimpy t-shirts?), there are lots of great twists and snappy dialogue along with the required creep-outs, gore, and slaughter.

And there's some surprisingly great humor. Easily the most memorable of the light-hearted, break-the-nerves moments is when our heroes are situated atop a roof and challenge a local gun shop owner to take out look-alike zombie celebrities, which he does with ease. It's a much needed laugh to relieve the audience of a lot of built-up jitters.

Overall, this is a remake that actually works. The characters, for all their strength and weaknesses, are decently fleshed out for a horror movie. There a few unexpected surprises that even the most attentive viewer will take pleasure in. And the action moves along at a clean, fast pace. The few holes that exist in the plot and the somewhat unsatisfying conclusion are the only real problem areas, but these are to be expected in the genre. Overall, I definitely recommend it, even to the squeamish. It's messy fun for everyone. And make sure you stay until AFTER the credits roll. You'll be glad you did.

Grade: A-

An above average film

[danielmanson · 6/10 · 10 October 2021]

With it being Halloween season I thought I'd watch this for the first time and I have to say it's not bad at all. I do love watching films, horror in particular, from years ago, because it really emphasises how far cinema has come. Off the bat you have this really fake blood everywhere and over the top acting to get you scared. However, it's still fun and that's what makes these films great.

I won't do a huge review, just gonna quickly whack down the bits that annoyed and move on.

1. Characters. A couple were very unlikeable, but overall I'd say 50% of them were just forgettable. Like, I've just seen this film and I cannot remember the names of most. I thought a few of them would make some really annoying and illogical decisions also.

2. The first half of the film I thought was quite slow paced. The second half was really fun, but the first was just a little boring.

3. Is it scary? No. I think this might be more to do with what people found scary 17 years ago, but there isn't really any jump scares or anything. It's more just a classic case of zombies everywhere.

Having said all that, it's a fun film. The final half an hour or so is brilliant and I was completely absorbed by it. I got massive Left 4 Dead vibes watching this and I loved that gaming franchise. But yeah, it's an fun and entertaining film. Don't expect a serious, in depth horror though, because you will be let down. I'd recommend, it's definitely above average, hence the 6/10. But it's not much more than that, just take it as it is and have a bit of fun and see some zombies die.

Why I gave Dawn a 10 (well, maybe it should have been a9).

[johnsigwald · 10/10 · 20 March 2004]

I've been to thousands of movies in my lifetime and own hundreds of videos and DVDs, so I am a fan but not a bona fide film critic. This is my first online review.

My wife and I saw the original Dawn of the Dead 25 years ago at a midnight show and left wired enough to talk each other down till the morning. Perhaps a quarter of a century has inured us to the violence a bit since we just watched it again (rental video) last week prior to yesterday's venture to the local multiplex to see the remake/"reimagining" and were mostly unperturbed by the revisit.

For some reason, I was hooked on the new Dawn months ago from the teaser and, subsequently, the actual trailer. The Sparklehorse song in the former fit perfectly and the suburban shot followed by killer Vivian and closing with the burned projector film of the latter was intriguing in its own way. So I was primed to see the movie, usually a recipe for disaster since preview expectations are rarely fulfilled by the finished product. This time, however, they were.

The cast was uniformly believable and, more important, empathizable (at least with the good guys who got sorted out along the way). Even the playboy jerk had several relevant lines. Polley was a good, strong female lead (with another great rebuttal -- "No, I'm a * nurse" to a query about her medical skills) and Rhames a cheerable, if reluctant, hero. The camaraderie, such as it was, worked, and visceral me-first survival gave way more often to self-sacrifice.

So, what's not to like? The fundamental premise that a classic got remade? Doesn't wash. These are two different movies with the same name and similar premises but very different attitudes. (Better special effects didn't hurt, either, although this new version was oddly less disturbing sans zombies munching on dismembered body parts.) Speedy zombies (except for the "twitchers")? No problem; hey, they're hungry and, as always, persistent. My attention was held for the better part of two hours; the story was interesting; the outcome ambivalent; the characters arisen to the task at hand, becoming coldly rational to the divisions between life and death and zombiedom; the music weirdly appropriate; the black humor welcome respite. No, Dawn of the Dead isn't Citizen Kane nor is it a sacrilegious assault on the horror genre. It's solid filmmaking that's entertaining and thought-provoking. Otherwise, I suspect Romero would never have put his imprimatur on the remake.

Good zombie movie

[k844140 · 7/10 · 3 July 2021]

It is always risky to shoot a remake of the film which started the genre (well, it wasn't the first film about zombies, but the first which resembles recent ones), and Zack Snyder succeeded in it. Why is it risky and hard? Because the film which starts the genre always sets some rules which all the films of this genre follow. In this film we see absolutely the same as in other zombie movies, whether they are new or old ones: people try to save themselves from zombies, conflict and get bitten. Very frequent trick is also showing that people are bigger monsters than zombies, which is also present in this movie. By the way, because of some bad security guys which appear in the beginning of the movie, I first thought this will be a cliche zombie movie. And though sometimes it is, it has numerous strong sides. Actors are pretty good and their characters are diverse. Here we have strong woman nurse character, a couple of freak guards, one of which saves everyone in the end, young couple of teens who want to be inseparable, interesting sniper Andy, responsible policeman, weird man who ties his pregnant zombie wife to give birth to a zombie child and rich selfish guy Steve. This different characters are quite well represented and you understand every one of them, though there is a lot of characters and film is not that long. This is due to a decent script for a zombie horror. My favorite characters are Sarah Polley's and Ving Rhames' ones. The plot is quite gripping in the end, and basically film gets more and more interesting each 20 minutes. Beginning is a typical zombie horror opening, but in the end due to good character development and some interesting moments it gets much better. Directing of Snyder is decent enough in this film as well. Thanks for the R rating which made film more realistic.

Summing up I can say that though it's not a masterpiece for me, it surely is one of the best zombie movies of 00's and you can spend a good evening watching it. If you like zombie movies you can appreciate it much more than I do.

At last, someone's got it right...

[Senor-Spielbergo · 10/10 · 29 March 2004]

If you haven't guessed already, I can't sing the praises of this movie enough - at last, a zombie flick that is two very important things.

1) Not a B-Movie; 2) An absolutely cracking A-Movie.

Having just got back from the cinema still amazed with the quality of this film I don't know where to begin. The good acting, the spot on cast, the refreshingly unbearable scares, the "Paul Verhovenesque" completely unnecessary but compellingly disgusting gore, the almost uniquely un-Hollywood ending... It's all there.

What is even more amazing about this movie is that it's [re]creators have also managed to tap into what will surely be the unanimous expectations of the target audience. There are no unwanted and unnecessary messages of family values, cheese, cuddles, and love will conquer all, which is fabulous because it leaves far more room for classic lines like, "Tell him to shoot Burt Reynolds" and then the ketchup-tastic head shot that follows. Now you have to admit, that line really can't fit perfectly in to many movies but in the ever consistent mood of Dawn of the Dead, it's right at home.

Ving Rhames is easily the second best thing in the movie (second only to the fast moving, constantly hungry and occasionally limbless zombies) once he actually starts speaking, and it is welcoming that Sarah Polley's Ana is as composed as she is subtle which is great for the audience because for a change the lead female character is not screaming every 30 seconds because, oh my god, someone is trying to bite me whilst drooling oodles of blood and saliva all over my nice white t-shirt. again!

Her character is only clichéd and therefore flawed once throughout the campaign. As the genius of the group, she is the first to work out that when people are bitten they become very ugly, very quickly and develop a penchant for biting others. However she is still inexplicably opposed to killing the aforementioned soon-to-be cannibals. I don't know about you but whilst she was still talking through the morale dilemma of killing would-be zombies before they turned, I'd already be choosing which sponge I was going to use to clean my shoes after removing my trusty shot gun from a red blob that used to be somebody's face. Maybe that's just me though. us Sagittarians are very impulsive.

Since we all have limited attention spans and I'm mindful of not giving too much away about what happens in the move, I'll wrap up by saying that those of you out there who enjoyed this film's original version and have gone on to enjoy films like Starship Troopers, Robocop, Resident Evil etc., then this is definitely the film for you. And even if the above are not representatives of your particular favourite genre, consider this. I went to the cinema with four friends tonight, one of whom stated before paying his money for the ticket, `I don't know why I'm bothering, I hate [rubbish] like this'. He was the one laughing the loudest and coming closest to vomiting throughout the film, and all of us came out saying, `how many Oscars has this been nominated for'..? Sarcastically - yes, but if it was nominated, it'd get my vote. The only thing that could have made it better was Steven Segal instead of Burt Reynolds but you can't have everything.

In my opinion not as good as the '78 original, nowhere near.

[poolandrews · 6/10 · 29 January 2007]

Dawn of the Dead starts just like any other ordinary day for nurse Ana (Sarah Polley) as she goes home after another long shift, she & her husband Luis (Justin Louis) go to bed & have a good nights sleep. The next morning Luis is woken by Vivian (Hannah Lochner), their next door neighbours young girl, who proceeds to bite Luis on the neck. Ana manages to push Vivian out of the room & locks the door, Luis dies in front of her but suddenly comes back to life & attacks Ana in the same frenzied way Vivian attacked him. Ana climbs out of the bathroom window & sees complete pandemonium outside as the dead are returning to life & attacking the living, Ana gets into her car & speeds off but ends up crashing. She is found by a cop named Kenneth (Ving Rhames) who in turn find a guy named Michael (Jake Weber) along with Andre (Mekhi Phifer) & his pregnant wife Luda (Inna Korobkina) who all decide to head to the local shopping mall to find safety. They break in & watch in horror as the streets outside become overrun by flesh eating zombies while the TV news broadcasts offer little hope, if any...

Directed by first timer Zack Snyder Dawn of the Dead was apparently described as a 'reimagining' of George A. Romero's utterly brilliant Dawn of the Dead (1978) which itself was a sequel to his groundbreaking Night of the Living Dead (1968) which already has already been remade so I guess Dawn of the Dead was next in line & I personally think the result is less than inspiring. There are two versions available, the theatrical cut & a longer director's cut, unfortunately I watched the shorter theatrical version because that's the one they showed on TV even though I have the director's cut on DVD but just hadn't got round to watching it before it aired on TV, I wish I had because I don't really feel like watching it again despite the promise of some extra gore but I suppose that's irrelevant... The script by James Gunn is actually quite different from the original except the title & the fact that some of it is set in a shopping mall, I think that almost everything that made the '78 original so brilliant is lost or diluted here. The start of the film is completely different & in my opinion the best part of this 'reimagining' as it's rather effective & well built up, once the film gets to the mall not that much actually happens to be honest as straight away it's empty with only two zombies inside, there's no running around shooting zombies, there's no hiding out, there's no locking or blocking the doors off, there's no raid by the bikers & it all seems rather stale, static & predictable. Then there's the character's, there's just too many of them & there's no real connection between them unlike the original which had a tight group of four close friends this time around they are a bunch of unlikeable underdeveloped clichés like the self serving yuppie, the 'strong' female, the big cop, the middle class hero & the antagonistic redneck. I was also disappointed with the lack of social satire, unlike Romero's original which had meaning this is a shallow film where the mall is used as a place to hide & nothing more. When Dawn of the Dead '04 does do something different like the zombie baby or the fact the zombies actually run it goes nowhere & they seem like afterthoughts just for the hell of it. Having said that Dawn of the Dead '04 is far from a bad film, it moves along at nice pace, it has some decent if unspectacular set-pieces & action scenes, I must admit I really liked the ending with the video taped footage during the closing credits, it's very sleek & it certainly passes 100 odd minutes entertainingly enough but it had an almost impossible task to better the original which it most definitely doesn't in any way.

Director Snyder does OK & there's plenty of homages to the original including cameo's from Ken Foree, Scott Reiniger & the ever watchable Tom Savini along with the BP trucks from the original turning up as does the WGON traffic helicopter also from the original. Gore wise I thought Dawn of the Dead '04 was very disappointing, there's no big gore scenes unlike the original, there's nothing in here to rival the screwdriver in the ear or the zombie having the top of his head sliced off by helicopter blades or zombies having machetes shoved into their faces or the gruesome cannibalistic scenes at the end. All this new version has to offer are better looking zombies, some gunshot wounds to the head, a spike through a zombies head, a poker through a zombies eye & after that I'm actually struggling, there's nothing here that memorable that will have people talking unlike Dawn of the Dead '78.

With a supposed budget of about $28,000,000 Dawn of the Dead '04 obviously is better made than the original with that big budget Hollywood polish about it, it's well made & has good special effects. Apparently the budget for Dawn of the Dead '04 was 'significantly slashed' by Universal after the critical & commercial failure of House of the Dead (2003). The acting is forgettable, I must admit I disliked most of the character's in this.

Dawn of the Dead is a perfectly watchable & entertaining horror film that is certainly worth a watch but I think it pales into insignificance when compared to Dawn of the Dead '78, it seems to have a good reputation but it just didn't for much for me. However if you like shallow story lines, poor character's & no stand out set-pieces then you too might like it. Good but not brilliant & overall pretty disappointing.

In a world of bad remakes, this wasn't bad.

[bryandeth316 · 9/10 · 19 October 2004]

I went into this movie completely excited. And I wasn't even really disappointed either. The acting was very good, and I actually loved how they didn't follow the exact storyline. They took the basics of the original Dawn of the Dead and made it more contemporary. I knew they wouldn't be filming the movie at Monroeville Mall (the mall just 15 minutes outside of Pittsburgh where they filmed the original) but it was still awesome none the less.

The script worked rather well, and the movie flowed nicely also. Granted I wasn't a huge fan of the fast moving zombies, but I suppose I can let that go because truthfully, maybe before rigor mortis sets in, you'd be able to move quickly, who knows? But I do know that I was on the edge of my seat through many parts of the movie, and you start to really care about the characters in the movie. I am anxiously waiting for 1 week to pass so that I can get my copy of Dawn. I already have it pre purchased.

8/10 rating.

The movie missed a perfect 10 for the simple fact that zombies SHOULD NOT run that fast.

pretty good though not up to the original

[Buddy-51 · 7/10 · 12 March 2005]

"Dawn of the Dead" is a remake of the George Romero film from 1978, which was itself a sequel to his 1968 classic, "Night of the Living Dead." This new version, written by James Gunn and directed by Zack Snyder, follows the original storyline fairly closely, centering on a group of people who are holed up in a local shopping mall while flesh-eating zombies wreak havoc on the world outside.

The original, in addition to being a horror film, was also a playful little satire on the consumerism in modern society. This version shucks this dimension entirely in favor of a straight-ahead horror approach. It may seem impossible for someone to actually "dumb down" a horror film, but Gunn and Snyder have managed to do that here. For this reason, the most famous and imaginative images from the first film - that of the undead wandering through the mall, vacantly interacting with the clothing and other paraphernalia contained therein, just as they did in their previous lives - are nowhere to be found in this edition. The other major difference between this and the original is that the zombies themselves are no longer restricted to a lumbering pace but can actually outrun the people they are pursuing. Although, theoretically, this should increase their terror potential, it actually winds up diminishing it somewhat because it robs them of that otherworldly creepiness that made them so scary in the earlier movie.

Nevertheless, this remake turns out to be a fairly effective cannibal zombie movie even if it doesn't rise to the level of the original. There's a nice apocalyptic feel to much of the earlier portions of the film, and the screenplay allows for a reasonable bit of character development within the rather limited framework of the genre. There's even a very subtle homage to the great "Carnival of Souls," the far more gentle precursor to all these over-the-top zombie pictures, when a character describes himself as a church organist who sees his "calling" as "just a job." Although the film isn't really all that scary, "Dawn of the Dead" provides just enough tension and chills to make it worth seeing for any true horror film aficionado.

Get the unrated director's cut!!!

[jguz58 · 9/10 · 22 November 2004]

I reviewed this film back in March 2004, and said, "Wow! I just got home from seeing dotd-2004 and can't wait to add it to my collection." Well, I just added it - the Unrated Director's Cut in widescreen edition. After watching it this weekend, I just had to add a footnote about this version of the film.

IT MAKES A GREAT FILM EVEN BETTER.

Comments from other reviewers have sometimes made reference to a lack of character development in the film. The UDC version restores this kind of content, and is one way that the UDC version improves on the theatrical release. I see better character development in this version of dotd-2004 then in the (1978) original version of Dawn.

The other improvement the UDC version makes is to restore some really excellent gore shots. If you're into that thing, of course. And if you're not - well of course you're into it - that's why you're checking out this film!

Awful! Did ANYONE actually watch this?

[sxyboy169 · 1/10 · 20 March 2004]

I have to say up front that I am a huge fan of the horror movies. They have been and always will be my favorite form of movies. Unfortunately, This was a comedy and not a horror. SPOILERS: Let me remind you of a few jokes about this film before you can say that it was at all good. 1) Why were some people that were bitten turned into zombies after 5 minutes yet others after a couple days? 2) Why is it that when they went into the garage to turn on the breakers they were chased by zombies that could get in, but while working on their tanks....I mean buses there was not a zombie in sight? 3)When leaving the mall wasnt it at all kinda funny that they are surrounded by atleast 2000 zombies, then they throw a propane tank that lands 5 feet away from the bus that explodes into a thermo nuclear bomb that kills all the zombies within a 100 yards but the bus is left unscathed? 4) Did I mention that they turned 2 buses into tanks in a matter of a day or 2? 5) How and why did the girl go to the gun shop across the street when she saw her dog was fine? Also how did she manage to get downstairs and into the truck in a matter of 30 secs? By the way, werent they saying getting to the truck would be impossible yet a 14 year old did it. hmmm. These are just a handful of jokes that i found amusing while watching this film. I think overall the film was terrible, plot was a joke, and if I had a chance to watch this or zombie lake it would be a real tough toss up. 1 out of 10 stars and thats just cause a few of the original characters were featured in the film.

A great pace covers the weaknesses in plotting

[bob the moo · 10 April 2004]

Returning from a busy day in the hospital, Ana spends time with her husband when a neighbours daughter comes into the house and attacks her husband. He dies before returning to life and attacking Ana. She runs and escapes in her car, driving through a neighbourhood rife with violence and fires. After crashing her car, she hooks up with a group of armed survivors who take refuge in a mall. The group settle in and fortify their position as an army of the undead gather outside.

Before I start my review, let me just say that this will be biased as I am always easily won over by zombie movies. The fact that they just keep coming (fast or slow), lack character and only want to kill really just freaks me out. So I tend to get easily scared by the genre (even if `enjoy' is perhaps not the right word) and be easily more negligent towards their faults. Despite telling myself that I wouldn't bother with this film as it would scare me, I went for it anyway in a fit of `confront your fears' type of stupidity! The film starts with a creepy opening and pretty much manages to keep the pace up for the whole film. It, like the zombies, moves fast and brutally throughout and is very, very tense.

Others have complained about the lack of gore - however I found the graphic exploding heads to do that more than enough for my tastes! Better than gore is the atmosphere. The use of news footage is not original but it succeeds (along with the aerial view of the town) in creating the impression of a world turning to sh*t. I don't know about you but this scares me and the film did it well. The speed of the zombie attacks makes for a thrilling ride and it did make me very tense - Snyder managed to make the whole film a threat (especially for a first time director) and I honestly have a very stiff neck a day after seeing this simply because my body was tensed up for the whole film!

The pace of the film also serves to cover the real problems in content and plot. Unlike the original there is no satirical swipe on consumerism - the fact that the zombies are just wandering aimlessly around the mall like they used to in life is pretty much ignored here - but times are very different now I guess. The plot itself also has quite a few stupid moments where the characters act in a way you know they wouldn't in real life. For example people go on suicide missions for little real reasons and you can tell that the script is just doing it to create more action. However, when you are into it, these things don't really seem to matter. The film may be a little silly when you think about it but it does have a good ending - downbeat and realistic (or at least as realistic as it can be!) and left me with no hope of a happy ending - in this regard it is everything that `28 Days Later..' is not.

The cast is good even if the script places their characters secondary to the action. Polley is used to slightly more substantial roles but still does well here. Rhames is lumbered with a religious background that is never explained, but he is a great presence throughout. Weber is the standout role however. His character is a slightly less cartoon version of Evil Dead's Ash. He is the unwilling hero but yet he seems to accept all the obstacles he comes across. He also manages to be one of the group that the audience cares about - most of them are fodder and we know it! Phifer is a good actor but seemed too `gangster' to really be driven to this degree by his family. The rest of the support cast are mostly just there to get eaten but they do OK.

Overall this is not a great film - but it is an effective one. As a film it lacks subtext, comment and plot logic. However as a thriller it is fast paced, gripping and tense with a satisfyingly bleak conclusion. Snyder does a good job as a first timer and creates an atmosphere that is gripping even if it lacks originality. Like I said, I don't deal with zombie movies very well and am easily scared but I reckon that this should satisfy many a Saturday night thrill-seeking crowd even if it does nothing for your brain apart from it's risk getting eaten.

Once again the bloody Zombies in a good remake to George Romero film

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 23 February 2005]

The movie concerns the living dead in a city where a lethal virus infiltrates into human body , creating the zombies after biting themselves . After her family turned into Zombies , the protagonist (Sarah Polley) escapes and she meets a hunk deputy man (Ving Rhames) , a marriage (formed by Mekhi Phifer and his pregnant wife) , a security guard (Michael Kelly) and others . They will find shelter at a mall . They'll have to confront lots of Zombies starving of human meat. When the undead rise, civilization will fall. When there's no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth. 36 billion people have died since the reign of humanity. For the new Dawn, there's a reunion...How do you kill what's already dead?

¨Dawn of the dead¨ is an outstanding horror movie , it is realized in fast-moving and is neither boring , nor tiring , but entertaining and creepy . From start to finish the grisly action-packed is continued . The picture blends horror, suspense , tension , violence and great loads of blood and gore . The motion picture takes part of ¨Dawn of the dead¨ (the screenwriter is George A. Romero) and ¨Resident evil : Apocalypse¨ , too . This version is technically better than the original , because being more spectacular and thrilling . Special effects , FX , are first-rate , they have been realized by means of computer generator and the eerie Zombies transformed into flesh eating are made by means of a top-notch make-up .

The film obtained success at the boxoffice and was a real blockbuster in spite of the crude theme . The film is rated + 18 years for the scary murders and violence and isn't apt for boys , neither squeamish. The yarn will appeal to terror and gore enthusiasts . Rating : Good, above average.

As good as the original, with exciting new directions and room for a sequel!

[BrandtSponseller · 10/10 · 18 February 2005]

Shortly after a number of strange cases begin to appear at the hospital where Ana (Sarah Polley) works, a bizarre zombie "epidemic" hits the Milwaukee, Wisconsin area full force. Sarah escapes her immediate threats and meets a number of other humans who decide to seek shelter inside a large shopping mall. As they learn that the zombie outbreak is much more widespread than anyone could have imagined, their chances of survival grow increasingly dim.

I know an awful lot of genre fans rail against remakes, but like the update of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003), this version of Dawn of the Dead is so good that we should instead be clamoring for more.

Writer James Gunn and director Zack Snyder knew that they had to come into the remake with both barrels blasting. Hardly five minutes into the film we're already into hardcore, high tension, gore-filled horror material. In lesser films, our introduction to full-fledged zombie activity would have been dream material as a kind of teaser. Gunn and Snyder dispense with such weak-willed tactics and immediately launch into Armageddon. We quickly move to a wide shot of explosions, brutal car crashes and other mayhem.

We do finally get a breather while we're learning our cast of characters at the mall in nicely written scenes that bring out personality and depth to the relatively large cast, but horror fanatics need not fret that the film will evolve into a drama--tension and gore are never far removed from the film.

Gunn and Snyder earn credit for both paying homage to their source material and taking off into other interesting directions. This remake is just as intense and titillating as Romeo's original, but with a different spin.

The cast is excellent, the cinematography and editing exciting and innovative, and the makeup and "creature" effects are top notch.

Even though I've seen greater quantities, the DVD for Dawn of the Dead also has some of the best extras I've seen on a disc in terms of quality. You get two excellent short films that effectively extend the feature. In one, a new character from the remake, Andy (Bruce Bohne), who runs a gun shop across the street from the mall, gives us a 15-minute video diary of his last 15 days. It's similar in some ways to the feel of The Blair Witch Project (1999), but for my money, it's much better than that film. In the other, we get a 30-minute condensation of the news broadcasts following the outbreak of the zombie "epidemic". This also easily beats any mock horror documentary (such as The Last Broadcast (1998)) with its hands tied behind its back. Make sure you at least rent the DVD to check out these extras.

Good movie that is worth the watch

[Midget_1414 · 7/10 · 30 August 2021]

Honestly it isn't bad for a remake the movie is more about action then horror but it's worth a watch and this movie started my thrill for zombie movies.

Best Zombie Flick Ever!

[elhombremagnifico · 10/10 · 12 December 2008]

I have to admit, the Zombie genre isn't my favourite, but Dawn of the Dead (2004) is a brilliant film for so many different reasons. In my view, it's the best zombie movie ever made.

The actors are likable, which makes you empathetic to their cause. You want them to succeed, you feel sorrow when things go bad. My main complaint with so many other zombie movies is I couldn't care less about the actors. Also, in Dawn of the Dead, the quality of acting is good, much better than most other films of it's type.

The film has plenty of action, but it doesn't detract from being a horror film. There's plenty of gore and quite frankly, the zombies scare the bejesus out of me (and I don't scare easily). I think one think I particularly like about this film is that the zombies are really nasty, fast, aggressive, in-your-face intimidating monsters who would really scare you in real life. I've just never been that keen with slow moving, sinister, but gormless, zombies. The zombies in Dawn of the Dead are truly terrifying.

The pace of the film is excellent too. It moves quickly from scene to scene but at a good pace and covers many different things which keeps the film as a whole interesting.

I really can't recommend this film enough. I really love it, and that's coming from a guy who's never been really in to zombie movies.

10/10.

Fast moving zombies in simple story

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 9 March 2014]

Ana (Sarah Polley) is a nurse in Milwaukee who just finished her shift. She's sleeping with her husband and is woken up by a rabid neighbor girl. She goes on the run for her life. After crashing her car, she's joined by cop Kenneth (Ving Rhames), criminal Andre (Mekhi Phifer) and his pregnant girlfriend, and TV salesman Michael (Jake Weber). They are cut off and decide to hold up in the mall. They find other survivors and are surrounded by zombies.

Director Zack Snyder takes the George A. Romero classic icon with James Gunn script, and he injects it with the fast running zombie like '28 Days Later'. It doesn't try to explain away the zombies. It just gets the action started after a short introduction. It's an exciting action start that showcases Snyder's skills. I especially like the zombies really running hard. The story isn't anything original, but it has the sense of suburban reality. The mall looks real although a few brand name stores would help. I like the character work and I like the simplicity of the story. It knows its simplicity and works within its limits.

A Non-Stop Thrill Ride With Pitch-Black Humor, A Great Cast And Excellent Makeup Effects

[gogoschka-1 · 8/10 · 11 May 2020]

I'm a Romero nut (for those among you who don't know the name George A. Romero: that was the genius writer/director who single-handedly created the modern zombie film and who also wrote and directed the original 'Dawn of the Dead' in '78), so you may believe me when I say I wasn't impressed when I heard there would be a remake of the zombie maestro's famed horror classic. Truth be told, I was absolutely determined to hate this new film when it came out - but boy, was I in for a pleasant surprise!

As it turned out, Zack Snyder's remake isn't just a re-hash of Romero's film but offers a very different take on the material and deserves to be recognized based on its own merits as one of the most entertaining entries in the particular horror sub-genre that is the zombie film. The James Gunn script is hilariously funny throughout - in a pitch black kind of way - and there is simply not a dull moment in it.

Furthermore, the cast consists of great character actors who are totally game (Sarah Polley, Ving Rhames, Michael Kelly and Ty Burrell among others); the gore effects are insane and the zombie makeup is the best pre-'Walking Dead' in any zombie movie by far. I'm inclined to believe that had this film been made by a less divisive director than Snyder, it would have since gone on to be regarded a B-movie horror classic for the ages.

It's true that the scathing social commentary which elevated the original "Dead Trilogy" above simple gore-fests is largely absent from the remake, but I don't see this as a flaw in the new film. The political subtext in Romero's films was effective in part because it was so subversive at the time; a remake repeating those same beats more than two decades later simply wouldn't have the same impact (which Romero himself actually went on to prove with his far from bad but oddly dated "New Dead trilogy" consisting of 'Land of the Dead' (2005), 'Diary of the Dead' (2007) and 'Survival of the Dead' (2009) ).

What 'Dawn of the Dead (2004) does brilliantly instead is focus on the characters. Every single player in the remake is fun to watch; even the supporting characters are colorful and more than "one-note" and have their own arcs. I would also like to point out that while Gunn's script is lighter on social commentary than Romero's, it's far from dumb, and the story beats are interesting and unpredictable enough to keep you invested throughout.

To sum it all up: While I love Romero's film for its clever subtext and critique of consumerism, its impact on the horror genre and its entertainment value, I love Snyder's version for the pitch black humor, the great cast as well as the pure spectacle and non-stop thrill-ride it provides. As far as action-horror films go, it actually doesn't get much better than this: Dawn Of The Dead '04 is simply an A+ genre flick that deserves to get more recognition.

About this review: tastes in film obviously vary greatly, so if you want to get a better reference if mine generally aligns somewhat with yours, I created a list of my 50 favorite films on my imdb page which should leave you in no doubt about what kind of stuff I'm into (just click on my name if you're interested).

Less Satire, More Action Than The Original

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 17 October 2006]

A nurse, a policeman, a young married couple, a salesman, and other survivors of a worldwide plague that is producing aggressive, flesh-eating zombies, take refuge in a mega Milwaukee shopping mall.

Production company Strike Entertainment (who had connections to distributor Universal) pulled out all the stops for this film. Being a fan of the original George A. Romero film, as we all are, I initially had my doubts about this one. As it turns out, however, by avoiding much of the original story, writer James Gunn helps the film avoid many of the comparisons it would have been subjected to. This is, for all practical purposes, a film of its own. And between my first viewing in 2004 and more recently in 2017, it has only grown in stature.

Gunn's style of work with Troma ("Tromeo and Juliet") and his later work with "Slither" and "Guardians of the Galaxy" does not seem to arise much in this film. The humor is more subdued, but I will give him full credit for the Jay Leno / Burt Reynolds target practice scene. Excellent work. To be fair, Gunn actually left the project early to concentrate on "Scooby-Doo 2", Michael Tolkin ("The Rapture") and Scott Frank ("Minority Report") were brought in for rewriting; Tolkin further developed the characters, while Frank provided some of the bigger and upbeat action sequences. Interestingly, Gunn's "Slither" was the next project from producers Strike Entertainment.

Zack Snyder makes his feature film directorial debut, though he had made music videos for Morrissey and Soul Asylum throughout the 1990s, so he was not a complete novice by any means. Interesting, Snyder was born in Green Bay, which may explain why the film is set in Milwaukee. Assisting him is cinematographer Matthew Leonetti, who started out on "The Bat People" (1974) but went on to great things with "Poltergeist", "Fast Times at Ridgemont High", "Weird Science" and many others.

All of the acting in this is great, especially Sarah Polley and Ving Rhames, so there is no need to even get into that. Polley was Snyder's first choice, actually, which was wise on his part. Nobody stood out as the best, nobody fell short... by horror movies standards everything was kosher. The scenery was also great (it is a mall, it looked like a mall, job done). The zombies? Fantastic! So much better than the original in terms of getting the gore and missing limbs down to a science. Blood today is so much better than it used to be. What you may not know is that the special effects were done by Heather Langenkamp, better known to horror fans as Nancy from the "Nightmare on Elm Street" franchise!

There was some dispute between the producers and Snyder about putting Johnny Cash or Richard Cheese on the soundtrack, with Snyder ultimately prevailing. And I say unto thee, you could not have picked two better artists for the soundtrack. The Cash song ("The Man Comes Around") set the necessary mood while the opening credits create the back story, and the Cheese song ("The Sickness") kept the mood lighter when it needed to be (horror films really should not take themselves too seriously). Adding the original "Sickness" (by Disturbed) was a nice touch. In fact, the soundtrack as a whole really catapulted this film from good to great -- so we have to thank Snyder for that.

I really enjoyed the news footage placed in the movie at the beginning and at later times, especially with Tom Savini ("we have a twitcher") and Ken Foree (the televangelist). It really gave the movie a more "real-life" feel and was a good throwback to "Night of the Living Dead" with the radio reports, not to mention giving these "Living Dead" icons cameos.

If you are holding back from watching this because you love the original, give it up. This film deserves a solid chance. If it helps, just ignore the fact the title is "Dawn of the Dead" -- this film rips off the original film much less than other films try to do. At least here, proper credit is given, but it really is a breed of its own.

The 2017 Scream! Factory Blu-ray is phenomenal and the only home video version worth owning. Take your old DVDs and sell them. Scream! provides a two-disc set f both the theatrical version and the unrated one, both with new 2K scans. The features are packed in -- featurettes, storyboards, audio commentary, deleted scenes. New to this release is behind-the-scenes footage and interviews with several people, including horror royalty Heather Langenkamp and living legend James Gunn.

Under appreciated, like most of Snyder's work

[RJBrez · 8/10 · 2 December 2020]

I gave Dawn of the Dead a rewatch recently for a few reasons.

1) 2020 blows and I can't handle anymore bad news or negativity so I watch a bunch of movies to avoid the news.

2) it's been years since I watched it 3) I'll say it proudly, I'm a Snyder fan. I think he's a brilliant director.

So I decided to buy this movie because it was cheap on Black Friday. A few things really stood out to me during the rewatch. It starts out with a bang to hook you in, and then gives you some unexpected character development in a unique setting. The cast doesn't really have a "star" but it's a solid and diverse crew. It was also really weird to see Phil Dunphy (TY Burrell) from Modern Family playing a cocky jerk, but he played it well. On top of all that, the zombies in this movie are awesome.

I also found it cool that James Gunn wrote the screenplay.

Also, good news for zombie fans, Snyder has another zombie flick coming out in 2021 on Netflix, called Army Of The Dead. Most people believe this is not a sequel to Dawn of the Dead and probably just a stand alone story. Dave Bautista and Omari Hardwick will star in it.

Thanks for reading.

A post-modernist's take on Romero's masterpiece- a good film, for what it's worth...

[Quinoa1984 · 7/10 · 25 March 2004]

(SPOILER WARNING)

I won't be a complete close-minded critic of the remake of the new Dawn of the Dead remake, but I do have to be critical about it, not just for my own piece of mind, but because I think the original happens to have a crucial place in horror, and indeed all of cinema, history. When Romero created his film it was definitely original, or at least an original riff on what he had started a decade before. It had laughs, but it didn't over-do it in cheesy-ness, and there was a constant sense of doom and satire when dealing with the apocalyptic climate of his slow-moving, blue-ish & pale zombies roaming the country-sides.

Now we have Zack Snyder, working from a script by James Gunn, who has decided to take on Romero's view of society and sense of horror for 2004. As I left the theater I felt similar, coincidentally, to how I felt after I first watched Tom Savini's remake of 'Night' years ago - yes, the make-up and special effects are improved, yes there are some effective scares here and there, and yes, every once in a while there's a laugh at a zombie's expense. But, and here's a question for horror fans, why should it have been titled Dawn of the Dead? Yeah, it takes the concept of the survivors in the mall, and it has some bits of dialog lifted from Romero's script. However, there I would say draws the line for the similarities. In a way, I felt like the filmmakers could've just ripped Romero's material off, given the film a different title, and I wouldn't of thought and felt the story and attack sequences were not entirely improvements on the original but, well, mutations.

Because, as a zombie film in and of itself, set aside from the reality that it is a remake (this is for all you who didn't see the original yet and are thinking of seeing this one first), it's not a poorly made or deplorable work. The acting is also dependable, especially by the likes of a strong lead in Rhames, an interesting female lead in Polley, a chilling supporting role in Phiefer, and plenty of well-balanced work turned in by character actors like Weber and Burrell. As I said, the make-up is impressive (er, for it's Hollywood budget), and there's one scene involving a pregnant woman that did have me glued to my seat.

But then there came the problems I had with the film, and it wasn't just that not enough time and patience was given to develop the characters more appropriately or give the story a certain juicy-ness Romero had pouring out of him. Now, I don't think running zombies are a cause for total uproar - I thought it was highly effective in 28 Days Later, as prime example - yet I may not be the only one who thinks that there's something just slightly eerie and exact to how the living-dead moved in Romero's films as opposed to Snyder's. There are the explanations I've heard from various zombie fanatics (many on this site) to explain it, but it's almost irrelevant to explain it for a genre such as this. The living-dead exist entirely in the 'movie world', and since this film doesn't even bother to explain how the virus got started (the original didn't explain it either, but it didn't have to as it was a sequel to a film that did explain it in its sci-fi quality), saying one is more shocking than the other doesn't give much justice to how people will react person to person. As for the other flaws, I thought the dog element was a little under-cooked (is dog too good for their tastes, huh?), a number of times the dialog felt forced, and also the very end left a bad taste in my mouth. I won't say much about it, but the last scenes in this film remind me what separates such a remake from an original horror film from the 1970's - a minor lack of respect for audience intelligence and expectations.

Maybe I've been sounding biased in parts of my review, that I should recognize that it's a revision, and it should be respected. I do respect it, and it wasn't a disappointment. As I left the theater though, I realized something that also came to me after I left the Texas Chain Saw Massacre remake (which was a huge mess any way to look at it), and also after seeing the remake of Cape Fear recently (a film of which I haven't seen the original yet, which I fear I may not like as much, though time will tell). Some movies may be seen when we are young, and they may leave such an impression, especially after multiple viewings, that the first notion of a remake sounds ridiculous. It's not to say that when a director has an idea of how they personally want to improve on a classic it's not warranted. But, with some films, it's often very challenging to be equalized let alone top them. A number of films may improve on originals, giving the original director a taste of what new blood has to offer for the genre. In dealing with Dawn of the Dead, I won't be a movie-snob and say that a remake should not have been attempted let alone executed. It's not a failure - it's just not anything I'll pay to see again unless it's on cable. Note of interest to fans, they're (for gag value I suppose) cameos with original stars like Ken Foree and Tom Savini, though for not much other purpose than to remind viewers it's a remake. Oh well - (strong) B

Yawnfest cannot compare to original

[poehlmann · 1/10 · 10 April 2004]

I saw this movie after - and only after - I had been assured that it compared favorably to the original. I'll never be able to trust those people again. This is another "horror" film that isn't scary, isn't original in any way, and doesn't have any particular redeeming value whatsoever. It's shot like a typical commercial or music video director would shoot, and the story suffers in the same way - there is no real character development and no dramatic development to sustain a feature length. What we do have here is essentially the video game version of the original. Retained are the shoot-em-up scenes of zombie butchery, but gone are the elements of humor and humanity that made the original so original in the first place. The only attempts at humanizing the film are so utterly misplaced as to be absurd or laughable. It's a one note movie and that note is one that really ought to leave it's audience feeling disgusted at the end - not because of the gore, but because of the utter waste of time we have been subjected to.

OK remake if you're in the mood for a brainless action picture -- but little else.

[MovieAddict2016 · 5 September 2004]

The 2004 Dawn of the Dead is sort of a poor man's version of the 1978 original by George A. Romero, which isn't to say it doesn't deliver the goods in terms of gore, but it has little going on upstairs. It's the equivalent of choosing Paycheck over Total Recall – both films are based on short stories by late sci-fi author Philip K. Dick, but only the latter of the two movies actually amounted to anything memorable and thought-provoking.

Then again, I'm in a minority when it comes to the first Dawn – although I liked it enough to purchase the DVD, I didn't love it, and felt a lot of it was silly and not very funny at all. Many critics call it an attack on consumer America (zombies flocking to the mall = us), and while I admire the message and the obvious passion behind Romero's project, I've always admired Night of the Living Dead (1968) – the first installment in the original 'Dead Trilogy' – the best, and think its allegories about racism are even more subtle than the consumer attack in Dead (which is about as blunt as being hit over the head with a hammer).

The remake of Dead boasts a better cast but a lot of the dialogue is just as stiff as its predecessor. Also, it often stoops down to the level of sheer stupidity – for instance, when one of the film's characters, stuck in a mall surrounded by zombies, decides to make a mad dash across a street (flooded with the undead) in order to rescue a trapped…dog? This makes those 'Don't go in the basement!' moments in other horror films look like brilliant ideas.

The zombies in this re-imagining of Romero's tale are faster than the slow-walking numbskulls in the original, which begs the question: If they can run as fast as a car, how come they can't manage to outrun humans carrying heavy weapons, and can't manage to figure out how to break into a mall, when all the humans did was throw a toilet seat through a window? And how come, if they're so strong, the scrawny female heroine can manage to fend one off and shoot it on the head? And yet Ving Rhames can't manage to win a fist-fight with one? Please.

IBrains are not required for this film. At all. For that reason it is a solid 'mindless action blockbuster' – but don't expect anything substantial. You could have the IQ of a zombie and still enjoy this.

Yes, I was entertained by this movie, and that's why I recommend it as a well-made action flick, but I don't feel the need to see it again anytime soon, whereas the inferiority of this version has just made me appreciate the Romero version even more.