El amanecer de los muertos

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).

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.

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!

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.

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).