L'aube des morts

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).

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-

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.

Dawn of the Dead was absolutely one of, if not the best, zombie movie ever created. Given the fact this came out in 2004 and is at the level of quality and production is amazing. It looks like it was done just 5-10 years ago. The story was so successful because it was short yet there was so much happening, actual character development and the story ended without being dragged out too much. There was a perfect balance of acting, humor, blood and violence. I really think Zach Snyder absolutely killed this movie and it's one of his best ever. I'd recommend this to anyone who loves zombies or horror.

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.