L'Armée 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).

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.

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.

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).

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.