Compare & Dissect - Dawn of the Dead (1978 & 2004)

 

Great Lucifer's beard, I had an idea! Yes, it hurt.

 

I have been considering doing this sort of thing for a while but had no place to really do it, so now that I do have a place, well, no excuses. With the World being saturated with classic films being remade for a quick buck I figured it would be cool to compare original and remade flicks and dissect them in a variety of ways to see why they differ, why one is better than the other and...yeah, that stuff.

 

So, the first object of my incision and blob of gore under my microscope is:

 

 

DAWN OF THE DEAD.

 

The original Dawn of the Dead was released in 1978 and the remake came 26 years later in 2004.

 

Here they are in the opposite order of release, just to fuck with yo' head.

I chose to begin this possible ongoing series of review-type-columns with this film because the original Dawn of the Dead ('78) is one of my favourite overall films of all time, and very possibly my favourite horror flick. It is the best zombie movie ever made, simply put. The remake, which is on my television as I type, is regarded by many as a remake that didn't insult the original but rather honoured it. It didn't get slated like many remakes do anyway.

 

So, let's begin the comparisons and dissections of these two very similar yet entirely different films.

 

When I first saw the original Dawn of the Dead I was about 12 or 13 years old and the film was already about seventeen years old. A late comer, you might say, to a film that alot of people had already seen, enjoyed and put back in the cupboard. I was obsessed with it though, I would take the cracked and dirty VHS tape to school with me and show it to friends and say "this is the best film you'll ever see". They'd watch it and return it to me with a look of confusion, often asking me, "what's the fuss all about?" Needless to say, I don't talk to those people anymore.

 

The fuss, well, the fuss is about the sheer fact that Dawn of the Dead, the second film in the "Romero Dead Series", boiled down to it's purest form, is fucking cool. A creeping fleshbag zombie walking towards a couple of unsuspecting humans and then getting decapitated by the blades of a helicopter before collapsing to it's rotten knees with brownish-red blood pouring down its face? Fucking cool.

 

Helicopter Zombie regrets his decision to stand on box.

Something I immediately think of when I begin to compare the two films is that the original, to me at least, has so many iconic moments that I remember without needing to freshen my memory with a rewatch. The remake though just doesn't have those iconic scenes of zombie killing, except maybe the rooftop shooting of the hordes.

 

The characters in the original movie are a mixed bag but they try to help each other and tolerate one another for the good of survival. In the remake there are alot more characters and some of them are purely idiotic heels that make you want to aim the gun at them instead of the brain munchers.

 

Zombie - "Maybe you would prefer to use that bullet on those dickwads who still have a heartbeat?"



For me, the fact that so many of the remakes' characters are unlikeable is a reason it falls behind early on. Sure, there are some cool scenes with the zombies, the gore is less bright-red and more realistic than in the original and Ving Rhames is pretty damn badass.

 

"You' damn right I am"

 





 

Now, if you can take your eyes away from that picture for a moment, the remake isn't one of the many remakes that I dont like. I like it, I guess. I mean, I thought I would hate it because it's an updated version of one of my favourite flicks, but I dont hate it, I just dont think it's anything special. I've watched it three or four times so it is rewatchable but not in the same league as Romero's horror masterwork. Also, zombies shouldn't really run. I get that it makes it scarier in the sense that you're being chased by dead people who want to eat you alive, but in biological honesty it just isn't plausable. Yeah, I'm looking for realism in zombie films, sue me.

 

I do like the updated shopping scene in the remake where the characters go on a spree around the mall and play with golf clubs, try on shoes and do the horizontal mambo, or as is actually the case, the dog-type-hump. Still, the characters are assholes and none of them look for anything to help each other. Maybe it's a metaphor for our selfish times and how everyone is out for themselves without care for their fellow man. If so, good call.

 

Another parallel in the films is that there is a character who's pregnant, except we don't see any babies born in the original which is a good thing and gives hope to the future once the film rolls it's credits. The remake decided to take a different direction and I think they made a mistake in doing so. Zombie baby? Really? Okay, if you say so. Zombie babies never work, and take this from someone who's seen plenty of zombie flicks with babies eating faces in them.

 

"I'm gonna be a daddy, I can't wait, it will make this whole apocalypse thing so much easier to deal with"

"BRAAAAIIINNNSS!"

"DAFUQ? Kill it, kill it!"

 



 

The remake is the worse film, I've made that clear as far as my personal opinion goes, but its by no means a bad film. You care about some of the characters and the gore is regular and well done. If a remake were to happen this is a good one to happen. Different to the original to the point where it could be a totally different movie if it wasn't in a mall. The original is a beautifully paced and concieved movie with moments of pure terror and some funny parts too. Not to mention the doomful moments when the characters feel hopeless.

 

I felt at times like I was watching a rock music video with the remake, something intended to draw in a new crowd no doubt. I prefer my horror to have slower pace and an atmosphere of doom that doesn't see gore so regularly. Other people like the opposite of that.

 

The original film seems more complete to me in direction, performances, make-up and special effects and score. It's a total package and a classic in cinema history. The remake, while not insulting or terrible, just won't go down in movie history as anything other than a poorer remake of a great movie.

 

My dissection and comparisons are complete, I prefer the original, an opinion I know many will share, but there are some people who have told me that the remake is much better. What do you think?

 

Thanks for reading. Until next time.

 

"Bye-bye readers. Bye-bye"