Meadhall of the Comitatus

Overall Rating:
Dawn of the Dead (1978) – 4/5
Dawn of the Dead (2004) – 2.5/5

Having had the good fortune to stumble on both versions of this movie fairly recently and fairly cheaply, I figured there’s no better excuse than impending Halloween to take a look at both of ‘em side by side and see how they match up. All in all, George Romero’s ’78 Dawn beats the pants off the MTV-generation version directed by Zack Snyder. Does this come as a big surprise? Not really. I’m not saying that the ’04 version of the movie doesn’t have it’s moments, but it’s, by and large, fairly generic. If you want something recent that’s a lot closer in spirit to Romero’s Dawn of the Dead—albeit more overtly comical—you’d best check out this here British flick instead, because there’s little to relate these two Dawns outside of the zombies and the shopping mall.

Even zombies need some lovin' sometime.

Premise:
Dawn of the Dead (1978) – 4/5
Dawn of the Dead (2004) – 3/5

The premise of both movies is fairly simple—it’s basically the end of the world, and gut-munching zombies ruin everyone’s day. A small band of survivors takes up residence in a nearby mall and pray that things will blow over, while they just try to ride it out. They find a little bit of peace there, but nothing lasts forever (well, except zombies, I suppose) and soon the shit starts hitting the fan and safety flies away.

So why does Romero’s version of that story score higher than Snyder’s? Simply put: character. As I said above, Snyder’s version is fairly generic. I think there’s too many characters for you to see 90% of them as anything other than expendable meat. Naturally, that gives you a bigger body count at the end, but it lacks any extra punch that Romero’s four character piece gives you. You get to know Romero’s folks better, and that makes it more nerve-wracking when bad things start happening to them. The other thing that Romero scores big points over Snyder is in the use of the mall itself. For Snyder, the mall is basically just a set to play with, but Romero gives it a nice twist as both the last place his heros can pretend the world’s normal, and also a representative of excess materialism as a downfall of society (the climax of Romero’s film is spurred by a renegade pack of bandits busting into the mall to loot, even though it’s evident how meaningless all the money, TVs, and expensive jewelry are in the new world). When one of the characters in Romero’s movie asks why the zombies are even in the mall at all, the reply goes along the lines of “Maybe instinct, or habit—this place meant a lot to them in life,” which, when coupled with scenes of the zombies milling about and bumping into displays and things, makes both an absurdly funny and yet still bitterly sad image. That’s hard to pull off in a horror movie, and yet Romero does it with nary a hitch. Which is why his has the better premise. A similar exchange happens in Snyder’s movie, but it’s got a pithy “or maybe they’re just here for us” tacked on to the end, which takes away any kind of thoughtfulness or “hmm…” moment.

HEADSHOT! RAMPAGE! M-M-M-MONSTER KILL!

Cast:
Dawn of the Dead (1978) – 4/5
Dawn of the Dead (2004) – 2/5

Romero’s movie wins again! And of course, one of the reasons I say that is because there’s less characters to worry about in his movie. With Snyder’s, you start with one character, then two, then five, then eight, then fifteen or sixteen, and some of them don’t really have any lines or purpose in being in the movie at all other than as another warm body to tear apart. And I hated Ving Rhames’s character, Kenneth, in the 2004 movie. It’s nothing that he did wrong, but he doesn’t get to do much in the movie but stand there looking tough with a gun in his hands. It was blatantly “check out how tough this guy is” stuff, but no real depth of character past that. Compared to Ken Foree’s character of Peter in Romero’s movie, who’s both a bad-ass and has depth and soul, there’s really no competition. One guy worth mentioning in Snyder’s movie is Mekhi Phifer’s character, Andre, who has a truly interesting story of his own, what with his pregnant wife about due and his burning desire to see this child into the world so he can provide better for it than he was ever provided for. His story is the only thing that seems to even approach the depth of character Romero gave EVERYONE in his movie. Oh, and another guy worth mentioning in Snyder’s movie is Michael Kelly, who plays a security guard named CJ. CJ’s pretty much a total dick the whole time, but is strangely engaging and kind of likeable all the same. He doesn’t have much to work with, but does a good job with what he’s got.

Basically, I’d be giving Romero’s characters all serious pluses, for behaving both realistically and making you empathize with their plight. They also get big points for cleverness and building a family among the ruins. Like I said before, that makes it even worse when the badness comes down. And, speaking of Romero’s family unit, it’s neat to see Snyder give cameos to both Ken Foree and Scott Reiniger, who played the other S.W.A.T team agent Roger. Also of note is a cameo by Tom Savini, the special effects guy behind Romero’s film, who also cameo’d in the original movie.

It's a terrible day in the neighborhood.

Technical Bells & Whistles:
Dawn of the Dead (1978) – 3/5
Dawn of the Dead (2004) – 3/5

Which of these two movies you’ll like more for special effects and such depends on what you’re into. The 2004 version has the fast-moving sprinter zombies akin to 28 Days Later, more realistic blood effects, good zombie effects, and a lot of quick-cuts and jumps. It’s certainly got more polish than the 1978 film, but more polished doesn’t necessarily mean better. Romero’s Dawn of the Dead, on the other hand, has a ton of gore, way more than Snyder’s, and also has some scenes that can best be described as really sick shit. Snyder doesn’t really show you the kind of things the zombies are doing to people, but Romero will gleefully show you one of the bandit guys getting his flesh torn apart and his guts being pulled out to be gnawed on in real time. It’s fairly nasty, to say the least! Of course, the flipside to that is that the blood effects are too bright and don’t look realistic—but really, that’s not even a big problem, because it does seem to fit the vivid look of the movie more. And while Romero’s zombies themselves are seldom more than regular joes with pallid bluish makeup on their faces and maybe a wound or two, that also works in the movie’s favor, since that makes them more readily recognizable as people, albeit people who died and would like nothing more than to rip you open and feast on your entrails. Soundtracks to both movies are fairly cool, the 1978 movie’s soundtrack was done with a combination of public domain stock music and the intriguing musical group called “Goblin” that I know Dario Argento used on at least a couple of his off-kilter and bizarrely inspired movies. Snyder’s film has a good, if MTV-ified soundtrack, but the two songs that I thought did exactly what was needed to the tone of the film were the ones Snyder himself said that the company didn’t want him to use because they weren’t gonna be popular enough. One of the songs was “When the Man Comes Around” by Johnny Cash, and the other was a lounge version of Disturbed’s “Down With the Sickness.” The use of those songs and their placement in Snyder’s film put the vibe of the movie, at least in those scenes, more closely in sync with what I liked about Romero’s movie. Well, those songs do it, and an amusing scene where the people in the mall write a celebrity’s name on an eraser board so the guy camped out on the roof of the gun shop across the way can find the zombie lookalike and plug it, as a game between them. More inspired decisions like that would’ve, I think, helped the 2004 version rise above its “OMG zombie rush!” nature.

Doesn't that zombie realize he's streaking up the windows? Does he even know how long it takes to get zombie blood out? The nerve!

Popcorn Factor:
Dawn of the Dead (1978) – 4/5
Dawn of the Dead (2004) – 4/5

Another tie! Again, which you’ll like more depends on what you want out of the movie. I have to say, if it weren’t so chock full of gore and a couple of demented-bordering-on-silly scenes, the 1978 movie would be a good movie movie—outside of any genre. The characters are believably developed, it’s well-paced, and has something to say while keeping you on your toes. The 2004 movie is really good if you just want a fun horror flick to while away a couple hours with. It’s not revolutionary, doesn’t need to be, but there’s some really intense action, a very fast pace, and some stellar cinematography in places (I’m thinking in particular of the first fifteen minutes of the movie, which rocks and will probably scare some pants off somewhere). My best advice to you, if you’ve already seen the 1978 version of this movie, is to forget basically all about it—if you’re going in looking for the same experience you had with Romero’s film, you will probably be disappointed. If you’re just looking for a wild zombie horror flick, though, you could definitely do worse!