Metascore
58

Mixed or average reviews - based on 32 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 18 out of 32
  2. Negative: 3 out of 32
Watch On
  1. 67
    Snyder’s film isn't likely to be considered a classic 20 years down the road like Romero's film is, but it's a winningly extreme episode in the ongoing adventures of Zombie and Harriet. (And stick around while the end credits roll: The film isn't over 'til it's over.)
  2. Dawn of the Dead may depict the end of the world as we know it, but rarely has watching doom proved such a kick.
  3. 75
    My only complaint is that its plot flatlines compared to the 1979 version, which was trickier, wittier and smarter. Romero was not above finding parallels between zombies and mall shoppers.
  4. Reviewed by: Chris Hewitt
    80
    A welcome surprise, containing more bona fide scares than Romero's vision, while paying grand lip service to the old master. Truly worthy of that famous title.
  5. Don't leave before the final frame -- if you're still breathing.
  6. Reviewed by: Jim Agnew
    70
    First time director Zack Snyder has done an amazing job of creating a sense of doom and dread while sprinkling it with some wicked humor and amazing music.
  7. Good zombie fun, the remake of George A. Romero's Dawn of the Dead is the best proof in ages that cannibalizing old material sometimes works fiendishly well.
  8. 75
    Faster, leaner and more compact than the original. Dumber, too, but that's almost always the case with remakes.
  9. There was no burning need for a remake, but this one is respectful of its predecessor. It incorporates the technology and acquisitiveness of the intervening quarter century since Romero's vision. It even features a metrosexual, something unheard of in 1978.
  10. Reviewed by: David Hiltbrand
    75
    This film plays out like one of those trigger-happy video games -- it's all cranial splatter. Word to the squeamish: Dawn of the Dead merits a very hard R rating. The depictions of violence are exceedingly graphic.
  11. Reviewed by: M. E. Russell
    83
    Tense, bloody, funny and smart; lacks original's conscience, but it's still a surprisingly gritty remake.
  12. Reviewed by: Aaron Hillis
    75
    An amply entertaining tale of survival terror, fully realizing the epicness of Romero's vision by infecting every wide-angled overhead shot with as many computer-generated cadavers as possible, and bridging tense moments with a laugh-aloud, plucky wit.
  13. 75
    Calling this version of Dawn of the Dead a remake is applying a misnomer. It's more of a re-imagination.
  14. It's silly, witty and good-natured, not scary so much as icky, and not horrifying or horrible but consistently amusing.
  15. Romero's satire is largely replaced by a sardonic gallows humor (the zombie-shooting contest is as funny as it is grotesque), but otherwise it's a bloody entertaining zombie apocalypse.
  16. Reviewed by: Mike Clark
    63
    Overall, this Dead is zippier than 1995's retake on "Village of the Damned" and somewhat less junky than the recent remake of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre."
  17. Yes, it's essentially a remake of a sequel, albeit a sequel that happens to be one of the greatest horror movies ever made, but it more than surpasses the original.
  18. The movie has many of the elements that made the first "Dawn" so darkly entertaining.
User Score
8.1

Universal acclaim- based on 333 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 93 out of 120
  2. Negative: 14 out of 120
  1. Jul 17, 2014
    10
    Dawn of the Dead (2004): 10 out of 10: I sympathize with the fan boys that feel any remake of Dawn of the Dead is religious sacrilegious. YouDawn of the Dead (2004): 10 out of 10: I sympathize with the fan boys that feel any remake of Dawn of the Dead is religious sacrilegious. You get an emotional attachment to films that scared you in your youth. (One on mine is Assault on Precinct 13 that was remade recently and I just know I will be disappointed with the remake. I am still scared of ice cream trucks as a result of seeing that film when I was 9)

    Remakes themselves have a well deserved bad reputation. (Easiest movie trivia question: What is the best film remake? The Maltese Falcon of course. That Humphrey Bogart perennial was a remake of a 1931 film of the same name. I'm sure back in 1941 that there were a couple of people complaining that Bogart was no Ricardo Cortez and the ruined the story by taking out the affair and homosexual subplots. The first film after all was a pre-code affair.)

    Dawn of the Dead is in reality a different movie than the original. This is no shot for shot Psycho remake nor is it the same movie with a glossier CGI coat of paint. It is a faster more intense zombie film. It is one of the best action horror films of the last ten years. The opening twenty minutes in simply one of the scariest action packed sequences I have ever seen. By the time our band of protagonists gets to the mall they are not the only one's catching their breath.

    It becomes a pretty good sized group at the mall and you end up slogging through some slow bits as the zombies eat it down to a more manageable size.The acting is across the board good and the effects are suitably gory and plentiful. Director Zack Snyder wisely dumps much of Romero's sociological subplots and replaces them with a more timely commentary. (Instead of zombies as consumer motif we have shooting undead celebrities. And instead of an outwardly hostile motorcycle gang, we have a more subtle power struggle between the otherwise powerless.)

    The updates honestly work, as a more literal remake would have simply fallen flat. Is Dawn of the Dead better than the original? I won't say. Is it one of the best films of 2004? Yes. Is it better than Romero's own sequel Day of the Dead? Good Lord yes.
    Full Review »
  2. May 1, 2011
    10
    As much as I love Romero's 1978 classic, I must agree with fellow movie buffs who say that this particular remake was unfairly prejudiced andAs much as I love Romero's 1978 classic, I must agree with fellow movie buffs who say that this particular remake was unfairly prejudiced and slandered upon release. The movie sticks pretty much to the basic plot; a group of people hide out in an abandoned shopping center during a zombie apocalypse. That's all there is to it. The acting was good and some of the comedy moments were actually pretty funny (Hollywood Squares, anyone?). Of course, seeing as it was shot in the modern era of the zombie flick, there is just enough blood and huts to satisfy any gorehound. The zombies looked scary and WERE scary simply due to the fact that they could sprint (a cliche started by 28 Days Later). The heavy metal soundtrack really helped the atmosphere of a zombie invasion and went great with zombie-killing. In sum, an underrated horror movie. Full Review »
  3. Mar 6, 2011
    9
    This may seem like a b rated movie but it's not it's surprisingly well made movie, truly enjoyable if your into the zombie movie genre like IThis may seem like a b rated movie but it's not it's surprisingly well made movie, truly enjoyable if your into the zombie movie genre like I am, if you are this is a must see. Full Review »