Universal Pictures | Release Date: March 19, 2004
8.7
USER SCORE
Universal acclaim based on 472 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
426
Mixed:
25
Negative:
21
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
1
Edc.Feb 24, 2008
if you have ever seen any zombie horror film before then you needent see this one. all the cliche'd characters, one dimensional personalities and terrible cringeworthy one-liners as per usual. however unlike other fliks, there was none if you have ever seen any zombie horror film before then you needent see this one. all the cliche'd characters, one dimensional personalities and terrible cringeworthy one-liners as per usual. however unlike other fliks, there was none of the suspense and not enough jumpy moments to save the film. aside from some smirk raising black humour, this really was a very very poor film. waste of time Expand
3 of 5 users found this helpful
0
MarcoP.May 25, 2007
Really terrible. It doesn't hold up a match to the original, and it's even worse watched on its own merits. Avoid at all costs. And don't believe people who say this remake is good. They are Consumer zombies.
1 of 2 users found this helpful
0
JesseR.Feb 2, 2010
I've seen worse zombie flicks but none that took this much money 2 fail so miserably. Nick Cannon is terrible (which is still pretty good for Nick Cannon acting), Mena is unbelieveable (not in a good way) as the heroine, and "Bud" I've seen worse zombie flicks but none that took this much money 2 fail so miserably. Nick Cannon is terrible (which is still pretty good for Nick Cannon acting), Mena is unbelieveable (not in a good way) as the heroine, and "Bud" (still pissed about that one) is the undead proof that this movie is an abomination. Avoid this @ all costs unless it's simply to watch the movie w/ the commentary on and listen how they weakly try to defend the movie ("You think you can do better?"). Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
0
LouisH.Feb 6, 2008
Like all of our contemporary horror movies, this movie was absolutely one of the worst movies ever made. I can't believe they consider it a "drama" movie after all the senselessly stupid actions all the characters make. There is no Like all of our contemporary horror movies, this movie was absolutely one of the worst movies ever made. I can't believe they consider it a "drama" movie after all the senselessly stupid actions all the characters make. There is no reason, no sense, or any point to this movie. Where did the zombies come from? Why did nobody take them seriously (with the mom's stupid gasp in the beggining)? Here is why :THEY'RE ALL IDIOTS!!!!! Collapse
0 of 3 users found this helpful
1
robuglyDec 29, 2005
This is one movie that I could not stand watching. Several times while watching I felt the urge to yell at the movie screen, or just leave. I got so angry at the stupid choices the characters made. There is just no way people would ever act This is one movie that I could not stand watching. Several times while watching I felt the urge to yell at the movie screen, or just leave. I got so angry at the stupid choices the characters made. There is just no way people would ever act that way in that sort of situation, it makes me so frustrated to watch this movie. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
3
aznassassinOct 26, 2012
Okay, first and foremost, the zombies themselves have issues. They DONT behave like zombies. They REACT to injury. Minor injuries can CRIPPLE them. They can PICK UP things and USE things. They can think for crying out loud. They can RUN. AndOkay, first and foremost, the zombies themselves have issues. They DONT behave like zombies. They REACT to injury. Minor injuries can CRIPPLE them. They can PICK UP things and USE things. They can think for crying out loud. They can RUN. And why is the incubation period so erratically different its ridiculous. The protagonist's husband who is bitten at the start of the movie turns like a few seconds whereas another character who I wont mention to avoid spoiling the plot turns after what seems like a WEEK after being bitten. Its ridiculous. Oh and get what, BURNING zombies kills them. I can hear people cutting themselves to that/ Pro tip to those out there who dont know how to the survive the zombie apocalypse: Zombies are DEAD people who are infected with a BLOOD-BORNE virus (though this is debatable in other variations) that kills the host and takes control of their body after they are deceased. They want to feast on ALL living things INCLUDING animals. They are slow and can at best, jog if a prey attracts them. They can grab for things mindlessly but they CANT open doors, use weapons or pick up things, Zack Snyder! Nor can they be CRIPPLE by minor wounds like gunshots - they DONT feel PAIN, they're DEAD. Oh and Mr Snyder, the makeup of the zombies, why do they look like HUMANS instead of badly mauled walking corpses? The lines are horrible at times while at other instances they're brilliantly written. There are some tense moments but in most cases, you'll be just yelling at the screen and be utterly frustrated at how ridiculously naive, dumb and stupid the characters are. Seriously. For instance, stupidity No. 1: NO ONE knew what made the people turn into zombies despite many of them seeing people get bitten and turning e.g the protagonist's husband. Not only until around 1/3 of the way into the movie do the main characters realize "Oh maybe its the bite?" *facepalm* You are tell obviously who's gonna die (and they do) and you'll be cutting yourself at the most stupidass things the characters would do. WHY, WHY would you GO AFTER your DOG amidst the HUNDREDS of zombies that want to EAT you IF you know they WONT hurt your dog? Srsly that thing there, is what caused the plot to climax and end as it did. Had that certain character NOT gone after her dog and stayed with the plan, I am sure NO ONE would've been killed. And WHY do the characters just use **** pistols and shotguns? You have a GUNSTORE for God's sakes, there are things called RIFLES that are MORE accurate and also automatic & semi-automatic weapons all with a crapload of ammo. Why not just clear the streets? Why not use the damn rifles? Seriously the ENTIRE movie, they just stick to horrible horrible pistols (GLOCKS just damn GLOCKS for crying out loud. There must be Desert Eagles and M9's lying around in the store!) and those mediocre cop shotguns. Had they used a M16, M4A1 Carbine, SAW machine gun or hell even a plain old Lee Einfield, I am sure everyone would've survived. This is a movie that you watch drunk with your buddies on a Friday night. You'll probably watch it and forget about it, and probably switch to playing Left 4 Dead. The original 1970's Dawn of the Dead is vastly superior despite the outdated makeup effects. Watch that. Avoid this insult to the zombie canon pile of excrement at all costs. Hell even the ending is lacking. A braindead film that absolutely wont want to feast upon. Expand
0 of 3 users found this helpful03
All this user's reviews
1
FladeIsCoolMar 15, 2013
Dawn of the Dead is horrible. The characters aren't even worthy of mention because all of them are so horrible and one dimensional. The movie tries to be realistic like every other zombie movie, but it doesn't realize that zombies are rottingDawn of the Dead is horrible. The characters aren't even worthy of mention because all of them are so horrible and one dimensional. The movie tries to be realistic like every other zombie movie, but it doesn't realize that zombies are rotting corpses and can't run (zombies are unrealistic entirely, but that's for another rant.) This movie is terrible, and even watching it with a friend as a joke wouldn't be fun. 1/10 because the effects were pretty good I guess. Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
0
DanMcManMar 15, 2013
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Terrible. If you're into horribly cliche characters, plot holes and overall unrealistic behavior then this movie is definitely for you! There's little to no reason for an infection, pointless characters that only exist for a plot device and cliche lines from every single character. Unneeded sad parts for characters with no back story whatsoever and to top it's not scary in the slightest; at most it's gross from the tons of fake blood they spent most of their budget on making this. It's the lowest of the low in zombie movies. Expand
0 of 3 users found this helpful03
All this user's reviews
1
BrosmanSep 27, 2013
Why is everyone so stupid? Why did the mall security have guns? Why didn't they just shoot the mall security guards in the face when they had them outgunned and out armed? Why didn't security try to team up with more survivors instead ofWhy is everyone so stupid? Why did the mall security have guns? Why didn't they just shoot the mall security guards in the face when they had them outgunned and out armed? Why didn't security try to team up with more survivors instead of trying to get rid of them when there are safety in numbers? Why does the power tripping SG not arm anyone while they are out doing objectives? Why does no one know these things are zombies? Why is the ego tripping security guard locking up other survivors other than just to have some random in the movie? Why is he concerned about people stealing stuff in a zombie Apocalypse? Why do people act like wood when they are told that everyone they know is dead?This is my mind running through the fist 20 or so minutes. God help me though this movie...... Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
2
moviemayhemApr 28, 2015
On the heels of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake, the newfangled Dawn Of The Dead streamlines another scrappy horror classic by discarding everything special about it in favor of pure visceral effect. Swarming with zombies on both sides ofOn the heels of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake, the newfangled Dawn Of The Dead streamlines another scrappy horror classic by discarding everything special about it in favor of pure visceral effect. Swarming with zombies on both sides of the camera, the film is unrelentingly relentless, leaving no room for original director George Romero's wry satire on consumerism or his slow-paced, creeping undead. As in 28 Days Later, which at least makes gestures toward social commentary, the zombies are fast and focused, barely pausing to savor "Brains! Brains!" before dashing off to the next fresh kill. Responding only to hot lead, they give first-time director Zack Snyder a chance to test how many subhuman heads can get blown to smithereens before the MPAA issues an NC-17 rating. (Answer: Several dozen and counting.)

Looking lost in the grindhouse, an overqualified Sarah Polley stars as a suburban Milwaukee nurse who wakes to a virus that turns her boyfriend and a neighbor child into flesh-eating savages and converts her cul-de-sac into a zombie apocalypse. Banding together with a few survivors, including tough cop Ving Rhames, Mekhi Phifer and his pregnant wife (Inna Korobkina), and down-to-earth hunk Jake Weber, Polley and friends hole up at a local mall run by overzealous security guards. During the long standoff with the zombies outside, they devise an escape plan right out of the Clint Eastwood vehicle The Gauntlet while contending with infighting and new infections.

Tasteless and gratuitous enough on its own terms, this Dawn Of The Dead would still be much more palatable had the original never existed. As it stands, the remake is akin to an Animal House knockoff staged at a country retreat and called The Rules Of The Game. Gone are Romero's wickedly funny riffs on malls as consumer utopias; they're replaced by a pack of bickering ninnies, smugly ironic Muzak versions of songs like "Don't Worry, Be Happy" and "All By Myself," and, worst of all, product placements at every turn. With his background in commercials, Snyder was either inured to Romero's point or too concerned with nailing the important technical details, such as overhead shots of propane-tank explosions or the gooey sound of an unborn mutant sloshing around in amniotic fluid. Confusing body count with intensity, the new Dawn Of The Dead could be a metaphor for how little Hollywood values human life, if only it had a brain ripe enough to feast on.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
MovieMasterEddyApr 6, 2016
The original 1978 horror splatter-comedy ''Dawn of the Dead'' had an idea that played like cast-iron satire: zombies invading a mall. The one good exchange from that film is repeated in Zack Snyder's single-minded scare-tactic remake: whenThe original 1978 horror splatter-comedy ''Dawn of the Dead'' had an idea that played like cast-iron satire: zombies invading a mall. The one good exchange from that film is repeated in Zack Snyder's single-minded scare-tactic remake: when someone asks why the zombies congregate there, the response is: ''Memory, maybe. Instinct.''

Otherwise, Mr. Snyder's blood feast is strictly by the numbers: this second-rater could be the world's most expensive Troma film. That makes sense: the screenwriter for the remake, James Gunn, also banged out ''Tromeo and Juliet'' (1996), that no-budget B-movie-studio's seminal film (that is, if the word seminal can be appended to Troma). Still, this is the first studio picture to exhibit the tacky Troma influence, which means ---- something, like the end of shame in Western civilization, perhaps. However, since ''Dawn of the Dead,'' which opens today nationwide, doubtless thinks of itself as a reimagining rather than a remake, the concept of shame was probably obliterated the moment the script got a green light from Universal.

''The Dead'' -- with apologies to James Joyce -- notches its frights early, before the introduction of the, excuse the euphemism, characters. The first undead we see is a little girl with part of her face rotted away, who goes right for her dad's neck. The mother, Ana (Sarah Polley), barely escapes the house intact and drives away through an apocalyptic version of the dozy suburban tract neighborhood she had come home to the night before. The graphic point of zombielike conformity was made earlier with an overhead shot of the neighborhood.

In such instances, ''Dead'' establishes its scariness with an efficiently tactless facelessness -- that is, if the use of the word faceless doesn't provoke a defamation of character suit from the zombie lobby, apparently based in Toronto. That's where this movie was obviously shot, despite shabby attempts to convince audiences that it is set in Milwaukee.

Milwaukee, the home of the bubbler, is transformed into the subdivision of the living dead. Ana runs into Kenneth (Ving Rhames), a uniformed cop, who makes her speak. It's one of the few ways to tell the zombies from the living -- though with dialogue like this, who's better off? They're joined by Michael (Jake Weber), Andre (Mekhi Phifer) and his very pregnant wife, Luda (Inna Korobkina). They make their way to the Crossroad Mall, where a handful of security guards led by the suspicious C. J. (Michael Kelly) have taken up residence.

C. J.'s intolerance is evident early, when he calls Andre ''Shaq.'' His ragtag minimum-wage squad is determined to keep the zombies out, especially once Ana figures out that the life-free scourge is spread from a zombie bite. Isn't it always funny that people in zombie movies have never seen zombie movies, so they have no information whatsoever?

''Dead'' does an adequate job of building up the tension early, but the traces of humor with which the original writer-director, George A. Romero, slathered the first version weren't nearly as ham-fisted as those found in the current one. The reimaginers of ''Dead'' have to cope with being compared with a classic, while Mr. Romero had to deal with a much more horrendous thought: making a sequel to a legitimate classic, 1968's spartan and terrifying ''Night of the Living Dead.'' (Mr. Romero's genius came from never explaining why the zombie infection plagued Pittsburgh, a plot device this new version keeps.)

There are a few other nods to the initial ''Dawn of the Dead,'' like a cameo appearance by the gore makeup genius Tom Savini, who worked on the earlier film. And the opening and closing credits by Prologue Film are so good they're almost worth sitting through the film for.

Such treats aside, we're left with a movie dependent on generating its small amount of sparks by setting an order in which to eliminate the annoying cast members. A scene in which weapons have to be liberated from a gun store so the group can carry out a plan to get to a marina and sail away to safety -- don't ask -- shows why zombie pictures aren't unsettling anymore. The flesh-eaters are picked off like video-game targets.

The eventual video game is bound to be a lot more fun -- and less slowed down by bad dialogue -- than this ''Dead.''
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews