More in-depth film festival coverage than any other website!
Home Reviews  Articles  Release Dates Coming Soon  DVD  Top 20s Criticwatch  Search
Public Forums  Festival Coverage  Contests About 
Advertisement

Overall Rating
3.76

Awesome41.92%
Worth A Look: 22.34%
Average: 15.81%
Pretty Bad: 9.62%
Total Crap: 10.31%

16 reviews, 195 user ratings


Latest Reviews

Psychomagic, a Healing Art by Rob Gonsalves

Secret Garden, The (2020) by Peter Sobczynski

Star Wars Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker by Jay Seaver

Force of Nature by Rob Gonsalves

Greyhound by Rob Gonsalves

Undercover Vice: Strapped for Danger Part II by Rob Gonsalves

Painted Bird, The by Rob Gonsalves

Relativity by Jay Seaver

Amulet by Jay Seaver

Secret, The: Dare to Dream by Peter Sobczynski

subscribe to this feed


Dawn of the Dead (2004)
[AllPosters.com] Buy posters from this movie
by David Hollands

"The ugliest dawn I've ever seen."
1 stars

If you ever wondered how terrible a horror movie can get, look no further than Zack Snyder's abysmally boring Dawn of the Dead. It's a film obviously meant to scare you as well as give you a thrill. To say that it fails miserably at both would be a compliment. This film is so hideously bad, that I'm surprised it hasn't threatened to destroy the entire zombie flick sub genre.

Things start out like any zombie film. The dead begin to rise, and two characters are oblivious. One of those characters ends up as a zombie and chases the other character halfway across a neighbourhood gone to Hell. If you're wondering why I haven't mentioned the characters' names, I honestly care so little of this movie that I couldn't even bother to remember. Pretty soon, there are about ten people held up in a shopping mall, and zombies proceed to attack out of nowhere at various intervals for seventy minutes. Then comes a plan to escape to an island. Then it ends.

This movie could easily have been successful. The opening is quite suspenseful, and a title sequence near-brilliantly scored to a Johnny Cash tune sets the audience up for a fun ride. Unfortunately, the screenwriter James Gunn has made a fatal mistake in writing up his best sequence at the beginning of the film. The rest of the movie is running on empty in terms of interesting sequences or ideas. Gunn has made the mistake of having his zombies simply pop out of nowhere in order to startle. After about the fifth time this happens, it begins to grate one's patience. Instead of the audience knowing where the zombies are throughout the movie, so suspense can be built based upon the knowledge that characters are approaching danger, we instead have long sequences of characters wandering about the mall with zombies literally seeming to materialise out of thin air.

The film is essentially structured so one sits through about ten minutes of banal scenes designed to "build character", before a zombie suddenly shows up and attacks for about three seconds before being killed. Since nothing really comes out of these sequences save for zombies being killed, they are obviously filler meant to pad out the running time and appeal to those who like cheap thrills instead of sustained tension or atmosphere. In fact, these sequences shatter any tension, because after the second time a zombie attacks with no development occurring in the plot, we know that this will be the formula for most of the attacks. When one can predict what the next BOO! moment will be some thirty minutes before it happens, it's obvious that there's a problem. Also, most of the suspense sequences involve the first-billed actors, so anyone who's seen even two horror films will know that these characters won't die until the end, if ever.

Get a load of this. After a long while, the characters' plan is to escape to an island because the mall feels too closed in and dull for them. While I can understand their feelings, I can't comprehend why they would be stupid enough to leave. They are in a location which could support their needs for a long time, and it's also a closed-off area with bullet proof glass. Seriously, what makes more sense during a zombie crisis? Stay inside a completely well protected location that will be able to properly hold and feed you for practically years to come, or try to escape to an open area like an island where anything wanting to attack you can do so without fail? This collective of characters must of been in one of those special schools for most of their lives, cause I can't explain their sheer stupidity. For crying out loud, the first thing the characters do when they enter the mall is split up. These people are set to win Nobel Prizes in the near future.

Now, you may argue with me that I do like films in which this same thing happens, and I wouldn't be able to disagree with you. I would, however, be able to say that the ones I tended to like didn't take themselves very seriously. Dawn of the Dead is a movie that seems to think it's the next 28 Days Later. It treats the situation without even a hint of playfulness, making many of the flaws stand out at least twice as much as the horror pictures smart enough not to do it. Logic errors begin to pop up, as they also do in 28 Days Later. We're meant to believe that the world has been overrun by zombies. So how come when the characters encounter any outside the mall, they're usually in groups of two or three? Aside from a huge wide shot revealing many zombies, you'd be hard pressed to wonder why this crisis is so severe. There appear to be only two or three attacking our characters at a time until the conclusion, when the realism the filmmakers are striving for does start to come through. Up until then, our characters are able to spend five minutes out in the open getting to the mall without trouble, and our main heroine spends quite a bit of time unconscious in the middle of an open field. The reason James Gunn tries to push on us is that they aren't around, as said by a few characters at times. It's established that the zombies are everywhere, and yet whenever the characters need to get to certain places, they conveniently aren't. I could get over maybe one instance of this, but ten? Give me a break.

I do think that fast zombies are a good idea; I just don't think any film has used the idea in a good manner. The usual trap filmmakers tend to fall into is that faster monsters immediately means more terror. While this has occasionally worked (I still think Aliens is the best example), in Dawn of the Dead, it does not. No matter how fast or slow the monsters are moving, there is no suspense, because most of the sequences follow a strict structure. Even though the monsters appear to be moving at lightning-fast speed, they never seem to be able to catch up to their victims until the screenplay calls for it. James Gunn establishes the speed, and yet he never uses it well. The wave of moving zombies is rendered completely un-frightening by the fact that our main characters also appear to be Olympic athletes. Their supply of breath never seems to run out, and they are only really in danger when their predictable death moment occurs. We are always aware that a certain character won't die at a certain time, because we've seen this formula so often. Thus, even monsters that run two-hundred miles an hour can't get the audience to be scared, because the formula still overrides the terror.

There are numerous inner logic errors concerning the zombies. For most of the film, the transformation time from human to zombie is half a minute. Then, for the sake of a subplot, it's a few days. The strength of a zombie is established as immense, yet most of the main characters who fight zombies are easily able to hold their heads back in order to kill them. Why even establish that these creatures are superhuman if you aren't going to follow up on it? It makes for very boring cinema.

James Gunn is completely at a loss of what to do for most of the running time. He adds a subplot of a gun shop owner across the wave of zombies from the mall, and yet that predictably ends with another zombie attack and death. And would you believe Gunn attempts to have dramatic impact at the conclusion of that subplot? To say that it backfires would be the understatement of the year. There's also a subplot of a pregnant woman slowly becoming a zombie that not only seems completely ripped off from David Cronenberg's The Fly, but the execution of the sequence almost completely mirrors the same one from Cronenberg's immensely superior film. In The Fly, the scene of grotesque birth had a point; here, it's thrown in as an afterthought. Once the scene here concludes, we're back to business as usual, which begs the question: is Gunn so lacking in talent as to not see that setting up a subplot for half the running time, and then doing absolutely nothing with it is pointless? That's basically the whole movie: an excruciatingly long set-up with a payoff that even Edward Wood wouldn't like.

Gunn couldn't create good characters to save his life. He tries to go for three-dimensionality. It backfires, as Dawn of the Dead began to remind me of a third-rate soap opera. There are a few scenes of character interactions that sound like they come right from low budget 1930s movies. The dialogue reminds one only of sh*t throughout. At least seven of the ten characters could have been written right out of the movie, and nothing would have been sacrificed at all. There are scenes that even James Cameron would deem too corny, such as a too under-developed daughter character saying good bye to slowly-becoming-zombie father character. Shortly after, she appears to have completely forgotten about this incident, and begins dating one of the other characters. Our main heroine loses her husband in the beginning of the film, and yet a mere day after this "terror" has surrounded her, she's already kissing someone else, and acting as if the whole thing never happened. I would faint if I heard that realistic character motivations were the first things on James Gunn's mind while writing the film.

The technical aspects of the movie also fall flat. Director Zack Snyder does manage to direct the action pretty well in the early goings, but he then falls back on quick-cut editing and visual camerabatics that makes the action completely incomprehensible. Every action scene in the film is shot with the 45 degree shutter, a contraption that makes action seem much more sharp. The problem with it though, is that action becomes even more blurry as a result of the extreme motions of the camera. I was wondering if it would have been that hard for Snyder to leave a shot on the screen for more than half a second, but then again, he is targeting his film to a generation that, inexplicably, likes that kind of thing. Even if one were to look past this distraction, the action scenes would still be terrible. Snyder never has his camera in a position to properly capture a moment, and his direction constantly calls attention to itself, which distracts hideously from the film. Some of the edits here are so choppy, you'd think you were watching Lucio Fulci's Zombi 2 all over again.

Since this movie relies on jump scares, one would expect that they would be good. They aren't. Snyder just doesn't have enough talent to pull them off. He is constantly revealing who will be attacked and when way too early. When the jump occurs, we're already made too aware of it for it to surprise us. No sequence in the film fares worse, though, then the one that takes place in a parking garage. While the atmosphere is pretty creepy, the suspense is poor. The scene falls back on the old "animal making scary sounds" false scare, and Snyder even sets that one up way ahead of the reveal. Not only does one wonder why the horde of zombies only show up when the characters start running, but when a zombie attacks, Snyder shows it in the background at least five seconds before the attack comes. It also strikes us that a zombie with no legs would definitely make more noise when crawling along pipes; you would hear the noise miles away. And a dog would not sound like a tiger. This is usually acceptable in horror flicks, but since the style of this movie is serious, we notice the flaws all the more.

If that weren't embarrassing enough, Snyder also falls back on things like doors slamming, people jumping into the frame, and get this, one of the loudest gunshot cocks in the history of film. Even when a jump isn't about to occur, and Snyder focuses on the character scenes, things still fall flat due to the fact that Snyder couldn't direct anything to save his testicles. During dialogue, the camera is either moving needlessly or is constantly in the wrong position. Snyder falls back on repetitive close-ups so much, that I felt I was watching Jonathan Demme's The Silence of the Lambs over again. There's nothing visually interesting going on in this film, and even if a shot could possibly entice, it's usually cancelled out by the horrible editing.

The cinematography by the dependable Matthew F. Leonetti has been growing increasingly hard to look at these days. Leonetti has used a high contrast approach for some years now, and I usually don't like that look because the extremely bright whites in the image burn my eyes out. After watching this movie, I feel like going into a depression. This just has to be one of the worst photographed movies I've seen in five years. The image looks like vomit, as someone in the digital processing stage obviously went way overboard on too many levels. At times, light shifts brightness levels within the same shot, a flaw I've only seen when using home video cameras. The image's contrast is so high that it threatens to make anyone watching it go blind. There is some creative use of different coloured gels in spots, but everything mostly looks like trash.

The music for the movie couldn't be worse. It's a collection of popular song tracks that attempt to go against the mood of certain scenes. As an example, a happy song with grim content is played over a scene that is supposed to be terrifying. While I'm not necessarily opposed to this sort of thing, I can definitely say that most times, even to create an irregular contrast between the music and the actions taking place, it just doesn't work. Playing lighter music during a darker moment usually reduces tension. It calls attention to itself in a lacklustre fashion, announcing that something of its nature is taking place. That distracts as well, and the film tries for ironic moments in this way. Even though irony is achieved, that doesn't mean it's necessary. Plus, some of the songs in this movie are awful, and make up what one would find in a modern, hip horror movie: a loud, distracting track.

Even the original music by Tyler Bates fails. It's a mostly synthesized track that is way too loud in the overall mix, and it nearly overpowers a lot of the dialogue in spots. Tyler appears to have taken an electric keyboard and let the demo run for most of the movie. The score lacks subtlety; it's even too loud during the moments when something explosive isn't occurring. It's also one of those highly annoying synthesized scores that sounds like something rejected from the 1980s.

Some of the performances are good. Jake Weber is fantastic as Michael, a television salesman who has to become a serious version of Ashley J. Williams throughout the film. He has talent, and is able to take a bland character and inject something more into it. He isn't a selfish performer. He feeds off his fellow actors, and yet he doesn't steal the whole show. Ving Rhames as Kenneth the security guard is sensational in his role. He exudes amazing screen presence throughout, even during moments when he is put in the background. Rhames gets completely into his character. It's a fantastic performance in a sub par film; but it's also one of the main reasons I stuck through with the rest of this dreck.

Then, there's Sarah Polley. After watching even five seconds of this actor, it's obvious whoever cast her should have been fired. She's horrible throughout, exuding this air of self-importance that never seems justified. She honestly never has a single convincing moment in this entire movie, and one could also say the same about her career up to this point. She's either overplaying or underplaying a scene, and her face makes a whopping two expressions throughout the entire running time of the movie.

The supporting players in the film are pretty ho-hum throughout. With such a limited, cliched character base, it's not surprising that the supporting actors decided to fax their roles in from Antarctica. Even Kim Poirier, already having played an extreme b*tch of a character in the far superior Decoys, is slumming it. She was having fun in the other film, so what the Hell happened here? I will say, though, that Mekhi Phifer does a great job as usual in his limited role. He's able to make us feel for this cliche of a character, because he has always played the character rather than himself.

Dawn of the Dead stands as yet another typical modern horror movie. It's a loud, poorly executed affair which prefers to give its audience every-few-minute pay-offs instead of...gasp...trying to actually frighten us. With a better thought-out script, this could have been a pretty good movie. As it currently stands, it's as if I was watching the ugliest dawn in the history of the world.

link directly to this review at https://www.efilmcritic.com/review.php?movie=8887&reviewer=355
originally posted: 01/05/05 16:14:33
[printer] printer-friendly format  
OFFICIAL SELECTION: 2004 ScreamFest L.A. Horror Festival. For more in the 2004 ScreamFest L.A. series, click here.
Horror Remakes: For more in the Horror Remakes series, click here.

User Comments

10/30/16 morris campbell good remake imho 4 stars
8/06/12 Jeff Wilder Completely pointless and unnecssary remake. Stick with the original instead. 1 stars
8/09/11 Dreary A real zombie recovery story! Zombie finds new life in Modern Family! Way to go Phil! 4 stars
9/18/10 art ROMERO"S 2005's LAND OF THE DEAD is the best ZOMBIE film EXTENT! 1 stars
1/11/10 art AN END OF THE WORLD STORY!,A REAL DOWNER! 1 stars
12/26/09 Chad Dillon Cooper Sight ,Hostess twinkie remake. Kids will think this is "awesome". 2 stars
12/24/09 art BETTER THAN THE ORIGINAL,which isn't saying A HELL OF ALOT! 2 stars
10/18/09 Chad Dillon Cooper A light weight remake in name only. Typical Hollywood Hostess Twinkie garbage. 2 stars
7/08/09 *Holy_J@lapeno* This movie is a great zombie flick. Awesome guns and storyline!!!!! 5 stars
6/16/09 scott The 'pot noodle' version of a horror. This will NOT leave you satisfied! 3 stars
12/19/08 Craig D. It's "28 Days Later" without the interesting characters and memorable scenes. 3 stars
9/03/08 Shaun Wallner Great Horror film!! Kept me on the edge of my seat 5 stars
1/09/08 art COMIC-BOOK STUFF 1 stars
11/04/07 Ivana Mann Probably the best horror remake ever made.Creative spin on Romero classic. 5 stars
10/15/07 fools♫gold Why is this considered a remake? Predictable and sucky. 2 stars
9/26/07 Marco Wow... it could've been good but the running zombies and the MAIN FEMALE ruined everything. 1 stars
4/21/07 Tina Robertson/Anderson I love zombie flicks and this one was the best! 5 stars
1/23/07 Krinkels Why all the good reviews? I thought Uwe Boll directed this piece of shit. 1 stars
1/03/07 del Mediocrity squared. 3 stars
12/12/06 Angela Saunders Fast moving and worth watching if you like SCARY!! 4 stars
12/12/06 al watchd 34 times 5 stars
12/05/06 Stanley Thai A good remake but it's too long. 4 stars
11/11/06 David Pollastrini good gore. 5 stars
10/17/06 AJ Muller kickass action/horror hybrid with smarts AND style AND fun 4 stars
7/30/06 Dethbyhashi Running Zombies. Bad Idea!! 3 stars
7/17/06 mark just fucking great to watch 5 stars
6/08/06 ES Best zombie flick ever 5 stars
2/20/06 chris f doesnt even compare with the original 3 stars
2/05/06 Shawn Gadberry Best ZOMBIE remake! Best ZOMBIE movie period--since the original DAWN OF THE DEAD! 5 stars
2/04/06 Michele loved it 5 stars
1/18/06 MrsVoorheesBabyBoy Just as great as the original, Just in a differetn way. 5 stars
11/22/05 Stefan Halka Decent remake. For some reason I like it better than Romero's version. 3 stars
10/28/05 Monday Morning I've been to Milwaukee, and there ARE zombies there. They're called the Brewers. 4 stars
10/25/05 DEEDeeDEEe I seen More action At the grave yard! Poop! 1 stars
10/21/05 cypress Great remake, must-see if your a zombie freak, lots of action 5 stars
9/25/05 K. Sear Generic, useless, boring, rehashed, predictable, brain-dead crap. 1 stars
9/01/05 Klondo there need to be more characters like CJ 4 stars
8/13/05 Ric It's a great rollercoaster ride, the best action/horror flick in years. 5 stars
8/11/05 ES Finally a zombie movie with a sense of dread, this movie was excellent 5 stars
6/26/05 DennyRoss Raises the bar for the zombie genre - how about a sequel? 5 stars
6/07/05 Anthony G holy shit, action from beginning to end, AWESOME. 5 stars
6/04/05 Mike Jozic Surprisingly brilliant remake of a horror classic. Must see flick! 5 stars
6/01/05 Scott Reynolds A ton of fun, especially the first 10 minutes, which will blow you away. Dark and bloody. 5 stars
5/27/05 Christy Schultz Not bad...lots of gore. 4 stars
5/17/05 E-FUNK Surprisingly fucking awesome. Doesn't hold a candle to Romero's 'Dawn'. Still fucking cool. 5 stars
5/02/05 MeredithL Fun, scary and never dull! 5 stars
4/25/05 Indrid Cold Better than the original, but still a perfectly mediocre horror movie. 3 stars
4/24/05 Clubber Lang Great first and last 20 or so minutes, but needs stronger characters to make the middle fly 3 stars
4/23/05 Domingo Montayo Oh god its so lame, rubbish, rubbish, rubbish 1 stars
4/17/05 Brig. Gen. Ripper It must be something in the water up in Wisconsin 5 stars
4/15/05 Raymond Montoya the Best Zombie movie ever!!!!! I love this movie 5 stars
4/04/05 Ric It's a scary, fast-paced, action-packed ride. Best horror film of the decade. 5 stars
4/03/05 Tom Ciorciari Not s'good 2 stars
3/25/05 dwarzel Most excellent humor for a zombie movie 4 stars
3/22/05 Uncle Phucker Some cool moments, but nothing compared to the original films of George Romero. 3 stars
3/19/05 Jin Horrifying and disturbing that people waste time on crap like this. Dumb soundtrack too. 1 stars
3/17/05 Naughty Devil Man Has a very nihilistic "fuck the world" teenage mentality. 2 stars
2/25/05 zoe hunter enjoy a good zombie flick like this one..love sarah!! 4 stars
2/01/05 Wendy S. Blew me away! 5 stars
1/29/05 WILLIAM CAMPY BUT FUNNY! 3 stars
1/22/05 Tjalda L. Schiel Ho Hum...Another typical day at the mall. 3 stars
1/12/05 Ron Newbold It was fun once but I won't watch it again anytime soon 3 stars
1/11/05 Kristina Williams loved it 5 stars
1/10/05 Brett Unfortunately not as good as I hoped. 3 stars
12/16/04 J Dead can sure run!!! 5 stars
12/15/04 ALDO I agree with the boring characters....but still deserves a look 4 stars
12/12/04 Charlene Javier Pure popcorn fun! 4 stars
12/11/04 Al Guy Get down with the sickness! 5 stars
12/10/04 tony this movie was pretty bad near the end. Kinda cheezy. But otherwise ok. rent this movie 3 stars
12/08/04 frosty Definitely good, but not really scary. 3 stars
12/05/04 Maalstrom Was boring after the first opening scene. Some REALLY dumb characters 2 stars
11/14/04 Darryl Great opening sequence, then down hill. Not EVEN the least bit suspensful. 2 stars
11/03/04 tatum It's obvious SOMEONE in Hollywood really liked "28 Days Later" 3 stars
10/31/04 asina you can't compare this to the original - too different. great opening montage, though... 4 stars
10/31/04 Geo78665 Starts and ends great, but has boring characters, and lacks a sense of dread. 3 stars
10/29/04 The Talking Elbow Watch the first half of 28 days then tell me this movie couldn't have been better. 3 stars
10/25/04 Ric A terrific rollercoaster ride of action and horror. 5 stars
10/25/04 Tom Ciorciari the best first 15 minutes i've seen in a long time 3 stars
10/13/04 me a great film 5 stars
10/08/04 The Grinch The original is a smarter movie, but this Rubinstein remake is fun, and will help Romero 5 stars
9/02/04 Adam I LOVE THIS MOVIE. IT WAS AWESOME! 5 stars
8/27/04 Mike Stanbridge The original still rules! Romero is King of the Zombie flick. 4 stars
8/21/04 Jimmy Great Remake of my Favorit Horrorflick 4 stars
8/15/04 Anthony G fucking awesome movie 5 stars
7/29/04 Shams Huque Awesome film! 5 stars
7/27/04 Kayla this was a great movie! it has scary moments and it has momenys like run stupid!!!1 So i sa 5 stars
7/25/04 Pure RAGE... It was okay... 4 stars
7/05/04 spritely Shocked to discover it's better than the first 5 stars
7/05/04 Brian C0urtney Holy cow! Awesome, gritty horror flick to rage against current teen camp! 5 stars
6/18/04 sumixam Best Horror movie in 20 years 5 stars
6/15/04 Lizzy I feel asleep...need I say more 2 stars
6/15/04 Jordan Davis This movie had its moments. If you're looking for some good fun, it's an excellent choice! 4 stars
6/14/04 d.t.carney awesome don't miss this film !!!!!! 5 stars
6/12/04 malcolm interesting, not a single good thrill 3 stars
6/12/04 cornelious parker awsome zombie movie. zombies are awesome, and this movie did them justice. 5 stars
6/12/04 DJ ERIC 88 wow what a movie! the opening sequence kicked!!!! 5 stars
6/11/04 Matt best zombie movie ever 5 stars
6/06/04 Norema Cameron Fairly watchable thriller, with typical stupid horror-movie ending. Marginally worth look 4 stars
5/25/04 Mitch From genius cinematography to the brilliant use of Johnny Cash...wow. 5 stars
5/21/04 Eloise an insut to the original, weak performances, just plain bad 1 stars
5/20/04 Jeff S Great use of music and editing, but zombies that run like cheetas? 3 stars
5/14/04 earl duron best horror film in years 5 stars
5/06/04 J.Peckerfoot they ran in 28 days later,now they can die in style too! 5 stars
5/06/04 Bobby Fisher none stop, top shelf horror, very edge of ur seat.... lovely stuff 5 stars
4/24/04 Drew Excellent re-make. Alot more chilling than first anticipated. Speedy zombies much scarier. 5 stars
4/24/04 maxomai An erotic thriller for Nekromantik fans everywhere 5 stars
4/21/04 TonyMontana Only worth watching in theaters 4 stars
4/19/04 jj if this was the worst ever made it would still be better than the original which sucks 3 stars
4/18/04 Zach The opening 10 minutes is STUPENDOUS! 5 stars
4/16/04 TWINEY More fun then horror 4 stars
4/15/04 Jeff MacIver Shuffling zombies are officially a thing of the past. 4 stars
4/15/04 rojo Classic horror, top shelf. 5 stars
4/14/04 slayathon I really had fun watching this but I did not like the ending 4 stars
4/12/04 Mario St.Clair Great movie. IF you havn't seen, go see it. 5 stars
4/12/04 Mike V When of the best horror films I've ever seen! 5 stars
4/12/04 Will Taylor this film is an hour and a half which wasted my life! 2 stars
4/09/04 mlh Aliens meets Zombie Flick 5 stars
4/09/04 David R Good action remake of a great horror classic. 5 stars
4/08/04 Eloise crappy, weak, pointless, shameless hollywood remake of a good film. WHY? 1 stars
4/08/04 Mark Awesome film. Fresh, yet does real credit to the original. Gotta love a good zombie flick. 5 stars
4/06/04 Samuel just watch the origional instead, its much better 3 stars
4/06/04 George Baumert Action Packed Fun 5 stars
4/05/04 puckfreak Now, one of my all time favorites 5 stars
4/04/04 Eric A fantastic thrill ride, actually even better than the original. 5 stars
4/03/04 Alexander Miller The best horror film since erm... well, ever 5 stars
4/02/04 re a great film 5 stars
4/02/04 Obi Wan Very good remake. Anyone feel the video game version of Resident Evil coming?? 4 stars
4/01/04 Tim Whitcher A Hollywood CGI mess. Rotting zombies with strength? Come on! 2 thumbs bit off.... 1 stars
4/01/04 tediboy good movie but not to be compared with the original 4 stars
3/31/04 mcgill373 28 days later with a budget 5 stars
3/31/04 thomas clark loved im much better than the original 5 stars
3/31/04 Rod ONeal Very good film- although the ending lost steam. 5 stars
3/30/04 cpkpixel Excellent! Scary, gory and deeply though provoking.... 5 stars
3/29/04 Kenny Ward Gore fest 2004 (excellent) 5 stars
3/29/04 Chris Barts See the original for a good movie, or see one of the millions of other cheap zombie flicks. 1 stars
3/29/04 Mr Lucky They could have trimmed 45 minutes off this monster movie. 2 stars
3/29/04 Katie, 16 It reminded me a little too much of 28 Days Later, but I really enjoyed it. 5 stars
3/29/04 danny perrigoy great film keeps u either on the edge of your seat or curreld in a ball 5 stars
3/29/04 Jean Oh Man! that was GOOD ! 5 stars
3/28/04 Pasquale Buba They already made 28 Days later and that film was betr 1 stars
3/28/04 Agent Sands (previously Mr. Hat) Better than average slasher pic. Soundtrack is the most pleasantly surprising. 4 stars
3/28/04 Taylor It was f*king AWESOME! i have a bit of crude humor so i also thought it was hillarious 5 stars
3/28/04 HorrorScribbler You are who you eat. Jake Weber rocks. Good, but "28 Days Later" better. 4 stars
3/27/04 ROY L. CAIN,JR. Far better than the original, with the ugliest baby I ever seen! 5 stars
3/27/04 rojo The original still has more magic, but the remake takes no prisoners. 4 stars
3/27/04 Melissa Gaugert Sucked big time! 2 stars
3/27/04 Michael Great film. Delivers what it promises and well balanced, unlike 28 Days Later. To be owned. 5 stars
3/26/04 The Ripper What 28 Days Later claimed it was: the horror flick I've been waiting my whole life for. 5 stars
3/26/04 cinkcool It ruled. 5 stars
3/26/04 Priest Good flick, i'll pay to see it again 4 stars
3/26/04 Heather Robosn Taken apart from the original it is an entertaining film, but it lacks a moral heart. 3 stars
3/26/04 greensweater '28 Days Later' was better, but still rocked 5 stars
3/25/04 Mike It's too bad there is't a lower rating for this absolute FAILURE. 1 stars
3/25/04 Mark as good as the original and in ways better 4 stars
3/25/04 deadtoyou kick ass film, everyone should see and bring their kids too!!!! 5 stars
3/25/04 Dave Fox Mad Props to James Gunn , but i'm a wee bit retarded and didn't stay for the credits, what? 5 stars
3/25/04 Meg Worst movie I have ever seen! I was ready to go before the opening credits started 1 stars
3/24/04 f 11 That movie ruled! Bad ass opening scene 5 stars
3/24/04 sikrik not even close to the brilliance of the original 4 stars
3/23/04 luke it was allright i liked the one in '78 better 4 stars
3/23/04 Ryan Wilson Excellent movie! 5 stars
3/23/04 true review way better than the original because the original sucked, best remake in the last 10 years 4 stars
3/23/04 Morally Sound The only worthy 'remake' I have ever seen! Awesome! 5 stars
3/23/04 coco dumb 1 stars
3/23/04 maxomai Fun, satisfying flick. Not 28 days. Stay through the credits! :) 5 stars
3/23/04 Heaven'sJustice Like an overhaul on the original, same good design, just better and newer parts! 5 stars
3/22/04 Caiphn Complete suprise, a must see. 5 stars
3/22/04 AfroFett F*** Resident Evil! 4 stars
3/22/04 graham cosh a must see! equal to but different from the original.can`t wait 4 dvd! 5 stars
3/22/04 Lust4DetH DoTD + 28DaysLater only decent horror in 200x 5 stars
3/22/04 michael keller this movie was awesome, so much fun. 5 stars
3/21/04 y2mckay Better than the original, Eric? Come on now, Son . . . 4 stars
3/21/04 nick2k wowzas! it was grrrreat. was kinda false advertising to sell as a 'remake' though. 5 stars
3/21/04 Morally Sound The original is still the best horror movie of all time. James Gunn's remake kicks ass too. 5 stars
3/21/04 Zophael great flick....non stop action....love the ending 5 stars
3/21/04 john good actors but no charchter development - no creepy atmosphere and bad video game action 2 stars
3/21/04 L.H. Oswald Love the original, love the remake! 5 stars
3/21/04 allan smith Pretty weak. Looked like a video game. celebrity sniping was fun. 2 stars
3/21/04 Michelle Bell Should have just made a sequel, not a remake of the greatest film ever made. 3 stars
3/21/04 True Grit This movie was only average. Original better. And Night of th.. remains untouched. 3 stars
3/21/04 Dustin Loomis an all around great zombie flick 5 stars
3/21/04 Dan hella pimp tite! 5 stars
3/21/04 Carver S. saw it last night and LOVED it..the sniper on the roof was sweet 5 stars
3/20/04 movieguy a great film 5 stars
3/20/04 vagile They got it right. 5 stars
3/20/04 los man The old ruff-around-the-edges splatter FX of old were somehow spookier; original's better 3 stars
3/20/04 Vicious Excellent horror film. 5 stars
3/20/04 Mike Great Movie!!Started right away and doesnt let up til the end...stay for the credits!!! 5 stars
3/20/04 CLS Very good remake--true to the original form. Marred by a bad ending. 4 stars
3/20/04 Graham Alright, but... is it so hard to write an original zombie film, and not rehash a classic? 3 stars
3/20/04 mason if the original wasn't the greatest film ever made this might have worked 2 stars
3/20/04 Maria Harrison the movie was boring, it dragged, and to be blunt it was horrible 2 stars
3/20/04 jpbeck This was a very tastey movie 5 stars
3/19/04 shanaynay I loved it! It scared the lights outta me! 5 stars
3/19/04 steve kick-ass movie 5 stars
IF YOU'VE SEEN THIS FILM, RATE IT!
Note: Duplicate, 'planted,' or other obviously improper comments
will be deleted at our discretion. So don't bother posting 'em. Thanks!
Your Name:
Your Comments:
Your Location: (state/province/country)
Your Rating:


Discuss this movie in our forum

USA
  19-Mar-2004 (R)
  DVD: 26-Oct-2004

UK
  N/A

Australia
  10-Jun-2004


Directed by
  Zack Snyder

Written by
  James Gunn

Cast
  Sarah Polley
  Ving Rhames
  Mekhi Phifer
  Michael Barry
  Lindy Booth
  Ty Burrell



Home Reviews  Articles  Release Dates Coming Soon  DVD  Top 20s Criticwatch  Search
Public Forums  Festival Coverage  Contests About 
eFilmCritic.com: Australia's Largest Movie Review Database.
Privacy Policy | HBS Inc. | |   

All data and site design copyright 1997-2017, HBS Entertainment, Inc.
Search for
reviews features movie title writer/director/cast