Dawn of the Dead (1978) vs. Dawn of the Dead (2004)

 

At first I was debating if I should do another one of these, but people seemed to enjoy when I did with The Thing movies and the Night of the Living Dead movies. So I figured I'd do it again.

Contender #1 - Dawn of the Dead (1978)

Director - George A. Romero

Writer(s) - George A. Romero

Release Date - Apr 13th, 1979

Production - Laurel Group

Distribution - United Film Distribution Company

Budget - $1,500,000

Gross - $66,000,000

Contender #2 - Dawn of the Dead (2004)

Director - Zack Snyder

Writer(s) - James Gunn, Michael Tolkin (uncredited), and Scott Frank (uncredited)

Release Date - Mar 19th, 2004

Production - Universal Pictures, Strike Entertainment, and New Amsterdam Entertainment

Distribution - Universal Pictures

Budget - $26,000,000

Gross - $102,300,000

Story

The story for both movies is a out of nowhere a disease is spreading that turns living people into zombies. During this time a group of random people find shelter inside an abandoned mall and must find various ways to survive an undead onslaught.

Round #1 - Visuals

Oh boy, once again I'm at crossroads when it comes to how these movies were directed. Especially since once again, neither Romero or Snyder went about their flicks in any wrong with and once again their styles heavily differ from each other.

Romero definitely changed a little bit from the previous installment [Night of the Living Dead]. He definitely went just a bit bigger but still remains very subtle. Dawn of the Dead didn't have a near documentary feel like Night had, but it still very well directed.

Meanwhile you have Snyder who, while still taken time for smaller character moments, does handle the bloody and action scenes to a really good degree. Although I do get a slight feeling he was still trying to find his footing as a director.

So it's really hard for me to decide a winner. Sure I could use Romero's later zombie movies, those being Land, Diary, and Survival of the Dead, to see how he went about directing and then compare it to Snyder's, but that'd be cheating since I'm not comparing those films to the remake. I'm comparing the Dawn movies. So I'm sorry but I'm calling it a tie.

Round #2 - Monster

I'm giving it to the remake. First off, I don't care what people say, RUNNING ZOMBIES ARE JUST AS TERRIFYING AS THE SLOW ONES! Second off, no disrespect to the make-up artists of the original, but I'm not a big fan how it's just this blue-ish gray face paint. Sure some zombies do have more of a design to them, but there's so few of them. With the remake, there's a lot of zombies with more of a look to them, and if they don't have that then they at least look like people who caught some sort of disease.

Round #3 - Scares

This was honestly yet another tough decision. Both movies do have some very scary moments. While both films have the zombies as a threat, they both have other horrifying aspects to them. With the original, we're giving the threat of an armed biker gang who pretty much start a war with our characters of who should have the mall. So we get a very human threat. With the remake, we do have some tension with the human characters. That's still a slight human problem but, the main concern is that they're trapped inside the mall. Sure a mall sounds like a good idea to hideout during a zombie apocalypse, but imagine being stuck there for the longest time until you find another way out. Not only would you go stir-crazy but it's only a matter of time before your supplies run out.

So who's the winner? Well for me I'm conflicted. Both have some really good moments to them, and even in a what if scenario where I didn't find them scary, I would've found them to be pretty entertaining. So once again it's a tie.

Round #4 - Story

When it came to this section it was also another hard choice to make. Because both have some good stories to them it's just the approaches were different.

Romero story is still about people in the middle of a uprising zombie apocalypse. But I found his story was primarily about how this event is effecting people more than the living dead eating people. Nothing wrong with that especially since that was also what made Night of the Living Dead such a classic.

The story for Snyder and co's remake still had those small character scenes but it does feel like a really fun survival horror movie. Again, nothing wrong with that mainly because the end result was actually pretty good.

So it comes down to taste. Do you want a slower pace, character focused movie or a fast pace survival movie?

Winner - Tie.

Again you're probably gonna feel like this is a cop out, but honestly I really do like both movies because they both offer so much. But if you're a fan of one or the other or both then that's fine.

Anyways, that's all for now. Come back on Thursday, Oct 10th, for my review of Scream 2. Until then, enjoy the rest of your day.