#170: Dawn of the Dead

Dawn of the Dead (1978 & 2004)
Written and directed by George A. Romero (78)
2004 edition directed by Zack Snyder
Starring zombies


Purists will hate me. As you can plainly see, both Dawns are mentioned and this will piss off a lot of hardcore zombie movie fans. Thankfully for me, no one reads this except people that barely care and don't let trivial things like remakes of a movie ruin their day.

Remakes are a maligned creature and I can understand that to a degree. It's a proponent of the lack of creativity in Hollywood. Why think of a new and original idea when you can remake one from the past and cash in on its name?

Some people think this is a new phenomenon. A few years ago The Ring came out with Naomi Watts. It was a North American rendition of a popular Japanese horror flick called Ringu. Since then the USA has imported several from the terrible The Eye to improving over the original with Scorsese's The Departed (was Infernal Affairs).

This is not new.

Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai was released in 1954 and then remade in the States as The Magnificent Seven in 1960. The Magnificent Seven is one of the most recognizable titles in the western genre. Sergio Leone's Fistful of Dollars was also a remake of a Kurosawa film called Yojimbo. Cue the 1990's and Bruce Willis' Last Man Standing and you have a remake of a remake.

Kurosawa though adapted a couple of Shakespeare's plays into loose translations into a samurai motif. Throne of Blood (Macbeth) and Ran (King Lear) were essentially remakes but of plays instead of other movies. Is there any difference between an adaptation and a remake?

If no then the remake trend is certainly nothing new and you could argue Hollywood and cinema in general has never been very original and I wouldn't exactly dispute this.

Consider the following films: There Will Be Blood, No Country for Old Men, Zodiac, All the President's Men, L.A. Confidential, Goodfellas, The Godfather, and The Shawshank Redemption.

Each of those movies appeared in the printed medium first. And each of those movies are more or less celebrated. Even this year's best picture darling Slumdog Millionaire is based on a novel. Oh and captain fanboy, your beloved Star Wars? Yeah, Lucas was heavily influenced by none other than Akira Kurosawa. Lucas borrowed heavily from Hidden Fortress so there you have it.

The Dawn of the Dead's are so vastly different, and really the only similarity is they feature groups of people stuck in a mall fending off zombies. They both have the anti-consumerism message. Some have argued that it's more subdued and subtle in the original and I disagree. It's pretty obvious through the entire movie. The biggest difference is in the action.

The 70s version focuses more on character interaction while the remake is all about creating anxiety and tension with as many quick scares as possible. The zombies run and I have no problem with that.

Both films are fantastic in their own way. And even if you hate the remake as a whole I can't see how you can dislike the opening sequence and overall set up unless you just hate horror movies in general.

A lot of remakes are trash but so are the originals. Anyone who complains about the new Friday the 13th sullying the originals is on some crazy drugs. The originals hold no real integrity, for proof just watch part 8 again. Jason takes Manhattan is the worst horror movie I've ever watched and I saw Hellraiser: Bloodline.

It's infuriating to read message boards where movie fans bitch and complain about the lack of originality in the film industry. It's not a new thing and it will always be like this. Like any movie, watch it before you judge it and if it still doesn't cut the mustard well move on to the next movie. A remake isn't inherently a bad thing and remember a new idea committed to celluloid is not inherently a good one either.