Dawn of the dead (the remake) was pretty good, i just came back from watching it. i LOVE the original and i was excited to see the new re-make, I was happy and satisfied that it was as good as the original, even my husband liked it!!

the frist 5-7 minutes were SO INTENSE!!!!!

there were moments that i had problems with, first of all, the movie is set in Milwaukee, WI. I am a Georgia transplant living in Milwaukee for the last 3 years, and Milwaukee doesn't look ANYTHING like that; the roads are FILLED with pot holes and no one in the movie had that slightly annoying yankee accent :) J/K, but they did get SOME THINGS right!, milwaukee drivers SUCK!!! and a character in the movie named steve, (he has a snobby prima donna attitude), well he must live in milwaukee, beacuse EVERYONE here is 'me! me! me! & mine! mine! mine!:) even the downtown skyline isn't the same! BUT still it was pretty cool that the movie was set here. during the opening they named off a few things like Waukesha county and Jefferson county, and my husband and i were just like "HEY COOL!!" but anyway none of that had anything to do with how well the movie was :)

the second thing i had a problem with was the main actress, Sarah Polley, i guess she is a Canadian actress with a very long list of movies and such under her belt.

I thought she was absolutely DREADFUL of an actress in this movie, but it didn't ruin the movie for me since she didn't really have many speaking parts, mostly there were more physical moments in the movie for her.

there were a few plot holes (not much) and other wise i loved it!!! OH there is some nudity and sexual conduct so if you're a parent leave the kiddies at home, the zombies were scary and you should stay through out the ending credits cuz' they have some more of the movie.

When I enter the theatre to see the remake of \"Dawn of the Dead\" I didn\'t think it would be better than the first, and I was right. but, I urge you to see the remake and if you seen the 1978 film you can compare the two movies. The big difference between the two 1978 film has some comedy as we see the zombies falling on each off. the 2004 remake is more serious. Ving Rhymes and his crew of survivalists are hold up in a shopping center while the zombies were outside. the first scenes of the film were intense. They show zombies attacking people, while hearing Johnny Cash\'s \"The Man Comes Around.\" You can say that Emperor Nemo fiddle while Rome burn. but like the first film, it\'s violent, full of gore. \"Dawn of the Dead\" may not be as good as the original 1978 movie, I urged you to see it.

It wasn't bad, but it wasn't really good either. There was a distinct lack of actual suspense and it had characters doing stupid horror movie cliches.

It wasn't a bad movie and very worth the price of a rental, but it wasn't good enough to really justify a full movie ticket price.

In fact, just rent the original, which is a classic.

I like zombie movies. Romero's original trilogy is priceless, and "28 Days Later" updated the genre for a new generation. This new "Dawn of the Dead" continues more in the tradition of "28 Days Later" than Romero's films. Whereas Romero's Dawn had a lot of satire in it, while this new one more focuses much more on the human effects of this certain form of apocalyse. As this movie goes on, we feel not only our own horror, but that of the characters as well, much as we did in "28 Days." This movie also takes a cue from "28 Days" in that its zombies are ferocious sprinting demons instead of moaning, shuffling ones. There is one scene in particular that was very effective in which a legless zombie snuck up on character. . . by hand-over-handing his way along a ceiling pipe at light speed. Never seen a zombie do that before.

This movie actually has a visual style similar to "Days" too. A jittery camera and stark coloring make the action more immediate. There was plenty of blood and dismemberment, too, which anyone who goes to a zombie movie is doubtless looking forward to. The ending was definitely superior to the happy-smiles-and-sunshine way that "28 Days Later" ended, although some might find it anticlimactic, especially if they stay through the credits. All in all, this was a good zombie film that can't quite reach the top tier with Romero's films and "28 Days Later," but it's certainly better than the loud, obnoxious crapfest that was "Resident Evil."

Scary, bloody, unsettling, at times hilarious (purposefully so), and at times even sad, it suffers most from a complete focus on the action rather than on character development (one character in particular seemed to do an about-face very quickly) that "28 Days Later" had in spades. Still, a bloody good zombie flick and much more than I was expecting.

I like apocolyptic movies. This film was solid, but the characters were a bit flat.

Man, I can't say I'm the greatest critic in the world, or even yet a qualified critic...
Do I know any thing about acting...
No...
Do I know a great sound track (I love the score for back to the future) when I hear it?
No, I have no real taste in music (though the kinda lounge singer version of down with the sickness was creepy yet sweet)

Do I think about plots greatly enough to find holes?
Sometimes, I studied quantum phisics shortly to figure out how valid the time travel in Back to the future was... and let me tell you, I can sleep easy at night knowing how right or wrong Doc Brown was...

So enough about my lack of clear judgement... And onto the movie...

I loved it...
Simple, I walked in not knowing what to expect besides a kick ass zombie movie, or maybe a social commentary (stupid original), and you know, it was way more than the kick ass zombie movie I expected... It was a GREAT kick ass zombie movie...

Those were some sweet zombies, and the bloated fat woman of a zombie... scariest thing imaginable...

It wasn't a scary movie though... Well very few movies can actually be scary when watching, but do to the somewhat crazed/paranoid/delusional state of my psyche (is that spelled right) (is spelled a word?) (I should get a dictionary), It left an impact that to this day (only three days after the fact) I'm sure my family are zombies annd want to eat me. And in the dark OH MAN, I need some sorta chainsaw hand to survive.

Plot wise, I didn't think it was so bad, the slow spreading of the apocolipse, dead walking the earth, filed me with dread.
The characaters (for the most part) becoming a family and living it up when at any second the could all be dead, I enjoyed.
And that andy fellow, best character in the movie.. not really, but he deserved some props. But the whole part where he spreads his bload (as a zombie) all over the board and held it up... The movie could have and should have done without.

Sound track, Best in a zombie movie I have ever heard... all in all my bad taste and musical sense say it was solid...

gore, not enough.

zombies, f***ing fast! Strong, angrier than any zombie imaganable. And creepy as hell. And the whole leaping into the air, fantastic opponents.
Why if I was either a priest or a paladin, or just a big guy with a gun, I would STILL run like hell...

Kick assness, absolutely.

enjoyable, 100%

fun, hell yeah

experience, a little unusual viewing for me, seeing as I saw it with my aspireing necromancer friend, who was routing for the zombies the whole time, and I a lover of humanity, we seemed to clash at certain zombie eating people moments.
But the movie itself was great.

Bottom line (Yes, NO, or Rent)
YES!

~Von