Compare and Contrast

Dawn of the Dead (1978) V.S. Dawn of the Dead (2004)

Ever since I have been a little kid, I have always loved horror movies. This genre of movies interests me, because you are constantly kept on the edge of your seat. I think when you take a look at various horror films and compare them; you will notice an array of different scare tactics/methods. You will also notice many cliché ideas that a lot horror flicks have in common. I will point these ideas out in detail, when I compare The Dawn of The Dead horror flick released in 1978, with the one released in 2004; Two and a half decades later.

The original Dawn of The Dead is a terrific movie. I will start off by saying I think the original is a little scarier then the newer released film. I am more of a fan of the eerie kind of horror that I noticed in the original. In the early produced 78’ film, the zombies are very slow and stupid. They didn’t have the technology to make them fast, or the ability to use modern special effects. This is why I think the original scares me more; it has a more real feel to it. The zombies creepily wander around, looking for people to feast on. This is a type of suspense scare tactic, because it gives a “there coming” kind of suspense feeling. Even though they are slow, there’s an endless amount of them and they are very deadly. Just one bite from a zombie and you contract the deadly disease yourself. This idea stays true in both the 78’ and 04’ editions of the movie. The zombies in the newer movie are a lot more modern. For instance they look completely different, and the newer zombies are freakishly fast. The zombies in the older film had almost no makeup if any at all, while the zombies in the newer film look freakishly real, and evil. The scare methods used in the newer film are more of a spontaneous, and an anything could happen at any time kind of scare. This tactic keeps viewers glued to the screen. While this is a great way to scare people, I think the slower, and more eerie feel of the original provide me with a more intense sense of terror. However both films were great and they both had horrifying moments.
The setting of the 78’ Dawn of the Dead is post zombie-apocalypse

Philadelphia. The events in this movie take place an unknown amount of time (less then 5 years) after the previous zombie movie Night of the Living Dead. The events of the newer film take place in modern day Wisconsin. The older film starts off with 4 survivors of a previous zombie apocalypse, where as the new movie starts with a bus crash linking all the characters together. The original film focused on the main 4 characters Steven, Peter, Francine, and Roger. Where as the new film had a lot more characters and survivors that were part of the struggle. I think a smaller group provides for more of a sense of terror but that’s just me! Steven (original film) is a staff team member at the WGON TV studio in Philadelphia, he and his girlfriend Francine plan to take the stations traffic helicopter, and escape the zombie invasion. They meet up with Roger and Peter (two swat team members) in the destroyed apartment complex, and escape in the helicopter. We are introduced to the main characters of the newer film when Ana a nurse, finds out her husband has turned into a zombie. Ana flees the house, and eventually crashes her car where we are introduced to the films main characters: Police Sergeant Kenneth Hall, Michael, Andre, and Andre’s wife Luda. I think its ironic how in this film they escape on the ground, but in the older film they escape in a helicopter. Anyhow both groups of characters, in both films, end up taking refuge in an abandoned mall.

In every movie there always has to be some type of plan or hope. The people in the original planned to barricade the mall and hold up as long as they could. The people in the 2004 edition also did this, but they plotted a plan of escape. After survivors started dying the people remaining were forced to relocate. Eventually they were led to a parking garage with buses in it; they beefed up these buses for their escape. The plan was to ram all the zombies out of the way and get to Steve’s yaht. Steve is one of the remaining survivors; he is a good looking spoiled rich guy. This is a tactic a lot of scary movies use, they keep people around that annoy you, and have the people you like killed. They want to get that deep emotional feeling from you for certain characters, and then have them killed to create a sense of shock. In the first film we witness a horrific scene, where Pete has to shoot Roger, (his buddy from the swat team) because he turns into a zombie. This is similar to the scene in the new film where Frank’s daughter runs away from him because he’s a zombie, she then hides and lets the survivors kill him. When things like this are implicated into movies, it really hits home. As humans we like to compare these situations and imagine how we would feel in the characters shoes. These directors want us to do this. Making personal connections provide for a lot deeper appreciation for the movie, along with a heightened sense of fear.

The original movie takes place the entire time in the mall until the end, where Peter and Francine escape the mall on another helicopter. Where as the new film ends with a group of survivors leaving the mall in heavily armed buses. They throw in a twist though as they are leaving one of the buses crashes getting a small group of survivors brutally killed (one by way of chainsaw). Once the survivors finally make it to the dock where Steve’s boat is, they narrowly escape at the last second. The camera pans out as a huge group of zombies disposes of a few survivors that didn’t make it. I enjoyed this ending a lot more and thought it had more a lasting effect.

I think that both of these films were great. Although the plot lines and the stories behind the characters were completely different; I still noticed a lot of similar ideas throughout both movies. Although very different, I think the films were very similar at the same time. You notice commonalities when you really dig deep into the thought of these movies. Even though they were filmed years and years apart, both movies were terrifying. If I had to pick one I would go with the original, but just barely. I like the fact that it was an original idea at the time, and I believe that the lack of special effects really actually helped add to the over all horror level of this film. I think modern directors get carried away with the special effects; this takes from the realism and looks phony if you ask me. These two films were a lot different then I had originally thought, but I would gladly recommend both flicks to anyone.