The remake is kind of novel in that it's a post-2000 remake that doesn't suck. That being said, it's not very good either; it's very paint-by-numbers, predictable and generic. Once you see it once, you never have to watch it again. A masterpiece compared to most of the horror remakes coming out now, but that's not a high bar. The original is more intense and engaging and can stand up to multiple viewings, so the original is the winner.

Neither is very good, and I found both extremely tedious. I gave both 3/10 stars. But this has a bit of historical value going for it, so I'll give this a stronger 3.

The concept was interesting. The writing was unfocused and meandering and full of terrible dialog. All of the acting with the exception of the lead guy and the colonel was over the top horrible. Strictly amateur hour.The general execution and camera work was poor. The remake is a professionally made film, extremely well done and suspenseful. This is just pathetic. No wonder it was such a flop in it's day. I will say that if Romero could have gotten proper funding from a studio, he would have made a much better film.

I like both, but for very different reasons.
The original I find is much more effective as an actually uncomfortable frightening film, just with how the government is portrayed. Really scary stuff. The pacing is slow, but the tension is relatively consistent throughout. The interactions of the government people with the leadership of the town, and the citizens was also interesting, and in many disconcerting. It is let down by the limitations of the production, casting, some script stuff, etc.
I like the remake because I think it's a very well paced modern "town under-siege/outbreak/escapist" horror flick. Not scary in the least, but fun, something that original did not try to be at all. Overall very different, and more power to it for being so.
I personally like the more reflective, slower paced original, thoughI even liked all the talkie stuff with the police and the government guys! But the remake definitely has it's merits and undoubtedly reaches a wider audience. Just easier to take material.
Zagreus waits at the end of the world, For Zagreus is the end of the world.

This message has been deleted.

Watching it again I gave it another whirl. The folk music and Military music still gets on my nerves. But overall it's not a bad little film. The film is dated (made in the 70's after all) some decent action and fright scenes. I still like the remake tho. I feel like it streamlined some of the kinks the original had.

I prefer the original I like the 70's setting plus I grew up in that era and I like the no name actors in it.

I preferred the remake. The original focused too much on the Scientist and Colonel arguing. Guess they had to spoonfeed the audience all about the virus. Also no corny folk music and much better acting. Plus the remake doesn't hit you over the head with being antiwar or government.

This message has been deleted.

Original. It just seemed so much more better written.

I preferred the original because:
A) It's Romero!
and
B) It didn't have Timothy Elephant hamming it up
also the original had this sly bit of genius to it where by the end of the film you didn't know if the characters were going crazy or not or if they were just doing their best to escape the quarantine zone. There is a thin line between depravity and survival and I thought the film showcased this very well. The remake had none of this undercurrent, it was pretty dumb.
Not to say the original is flawless, but for a low bduget b movie from 1973, I enjoyed its dark humour, social commentary, and surrealism.
Greatest Films Not in the IMDB Top 250
http://www.imdb.com/list/bc9x1QAFat0/