News and Events
Listen Up, You Primitive Undead-Heads
In my recent two-part post featuring an interview with James Gunn (scroll down to read it), he spoke a fair bit about the much-loved/lamented Dawn of the Dead remake that he penned, specifically those pesky running zombies. (Personally, I think that if you can suspend your disbelief towards the undead existing in the first place, believing that they could run really shouldn’t be much of a problem.)
At the end of that post I mentioned that the film was one of the most divisive movies amongst the Rue Crew, and that I’d talk about where I stood with it. I’m posting my lengthy review of the movie from when it came out, which originally ran in SEE magazine the weekly that I wrote for while living in Edmonton — and still do movie reviews for just for fun. I think it pretty much says it all.
This is from the March 24, 2004 issue, originally published online here. I’ve added some links in the text that will help flesh it out a bit, so to speak.
Thoughts?
Spawn of the Dead
Hollywood does the impossible with an excellent remake of a celebrated cult film
DAWN OF THE DEAD
Directed by Zack Snyder
Starring Sarah Polley, Ving Rhames, Mekhi Phifer, Jack Weber
Now playing
**** (out of five)
The new Dawn of the Dead isn’t as much a film as it is a debate about remakes, at least for movie geeks. Peruse the message boards at most active horror-themed websites and you’ll find lively discussions (plus all-out flame wars) over the merits of Hollywood’s makeover of a classic.
Hell, “classic” doesn’t even do it justice. George Romero’s 1978 film about a small group of zombie-holocaust survivors holed up in a cheesy mall is considered sacrosanct in the horror canon, and not just because it’s apocalyptically frightening and satirically humourous or because it’s a surprisingly insightful metaphor for consumer culture. More than that, along with Romero’s Night of the Living Dead it invented and defined the flesh-eating zombie movie.
But even that doesn’t adequately explain the protective attitude many have towards it. The original was an indie film shot for about a million bucks, which even by late ’70s standards was peanuts. Roy Frumke’s behind-the-scenes documentary Document of the Dead details the struggles of just getting the movie made. From shooting in a real mall after hours, to constant budget deficiencies, to co-star/special effects guy/stuntman Tom Savini throwing himself off the second floor onto a precarious pile of mattresses and cardboard boxes, Romero’s Dawn of the Dead embodies pure determination and rebel spirit.
Who the hell is this first-time feature director to hop on a sacred cow and take it for a $26 million joyride?
Fledgling filmmaker Zack Snyder was entrusted with both the most and least enviable remake assignment. Even the word remake is contentious these days, thanks to a dump of tired sequels, thoughtless genre rehash and pointless remakes (notably Gus Van Sant’s Psycho). The preferred nomenclature now is “re-imagined,” and as far as imagination goes this remake is solid.
Written by James Gunn, who started on low-budget Troma productions and moved on to–ugh–Scooby Doo movies, the film reuses the basic premise of a diverse group of strangers fortified in a shopping mall against hordes of undead. Sarah Polley stars as Ana, a nurse whose husband is zombified by the neighbour girl and turns on his wife with incredible speed and ferocity. Snyder prefers 28 Days Later-style over-clocked zombies, which not only makes sense in an undead movie for the MTV Generation, but also thickens the atmosphere of hopelessness.
Ana barely escapes amidst the chaos of formerly sterile suburbia and meets up with Kenneth, a burly cop played by Ving Rhames. They join level-headed Michael (Jake Weber), reformed criminal Andre (Mekhi Phifer) and his pregnant girlfriend Luda (Inna Korobkina) to find refuge at Crossroads Mall (hardy har). The group is initially given an icy reception by a trio of security guards, but stay and hold down the fort. Others eventually join them until there are about a dozen humans surrounded by countless hungry zombies.
Snyder, who, like Romero, got his start making commercials, touches on the anti-consumerist message of the original but doesn’t focus on it. There are no comical images of plodding ghouls falling off escalators, and the group doesn’t bore itself with consumer goods. They have their own reason for making a run for it, which leads to an inventive Road Warrior rebuild of the mall shuttle buses.
Primarily, this is an action movie with some humour, plenty of scares, and a welcome lack of poisonous irony that ruins so many movies. Much of its success relies on having genuine characters worth caring about who struggle to redefine the value of human life.
One of the best “re-imagined” threads involves Andy, a gun shop owner trapped on the roof of his shop a couple of blocks away. Using binoculars and a whiteboard, he jokes, plays chess, and converses with Kenneth. He’s got plenty of ammo, but is running out of food–the reverse of the situation at the mall. Should they help him? How can they help him? What will it cost them?
A key element of the drama in both versions of Dawn is the role of Game Theory, which essentially deals with how groups of people interact in cooperative and non-cooperative situations. The film constantly brings up practical and moral problems that the viewer negotiates in his or her own mind: “Would I risk myself to rescue that stranger, and if I did, how would I get over there in one piece?” The majority of choices in both films seem logical given the particular personalities of the characters. That unwavering core of diehard fans would like to dismiss Snyder’s Dawn as nonsensical drivel; they aren’t justified in doing so.
OK, so then how about the fact it’s not as socially aware as Romero’s version? Should it have updated the commentary on consumer culture–changed settings to a big-box store or a Costco? What else could it have said that Romero’s didn’t?
The right choice was made in transforming the tale into a fast-paced roller coaster ride through hell. Dawn 2004 doesn’t tread on the master’s coattails, which means Romero may actually get his forth Dead film made if someone doesn’t try to make it before him.
The 64-year-old director, whose third social-commentary-through-zombie-cinema was Day of the Dead in ’85, has lamented in several interviews that he’s had a script ready for some time but meets with the resistance from studios and financiers that demand changes, or just aren’t interested. Romero’s last film, Bruiser (2000), didn’t open in Canadian theatres, and until it went out of print was only available as a no-frills import DVD.
This utter neglect of a celebrated director is the real cause for anger, not the fact that his most popular work was remade. Zack Snyder skillfully directed an excellent zombie movie that happens to be a much different version of the best zombie movie. The fact that the remake of Dawn of the Dead knocked another resurrection film, The Passion of the Christ, from top spot last weekend is a hopeful sign that a rookie director will help a great director finally get another day in the sun.
DAVE ALEXANDER
Great review Dave, but I’m on the other side of the fence with the Dawn remake. However, I loved the first ten minutes of the film (including the opening credits using a Johnny Cash tune) until Sarah Polly’s character and Ving Rhames go to the mall. After that, there were more characters popping up than an episode of Rowan and Martin’s Laugh In.
It may be the right kind of movie for the MTV generation, but therein lies the problem. It’s an unfortunate technique too many directors use to try and put the audience in the action.
The quick frantic editing had my head spinning to figure out what the hell was happening on screen. Some of the make-up FX I had seen on set and in publicity stills were incredible, only to be lost or barely visible during the ramped-up zombie attacks.
Personally, Snyder’s Dawn doesn’t even come close to other successful remakes like Carpenter’s The Thing, Cronenbergs’ The Fly, or any of the Body Snatcher’s. I’ll even take Savini’s Night of the Living Dead over this one any day. Other than the opening reel, a few choice gore moments, and the opening set up, Dawn ’04 just didn’t float my boat.
I just rewatched Savini’s NOTLD. I’m still pretty sure DOTD 04 is better.
All in my opinion, of course.
As usual, I am in total agreement with Gary. While I see what you’re saying in your review, the things you point out as pluses are what I consider detractors. The music video style editing takes the visual nuances out of well crafted effects, the lack of any clear subtext panders to a self absorbed and mindless generation of movie goers, and my biggest complaint….that’s right, running zombies! I think Simon Pegg said it best with “Death is a disability, not an energy drink!”.
Of course this boils down to what degree we’re willing to suspend disbelief. If we are willing to accept the fact that the dead are rising and hunger human flesh, then why are we bothered by the fact that they run? The answer is simple: because for some odd reason running zombies don’t exude the same creepy atmosphere that the shambling horde does. With Romero’s zombies you had the feeling that you could escape the undead, but, because of their numbers, the next thing you know, you’re surrounded. This reinvigorates the feeling of panic that makes for an exhilarating cinematic experience. Just like the roller coaster theory, it’s all abut doling out he highs and lows and giving the audience a chance to feel safe before you throw another drop at them.
While there are things that I admire about DotD ’04 (opening credits, some decent gore, and even the surprise handi-cam footage at the end), I think that this movie should have distanced itself from the original and gone with a new title. I believe that hardcore fanatics would’ve received it much better if it had, but then again, with the “controversy”, at least people are still talking about it.
Good points, I’m digging the debate.
I guess I see the film more as an action-horror movie, than a horror-action movie, so I enjoyed the fast-paced, fast-edited elements that normally I’d dislike in a Hollywood film. In fact, while I dislike many of the hyper edits, I think it really worked in some sequences to give a viewer a sense of disorientation that added to the feeling of panic. That said, I don’t look for subtext in action films, so I was quite happy they didn’t rehash decades-old social commentary about consumerism, but rather left it in the background. I would’ve found it kind of insulting. That said, there’s a subtle update on the critique, with the heroine escaping from the suburbs — the place where the infection seems to be spreading from. If the original suggests that zombies flock to a shopping mall, the remake suggests that they come from the suburbs in the first place.
I agree that the characters could’ve had more depth (less of them would’ve helped this) but again, this is more of an action movie than anything, and I don’t expect such rounded characters in an action film (give me thrills!), so I was able to forgive it.
The Thing, The Fly and Body Snatchers are indeed definitely better, as far as remakes go, but I’ll take this over Savini’s remake of NotLD, as well. Not that I dislike Savini’s film (especially considering the budget), but DotD ’04 displays a lot of imagination, including the killer credit opening, the first act set up with the escape from the suburbs, the most excellent battle bus sequence and some great gore gags (love that chainsaw mishap).
And hey, why can’t death be an energy drink? You aren’t going to get tired or feel the pain of over-exertion — rather you’re driven by a blind hunger, like an animal. Perhaps less creepy, but also maybe more in-the-moment scary. Something different either way, and that’s what I appreciate about it.
“And hey, why can’t death be an energy drink? You aren’t going to get tired or feel the pain of over-exertion — rather you’re driven by a blind hunger, like an animal. Perhaps less creepy, but also maybe more in-the-moment scary. Something different either way, and that’s what I appreciate about it.”
*****************NERD ALERT***************NERD ALERT****************NERD ALERT
I’ve actually considered this fact, and it’s a valid point, but, the undead, due to the lack of a functioning circulatory system, would be unable to produce the adrenaline necessary for a quick burst of speed. So with my nerdlinger movie science, I have proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt (to myself anyways), that your track star zombies cannot exist! Check and mate.
Actually, Kenneth, they can run, jump rope and use a pommel horse, and it has nothing to do with their circulatory systems, and everything to do with their high number of midi-chlorians. Like, duh!
Blast! Foiled by Lucas logic yet again!!! I should have seen this coming considering that it’s the same argument Stuart Gordon used when I wrote him questioning the ability of the Re-animating agent to course through dead veins.
Medical logic aside, running zombies are boring. Imagine that! I just don’t feel the same level of creepitude with the athletic undead- and that’s what it all boils down to for me. I mean, sure you can outrun slow zombies, and they may not be on a level to fit in with the flashcutting aesthetic, but why would they even be undead if they can hop and barrell-roll and whatnot. That’s just not creepy.
Give me Grimsdyke any fuckin day.