Dawn of the Dead (2004)

Hold on, let me get some breakfast first...of the Dead


Directed by: Zack Snyder (300, Watchmen)
Starring: Sarah Polley, Ving Rhames, Mekhi Phifer


George A. Romero is credited with creating the zombie apocalypse genre of film with his seminal 1968 independent flick Night of the Living Dead. He followed Night with Dawn, and then Day. Now, Zack Snyder helms the remake of Romero's classic Dawn of the Dead. Is it good? Does it live up to the expectations of Romero's fanbase? What is this whole zombie apocalypse thing about, anyway. Answers to all these questions and more will be revealed in...Review of the Dawn of the Dead!

The answer to the first question is: Yes, Dawn is an extremely entertaining and at times pulse-pounding ACTION THRILL RIDE like it might say on the back of the DVD case. The slow "shamblers" of the Romero original are replaced by oh-my-fuck-close-the-door "runners" akin to victims of 28 Days Later's rage virus. This lends them a much more concentrated fear factor per individual zombie and makes even single-zombie sequences much more tense. The characters of the film have a kind of distilled realism that is thrown into sharp relief against the unnatural circumstances they are thrust into. Flaws are exposed and put to use to create a great dynamic and chemistry between the survivors. Humor and drama are suitably balanced, with most of the comic relief coming in the form of Steve, who I dub Sir Steve the Douchebag, for his unflinching commitment to being an asshole even in the face of apocalyptic death. The ending, the true ending of the movie, is a refreshing change of pace from the more watered-down and palatable mass-marketed horror endings of our time. Oh wow, hey, the cure is in Vermont! Hooray for God telling me humanity won! Yay humanity!

Visually, the movie excels on almost every level. A change from softer, more cinematic lighting and film technique into a harsher, desaturated and very guerilla-esque shooting style over the course of the picture depicts a confusing and frightening worldwide situation descending into something much more personal and desperate. The makeup on the zombies is painstaking, and a multitude of extras instill the army of undead with real life and energy that's refreshing in the days of overused and overwrought CGI.


One area the film might suffer is in its changing of the Romero style. The original film's shambling zombies represented more of an encroaching, ever-growing, and ultimately inevitable threat, slowly driving barricaded survivors over the edge with tension and grief. What's more, they represented the dog-eat-dog capitalist nature and the oppression of something. Whatever. I'm not sure what the point Romero was trying to make back in 1968 and 1978 was, but I'm sure it is weakened by the change in state of the zombies. Or, perhaps not. The new faster zombies can stand for the blistering pace with which the mass-marketing machine ensnares its consumers, hunting target demographicsdown with ruthless speed. The bites represent turning consumers into marketing platforms themselves effectively killing who they once were, and the rotting flesh represents how the goal of capitalism is ultimately flawed and corrupt. There, you happy? I can draw parallels too.


My main point is that this movie is fun to watch. It might lack whatever subtle symbolism the Romero original had, and its zombies might run fast or whatever, but I'm down for that. That just makes them scarier, and this is a horror movie, so that's a good thing. The movement of the cinematography is subtle and the visuals will impress throughout. Foremost, it will entertain. It's not the smartest film in the world, and it doesn't pretend to be. If you're looking for a great addition to your horror or action library, look no further than Snyder's Dawn of the Dead. Go on, give in to the consumerist agenda...