Night of the Living Dead (1990) - review

1990 (USA)

2005 UCA DVD R(2) 

Contains mild spoilers.

Why? That was the question I asked slipping the DVD in. Romero's 1968 Night of the Living Dead was nigh-on perfect; the quintessential zombie masterpiece responsible for setting in motion a modern undead obsession that shows no signs of abating. Capturing the prevalent fear and paranoia of a country lost and disillusioned after Vietnam and several prominent assassinations, with a subtext playing with the idea the enemy might be within rather than faceless and on foreign shores, it was a great metaphor for its time and couldn't help but question why there was a need to do it all again.

I'm well versed with Romero remakes. Acquiring one of the iconic names instantly adds gravitas and a seal of approval to your project and whilst I've seen it both abused, as with Day of the Dead (2008) I've also seen it work. Dawn of the Dead (2004) took the setting and premise of its processor and fashioned a perfect action horror film, honouring its heritage whilst forging something new for an explosive-expecting younger audience. Both have one thing in common though; they're new stories with new characters and a new direction.

Night of the Living Dead (1990) is different. It's the same story, albeit subtly edited, the same production team, though directing this time was handed to Tom Savani who worked on Dawn and Day, and it still has George A. Romero pulling the strings. It's a remake, almost scene for scene and word for word.

A combination of the copyright bungle that robbed Romero and production company 'Image 10' of thousands and rumours another Texan outfit were preparing a remake of their own might have provided the financial motivation to remake it, but I'd also like to think there was another motivation and that perhaps they thought they could actually do it better. Now, I'm probably going to upset a few people here, and I understand this view will be one of my more controversial ones but having just finished it, I kind of think, if this indeed was an aim and motivation, they were right as they pulled it off.

Ok, I know I said it was an identical remake, and on the surface it pretty much is, Barbara (Patricia Tallman) escapes an attack on her and her brother Johnnie (Bill Moseley), finds her way to at an abandoned farmhouse where she meets up with Ben (Tony Todd). They clear the house, join up with another group who were hidden the basement, then fall out on how best to combat the bloodthirsty undead army knocking at the door. We know the story, it's straightforward, simple and a modern trope and Romero has on the surface done nothing to really to stray.

But there are differences and it's these very differences that seem to have attracted the most criticism; Barbara is no longer the wilting flower, there isn't quite the same racial subtext, the zombies are too zombie-ish and the ending, oh, the ending. I'm of the opinion however, that if you acknowledge the differences for what they are and realise they're actually there as part of an attempt to tell a slightly different narrative, then it's just as compelling and rewarding as the first.

  

In the original Barbara soon deteriorates into a semi-catatonic state and early dialogue with Johnnie in the remake, and hysteria and hesitation when she first gets to farm house intimates the same repressed suffocated character. However, rather than letting the situation overcome her, Romero in this remake has the conflict actually galvanise and free her to become arguably the strongest survivor, and the one most likely to see the night out. As the men scramble futilely for patriarchal dominance she alone seems to possess the cold detatchment necessary to truly read the situation, pointing out the undead are so slow that they should just walk past them before they're overrun.

On the surface she's just another action female lead, but it's Romero, so it's more subtle and interesting. The tension between Ben and thug Harry Cooper (Tom Towles) is still there but the racial subtext is no longer as biting or relevent as it was in 68, so subtly moving the subtext from racial to gender repression and emergence is compelling and valid.

  

The other main difference is visually. With Savani in charge the zombies are for want of a better phrase, more zombie like. With a far larger budget and freedom to play, the undead are visceral, nastier and more demonic than in Romero's previous outing. They still behave very much like those of the original and brilliantly and uniformly obey all Romero's trademark idiosyncrasies shuffling around looking for living to consume but are now far more in keeping with what we'd expect to see some 22 years on with blood, deformity and gore galore. There's still the same ambiguity as to the reason they're up and at 'em, with emphasis on space radiation but still the same insinuation hell might actually be full as they rise whether bitten or not. There are also small nods to Romero's later films as if they could perhaps have some semblance of awareness, as they combine to drag a corpse out a fire and share a meal of bugs. 

Narrative differences aside, Night of the Living Dead (1990) is brilliantly realised. There isn't a bad line delivered or a scene not compelling or convincing. Savani and Romero perfectly capture the feeling of despair and futility as the zombies keep coming like a relentless tide. I don't think I've seen the Romero zombie so perfectly realised or felt an atmosphere so imbued with the inevitability of death. The eerie score accompanies the build of tension brilliantly and the pacing I'd argue is stronger and more assured that the original with zombies more of an ever present threat. 

One of the last zombie films before Boyle and Anderson heralded in the a faster, more immediate and visceral frenzied zombie Night of the Living Dead (1990) is the perfect imagining of the slow relentless tide the Romero zombie symbolises. The experience of working on Dawn of the Dead and Day of the Dead shows, and Romero and Cavani actually managed to take something that was let's be honest pretty darn good, shake it about it to produce something that in my opinion easily stands up alongside them. It was still a strange choice, if I'm honest, to do the same thing again, but I'm happy they did and there's enough different to warrant owing and enjoying both. I really don't think it needs to be an either / or. 

I do think those who have written this off as a quick and dirty remake of the original, pointing to the ending as evidence have missed some of the other more subtle changes and are doing it a disservice. With the changes in narrative and the focus on Barbara the ending works; it's a different message but no less provocative. A worthy Romero film, as poignant a metaphor for fears and feelings of individual ineffectiveness as its predecessor, and as good as anything else he's had his hand in, this is now one of my favourite zombie films and I think it might just edge the first attempt, 9/10.

WTD.

(George A. Romero's) Survival of the Dead - review

 

2009 (USA/Canada)

2010 Optimum Home Releasing Blu-Ray R(B/2)

Contains mild spoilers.

I really don't know what to make of this. I understood going in, it wasn't his best effort; heck who am I kidding, everywhere I looked I could see everyone calling it his weakest. I recently watched Diary of the Dead and for all it did right it was still a far cry from the giddy and provocative first trilogy and this I read, was supposed to be worse. Having now watched it I'll agree it's not likely to win any awards but I didn't think it was as bad as all that...

Survival of the Dead or to give it its full title George A. Romero's Survival of the Dead; already a sign they didn't have a lot of confidence in it, is the sixth and currently last instalment of the dead series he started way back in 1968 with the game-changing Night of the Living Dead. After the relatively big budget and mainstream Landof the Dead (which I actually really liked), Diary of the Dead was an attempt to reboot the franchise, and return an indie look and feel to the franchise. With a equally modest low budget Survival of the Dead is a direct sequel with the same world, the same problems and even some of the same characters.

The bulk of the film is set three weeks after armageddon. Colonel 'Nicotine' Crockett (Alan van Sprang), disillusioned with the armed defence has deserted with three of his troopers deciding his best chances of survival are out in the sticks, alone with a heavy emphasis on 'whatever it takes' and 'to hell with everyone else'. Here the soldiers run into and dispatch a sadistic group of red-neck hunters, pick up a young lad we never hear the name of (Devon Bostick) who shows them an internet video (more of this later) from a Captain Patrick O' Flynn (Kenneth Welsh) who comes across a bit Captain Birdeye, who promises an undead free paradise on Plum Island.

Cutting to the chase, Crockett and his troop end up on the island with the previously exiled O' Flynn and right slap bang into the middle of a feud with the islands rival family lead by Seamus Muldoon (Richard Fitzpatrick). The reason for this latest spat they learn was a differing opinion on how best to deal with the sudden rise of the dead and buried.

Romero has never shied away from divisive political or cultural ideologies fuelling his films with racial, consumerist, military and media subtexts. I've written much on the topic but with Survival it's harder to pinpoint exactly the metaphor is, or whether there really is one. O' Flynn is the pragmatist. He believes in survival and safety and favours killing the dead at each and every opportunity whether their loved ones agree or not.  Muldoon is the idealist, steadfast that how ever difficult it might be, it is it up to them to protect the dead from harm and pray and wait for a cure or salvation. Both are dogmatic in their views and prepared to kill the other to see their ideology played out. Over the length of the film we get to see that both are right and wrong, and perhaps the truth lies somewhere in the middle but either way both are wrong for trying to force their single world view onto everyone. Perhaps it's the pitfall and inherent (self)destruction in staunch dogmatism that's Romero's message, or perhaps I'm just reading too much into it the whole thing (quite likely). Either way it's this clash of ideologies and personalities that forms the backbone of the story and after O' Flynn returns a violent clash was always inevitable.

They're shambling, they're brain-dead, they like human flesh and they like to hang out with the like minded in big groups. Romero's zombies have rarely been that threatening or vicious and even though the film is still full of trademark over the top kills and violence never before have I seen zombies, when on their own so unassuming and dare I say pathetic. Many of the imaginative ways Sarge 'Nicotine' and his troop find to dispatch the undead come from the sheer amount of time they find themselves with to set them up.

Despite this though, at other times, when it's one on one and mainly when it's one on one with a side character, it all seems rather easy and convenient for the zombie to overpower their victims and get a bite in. The contradictions aren't isolated to the zombie kills either. On the one hand the premise is that the majority of the worlds population have turned into zombies; it's the end of the world, hell on earth, etc. Yet, on the other we're still being told there's electricity, wireless internet, comedy talk shows and those survivors that are left don't seem to be that overly worried about the whole thing. Romero's films have always contained a little humour and parody but here it's all a bit too jarring and dare I say farcical.

In many respects, and I'll probably get lynched for this, Survival of the Dead isn't that much different to Day of the Dead. The characters are wooden and a bit cliché , the dialogue is generally quite trite and the zombie deaths are over-staged. Whilst I'm not going to honestly go as far as saying it is as good, they're really not as different as the internet seems to alude. Both are heavy character driven narratives with characters you never really care about and both really only use the zombies to drive the interaction and conflict. The one big difference though is in Day of Dead the zombies in the background always pose a credible threat and their persistent presence weighs heavy on the group increasing the tension. You never feel this in Survival; the zombies are herded around like livestock and never feel particularly threatening. Even during the big finale you kind of feel those who are actually killed only have themselves to blame and could have probably avoided getting bit if they'd just been a little less careless.

Survival of the Dead isn't a bad film, it's just not a particularly good one. Whilst it still has signs of the trademark Romero imagination for the most part it's quite mundane and feels like its really just going through the motions.  Despite all the flaws though, which are many, a mundane Romero zombie film is much better than many others. The story is original, the over the top Romero zombie kills are a feast for the eyes and there's still enough here for the zombie disciple to get his teeth into, 6/10.

WTD.

Day of the Dead (2008) - review

2008 (USA)

2008 Optimum Home Entertainment Blu-ray R(B/2)

Contains spoilers.

This film does so many things wrong it's hard to know where to start.

Let's start with the obvious; the name and let's get one thing straight. This is not a remake, nor a re-imagining, nor a reboot; it's the ability to stick Romero's name and namesake on the cover to give a third rate zombie cash-in a semblance of legitimacy. Rather than showing any bravery or recognition of the original it's yet another formulaic zombie origin story with the merest acknowledge of the original story and ideas. We're at ground zero again, at the time and place when the zombie virus emerges and we're not watching as in the original, a tense group of disparate powerful characters locked in a power struggle, isolated and unclear who if anyone is left alive, instead the focus is on a bunch of pretty teens running from one place to another screaming.

I get ahead of myself. The small town of Leadville, Colorado has been quarantined by the military because of an outbreak of the sniffles (though we do find out later there's more than a flu-epidemic behind the 6 or 7 man town blockade). Trevor (Michael Welch) and his girlfriend, Nina (AnnaLynne McCord), back from a kiss and a cuddle at the nearby underground bunker conveniently open to the public, unite with Trevor's sister Corporal Sarah Cross (Mena Suvari) who is part of the quarantine unit, discover their mother is ill and take her to the hospital where pretty much the rest of the town are all waiting to be seen. So with everyone in one place, a highly infectious air born virus and doctors and the military wandering round brazenly without masks trying to deduce what's going on with a doctor from the CDC, the virus shows its final symptom and it's chaos, blood, screaming and carnage.

Let's take it step by step. You get the sniffles, then a nose bleed, you feel a bit rough, you go a bit quiet, then suddenly your eyes cloud over turning milky white, you explode in hickies and you want to eat your friends. Oh, and you can now move at superhuman speed, leap large distances and crawl on the walls and ceilings. Now, I'm quite the fan of the new modern Boyle quick and nimble undead and I could even stomach them, at a push, in a Romero associated modern movie, but this is all too much. It's all too fanciful and fantastical; suddenly they're not dead-humans but possessed demons or something and you find yourself less immersed and less scared. Miner and Reddick seem to know what makes a modern zombie what it is and there are times it kind of all works, the scene of carnage in the hospital waiting room is particularly good, and while I'm not overly fond the instant blood sores the zombies all made up well with a good emphasis on teeth. For some reason though they decided this wasn't enough and it would be cooler to speed them up and give them tricks and you know what, it's not. One last thing, have you spotted what's missing? They don't explicitly die, they kind of turn, it's ambiguous but I'm going to give them a pass. Bud (more of him later) comments that Trevor and Sarah's mum has gone very cold just before she turns, add to this that they still obey the basic zombie rule of requiring a good whack to the head to be taken down and I'm happy to think they are dead, even if it's never actually stated.

So I don't like the zombies. I also don't like the plot and story, or what there is of it. Miner and Reddick have fashioned an incoherent , nonsensical narrative full of holes as if like their zombies they decided at the last minute they weren't good enough on their own and it needed this added or that tinkered with, without seeing how it would affect the film as a whole. From continuity errors like Sarah leaving at what looks like the middle of the afternoon to drive across town, arriving in the pitch dark, or deciding to add a super-zombie boss or giving zombie soldiers guns to fire; it's one sigh-worthy decision after another and turns the thing into both a bit of a mess and a farce. Also don't get me started on the call back to 'Bub', by having Bud turn into 'the friendly zombie' because perhaps he's a vegetarian or he fancies her; it feels forced in and doesn't work.

Miner and Reddick seem to have really missed the memo of what makes a good zombie film, fashioning an over-engineered incoherent shambles that bears no semblance to the film it's taken the name of. It constantly treats the viewer like an idiot opening up giant chasms in plot logic and reasoning to enable the narrative to move forward. There's a constant reliance on convenient items and events that feel out of place and forced and only there to enable subsequent overly-staged scenes or sequences. The only redeeming feature is really the cast who I feel actually do a half decent job with the script and story, and ironically I found them all quite likeable, even if they are all rather simplistic and one dimensional. Special mention must go to Ving Rhames as Captain Rhodes who now holds the title of daftest and most entertaining zombie noise of all time for his wobbling cheeks rasping groan.

There is a good film somewhere here and maybe it all got lost in post production but what we're really left with when all is said and done, is a zombie film as stale and formulaic as you're going to get made worse by lots of unwelcome and misguided high level decisions. It really isn't very good and it's rather an insult to Romero's original. Pass this one by, 3/10.

Steven@WTD.

Diary of the Dead - review

2008 (USA)

2008 Optimum Home Entertainment Blu-ray R(B/2)

Contains mild spoilers.

Three years on the from fourth big budget instalment in George Romero's Dead series, Diary of the Dead is an altogether different kettle of fish. Gone is the backing of a big studio and lavish budget that comes with it, and what we're left with is a tighter, more personal story focused on a small band of survivors attempting to make sense of a world falling apart. Produced by Romero-Grunwald Productions, formed by Romero and his friend Peter GrunwaldIt, and filmed in four months with a modest budget of around $2m, Diary of the Dead is not only a return to the franchises roots in terms of scale but also a return to the zombie origin story; following the outbreak as it first unfolds. Romero called this film 'a rejigging of the myth' and a break from the previous four films which followed (albeit loosely) a linear timeline.

Loosely put the film follows a group of  film studies students and their faculty tutor from the University of Pittsburgh as they attempt to escape the city and get back to their family and loved ones whilst more importantly feeding their desire to provide a truthful, up to date video record of what is really happening against a backdrop of perceived misinformation and mass-crowd control being broadcast by the main stream press.

Romero has always imbued his Dead films full of the particular zeitgeist of the time. Mass consumerism, racism, state control have all appeared to help shape and define his previous offerings and here in the late 2000s he has turned his attention to the power of communication in the modern age. The film looks at how the perceived power of controlling the message is transitioning from the state and mainstream media machine to the internet and personal bloggers who can cut through the propaganda to provide genuine personal accounts without distorting the story. Romero always likes to take the stance that the individual whether it's against an authoritarian state or repressive ideology will always eventually come to question the status-quo and force, or evolve a way to break free from it. The zombies are always the metaphor of this control and the survivors are always a mix of those who unconditionally  accept what they're being told or how they're being told to live, or are struggling and actively fighting against it.

From the off we can tell this is a departure from Romero's classical film style as we hear a narrator beginning to explain the accuracy and truth of the real life documentation we are about to witness. Like Rec and as made famous by Blair Witch Project the film is entirely told from the perspective of captured film taken by both Jason Creed (Joshua Close) and later his girlfriend Debra Moynihan (Michelle Morgan). Listening to main stream media and watching as stories of how the dead are coming back to life Jason takes it initially upon himself to document what is really taking place and the film follows the students as they stumble from pillar to post struggling to work out what to do or where to go whilst trying to do the right and get a truthful account of what is really taking place on ground level to a wider global audience.

It's Romero and we know what we're going to get from our undead friends and as one watches the zombies arrive on mass to swarm the barn or broken down camper van you could easily think you watching his first film from 1968.  There's no running and no driving ambulances; but there are imaginative zombie dispatches to go alongside the multitude of genre-staple headshots. There's also a nod back to the 'no more room in hell' premise, as the dead come back to life regardless of whether they've been bitten, and whilst hell isn't directly mentioned, Romero has stayed true to his original vision and provides no explanation as to why any of this might be happening. Despite the limited budget Romero employed a lot of CGI for the few more open shots, watched on by the group on televisions and monitors. They all successfully integrate with the style of the film and provide timely juxtaposition the claustrophobic of the small band with what is happening to the world at large.

It is another great Romero zombie film, thought provoking, and well produced but it's not without its faults. Unfortunately and I've accused Romero of this before; the characters, both main and side are all a little flat and uninteresting. Their reactions to certain situations are at times a bit bland, cliché or even downright woefully stupid, and at no time when any of them were killed did I find myself actually caring that much. I also guess, and it's part of the point; remember it's about the art darling, as their faculty advisor Andrew Maxwell (Scott Wentworth) would put it, but those times when the act of making the documentary were taking precedent over personal and friends safety, it was hard to think of the young students as anything other than douchebags and way too full of themselves.

Overall it's clever and slots nicely into Romero's zombie series. There are many great scenes and some great ambience but it does fall a little flat on the whole. Despite the criticisms though it certainly deserves a place in any zombie, horror, or film studies student's film collection, 7/10.

Steven@WTD.

Land of the Dead - review

2005 (Canada / France / USA)

2008 Universal Pictures Blu-ray R(All)

Contains spoilers.

Set some three years after hell shut it gates and zombies swept civilisation aside mankind has survived in small isolated enclaves. One such shelter and the centre for George A. Romero's Land of the Dead is the luxury skyscraper Fiddler's Green, home to the city's ruler Paul Kaufman (Dennis Hopper) and his rich sycophantic friends. Here they sit in their ivory tower eating fine food, shopping in boutique stores and living as if nothing has changed and segregated behind paid mercenaries, the rest of the population live in the slums where Kaufmann encourages vice and uses greed and fear to keep them under control.

From the off though we can see that some things never change. There is no mankind putting its differences behind to work together for a brighter united future; we still find class stratification, greed and a world divided not by ability or achievement but by what you have and who you know.

The film starts with the same old Romero zombies. Shambling parodies of their former selves they walk the same routes and return to the same places they did when they were alive. Mimicking their same old routines, a gas attendant waits for cars and a small bandstand plays host to a hilarious trombone player and his troupe.

Out on his last sortie from the city for supplies, Riley Denbo (Simon Baker) the designer and commander of the state of the art zombie killing bus Dead Reckoning has decided he's had enough, he's sick of the politics, the unfairness and way in which the rich have begun to take the illusion of safety for granted.

Gathering up essential food and medicine to take back to the safety of the city with the zombie horde hypnotised to the nights fireworks he has also noticed changes in some of the zombies behaviour. One such zombie, the petrol attendant affectionately known as Big Daddy (Eugene Clark) even seems to be able to communicate with a grunt to others. Time has passed and the zombies in Romero's world are starting to grow up. Starting with Bub in Day of the Dead, the zombies or walkers as they're referred have started are starting to exhibit self awareness and an ability to adapt.

We've talked about Romero's use of subtext at length before and Land of the Dead doesn't disappoint.  As well Romero's usual and slightly communist use of exaggerated class demarcation, the zombies themselves have an evolved dynamic. Not just the ever constant static fear, the background cinder-keg, there to let the tension, narrative and characters play out, this time they're portrayed as an underclass of their own. Ridiculed and slaughtered without thought, their journey to Fiddler's Green is just as much symbolic of their journey of self-discovery as it is a tense horror story as they creep ever closer, their breach of the city walls and slaughter of the rich just as much symbolic of resistance fighters knocking down their oppressors as it is a good old story of zombie slaughter and mayhem.

On returning to pick up his car he discovers he's been ripped off and with his best friend Charlie (Robert Joy) heads to confront bar owner Chihuahua (Phil Fondacaro) to get his ride out of town. Witnessing the slums fall to a new low with the evening's entertainment a state sponsored zombie murder, he steps in rescues a young lady called Slack (Asia Argento) moments before she's eaten, kills Chihuahua and gets thrown in jail.

Cholo DeMora (John Leguizamo), second in command also thinks that was his last night out on patrol and with delusions of grandeur returns to Kaufmann thinking he'll finally be granted a place with the elite. He comes crashing down to earth as his request is not only reclined but Kaufmann's decided he's had enough of him. Out for revenge, he steals Dead Reckoning just as the city begins to descend into chaos with Big Daddy breaching one of the supply stations outside the city walls, and demands $5m or he'll blow the tower up.

Kaufmann throws Riley a lifeline; if he can retake Dead Reckoning and save the city he'll be free to leave with his friends and with the zombies realising they can cross the rivers protecting the city the story is set for a dramatic and bloodthirsty climax.

And for the most part the ending is as full on, tense and dramatic as you'd want. There's lots of panic, screaming, zombie kills and more blood, guts and dismemberments than probably in all of Romero's other films to this point. The narrative is authentic and strong, the characters believable and the effects staggering. My only complain is that I felt the film ended a bit abruptly, almost as if it ran out of time. As zombies ravage the remaining survivors and the city looks beyond hope, in rides Dead Reckoning, three quick missiles to one stretch of fencing and Slack turns to Riley as men, women and children appear unscathed in the background and says," you saved them". Really? An hour of setting up a massive multi dynamic confrontation, hundreds of organised zombies, mercenaries, civilians and freedom fighters and it's all over in thirty seconds? The missing scenes alludes to a longer more involved resistance including a fight back from the men and women of the slums as the rich in their ivory palace run like headless chickens to their death at Big Daddy and feeling his wrath exacted and with a sense of affinity, he leads his zombies away to find a new un-life.

Land of the Dead is a masterful apocalyptic sci-fi adventure. Using all of Romero's biggest ever budget, some $15m, the action is lavish and much larger in scale than anything we've seen from him before. Expansive overhead shots, explosions, vibrant city scenes; the world is alive and authentic. In many ways this is easily his best zombie film, certainly for the viewer more used to bigger and better effects but it also retains that hallmark Romero wit and use of satire. An interesting exploration of how zombies over time could evolve to almost something one could sympathise Romero isn't afraid to break new ground in a genre that's becoming more saturated. Big, bold, the master is back, 8/10.

Steven@WTD.

Dawn of the Dead (2004) - review

2004 (USA)

2008 Universal Studios Blu-ray R(All)

Contains mild spoilers.

How do you go about remaking undoubtedly one of, if not the greatest, zombie cinema experiences of all time and a film that can rightfully say it was there as zombies learnt to take their shambling formative big screen lurches? Ok there had been zombie films before, most notably Romero's own 1968 seminal Night of the Living Dead but Dawn of the Dead marked a turning point securing zombies place in popular consciousness and culture, and cemented much of the zombie canon that we know and love today. This was the task director Zack Snyder set himself and armed with bigger budget, and access all the latest and greatest special effects, to cut to the chase, nearly pulls off.

 An explosive opening set of scenes sees nurse Ana (Sarah Polley) escaping from what has turned into a suburban nightmare. Fleeing from her family home and now homicidal boyfriend, Ana twists and weaves through rows of identical looking houses on identical looking streets as friends and neighbours are being ripped open and torn apart. There's no slow tense thirty minute stack of cards being built up to be knocked down in this film.

It's not long before Ana regaining consciousness after a crash teams up with Police Sergeant Kenneth Hall (Ving Rhames) and the only other genuinely reasonable and level headed member of the group Michael (Jake Weber). Shortly after they bump into Andre (Mekhi Phifer) and his pregnant wife, Luda (Inna Korobkina) who are retreating from the opposite direction. Seemingly cut off from both sides with no place to go the group follows the original film's lead and makes a bee line for a large secure looking shopping mall.

Romero's Dead films always relayed social tensions and anxieties of the time, so whilst set in the same location as the 70's original, the mordant undercurrents commenting on societies fear and the absurdities of commercialism is gone, as perhaps it should be. Without this though the film ends up relying solely on the tried and tested formula of seeing how a disparate group interacts and copes with surviving the disintegration of the rules and norms of society amid the constant backdrop of fear and loss.

 Arguing their way past three stubborn security guards who only grant them entry with big conditions, the disarmed and imprisoned heroes find themselves facing and I've said this before in other zombie survival story reviews, the biggest threat to their survival other that the crazy undead horde knocking on the door, each other.

What makes or breaks a good apocalyptic zombie tale of survival is the choice of characters and the dynamics that spin out, and whilst entertaining and engaging those of Dawn of the Dead are a little cliché and unimaginative. Joined eventually by a rich assortment of extra personalities who arrive dramatically by lorry including wealthy bottle swilling yacht owner (Ty Burrell), the ensemble make a good solid and believable cast and help drive the narrative, but they're all a little obvious, shallow and forgettable, and there's never much room given for twists or subtlety.

Gone are the trademark Romero slow shambling blue undead, and what we have are fast and frenzied and much more lethal looking creatures who have more in common with Danny Boyle's creations from 28 Days Later, who made their appearance a couple of years earlier. The undead of Dawn of the Dead are terrifying, deadly and don't muck about when it comes to hunting down and getting their teeth stuck into any available human flesh. Unlike Romero's slow ghostly parodies of their former selves who rarely seem to pose much threat on their own unless they're in close proximity, there's no room for error with Snyder's blood hungry runners, who don't get distracted or tired, and always catch up. It's here the bigger budget and more advanced special effects show there worth; individually the effects and makeup are as good as you're going to see and there's never a need to suspend disbelief, but en masse I don't think I've ever seen a zombie mobs so dense or mind-numbingly immense. In the original you were always aware of the idea of a vast numbers of zombies swarming round the mall but they were always spread out in pockets but in this new version Snyder has taken the idea of horde to a new level with what appears to be thousands of undead all swollen and packed as one. It's really quite breathtaking.

What Dawn of the Dead does do well is create very well put together, tightly crafted action horror film full of suspense, shocks and drama, and whilst possibly being a bit formulaic like it's characters, it does offer a lot of nice touches throughout and a few genuine moments of originality. The relation the group has with Andy (Bruce Bohne) who is stranded alone on the roof of his gun store, across the zombie-infested parking lot is entertaining and poignant and the climax to the Andre/Luda scenario is shocking and a sharp reminder that outside the relative safety of the mall to what depths the world has fallen. There are just not enough of these moments though and the film treads an all too familiar and safe path too frequently.

Remakes are notoriously tricky affairs and remakes of great films that have ingrained themselves into popular consciousness and the mainstream psyche are impossibly so. Despite this, what Snyder has actually managed to achieve is remarkable producing a film that pays acceptable homage to it's origin whilst spins a high octane constantly enthralling tale in it's own right. The best of the Romero remakes, Dawn of the Dead is a gruesome action packed spectacle with very few flaws. It doesn't have the wit, originality or verbosity of the original but it's a stylish standout testament to the genre. Darker, gorier, more brutal, 7/10.

Steven@WTD.

Day of the Dead (1985) - review

1985 (USA)

2010 Arrow Video Blu-ray R(All)

Contains spoilers.

The 60's saw George A. Romero bring us Night of the Living Dead, the low budget breakthrough undead experience; oozing with vision and ideas, the granddaddy of the genre was very much a film of its time. Romero and Russo, whether intentionally or not, managed to capture and entwine all the prevalent societal prejudices and fears in a timeless horror narrative. Never forcing cold war politics or domestic racism in any obvious way they produced a film that works whether you acknowledge its subversion or not. 

The 70's saw Romero return with arguably the daddy of the zombie genre, Dawn of the Dead is the seminal apocalyptic masterpiece; a character survival story of small group doing all they can to stay alive against an abundant endless zombie horde. On the surface an action horror comedy Dawn of the Dead captures the same fears of the 1970's as Night of the Living Dead did of the 60's. With sweeping automation and a political agenda pushing rampant mindless consumerism, Dawn of the Dead took a satirical swipe at consumerism and yet does so with such subtlety the message could easily be lost under the weight of its strong narrative.

So to Day of the Dead, Romero's third instalment and this time a journey to the 1980's. In an era of Reagan and Thatcher, attention on military might and police and state control, it's no surprise to see the main focus of the film a power struggle between a group of scientists trying to understand and ultimately control the zombie virus and a military force, now confused and depleted trying to understand and control the scientists.

The apocalypse has purged life from the globe and the few survivors that are left are isolated and afraid. With a limited budget Romero returned to the tight claustrophobic feel of his first film to create a cooped up high pressure cinder keg , full of anxiety and paranoia where people become increasingly more desperate to take whatever measures they feel are necessary in order to survive. This time the disparate band have found themselves holed up in an old inadequate WW2 bunker in Florida, their military commander has just been killed and the group is increasingly becoming tense and at odds with each other.

Scientists Sarah (Lori Cardille) the only female survivor and Dr. Ted Fisher (John Amplas) under the guidance of senior eccentric Dr. Matthew Logan (Richard Liberty) are struggling with dwindling resources to provide tangible answers to the increasingly overbearing and hostile Captain Rhodes (Joseph Pilato) who's starting to question the sacrifices he and his team are making to keep the operation going.

With increasingly questionable methods and behaviour Logan, known as Frankenstein by the military, has moved from the search for a cure, sought by his colleagues, to a belief that the answer is to accept and manage their condition. This allows Romero to play with the zombie physiology and psychology in more depth than before. With special effects much closer to what these days we expect to see, Logan's lab and experimentation is a horrific abattoir of blood, intestines and severed heads with exposed organs and brains wired up at every turn.

At first we learn via Logan, they don't require flesh for sustenance, (he removes stomach and all internal organs), that they decompose at slow rate and they're motivated purely by primal drives. Later he explores the idea that perhaps their old dead neural pathways could with help be reignited. Using what Rhodes and many of the others think is increasingly bizarre and later unethical methods he attempts to domesticate 'Bub', a specimen, he says with promise, by introducing objects and music that he hopes will stimulate his brain to reconnection old memories. Ultimately his hope is to demonstrate that zombies with help can be made docile and even useful, and all this will please Captain Rhodes and the military.

It's all fascinating stuff and is certainly something new to watch especially as Bub does indeed not only respond positively to the mad doctor, but later shows signs of reconnecting with his emotional self, clearly demonstrating sorrow and sadness and even a spark of vengeance. Ultimately though, and as in all good zombies films, things don't turn out exactly as hoped, the group splinters and disintegrates, chaos erupts, a lot of blood is spilled and Bub doesn't get to make a grand reintroduction back into civilised society.

Gone are the non-descript, signature blue and grey zombies of the first couple of films and perhaps parodying the militaries doctrine of desensitising soldiers to make them follow orders and work as a unit, the zombies of Day of the Dead show far more individualistic traits than before, with clowns, footballers, dancers, colour and outfits at every turn. Even the inclusion of Bub and the signs that he is possibly capable of redemption supports Romero's 80's subtext of retaining individual identity in the face of becoming merely a face in the crowd (horde). 

Well acted with a good mix of personalities I do feel the narrative suffers from characters that are a tad one dimensional throughout really only ever showing a single facet. The mad scientist, the relaxed Jamaican pilot, the alcoholic, the unquestioning always joking about soldiers; they never really display any real depth or complexity and this is most apparent with the megalomaniac racist misogynist Rhodes who throughout is almost too inhuman, desperate and evil to really come across as authentically plausible.

Day of the Dead is widely regarded as the weakest of the three Dead films and this is probably accurate. The characters are a little one dimensional and the narrative predictable, but it still offers a good tight zombie cinematic experience full of wit and intelligence. Romero's zombies still show why they're the benchmark 25 years on, and with improved special effect techniques, inside and out, Day of the Dead probably stands out as the pinnacle his legacy. The action and pacing is faultless and whilst I have I no real complaints, to me, it just never quite reaches the heights of his previous efforts, and if anything the storty is perhaps all a little safe and even dare I say occasionally mundane. A Romero zombie classic nonetheless, 8/10.

Steven@WTD.

Dawn of the Dead (1978) - review

1978 (Italy / USA)

2008 Arrow Video Blu-ray R(All)

Contains Spoilers.

Now this gets serious.

George A Romero's Dawn of the Dead, a sequel to the 1968 Night of the Living Dead and part two in his Living Dead trilogy is the seminal zombie survival masterpiece. There had been zombie films before but Dawn of the Dead was to leave a wound so deep it would not only shock and galvanise a generation but leave a scar so prominent no zombie film would or could ever be the same again.

Unlike the tense tight situation the survivors of Night of the Living dead found themselves in this time the world is facing true global apocalyptic collapse. With no more room in hell the dead are up and walking about en masse sweeping through the cities and countryside leaving no one alive, and swelling their numbers exponentially. It's in this cinder keg of despair and confusion that WGON television studio traffic reporter Stephen (David Emge) and his executive producer girlfriend Francine (Gaylen Ross) decide to escape the spiralling pandemonium of Philadelphia in Stephen's helicopter while they still can. They are joined by their SWAT friend Roger (Scott H. Reiniger) and his companion disillusioned Peter (Ken Foree) who've also realised the futility and inevitability of trying to keep some semblance of order.

Without a plan the group head West and after a few tense encounters whilst looking for extra fuel find and take refuge in new large out of town mega-mall in Monroeville to take stock of their situation and ultimately wait for salvation. After securing and clearing the powered mall for themselves the survivors are now safe to enjoy what it has to offer 

Dawn of the Dead perfectly captures the playful excitement of what it would be like to have a whole open shopping mall, with restaurants, ice rinks and free access to satiate any consumerist itching one might have perfectly. But taking a satirical swipe at American consumerism, an especially pertinent issue of the late 70's, as racial tension was in the 60's when Night of the Living Dead was released, the film fully understands how ultimately shallow this consumerist experience is and engages this theme throughout. When Francine asks 'What are they doing? Why do they come here?', Stephen's reply 'Some kind of instinct. Memory of what they used to do. This was an important place in their lives.' perfectly jibes the anti-consumerist sentiment, pulling together parallels between the mindless and the undead shopper.

Safe, secure and with everything they could wish for the film now turns from the survivors facing the direct threat of zombie attack to the more subtle risks of boredom and lethargy. With communism very much in the cultures consciousness the film challenges the consumerist capitalist notion that through acquisition fulfilment and happiness can be achieved; that ultimately living vicariously through things is unrewarding and dissatisfying. As Stephen and the other consumers try ever harder to affirm themselves by consuming more stuff, ultimately they're only becoming more alienated and living less authentic existences. Marx's theories of Entfremdung, alienation, are very much relevant here.

Ultimately this existential wrangle is halted by an attack from a surviving ruthless biker gang. Caught up again with the acquisition of money and objects of value the gang bring chaos back to the mall and whilst in the end and at great expense they are fought off, the idyllic peace and sanctuary of the place is destroyed for good. The film ends with the remaining survivors moving on, not only because the mall is now overrun by zombies again but understanding then need to do so for their own sanity.

Much like the zombies from Night of the Living Dead, Romero's Dawn of the Dead zombies are slow, ambling and without the decaying flesh and horrific make-up and effects of modern zombie film could be seen as quite human like in comparison. With a grey or blue tinge to their skin they are obvious to pick out however, and whilst Romero does paint a picture in which one or two on their own could seem almost easy to avoid and a little harmless, as a pack they still appear terrifying, dangerous and overwhelming.

These two films certainly set the zombie themes and rule-set for all that came after. Zombie packs and herds, the hunger for eating flesh, following autonomous patterns and the idea that muscle memory partially survives reanimation, that biting transfers the disease and shooting them in the brain destroys them; Romero established or cemented the zombie gospel for all that followed.

Being shot with a modest budget in 1978 the scope and expansive feel of the film is easily comparable to  more modern zombie films and Romero has captured the sense of apocalyptic dread and absurdity. Obviously when put up against modern zombie films Dawn of the Dead is showing it's age a bit when it comes to make-up and effects but the illusion is never shattered; the dead feel authentic and the action and effects are just as visceral and mesmerising. It has the pace to drive the story and it never loses its focus or narrative grip; Dawn of the Dead knows what it's doing and delivers.

Dawn of the Dead is a true horror film in that it not only successfully scares us with a believable vision of a future gone very wrong but also with the challenge that perhaps as consumers we're akin to mindless autonomous zombies already. A cinematic masterpiece, stylish, terrifying, absurd, and epic, deep and multifaceted in scope, this was when the genre got serious 10/10.

Steven@WTD.

Night of the Living Dead (1968) - review

1968 (USA)

2008 Optimum Home Releasing Blu-ray R(B/2)

Contains spoilers.

This is when it all got serious. There had been zombie films before but with Night of the Living Dead George A. Romero and John A. Russo stuck a giant undead flag in the ground proclaiming a new era for the genre and dictating how zombies would behave for a generation.

Night of the Living Dead follows the fortunes (or misfortunes) of a small band of disparate survivors brought together in cramped conditions having to cope with the highly confusing and ultimately dangerous situation of dozens of mindless killers banging at their door wanting to come in and eat them.

The iconic film opens with Barbra (Judith O'Dea) and Johnny (Russell Streiner) on the annual pilgrimage to their fathers grave when they're accosted by what would arguably become the signature modern cinematic zombie, played by Bill Hinzman. With Johnny overcome the hysterical Barbra flees for her life over roads and fields until she comes across a farm cottage. Here we're introduced to the hero of the film Ben (Duane Jones) who seems to have not only some-idea about what's happening but the ability to act on the knowledge to defend and protect himself and Barbra.

The duo are soon joined by married couple Harry (Karl Hardman), Helen Cooper (Marilyn Eastman) and their injured daughter Karen (Kyra Schon) and teenage couple Tom (Keith Wayne) and Judy (Judith Ridley) who have all been hiding in the cellar. What we end up with is power struggles, disagreement on what they should be doing and petty squabbling all intensified by the pressure. This becomes the template for survival zombie films for years to come; the idea of putting a small mixed band of characters together in an intense volatile life or death situation and seeing how they react and interact, and you can see its influence in everything up to and including The Walking Dead.

Obviously influenced heavily by the US space program and the alien invasion films of the previous few decades Romero and Russo originally came up with the idea that the monsters would be flesh eating humans infected by aliens but ended up with the idea of the dead come back to life; flesh eating still the main trait though. Romero has stated that this was part based on a short story he wrote that ripped off Matheson's I Am Legend, which had vampires albeit slow zombie like ones in it. The space influence didn't get pushed off the table altogether and hints that the cause of undead rising is actually from radiation from a satellite that returned from Venus, though Romero and Russo are keen to point out that this is neither confirmed or denied in the film and the actual cause was left ambiguous.

An interesting feature of the Night of The Living Dead ghouls is their hatred for light and fire and some slightly higher brain functions than the mindless meat-heads seen in later films. Probably brought across from I Am Legend's vampires, these zombies actively smash headlights with rocks, stay away from the house while the lights are on and shun fire.

One failed escape to a government sanctuary later and once the lights and electricity of the farm house go out that the heat turns up on the survivors. This leads to a faster paced action laden final 20 odd minutes with all the gore and scenes that riled up the press back when it  was shown (albeit in a time before certification and to young adults and some children who were expecting a light horror matinee experience), including a quite harrowing scene even by modern standards with a young girl and her mother.

For a film made on a self financed shoe strong budget, the quality of acting and production is quite high, Duane Jones being the pick of the bunch. Casting a black lead at the time and pitting him successfully against an antagonistic self absorbed white Karl Hardman also saw Romero and Russo accused of deliberately creating an anti-racist sub text, but I really don't think they could ever be accused of thinking that hard, he was lead simply because he was a good actor and at most they were happy to cause a little trouble. And ok, one could pick holes in some of the other acting, especially Judith Ridley, but none of it really detracts from the experience.

The viewer should also be careful when selecting a version to watch. The film is in the public domain due to a copy right bungle back in 1968 so anyone is free to make a release. There's quite some debate as to what version to buy but the Optimum Home Releasing Blu-Ray version I've reviewed seems to be the best for picture quality, which I'd testify to but is beaten by the some of the DVD releases for commentaries and extras which this version is sorely missing.

Night of the Living Dead holds up pretty well even today. For a 1968 film , shot on a low budget with b-movie actors and a very slow first hour it's still pretty captivating stuff. Ok there's plenty to laugh at too these days from the special effects to the shambling groaning zombie horde yet it all really still works. It's the formula that's right and there's a reason others stuck to it. A film that inspired a genre, I'm coming to get you Barbra, 8/10.

Steven@WTD.