Dawn of the Dead (2004) (***1/2)
review by Jon Waterman

The dead just keep on living. They’ve started to run amok across the nation and probably the world. They’re everywhere and they’re hungry for living tissue. The only option is to run, but pretty soon, no place will be safe. What do you do? Well, if you’re like the characters in the movie, you gather up as many survivors as possible and head to the mall. Seal it off and try to think of a game plan.

I have not yet seen the original (as of May 2004), so I can’t compare the two. Maybe not knowing what George A. Romero did with the 1978 version enhanced my enjoyment of this contemporary film.

The zombies look just about like you’d expect, which actually is saying a lot. Many zombie movies seem to half-ass the make-up, because they’ll be far away and not all that visible (right “House of the Dead?”). Here, the zombies look like the living dead, not the living pretending to be dead. There is a lot of conformity and templating involved with how they seem to have been designed. There aren’t really any standouts as far as decomposition or manner of dead is concerned. They all pretty much look the same. But they all look like zombies. And I couldn’t find a single computer generated person. Even in the wide group shots. Bravo.

That’s not to say they didn’t use computer effects. The large scale destruction shots near the beginning of the film make obvious use of the computer as people get run over and massive fires get started. It looks really hokey and fake and at the time, I assumed it was intentional. At this early point, I thought we could expect more of the same tongue-in-cheek humor as the movie pokes fun at the genre. Too many horror films seem to rely on that these days. I’m happy to announce that “Dawn of the Dead” does not.

In fact, the approach is far different from any of the recent horror movies I’ve seen in a long time. I don’t know if I should credit the original or this outing. The zombies move faster and are rather menacing. The suspense level is high when it needs to be with few false alarms, just delayed inevitable jumps and scares. The credits hooked me right away. They mix title cards with flashes of attacks, gore and hinting at the ensuing national chaos. The music choice mixed blatantly obvious hardcore fare with more intelligent satirical songs that still measure on the creepiness scale. What really stands out though, is the characterization.

Each person has a backstory. Each person has proper motivation. Each person has a personality and depth. And the acting is very natural and, dare I say, good. How often can you say that in this genre? The dialogue moves along smoothly and the entire plot and storyline goes off without a hitch. There are no laughable moments except for those intentionally placed. The film swiftly runs its course without sacrificing good storytelling. The only big thing is that zombies aren’t really explained, but it’s scarier that way and not really needed once you get into the movie (which shouldn’t take long). A lot of credit has to be given to director Zack Snyder, especially with this being his big-time debut. I look forward to seeing what he does next. Also, to the writer, James Gunn, whom I panned in my review of “Scooby-Doo” saying he should go back to Troma. I guess I should have he should go back to horror. He seems to have a knack for it.

It’s rare that a horror movie comes along that is actually satisfying. It may not scare the audience non-stop, but it proves that something good can come out of the genre. Let’s hope Hollywood starts making more like this one.

respond to jon@filmbrats.com