![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Dawn of the Dead
Mar. 19th, 2004 08:26 pmIt's better than House of the Dead. Way better.
It's not actually bad at all, but I'm still partial to the Romero. This one has new and improved fast-moving zombies. Call me old-fashioned, but zombies should shamble. That's part of their charm. If you want quick, nimble undead, get vampires.
I like Ving Rhames and Mekhi Phifer, and the Tom "Sex Machine" Savini cameo is lovely, but overall the character depth and dynamic was flat. Maybe that's asking too much of a zombie flick, but I'll ask it anyway.
And watching this drove home something that Caitlin Kiernan was complaining of a while back. Namely, movie audiences who laugh their way through anything remotely horrific because they can't or won't stop to contemplate it. I've laughed my way through any number of monster movies, but true horror works best if you think about it, if it leaves a lingering unease, if the violation or terror or sheer nastiness of the "what if" stays with you after reading/watching. Without that you end up with silly slasher pop-up monsters. This rant is brought to you by the kids sitting behind us who laughed loudest at the one scene I found most disturbing and with which I had the most emotional involvement. Yeah, it's totally predictable and telegraphed very early on, but the idea is still monstrous.
If it was an original film, I'd call this a sturdy film, but going in with the Romero version so close to my heart I found it flat and derivative. Still, I love zombies. You can never have too many zombies.
It's not actually bad at all, but I'm still partial to the Romero. This one has new and improved fast-moving zombies. Call me old-fashioned, but zombies should shamble. That's part of their charm. If you want quick, nimble undead, get vampires.
I like Ving Rhames and Mekhi Phifer, and the Tom "Sex Machine" Savini cameo is lovely, but overall the character depth and dynamic was flat. Maybe that's asking too much of a zombie flick, but I'll ask it anyway.
And watching this drove home something that Caitlin Kiernan was complaining of a while back. Namely, movie audiences who laugh their way through anything remotely horrific because they can't or won't stop to contemplate it. I've laughed my way through any number of monster movies, but true horror works best if you think about it, if it leaves a lingering unease, if the violation or terror or sheer nastiness of the "what if" stays with you after reading/watching. Without that you end up with silly slasher pop-up monsters. This rant is brought to you by the kids sitting behind us who laughed loudest at the one scene I found most disturbing and with which I had the most emotional involvement. Yeah, it's totally predictable and telegraphed very early on, but the idea is still monstrous.
If it was an original film, I'd call this a sturdy film, but going in with the Romero version so close to my heart I found it flat and derivative. Still, I love zombies. You can never have too many zombies.
