Showing posts with label Romero. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Romero. Show all posts

Friday, October 30, 2009

Dawn of the Dead (1978)

Review #0014

Here it is, ladies and gentlemen: the best zombie film of all times! "Night" had laid the groundwork ten years before, but it is only with "Dawn" that Romero fully fleshes the genre (no pun intended). A group of four people (two cops, and a couple of newspeople) "run" from zombie-overrun Phillie and find shelter in a suburban mall, which they clean and wall-up as their own personal fortress. They would've been happy there, if it weren't for a ruthless gang of bikers (that includes FX maestro Tom Savini) who forces them into an all-out war. With gripping realism, the film opens in media res during the media shitstorm provoked by the rise of the dead. A talk-show featuring a guest hellbent on raising you-should-shoot-any-dead-family-member-in-the-head awareness is disturbed when protagonist Francine fights an executive over the broadcast of outdated "shelter" information. On the other side of town, protagonists Roger and Peter (fan-favorite Ken Foree who would go on to appear in dozens more genre films, including "From Beyond", "The Devil's Reject" and the "Dawn of the Dead" remake) are involved in a mission to evacuate a low-income housing project, with a trigger-happy racist at their sides, into a mazelike contraption full of the living dead. Concisely enough, the main characters are all introduced within their element, and with them, the chaotic world in which they have learned to live. The action, so to speak, begins soon after, as Roger, Peter, Francine and her boyfriend Stephen ("Fly Boy") copter their way out of the city and into the suburb. Over the countryside, they spot a party of redneck militians enjoying thermos coffee and target practice. Those guys remind us of "Night"s conclusion, but this time around, they're part of a bigger whole. You see, by covering the entire stretch of land inbetween the big city and the suburb, Romero ups the ante in terms of scale (and effect) as world contamination becomes a tangible perspective. Almost overnight, the entire human experience has become a thing of unfathomable horror.



Interestingly enough, the shopping mall thus becomes a hot destination. As the world crumbles, it remains the only shelter against the harsh reality of things, a sanctuary so to speak, from the evils of the world. It is made of bricks and steel, sure, but mostly of dreams and illusions. It is a promise of individual comfort in a world of death and destruction. The zombies frequent it, their motor reflexes dragging them back in, but so do the protagonists. In the end, they even confine themselves to its bowels, and within, a cozy apartment furnished "à la mode" where they eat delicacies and drink liquor, oblivious to the faith of other survivors. They are living the American dream, despite the dreary fact that there is no America to speak of anymore. Nonetheless, there are shades of America: consumerism, individualism, and most of all, the a rigid social stratification. You see, "Dawn" also functions as a social commentary. First, by suggesting that the desire to survive is inherently individualistic. Unlike "Night", "Land", "Survival" and most other zombie films, "Dawn" focuses not on a rag-tag collection of survivors picked along the way, but on one restricted, homogenized group that will defend its own interests against others. The paradigm is no longer "us against them" in the sense of humans against zombies, but "us", a small group of friends, against "them", the rest of the world. Many commentators even argue that the different social actors in the film are related hierarchically. Roger Avary suggests the protagonists represent the upper class (locked away in a "gated community"), while the zombies are the lower class (pushed away from that community). As a working hypothesis, it could be useful, but that's by disregarding the fact that the zombies herein are instinctively drawn to the mall. That is, they represent the growing middle class, drawn to the malls by a motorized desire to consume, which in turns constitutes their raison-d'être. The zombie is a mindless consumer, and vice-versa. In the end, the mall setting offers many narrative possibilities, yet its relevance lies in enabling the critique of consumerism that the multiplication of zombie (consumers) allows.

Finally, a few comments about the score and gore because it would be a crime to mention this film's importance without mentioning the dream team that surrounded Romero at the time. Fresh from their crucial contribution to the classic "Suspiria", Italian noise machine The Goblins (featuring the great Dario Argento) cross the Atlantic for a great cause indeed. Their warped, keyboard-heavy score, is trippy and exhilarating, making the celluloid pulsate to the beat. Most of all, it is quite unique. As if the stars had perfectly aligned so we could hear this. Then, there is Tom Savini, for whom the film constitutes a breakthrough. Deservingly so, because the bits of gore contained in the film (concentrated mostly at the beginning and end) are all disturbingly realistic. Zombie teeth break human flesh in loving close-ups, characters are eviscerated, machetes are plunged in zombie heads, all of this as extra butter on a delicious croissant. All in all, "Dawn of the Dead" is Romero's best film because it happens at such a great time for exploitation cinema. The rise of consumerism, and the multiplication of shopping malls provided the sociological framework of the film, the green-light on violence made the zombie film all the more viable, plus Romero benefited from a bigger budget (due to previous film successes), and from the contribution of Dario Argento, The Goblins, and Tom Savini, all at the peek of their careers. Statistically and historically, there is almost no chance of such a happy coincidence reccuring in horror cinema. Let us weep then, and watch "Dawn" yet another time!

5/5

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

George A. Romero's Survival of the Dead (2009)

Review #0010

This sixth installment in Romero's fractured, forty-years old Dead franchise is by (very) far the worst. Maybe, we're just tired of the same old set-ups and characters used ad nauseam. Maybe we've seen too many zombie movies altogether, and no novelty could ever stimulate us again. Maybe we're expecting too much from old fox Romero (a towering presence I must add, now that I've actually met him)... Truth is, it's only because we love him to death that we try so desperately to find reasons for disliking his latest outing other than the overall suckiness of it. Truth is, it's lame, it's lame, it's lame. The protagonists are a bunch of military assholes (one of which is the officer who ransacked the kids' van in the previous film!) with all the charm and personality of toilet seats. Tagging along is a Justin Long-type whiz kid, a wisecracking Irish patriarch and his bland horse-riding daughter. Aside from Patrick O'Flynn, who's a real hoot, flipping guns out of his sleeves while peppering the script with tasty one-liners and Tomboy, the tough lesbian chick who makes fun of men while masturbating in an army truck, you'd like to see the rest of the cast die from frame 1. It is arduous enough just to follow them, but it is even harder to see where the flimsy scenario takes them. You see, "Survival" is not a typical zombie film since it focuses on a closed, zombie-controlled area: Plum Island, Delaware. While watching the film, I thought to myself and made a painful realization: it offers us nothing in the way of expectation. One comes to wish the protagonists would never reach Plum Island, because once there, the zombie menace vaporizes. Once there, the film shifts gear and becomes a western centered on a family feud opposing two clans of Irish settlers: the O'Flynn and the Muldoon. As long as you dig a premise involving a closed-circuit western with zombies tacked-on as cattle, you might enjoy this film. But you also have to dig all of the tedious exchanges between the two families, and all the lame bits of exposition peppered here and there (including the spontaneous generation of twins, the re-emergence of old infatuations, and the lamentations of a daughter). The final stand-off is great, but the way there was excruciating. Before the film, George promised us some slapstick humor, and although the film does sport some funny bits (including some great zombie kills), we're still a long way from the cream pies of "Dawn". To be perfectly honest, "Survival" actually looks like the bastard child of "Dawn" and "Day". From the former, it borrows the basic structure involving the "fort" besieged by outsiders, but without the social commentary that made "Dawn" so great. From the latter, it borrows the idea that zombies can be tamed, yet there is no zany Dr. Logan. It also posits military forces as probable survivors, yet there is no sadistic Rhodes. All in all, "Survival" fails because it recycles a lot, and brings nothing new to the stew, no thematic innovation (like the thinking zombie of "Land"), or technical novelty (like the subjective camera of "Diary"). Nothing in fact, to atone for the subpar acting, characterization, scenario, and soundtrack (the Goblins, and even John Harrison are sorely missed). Better luck next time, George.

1,5/5