Dawn of the Dead (2004)

NIGHT 29

     "It's nice to see that you've all bonded through this disaster."

Dawn of the Dead (2004) is a remake of Dawn of the Dead (1978), written by James Gunn and the feature directorial debut of Zack Snyder.

Dawn of the Dead has the same premise and title of the original, but the similarities end after that. A group of survivors hole up in a shopping mall and discover no where is really safe.

[This review refers to the unrated director's cut]

One thing this film does well is its suspense. There's plenty of sequences where characters have to avoid or dodge this film's highly a acrobatic undead. I'll admit that this adds tension, but it's almost too easy isn't it? You had to work in older zombie films to get your characters in a tight spot with enough zombies so that it was actually hard for them. But admittedly, adding the mall security guy at the beginning and making the zombies the main antagonistic threat of the film cures the slow and drawn out problems that the original had.

I like the camerawork in this film. Lots of times I don't feel there was enough meaning or thought as to why they moved the camera that way. But creative shots and playful camerawork at least adds up into something interesting to watch.

And like Romero's Dead films, this film has some really interesting characters. brought to life by really good actors. Unfortunately the film doesn't really take advantage of these good characters. I really liked Ving Rhames portrayal of the police officer who unfortunately doesn't really do anything in this film. And I enjoy our leads played by Sarah Polley and Jake Weber who for some reason fall in love by the end of the film (because they're both white maybe?). And I like the addition of scenes with the gun shop owner, Andy to this story.

The worst thing about this film is its logic! First and foremost: running zombies. There's no reason for zombies to run when you think about it, and convienetly the film doesn't give you a reason either. And these zombies don't just run, they full-on sprint, there is multiple cases in this film where zombies run far faster then they ever could have when they were alive! They also seem like they're very smart and show problem solving ability (again for no reason), there's even one point where one climbs on pipes overhead in a parking garage and jumps onto someone to attack. What the heck? Okay zombies ran in Return of the Living Dead (1985) but it was hilarious in that film, done for comedy (I loved watching a cop car pull up to the abandoned graveyard only to be suddenly mobbed by a huge bunch of zombies). In this film running zombies is done for tension and suspense and without any explanation for it, it just makes me confused. This the biggest logic problem of the film but not the only one. There's countless things in this movie that when you think about them, it really doesn't make sense. Like mall security has a holding cell, really? How did the first bunch of zombies (namely the janitor) get into the mall if it was completely locked up at the beginning of the movie? And on top of this there's lots of times where people make stupid horror movie mistakes like going to save a dog that the zombies weren't going after... or even worse going after the girl that was dumb enough to do that. Yay, mankind! This all adds up to the film pretty much being an enjoyable baseline action movie but if you actually think about anything that is happening the movie starts to fall apart. This is one film where the zombies really do want you brains... to be turned off!

The other thing this film does poorly is mess things up the previous film did well. The empathy for zombies that the original did so well is completely gone here. And the whole point of staying in the  mall in the original wasn't just provide a place where our characters could survive, it was to make some political commentary on our lives. Here the mall just becomes a place devoid of meaning. This pretty much tells me someone watched the original and didn't understand what was good about it at all.

The one thing I really love about this film is the title sequence. The clips of real life massacres and news footage of riots combined with quick zombie shots all with Johnny Cash's "When the Man Comes Around" playing over it, works so well. It's a really amazing idea and not as horribly 'on the nose' as playing Disturbed's "Get Down with the Sickness."

Dawn of the Dead (2004) is a fine action movie if you don't think about anything in it too hard or the fact that it's a remake of a classic zombie film. Ugh.

3/5 Stars.

Happy watching!




The 31 Nights of Macabre Movies are winding down now, we're done with the zombie flicks for now and gonna move on to the horror/comedy classic Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948).

Like this blog? You can support it by buying this film through these links:

Evil Dead (2013)

NIGHT 19

     "I can smell your filthy soul!" 

 

Evil Dead (2013) is an attempt to remake the low budget, horror film classic The Evil Dead (1981) with a higher budget and more gore. This film is director Fede Alvarez's first feature film and it is produced by the creators of the original film: Sam Raimi, Bruce Campbell and Robert G. Tapert.

Five friends decide to spend the weekend at a cabin to help Mia kick her drug use. All goes to hell though when your stereotypical nerdy guy of the group finds a strange book of the dead and starts reading from it. While this sounds like it could be funny, it's actually completely serious and a return to the series' origins as straight horror.

There's a couple things that this film did better than the original. By way of making the events a little more plot based rather than the madness and haphazard way the events unfold in the original. I liked how in this film you can actually follow the evil possessing each member of the group one at a time. It actually starts with the tree rape scene (which gives that scene slightly more meaning than in the original) and then as Mia gets possessed/infected it slowly passes on to each of the other characters as they come in contact with the gruesome version of their former friends.

I also liked the change to the premise of this film, having all the main characters come to the cabin to help a friend detox is actually a really smart change (and I'm guessing the original pitch that made anyone actually consider making this film) Unfortunately beyond the pitch the film doesn't really do anything with this, it could have been used in a really interesting way through out the film as Mia (the girl who is detoxing) is the first one to get possessed and start acting strangely and they could have carried this into the plot of having the other characters really not believe her and have drugs as a bigger element of the plot (thinking they've all been drugged or something) when shit gets really weird but the film doesn't. Instead it just gives us a little bit of an interesting change at the beginning and then drops it almost immediately after that.

Okay lets talk frankly here for a moment, I understand that to make a film these days it's a lot easier to get financial backing by making a remake or a sequel of something else that was successful. I don't like it, but I understand. That's fine and all all: you're a hot young filmmaker just starting your career and you get the opportunity to make a multimillion dollar film with a lot of hype around it. You have to use the title, sure. But after that you pretty much have free reign to make whatever film you feel like. What I don't understand is why you would literally cling to the events that happened in the original [and the original remake: Evil Dead II (1987)] like they were your bible! Do your own thing! This is a solid example of the worst way to make a remake: by doing everything the original did but trying to make it edgier and more "modern."

Another thing this film does is the "who's the protagonist" game that the original Alien (1979) does but, you guessed it, this film does it far worse. Now lots of people have seen Alien so many times that it's easy to forget (and the sequels don't help) but one of the cool things the original Alien did was one by one start killing off characters until you were left with the most unexpected character as your protagonist. This film tries to do that also, one by one killing off all the characters in attempt to make you guess who is the new "Ash" of our series. The only problem? The first character they kill off is our protagonist! Way to make us care about our character film, kill her off (and make her possessed and evil) very early on so that we automatically don't care anymore! By the time she comes around again, I really couldn't care less about this character.

Okay nit-picky sure, but I hated the design of the Necronomicon in this film. [Oh sorry it's the "Naturom Demonto" in this film because it was called that in the original and this film decided to copy that film down to useless details like this.]  Yes the illustrations were cool, but they surely didn't look like they were etched in blood. And unlike the original, they had what appeared to be English translations of the book all over it, right on top of the pages ...in what appeared to be red ballpoint pen!

Probably the worst thing about this film is the Logic. Everything that The Cabin in the Woods (2012) was poking fun at with the way characters act in horror films, is right here in this one. So much so, that I was quoting lines from The Cabin in the Woods while watching this one: "Ok, I'm drawing a line in the fucking sand here. Do not read the Latin!" The original didn't even have it's characters read from the book, they play a tape of a man reading it! Also the funny thing about having the Necronomicon translated is that you can read ahead to what's coming! But of course, it takes most of the film before the characters realize that the linear events that are happening in real life are also in the book you've been reading one page at a time.

This film has really bad writing, I've briefly mentioned the logic problems, but worse are the characters and the dialogue. Admittedly, this maybe the result of English being the second language for the director, but the actors have as much responsibility to make their lines work as anyone else. Such cookie cutter horror characters, and blatantly obvious mistakes they make really bring this film down big time.

And finally this film has such an excess gore and almost every bodily fluid you could imagine for really no reason. At first I was thinking this was a tribute to the Italian horror flms like the original kind of did, but unlike those this film tried to make all the bodily fluids as realistic as possible? What is the point? Is it really all just for simple gross-out moments? Come on director, you're better than that! On a brighter note, you could probably play bodily fluid bingo with this film and everybody would be a winner! Hows that for a drinking game?

Despite everything else there's a couple of moments in this film that I felt had a really good sense of suspense and horror, but with such bad characters and dialogue it's hard to think anyone would actually be scared by this movie as a whole. It's just super jarring to have such laughably bad lines next to intensely serious moments. Here comes a tangent, but to me this really shows off how good The Cabin in the Woods was, because that film nailed the bad lines next to horror thing. Oh, is it not fair for me to look at The Cabin in the Woods in comparison with this film? They're the ones who decided to make a remake of the original immediately after The Cabin in the Woods was released which literally calls out all the clichés and lesser parts of the horror genre.

Scares aren't the only great thing about this film either, there's some genuinely "cool" moments I found as well (at least as a horror fan). I actually liked how it started raining blood in the third act, and there was this awesome shot at the very end where a body kind of sinks or gets absorbed into the bloody/muddy ground, it's a downright awesome looking visual. All of this kind of depresses me because if this obviously very talented director was given the chance to make his own original feature there's enough here to prove to me that I would have loved it. But instead he jumps on the chance to make a completely unnecessary remake!

Evil Dead (2013) is pretty much everything The Cabin in the Woods (2012) was trying to make a statement and warn against, and yet here it is one year after The Cabin in the Woods was released. Pretty depressing actually if you ask me.

1.5/5 Stars.

Happy watching!




That's it for my Evil Dead streak on the 31 Nights of Macabre Movies, tune in tomorrow for a brand new indie U.K. horror film that is getting a lot of hype, The Borderlands (2013).

But if you want more Evil Dead goodness check out my friend Daimeon's reviews of the the whole Evil Dead series!

Like this blog? You can support it by buying this film through these links:

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941)

DAY 29

"The world is yours my darling, the moment is mine."

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941) is a remake of the 1931 Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and like that film is only loosely related to Robert Louis Stevenson's novel, The Strange case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

The majority of this film is based on the previous version's screenplay but there are little touches that a keen observer will notice when watched that I really enjoyed, like the Freudian dream sequences that were placed in this film. Little touches like this show that someone was thinking about the film critically and found a cool idea to add that would enhance the themes of the story... now if only the rest of the film had that original thought....

As with most remakes, I wish this film would have tried more to be it's own film. Instead I think it falls short because it's trying too hard to just leech off of the success of the previous version. Like the entire 3rd act is exactly the same as the previous film, which I didn't even like when they did it then!

I was let down by the cast in this film. I got excited seeing Lana Turner, Ingrid Bergman AND Spencer Tracy played the three leads but unfortunately Ingrid was trying to break typecasting and tries to play the down-and-out love of the protagonist and ends up coming off very sweet and innocent (not actually breaking type) and this kind of ruins the difference between her and Lana Turner's character (Dr. Jekyll's fiance) that the previous film had. And I gotta say Spencer Tracy plays a pretty boring Dr. Jekyll, and his Hyde while less crazy overall does achieve some pretty high levels of wickedness, just takes him a while to get there. Humorously supposedly Fredric March sent a telegram to Tracy thanking him for his biggest career boost, as his performance was often salvaged when compared to Tracey's. This is a fine example of the risk you run when remaking something that's still so recent in people's minds.

This film has really great cinematography. And overall I'd say the direction is greatly improved from the previous version and the full soundtrack score really helps to make this version a lot more tolerable than the previous one. Victor Fleming is the director who you will know from his previous two films, The Wizard of Oz (1939) and Gone with the Wind (1939) you wouldn't know from watching this one though, this film has nowhere near the same scale of those previous two but is refreshingly simple and still good comparatively.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941) is more watchable than the 1931 version (which alone probably warrants the remake) but unfortunately I liked the actors better in the previous version. 3.5/5 stars.

Happy watching!







Like this blog? You can support it by buying this film through these links: