| Overall Grade: |
A- |
|
| Story: |
N/A |
|
|
| Acting: |
N/A |
|
|
| Direction: |
N/A |
|
|
| Visuals: |
N/A |
|
|
You owe it to yourself to see this film.
by Yahoo! Movies User (movies profile)
Mar 5, 2008
32
of
35 people found this review helpful
One thing that has always attracted me to genre films is the way they are colored by the times. Big Hollywood productions are too often void of any reference to when it was made. Genre films reflect the time. Just look at film noir.
Good horror films always reflect the time frame. After all, what scares us is usually in the here and now. The suffocating fear of communism may have worked in the 50's, but we have new things to fear.
And so it goes with George A. Romero's masterpiece, Dawn of the Dead. This is the second, and best, of his zombie trilogy. Like the first film, Romero pits ordinary people against a legion of the undead. They must work together to survive.
But here, he takes it up about eight notches. Night of the Living Dead was a low budget film. A great low budget film, but nonetheless...More importantly, it was made in the sixties. At that time, we were fighting a losing battle in Vietnam, college students were getting killed by our own soldiers, and racial lines were very defined. Night of the Living Dead played off these fears of isolation and chaos.
And it also took place over one night. Dawn of the Dead takes place over an extended period of time. It was a late 70's film, and it was in color. The 70's were a time of great excess. The Boomers (who I still blame for everything wrong in this country) were kicking into high gear with "ME!!!". Large shopping malls were supplanting Mom & Pop stores. People (read: boomers) became very self-absorbed. Consumerism was the name of their game.
The film begins with the undead already running rampant. It's not clear why they have risen (perhaps they didn't get them all from the first film), but they're here nevertheless. A couple who work for a TV news station commandeer a helicopter and, along with some local SWAT, make a break for it.
As they fly along the countryside, they see how bad the problem is. The undead are everywhere. A refueling stop results in an injury that requires them to find a safe haven. Their choice is an abandoned mall. Well, it's not quite abandoned. It's crawling with zombies!
The longer time frame allows the characters to become much more defined, which means we are given the opportunity to care about what happens to them (or not, depending on you). The film becomes a study of how strangers react to being forced into close quarters for long periods of time. It's sort of a snowed-in-at-the-cabin style drama, except with HELLISH ZOMBIES. And the film uses this setting to comment on the times.
Yes, for they are in a shopping mall. Romero made a good choice with this setting, for the images of zombies riding escalators, window shopping, and mindlessly wandering the halls of the mall are wonderful, and perhaps not that different from real life. Just freeze out the rotting flesh. And the zombies just keep coming. They are attracted to the mall. It's become such a part of their lives that they can think of nowehere else to go.
Later in the film, once they've cleaned the mall of the undead and made it their home, a gang of roving bikers comes in, loots the place, lets the zombies back in, and then leaves. This just goes to show that humans are garbage. I mean, the zombies were killing too. But they had an excuse. They needed BRAINS!
There's another plot point that takes aim at a controversial issue. The woman in the group is pregnant. After a time, it becomes clear that they could be stuck for a while. In fact, with no word from the outside, they begin to wonder if the crisis will ever end. This presents a problem. Should they bring the baby into a possibly dying world, or terminate the pregnancy. What do you think, Jerry Falwell?
This film is perhaps the ultimate example of horror-film-as-social-commentary. I recall that Roger Ebert called this film the best of the decade. While I'm not sure I fully agree (what about Chinatown?), I can definitely see what he's getting at. It's a harsh criticism of one foul decade. Yet it keeps from getting preachy, mostly due to the horrific violence. It's nice to be entertained while being told how shameful our society is. The simple images of zombies overtaking a mall say it all.
Romero has had a hit and miss career. But when he's on, he's ON. This is by far his best film, along with the afore-mentioned Night of the Living Dead. If you're a fan of horror and/or social criticism, you owe it to yourself to see this film. |
My Public Profile 
