Workmanlike re-imagining

Rating: 6/10 (21 August 2005)

(Edited from a post to IMDb "DotD04" BB, with DVD-release emendations in *asterisks*)
In "Dawn of the Dead (2004)" Director Zack Snyder has crafted an interesting, though flawed, thrill ride of a film that cribs the scenario---a plague of the reborn dead intent upon devouring the living---and the shopping mall setting of George A. Romero's classic "Dawn of the Dead (1978)", and precious little else. Purist fans may be offended, but this reworking of Romero's consumerist satire is entertaining, if somewhat skimpy on substance; Snyder and screenwriter James Gunn have twisted elements of Romero's story to suit the needs of a revved-up, post-millennial audience. We get a child zombie, but this time right up front and gruesomely disfigured to boot. We get a "Steve" to love to hate, but he's not a lead. We get the mall, but it's not as much a haven to be secured as an insecure prison. There's no biker gang breaking in; our heroes are instead forced to break out. The zombies are as hyper as Mikey on four bowls of Life cereal, but just as appropriately gruesome and scary as their cousins doing the Romero shuffle. We get a dose of homage, including a Gaylen Ross storefront and a CGI-flyby of the WGON helicopter. We get Max Headroom as a guy who looks like the original Roger and dies like him, but without the "I'm going to try...not to come back!" along with the original Roger as a haggard general, Ken Foree reworking his classic tag line, "When there's no more room in hell" and Tom Savini chewing scenery as a sheriff. We get a spectacular exploding head, but it pops near the end of the film, and it happens to someone we like. We get an unsettling "happy" ending, which is then tagged with a deliberately confusing "unhappy" postscript mixed into the credit reel.
What we don't get is much in the way of character development, and next to nothing of Romero's wry social commentary, unless one takes the underlying nihilism of the film to be thoughtful insight. Snyder's inspired opening and title sequences paint an uncompromising nightmare of civil disorder and a failure of authority to deal with crisis. Medical personnel are more dangerous than useful: a doctor shows more interest in golf than an unusual bite case, an ambulance runs down Ana's neighbor. Bus drivers are potential carjackers, the first cop Ana meets points a shotgun in her face, and later, security guards offer anything but. The military tucks its tail into a helicopter and runs, while the broadcast media seem to collapse overnight. Our band of survivors is left to its own devices, and the film's zeitgeist is very much every man for himself. Or as Kenneth says, "F*** y'all."
The film leaves more questions open than it grudgingly answers. Some are immaterial (how did the zombie plague originate?), some are niggling irritations (why wasn't Vivian as aggressive as the other zombies? Why do zombies possess the vocal cords of wild animals?), and some are whimsical (why kill a baby zombie; what's it going to do, gum you to death?), but some are crucial to the internal logic of the story.
How did Andy die and do the zombie two-step so fast? *This is explained in the DVD release in a short "home-video" as a combination of weakness from starvation and bad luck* Why did Luda take so long to die, compared to the fat lady in the wheelbarrow? Why did the bite victims in Ana's hospital take so long? Where were the zombie children and teenagers? Where were all the other dogs, and why wouldn't zombies eat them? How did Ana and her husband manage to remain unaware of the growing chaos outside their house? Big question: why, once they were secure within the cornucopia of the mall, didn't our protagonists exploit those resources? Why didn't they dress protectively? Why didn't they improvise more weapons, especially flammable ones? Why didn't they scrounge up a short wave radio, or try to access the Internet? *Andy apparently web surfs in his home video, but this avenue is quickly squelched* Why didn't Snyder and Gunn put a little more thought into their story?
Fast zombies are a chilling variation, but they defy the laws of physiology for the sake of frenetic film-making. Snyder and Gunn have catered to the eMpTyV, short-attention-span crowd and jazzed-up Romero's much more disturbing shamblers, if not for the sake of hectic-editing junkies, then as justification for the swift spread of zombie infestation. One can only guess how Andy barricaded his shop so quickly. *Even the home video ignores this* Fast zombies (or "zoombies," as one inspired IMDb BB writer dubbed them) surely expend more energy than slow ones; flesh and bone breaks down without refueling, and corpses don't have much in the way of fresh oxygen and nutrients. Eyes cloud when fluids dry up. Joints stiffen; internal organs shrivel. Suspension of disbelief falls by the wayside.
Despite its plot flaws and questionable character development *some of which is mended in the DVD director's cut*, I enjoyed this reworking of Romero's seminal classic. Some of the visual effects were less than convincing, but the make-up was effective, the acting was commendable, the overall apocalyptic vision was well-realized, and the storytelling was well-paced, if problematic. I enjoyed revisiting the delicious horrors of zombie invasion, but---and it may simply be because I am now a quarter century older and that much more jaded---"Dawn'04" didn't give me nightmares like the original did. If I had to pick one of the two for a desert island DVD collection, it would have to be Romero's inspired, shoestring-budget masterpiece over Snyder's pricier, workmanlike debut any day of the dead, pun fully intended. Still, I give "Dawn'04" a 6 out of 10; it's nearly as frenetic as the zombies with which it's populated, but just as empty-headed as well.