Good, but not great...

Rating: Null/10 (15 June 2004)

Not having seen the original DOTD, but having seen the originals of the other two episodes, I thought I might give this remake a try. I knew the basic plot of a bunch of civilians getting trapped in a shopping mall by a horde of zombies, but that was about it. So I thought that on a night where theatre admission is $10 for two, I'd go and check it out.
Like a lot of remakes, or modern films in general, have both good and bad points. The good points stand out more in this case than the bad. You can stop reading now if you want to be kept in suspense about some story elements.
The good points:
* Ving Rhames does the military-man-caught-in-extraordinary-situation bit very well. He is the glue that holds together the rest of the cast. He is, in fact, the only one that stands out. Why they don't give this man more leading roles is beyond me.
* Sarah Polley does the ordinary woman part extremely well. The stages of shock, denial, and bitter acceptance were well-caught here. She is probably the only cast member in this piece who doesn't go through all of these stages of development within five minutes.
* The decision to drop the use of zombie dogs from the film was a good one. The original Dead trilogy was more of a comment about humanity, and the only series that has made mutant/zombie animals work well would be the Resident Evil games.
* Mekhi Phifer managed to play the "black surburbanite hood" stereotype without being annoying or boring. That takes some effort.
* The "humour" was kept appropriate both in level and timing, instead of being wedged in there like a turd into a pool filter exhaust. Peter Jackson could learn a thing or two from the writer and director of this remake.
The bad points:
* The zombies are shown running as fast as a bus or, worse yet, a sedan. This might quicken the pace of action sequences, but it takes away the creativity of setups. I know of few, if any, other zombie films that have done this, and I suspect that is for good reason.
* The human tension element was mostly absent. Apart from the birth sequence and the initial moments with the mall security guards, the tension of the situation was undermined by how cooperative the living turned out to be.
* The film obviously relies upon the original Dead trilogy for its story to be clear. A lot of references to events in Night Of The Living Dead are thrown in willy-nilly, and the rules as to how one becomes a zombie are not spelled out enough. The original makes it very clear that any kind of death is sufficient, whereas this version implies that one has to be bitten (yes, specifically bitten) by the zombies. A few minutes somewhere in this film to set the ground rules, instead of relying on the audience to know them from previous zombie films, would have helped a lot.
* Explaining why the army helicopter simply passes the heroes by would have been a big help, too.
* Leaving the ending to the imagination, rather the summing up what happens to our heroes during the credits, would have been much more effective. A simple shot of them floating out in the ocean, wondering where they can go, would have been far more effective.
All in all, this is not the worst film I have ever seen, but it isn't going to replace the original Dead films. Still, it is better than some modernisations I could name. As a zombie film, it gets 7 out of ten. As a general film where the normal rules apply, I'd rate it at about 5, but it is entertaining for most of its running length, which is more than I can say for a lot of other films that receive more acclaim.