Night of the Living Dead review

 Number 327 on the top 1000 films of all time is George Romero's 1968 zombie-horror film 'Night of the Living Dead.'

Barbra (Judith O'Dea) and her brother are laying flowers on her father's grave when her brother is attacked by a zombie. Barbra runs in terror to a nearby house where she meets Ben (Duane Jones) and a group of other survivors. Together, they need to figure out how to survive the coming zombie hordes.

I am conflicted about this film. I am well-aware of its reputation. In many ways, it pioneered the zombie-horror genre popularising many of the tropes we now see in the likes of the Walking Dead Franchise or Z Nation. However, at its heart, 'Night of the Living Dead' is a siege film.

A group of characters are boarded up in a location and are besieged by an enemy force. Romero's unrelated sequel Dawn of the Dead follows a similar plot line. But I often find siege films lacking in tension and forward momentum. The characters are stuck in one place not going anywhere neither physically or emotionally. In many ways, Night of the Living Dead also fell into this trap until the characters decide to escape for a safer location.

That is until they start making stupid decisions which screws everything up. Stupid characters making stupid decisions for no other reason than to forward the plot is an annoying and tiresome cliche. Unfortunately it has become a mainstay of horror films. Is Night of the Living Dead to blame for this? I'm not sure.

What I am sure about is how I did not like how they reduced Barbra to little more than a damsel-in-distress. After she is rescued by Ben, she very much becomes an empty shell lacking in agency. While this would be a realistic reaction, it is difficult to believe that a character like that could survive in a world like this. Originally, Barbra was written with more grit, but upon casting Judith O'Dea, Romero rewrote her character.

But one thing Romero did right was the casting of Duane Jones as Ben. He very much carried the film on his back, as Ben was the leader of the survivors. Plus, it was a rare occurrence to have a black man star in a 1960's film. Originally, Ben was supposed to be a crude, un-educated truck  driver, but at the intellectual Jones' insistence, he was changed into a more well-rounded leader.

One cliche I was glad not to see was the one black character dying first in the horror film.

*spoilers*

In fact, Ben was the last one to die. And I did not like how he died. It wasn't in a glorious last stand with the zombies, but by a posse of white men who mistake him for one of the undead and promptly shoot him. But was it a mistake? There are some who have read into the racial undertones of a white man shooting a black man in the backdrop of the Civil Rights Movement.

Either way, I found it to be an anti-climatic death unworthy of a good character. Reportedly, Jones wanted it this way saying it would be too Hollywood for him to be the last-man standing. That, notwithstanding, I would have preferred if he had been killed by a paranoid or scared man panicking over whether Ben was a zombie or not. Then his death might have had more meaning.

Nonetheless, I did enjoy Night of the Living Dead. It wasn't without its flaws, but it was still entertaining.

Dawn of the Dead (2004) review

Number 897 on the top 1000 films of all time is Zack Snyder's 2004 remake of George A. Romero's zombie-horror classic 'Dawn of the Dead.'

Nurse Anna (Sarah Polley) wakes up in the middle of a zombie apocalypse. The dead are rising up and feasting on the living. She meets up with police officer Kenneth (Ving Rhames) and three other survivors: former salesman and family man Michael (Jake Weber) petty criminal Andre (Mekhi Phifer) and his pregnant Russian girlfriend Luda (Inna Korobkina.) Together they take shelter in an abandoned shopping mall where they realise the dead are the least of their worries.

Dare, I say I actually preferred this to the 1977 original. Unlike its predecessor, the tension and suspense always ran high. The action was immediate, as the characters were always in some type of danger. In the original, after our heroes enter the shopping mall, the narrative and as such the tension, completely dries up. This doesn't happen here.

I think it helped immensely that there were more than three characters. This meant there were more people to care about, more potential for conflict and better opportunity for interesting character dynamics. When our original group of survivors enter the mall, they are confronted by a trio of security guards led by the tyrannical CJ  (Michael Kelley.)

Later on another group of survivors crash their bus into the mall bringing with them a whole new host of problems. Meanwhile, Andre is hiding a dark secret from the rest of the group. There is a narrative tension galore. Mainly because all the threats and conflicts always felt imminent rather than vague and faceless.

True a lot of the conflict is fuelled by characters making stupid, unrealistic decisions while a lot of the characterisations never went past the superficial, but the actors did a good job with what they had. Sarah Polley was good as Anna. She took the role as the character wasn't your typical Scream Queen. I would agree with this. But Kenneth and Andre were less drawn. They were little more than a cop and a criminal. I also feel I need to mention Michael Kelley as CJ. He goes through a redemption arc, going from a tyrannical jerk to an unlikely hero. And Kelley was good in the role.

I also enjoyed how restrained Zack Snyder was in his direction. Unlike in 300, where he over-indulges in visual effects, he is less excitable here. there is far less crappy CGI and gratuitous slow motion.

All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed this remake. It was one of these rare occasions where the remake was better than the original. 

Dawn of the Dead review

 Number 402 on the top 1000 films of all time is George A. Romero's 1978 zombie horror 'Dawn of the Dead.'

Peter Washington (Ken Foree) and Roger Demarco (Scott Reiniger) are two police SWAT officers who forsake their posts, after seeing how the true horror of their situation. They join journalists Fran (Gaylen Ross) and Stephen (David Emge) in escaping the carnage. The four soon take shelter in a well-stocked shopping mall, but their problems are far from over.

Dawn of the Dead is generally regarded as a pioneer of the zombie horror genre. It's safe to say that it's had an influence of every single piece of zombie media that's come out in the last forty years. Yes, things have been streamlined and upgraded, but everything leads back to George A. Romero's classic. However, I think I have been spoiled by modern zombie horror. Maybe if I was watching this in 1978, having not seen The Walking Dead or 28 Days Later or Zombieland or Shaun of the Dead, I would have really loved this film. But I didn't enjoy it all that much.

First and foremost, the zombies were so non-threatening. They hobble and limp towards our heroes giving them plenty of time to get away. Even when the characters fall over, drop their weapons or are completely surrounded by the zombies, they still escape unscathed. They never felt like they were in real danger and that really killed any narrative tension. Narrative tension is a point we'll be returning to a while. Anyway, I can totally see why Danny Boyle had his zombies run in 28 Days Later. They were much scarier villains. And yes, I know technically they're not zombies, but you know what I mean. 

And, I know that this is one of the first proper zombie films and the characters don't know all the rules and zombielore, but they were all still so annoying. In a news broadcast, it is specified that you have to destroy the brain to kill the zombie, but the characters waste so many bullets by firing into the zombie's torso. And even when the undead are close enough to nullify a gun, the characters just run instead of pistol-whipping their skulls. Say what you will about the recent narrative direction of the Walking Dead, but the characters there at least know how to kill zombies. 

This is one of those films where a lot of conflict could have been avoided if the characters didn't make such silly decisions. Roger starts to lose his mind and takes unnecessary risks in an operation to barricade the shopping centre from any zombie superhordes. Similarly, Stephen wages a one-man war against the looters who come to ransack the shopping centre where he should have just stayed quiet and let them get on with it. As Peter identifies, the looters don't know they're there and would have easily left them alone. Roger and Stephen's recklessness gets them both killed. I get that being in a zombie apocalypse stops people from acting rationally, but it is a bit annoying when a character's stupidity is what pushes a story forward.

I also did take major issue with the shopping centre being fully stocked. That's completely unbelievable. Just take a look at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. As soon as shit hit the fan, people were emptying supermarkets and fighting over toilet paper. And we're supposed to believe that this shopping centre has just remained untouched? Okay, so the film is supposed to be a comment on the selfish capitalism that is so pervasive of our culture, which only adds credence to the idea that the shopping mall would have been looted in the first instance. It also killed off a lot of dramatic tension. We're not seeing our characters struggling to find water or food as it's all readily available to them.

Speaking of narrative tension, the film suffers badly from sagging-middle syndrome. After the characters have barricaded themselves into the mall and have all the supplies they need, the narrative kind of stagnates. Peter, Stephen and Fran soon go mad out of boredom and realise they have locked themselves in a prison. The boredom was translated through the television screen as I found myself losing interest. It was just lucky there was the gang of marauders to inject a bit of adrenaline into things.

 Although that did lead to one of the most puzzling parts of the film. After the marauders force their way into the mall, leading the way for a super horde of zombies, Fran wants to escape using the helicopter but Peter has lost hope and decides to stay behind. Only he changes his mind at the last minute and joins Fran on the helicopter. This seemed very out of character. He leads the survivors and always keeps them optimistic and on the right path. And yet we're supposed to believe that he just gives up at the end?

And, of course, the special effects weren't brilliant. Dawn of the Dead was made on a tiny budget and it showed. The fake blood looked closer to its constituent ingredients of corn flour and red food colouring than actual blood. It looked fake and tacky. But I guess, this was the 70's. And I have been spoiled by all the fantastic special effects and make-up that went into The Walking Dead  and 28 Days Later.

I do think that at the time this film would have been groundbreaking. But I'm not sure it holds up forty years later. Yes, it created a great precedent, but it's just been bettered and surpassed.