ZOMBIE FILMS TO WATCH BEFORE YOU DIE #5: THE REMAKE OF "DAWN OF THE DEAD"!

(Fair warning, this review might have a spoiler or two!)

"DAWN OF THE DEAD" (2004)

TAGLINE: See the original's.

ENTIRE STORY IN AS FEW WORDS AS POSSIBLE:

Same as the original, but with less subtext and more action.

OH, GOODY. ANOTHER REMAKE?

Yeah, I know. But in a welcome example of bucking the trend of mediocre remakes, director Zack Snyder's '04 "Dawn of the Dead" is pretty damn good. It takes the basic premise of the original, but eschews any kind of social commentary in favor of giving horror fans a straightforward thrill ride. Gone is any angst, just a fatalistic kill-or-get-eaten attitude appropriate for the apocalyptic setting.

SO IT *IS* GOOD?

I know it's strange to say for a remake, but again, yes. It actually even tries to reinvent zombies some for more modern audiences who might suffer from ADD. The most glaring difference between George A Romero's zombies and the creatures of this remake is speed. These are undead creatures, not the postmodern Infected "28 Days Later" introduced us to, but they're no longer slow and shuffling...the Snyder brand of zombie is fast, furious and relentless. Speed is also increased for the story's pacing, as opposed to the thoughtful and methodical progress of the original.

It's almost unaminous among those who see the remake that the pre-credits opening is one of the best parts of the new "Dawn". We're given a ringside seat to the day the undead began to take over the world, as seen from the perspective of a young nurse (Sarah Polley) trying to find safety in the midst of total chaos. The perspective widens when she meets other living survivors (among them Ving Rhames, Jake Weber and Mekhi Phifer), and their need for sanctuary makes them drift to a big shopping mall. As they do their best to shelter themselves from the zombie hordes, they know this adopted refuge can't last...in many ways, the mall threatens to become as much a prison as a shelter. But do they dare make a great escape? And even if they do, will they find a truly 'safe' place, considering the world is coming to an end?

OKAY, BUT WAS THERE PLENTY OF BLOOD AND GORE?

To be a worthy remake of the original "Dawn", it would have been enormously stupid to NOT bring the blood and guts. Thankfully, Snyder and those responsible for the makeup effects more than accomodate the bloodthirsty! We're also given some moments that are disturbing in their own, never-seen-before light. Chief among them, in two words: zombie baby. The very concept should have been so nasty as to be unthinkable, but the new "Dawn" does indeed go there. Even with plenty of setup, watching an unfortunate pregnant survivor go through her stages of infection to die and then become a snarling zombie, and to see her yet-to-be-born baby kick and shift in her belly ominously...ick! :P Outside of that, there's blood and dismemberment and more galore...see the Unrated version on DVD to get all the gore you could possibly want!

BOTTOM LINE, DID ANYBODY GET OUT ALIVE?

A mere handful of survivors get through the zombie hordes...however...!

THE MORAL OF THIS STORY:

Malls are nice places to visit, but you wouldn't want to live in one during a zombie apocalypse. Living humans are reeeeeally strange creatures when we make our own fun. Don't discount the jerk among those you know, he might just sacrifice himself to save your booty one day.

ZOMBIE FILMS TO WATCH BEFORE YOU DIE #4: "28 DAYS LATER"!

"28 DAYS LATER" (2002)

TAGLINE: "The days are numbered."

ENTIRE STORY IN AS FEW WORDS AS POSSIBLE:
A guy wakes up to a world where a new kind of zombie is looking for living meat.

THIS IS THE ONE THAT REWROTE THE RULES, THEN?
Without a doubt. Danny Boyle wrote and directed a parable about the dangers of viral outbreak, a post-apocalyptic film in the vein of "The Omega Man" (which was later remade into "I Am Legend"), and referenced George Romero's "Dead" films in many ways. However, he sought to do so by giving us zombies that for the first time...well, WEREN'T zombies! The creatures in this film might look and act like zombies in the classic primal sense that they're highly antisocial, animalistic, and hunt normal humans with a predatory hunger, but that's where any similarity to the modern zombie as imagined by Romero ends. Not only that, these bastards are fast...fast as in the pee-yo-pants kind of fast. They aren't even undead, which means a headshot isn't necessarily mandatory. The modern zombies created and established by the "Dead" films officially began to give way in "28 Days later" to the postmodern zombie, or to truly distinguish them, the Infected.

What is responsible specifically is the Rage Virus...it's literally rage distilled into its purest form by medical experiments upon chimpanzees. In a classic case of paving the road to Hell with good intentions, a group of animal rights activists break in and set to freeing the captive test chimps. Things go very, VERY bad as the activists are infected and nearly instantly become psychotic and savage with rage as the chimps break out. 28 days later, a bicycle courier named Jim (Cillian Murphy) wakes up from a coma in his locked hospital room to a world different and deadlier from the one he remembered. His journey is one of discovery and survival as he puts together what happened and tries to figure out where he and other survivors might find a place of refuge from animalistic psychopaths.

SO IS IT GOOD?
It's good in most every way you can imagine for being the first postmodern zombie movie. Danny Boyle shot the film entirely with digital cameras -- often handheld -- to give "28 Days Later" a documentary-style, you-are-there feel. Taking that route also helped in the daunting task of creating the illusion of a decimated, deserted London. No trick photography or computer effects were used. Thanks to the fast work that digital cameras are capable of and some well-timed cooperation on the part of city and local authorities, each shot was completed fast enough so the film could be made without causing any undue havoc to traffic or anything else. The result is a portrayal of a major world city rendered dead, which is to say the least amazing.

But as much as the atmosphere and the fast pacing of the story helps contribute to making this film excellent, it's driven first and foremost by the characters who we can't help but connect with. Cillian Murphy as Jim is a pitch-perfect everyman we can all relate to as he progresses on his reluctant hero's journey, but counterpoint to him is Naomie Harris, who is truly amazing as Selena, a cool-headed survivor whose heart seems even colder (but it only seems that way!) as she escorts Jim through the wastelands. The moment when she hacks up a particularly luckless fellow survivor after he got infected blood into his cut is a stunner! Brendan Gleeson, Megan Burns, and Christopher Eccleston as the super-creepy Major West also deserve the highest praise.

OKAY, BUT WAS THERE PLENTY OF BLOOD AND GORE?
Most of the horror comes from seeing the virtually lifeless devastation in the wake of the Rage Virus, but it's nearly mandatory for any horror film with zombies (live or dead!) to be bloody, and audiences won't be disappointed. There's no dismemberments outside of Selena's hacking a friend to pieces (mostly off camera, blast it!), but things get very ugly at times. More than once Infected tend to vomit up gouts of tainted blood...in one case it goes into a soon-to-be-zombie's face. Ick!

BOTTOM LINE, DID ANYONE GET OUT ALIVE?
No spoilers here, but it depends on which ending you like the most! ;)

THE MORAL OF THIS STORY:
Surviving to live another day is not as good as it gets. Always, ALWAYS be careful when looking up. When somebody keeps a snarling, blood-soaked Infected on a chain leash in their backyard like a dog, chances are good that somebody is a little off! Finally, when in a zombie apocalypse, do what your mother told you when going out on a cold day: dress in layers!