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.

The coming clash...

I've stated before I've come to disdain Hollywood's trend of churning out remakes. I refuse to talk about it until I'm blue in the face -- or type until my fingers turn the same color -- because how much can I say about it? Okay, I can say PLENTY about it! My concerns about Tinseltown's lack of creativity are starting to build again. Yep, another remake is coming. But for me and a lot of movie lovers, it isn't just any remake.

In 1981, I went with my family to see "Clash of the Titans" at the movie house. I didn't know much about it, being a young spud. I knew I loved certain kinds of movies, though, and what I did know about this film got me excited. Stop-motion animation, and call it 'antiquated' if you want, was IT back in the days before computers. I had seen the legendary "King Kong" on syndicated TV by then, as well as classics featuring the effects wizardry of Ray Harryhausen, like "The Golden Voyage of Sinbad". I just saw "The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms" again recently, and you really have to think about it to appreciate how much time and effort went into such truly special effects.

It showed how much effort went into "Clash of the Titans"...even today, if you let a kid of fairly competent memory retention see it with mindful parents (there's nudity in a couple of scenes, a first for a film like this!), they and their parents would be impressed by the visuals of the majestic Pegasus, fearsome Medusa, and the almighty crap-yo-pants sea monster called the Kraken. The Kraken itself was the centerpiece of the effects of the film, as much a payoff in this film as the T-Rex was in Steven Spielberg's "Jurassic Park". However, it could also be called KINO (Kraken In Name Only) yet not in a derogatory way, because it sure as hell didn't look like an oversized octopus as its name implied. It looked BETTER! And fans of the film like me can't kid the uninitiated: the special effects overpower the story and very nearly the actors, even with the likes of the late, great Sir Lawrence Olivier and Burgess Merideth, Harry Hamlin, and Maggie Smith in the cast. One can even say that the story was written exactly so Harryhausen and the filmmakers could make it one of the biggest films to feature stop-motion ever.

The film was indeed big...some critics weren't high on "Clash of the Titans", but audiences loved it. Ever since, it went on to legitimate 'classic' status among films. In this day and age of supposedly seamless computer imagery and effects (you still gotta suspend your disbelief, kids), this film was made in a day and age when physical props and sets were still in vogue and built by hand, and the feeling of seeing the ancient world come to life is more keenly felt here than in a more recent movie, like "300". For better or worse, however, since "Clash of the Titans" is a classic and its appreciation has been passed to younger fans since, it was almost inevitable it go through the potentially painful process of being remade.

And the time for that remake, whether we like it or not, is approaching fast. However, to its credit, "Clash of the Titans" is promising to be a very different animal from its inspiration. The creative forces behind the film, which include director Louis Leterrier, have affirmed themselves as having nothing but love for the original film. They even went to the legendary Ray Harryhausen himself for his input, which shows at least they have respect for their source material and those responsible for it. We've still got Perseus, illegitimate son of Zeus, leading the hero's charge, along with characters like Andromeda, Calibos and Cassiopeia. We know that monsters from the original, like giant scorpions and Medusa, will be back. So will the Kraken...and this Kraken is as different from the original beast as the 1981 version was from an ocotpus. Hades is the new villain, and the whole thing promises to be a bit darker in comparison to the original, even though the story is close to the same.

Nothing will change my love of the original "Clash of the Titans". The forces behind its remake seem to know they're in the shadow of something that fans across the world haven't stopped loving even today...one could say that the Fantasy film might always have a place in films, just like Westerns. (As long as they're done right!) BUT! I've got my doubts. My biggest one is of the guy who plays Perseus...a good friend of mine, Momiji, said that Sam Worthington is pure crap as an actor, and nearly ruined another little film he was in. You might have heard of it, it's called "Avatar"? I haven't seen it yet, but I don't doubt my friend's judgment...he isn't the only one who thinks the guy can't act for shit. That's something I have to see for myself, but I don't doubt it's true. We've already been subjected to Keanu Reeves, and Sam might be following in his talent-lacking footsteps.

Regardless, I want to believe Leterrier and those behind the coming remake have the respect and creativity necessary to dodge the hurdles and pitfalls other filmmakers have all but ignored when it comes to making a good remake. Will this be the first good remake we've seen in a while? Even if it isn't, we've still got the classic to watch again, and it'll always be with us. The fact it's been remade period is proof.

Desperation in the land of make-believe.

I've got an axe to grind with Hollywood about a couple of things. One subject is something I've talked about here before, but I'm going to devote a good chunk of this post to the subject even though I might get unnecessarily frustrated and upset thinking about it too much. It's the dearth of creativity in the land of make-believe that has compelled filmmakers to churn out one damn remake after the next.

One of the most recent culprits -- yes, sadly, only ONE OF -- was the "Friday the 13th" reboot. I'm not here to rail on the flick harshly, except to say I should have known better to think a remake would be as good or better than the 1980 original. My curiosity as a fan of the franchise almost demanded I check it out, and I did. I wasn't too disappointed. The remake was, very simply, all right. It was competent. I hadn't seen anything truly different from the many slasher films I had seen before. There was nothing truly creative about it.

And that last sentence, boys and girls, is the problem.

If any creativity had been applied in this instance, there wouldn't have been a remake. We wouldn't even have seen the newest installment of "Friday the 13th". We would have seen something different...and note that I'm not saying something ORIGINAL. Creativity isn't the same as originality. Hell, there hasn't been a legitimately 'new' idea in storytelling for a very, very long time.

Creativity can go a long way. Ask George Lucas. Or better yet, don't. It would have been better to ask him back when he was honestly fucking creative. He didn't give us anything new, but he did make films that became lasting testaments to American culture. Films like "American Graffiti", "THX 1138" and, naturally, "Star Wars". They had an impact because he had a vision very few had -- borrowing from many sources, granted, but still a vision. "Star Wars" alone created a modern mythology and revitalized the Science Fiction genre.

And dammit, it could only go downhill from there.

Was there anything in the "Star Wars" prequels Lucas directed that had creativity? Was there the slightest amount of gravitas in any aspect of his filmmaking between 1999 and 2005, any part of the new trilogy that had even a FRACTION of the impact of what he accomplished in 1977? No. If it was just the case he hadn't directed a friggin' film for 22 years before "The Phantom Menace", that would be one thing. But he lost his creativity as well as his talent, it seems. There is a significant creative deficit in Hollywood on the whole, and remakes are only one symptom of the problem. (And they're a damn big one. Think about it. Did anyone want shit to come to theatres like "Starsky and Hutch" or "The Dukes of Hazzard"?)

Hollywood knows this, of course. They have to...they would be enormously stupid if they didn't, and you have to have some kind of intelligence to make money. But I'm beginning to wonder if they think we, their audience, are the stupid ones because they think we'll go to the theatre for one remake after another or something else that screams out loud, "WE ONLY GIVE A SHIT ABOUT MAKING MONEY, NOT ENTERTAINMENT!" And there's a remake of "A Nightmare on Elm Street" coming soon. That's damned scary.

The second thing I have to say is this: Hollywood, you're showing how greedy you are pushing the Blu-ray on us so damned hard. I could care less about what one study or another says about them being getting more and more popular. We're not in the best of times right now, economically speaking. Maybe you ought to limit yourselves to getting the word out about standard DVDs, which as far as I'm concerned are just as good. Maybe it has to do with the fact Hollywood will make more money from consumers with Blu-ray, and that's shameless with things so unsure. Maybe it's just me.

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone...yes, I'm still here!

I know it's been a while...things conspire against my Internet time. What can you do? :/

Anyway, it's just about the time to give thanks, and I wanted to give well wishes to everyone, especially dear friends like Geri and Yen. Happy Thanksgiving again, and I hope your holiday is a truly great one! :)

Speaking of those who should give thanks, I submit Will Ferrell. Much as I like the guy, and he can be truly funny at times, Forbes Magazine listed him as #1 of the top ten most overpaid actors in Hollywood. (Which means, he's very highly paid in spite of the fact his movies, especially recently, haven't made a profit.) Some would call that distinction of most overpaid harsh, while others would say that's like calling the sky blue. I'm somewhere in between. I don't have a high opinion of the creative powers of Hollywood...to be more blunt, there isn't a helluva lot of creativity in the movie capitol of the world these days. Will hasn't exactly added to the lack of creativity, but he hasn't brought a lot of creativity to his films, either. Showing my age, I'd call him the new millenium's take-it-or-leave-it talent, like Chevy Chase. (Will and Chevy don't just have Saturday Night Live in their histories, they're mostly plain vanilla when they don't show flashes of genuine brilliance...or is it better to say they've only been ALLOWED to show flashes of brilliance?)

Anyway, let me get to another actor on the Most Overpaid Top 10. No, I'm not about to talk about Tom Cruise. I mean Samuel L. Jackson, which might be a surprise to many of you. It wasn't to me...I'll explain in a moment.

Sam Jackson entered into the millenium as the modern King of Cool, thanks mainly to his performance as Jules 'Bad Motherfucker' Winnfield in Quentin Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction" (1994). I'll grant that was one helluva movie, and Sam earned all the praise he got. And yet he never won an Oscar for his performance. Go figure. But here's why his standing as King of Cool is threatened and he earned his place in the Most Overpaid list...he hasn't exactly set the world on fire since.

Think about it, and notice I'm not for a moment taking away a thing from Sam Jackson. Name me one movie after "Pulp Fiction" that has been as enduringly popular or a role he played that was as...well, cool. The "Star Wars" prequels? Fans of the original films, and I'm among them, think the prequels are total wastes of time outside of their ushering in the digital age of filmmaking. Sam's Mace Windu was one of the few saving graces of the trilogy from George 'I'm cashing in on the legacy of better movies!' Lucas, and holy shit, HE HAD A PURPLE LIGHTSABER! Only Sam Jackson could pack a PURPLE LIGHTSABER and remain cool. Still...he wasn't in any of the movies enough to redeem them. The "Shaft" flick from 2000? Even fans weren't exactly knocked out of their socks...I sure wasn't. "Snakes on a Plane"? The online meme it created was HUGE, but when the movie came out...it fizzled out, maybe from too much overexposure. Or it just wasn't as good as most hoped for, in spite of Sam, and word got out about it's lack of greatness fast. It's been the same for most of his films since..."Unbreakable", "XXX" and its sequel, "Coach Carter", the list goes on...he's been worthy enough, but such films have been deemed categorically unworthy as time passed.

A previous generation's King of Cool, Steve McQueen, earned his reputation with truly cool roles in great movies. So did Samuel L. Jackson for this generation...but where Steve passed away and therefore left the throne empty, the man currently taking his seat there has a different peril from death to threaten his reign. That peril is the lack of creativity in Hollywood, but like death, I don't know how Sam Jackson can fight that and keep his throne.

Random Thoughts

Before I get to 'em, I hope everyone had a truly happy Fourth of July weekend. (Especially you, Yen, I hope you're doing great!)

I've been introspective lately, partly because of the holiday and partly because of a LOT of things. My thoughts, at random, in no particular order...

1) I virtually grew up watching Farrah Fawcett (yes, including the time she was Farrah Fawcett-Majors, which shows I'm friggin' old) and listening to Michael Jackson. No matter how flawed they both were in private -- which was their business and never any number of tabloids' business -- they hit us like a bomb in the time they were here, and it's still settling in me that they're no longer with us. Without a doubt, they'll be missed.

2) On a related subject, Farrah should have been given the chance to act more by the powers that be in Hollywood...watch "The Burning Bed" and "Extremities" to see why I say that.

3) On another related subject, whoever still thinks that Michael Jackson's steady transformation of his face from (NATURAL!) brown to a WTF shade of white wasn't weird is suffering from mental retardation. Again, his private business is just that, but what the hell kind of self-image issues could he have had and why? It's a question that has to be asked, but may never be answered now.

4) Why did it have to rain on the Fourth? :/

5) I wonder if Michael, the King of Pop, is starting a concert tour with Elvis, the King of Rock, somewhere we can only imagine in the afterlife... :)

6) One really does get hungry again not long after eating Chinese food.

7) Can a rudder function as part of the keel of a ship? (It's one of a hundred questions I'm asking myself as I do research...bear with me.)

8) Mondays suck. It's a fact. Look it up.

9) I have no problem with an online lottery, of all things, to decide which die-hard Michael Jackson fans get to go to the memorial service at the Staples Center tomorrow...but I swear to God, if they start selling memorabilia like fuckin' T-shirts there, it'll be official: the only thing anyone in Hollywood gives a shit about is money. The powers that be there can kiss my ass if they try to say different in the future. Remember how much money got pocketed by Hollywood's elite after their 9-11 benefit special?

10) I hope President Obama listens to Colin Powell...don't try to do too much with tax dollars you can't afford to spend! Besides, a basic truth is that when government tries to be big and fix a thing, they only end up making matters worse.

11) No, John Cho, in spite of what you think there can be such a thing as an Asian-American cowboy in a movie...just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't. That's kind of strange, isn't it? Someone typecasting himself and his entire ethnicity! But then, most liberals and multiculturalists would call that 'correct'. :/

12) I want to be an optomist, but my thoughts veer to the pessimistic. Maybe because I know too many of my fellow Humans are, in general, dumb. Or maybe it's just because I miss Farrah and Michael...rest in peace, please, the both of you.