Zombies are going to get you!

This post has been slow and steady but inevitable in coming. First came our watching of Night of the Living Dead last Halloween. I had never seen it, and Netflix had it on instant. Everything sat there for a few months 'till I had a fantastic idea for a zombie comedy. I put pen to paper and queue to zombie. I've finished the script and am sending it around, but that hasn't stopped my curiosity in the sub-genre of Zombie films.
I started with Dawn of the Dead, then Fido and Day of the Dead and Shaun of the Dead, then moved on to Evil Dead. Most recently I watched the Dawn of the Dead remake, Land of the Dead, the remake of Day of the Dead, Planet Terror and Dead Snow.
The genre is pretty unique and has spawned even it's own sub-genre, the zombie comedy. I should actually point out that I saw Zombieland twice in the theaters last year (once at the dollar theater with Betsy.) and was influenced by it for my script. As well it made quite a reference point to compare with other zombie films. Zombieland was actually the first zombie film I had ever seen. I must admit, I'm kind of a baby when it comes to horror films. The last real one I saw was The Ring and I vowed never to see one again. (I still can't look at my TV the same way again.)
But most zombie films aren't scary in the same way other horror films are. In fact, they're more closely related to standard thriller movies. Only occasionally does a zombie film have something really "scary" or rather an image that is outright intended to scare. The best example is in Dawn of the Dead when Stephen(the white cop) comes back to life as a zombie. That's still the scariest image from any zombie film I've seen. And it isn't about gore or suspense, it's more mental. This guy was alive just a while before, and then the blanket falls from his face and he's changed into a zombie, but not all gory and gross or with magically appearing veins. It's gaunt and pale and lost of all humanity.
Since the films more closely relate to thrillers, the main thrill comes from the chase. That's the monster in the film, the slow moving mob of risen dead. And the thrill comes from their slow but steady pace. They just keep coming. That intensity is lost on the new "running zombie" films. For some reasons, dead people become faster than normal people. And in some movies they can climb walls and jump around. So even though these zombies run faster and climb walls they're less scary than slow moving zombies.
The other thrill, of course, is the gore. Seeing people being eaten alive and torn limb from limb is kind of scary, but more likely you're watching it thinking about how they pulled it off. (No pun intended.)
I'm still missing some of the zombie bunch to make a complete assessment, but I basically watched all the good ones. I also failed to mention that I've seen 28 Days Later, and the only reason I saw it is because I was with some people and didn't want to sound like a baby. So I sat silently and took it. It isn't included sometimes as a true zombie film, but I will admit it into the group, since most of the remakes turn the zombie plague into a virus of some sort, 28 Days is just adding a new spin on the genre.
In my fair judgment I must say that the original Dawn of the Dead has to be the best one, with Zombieland so close in second that there should be a recount. These two are extremely different films, but still hold some similarities. But I'll save my review for them until later. First, I'll review the Romero classics, then the remakes and then the others I've seen.
Night of the Living Dead is the father of them all. (Apparently White Zombie is the grandfather, according to some sources.) The pacing is perfect, the writing is just right and it sets up the format for most future zombie films; board up the house and turn on the TV/radio. All of Romero's films fit into that format in some way; board up a mall, hide out in a military bunker or wall up a city. Each of his films builds on it just a little bit. Little house, medium sized mall, huge underground bunker, grand city tower. But it all goes back to this original film, where the zombies come from the woods and start attacking the living. The other thing about Romero's first zombie film is the mild social commentary. The guy taking charge is a black man, and even though he lives through the night and overcomes all the struggle, he's still taken out by the man.

Day of the Dead was Romero's third zombie film, and kind of his worst one, though it has some of the most interesting parts. The worst part is the acting. There is so much dialogue and so many scenes where actors are only interacting with each other that there is no way around it; you need either good actors or a director that knows how to direct actors, not just zombies. There are two great additions to the genre, the first being the effect of a long duration after the zombie apocalypse. The people in the bunker are starting to "loose it" bad, first from being stuck underground for so long, and second knowing everyone else is dead, and third knowing that there are swarms of zombies above ground. It'd be pretty hard to keep it together, but damnit you have to. No other zombie film up to the point dealt with life after the zombie war. (Maybe some film did, but I don't know.) It isn't a post-apocalyptic film, though, since these survivors don't interact with any other humans.
The other great addition was the scientific research they exposed about zombies. 1. They have no use of their organs. 2. They don't digest any meat. 3. Their brain is the only thing functioning and all it wants is human flesh. 4. Zombies retain some little bit of memory and can be conditioned in small ways. Amazing! This movie also left you yearning to see what the rest of the world was like. All you got was a little glimpse of Florida, then the bunker for 2 hours. The beauty of the remakes and new films is that you get to see a lot of that.

Land of the Dead came out 20 years after Day of the Dead. There was a lot of space between, and with the newer zombie films coming out, and the best zombie comedy to-date out, the genre had surpassed Romero, and he was left to fill in the gap, including the cliches made laughable in the zombie comedies.
So Romero needed to make Land his greatest endeavor yet. And he came close. It was his grandest zombie film, of course, but as film goes, grandest isn't always best. This film has the most complex and filled out plot of any zombie film, and overall the writing isn't too bad either. But the plot is itself derived from action movies and another genre closely related; the post apocalypse genre. You see, in many PA(Post-Apocalyptic) films there is a central establishment, like a city-state, which is always fascist in some way; including a ruthless leader, a vice filled underground, the noble guardsmen and the loyal/immoral guardsmen. The guardsmen protect the city-state from the anarchy outside the world. The ruthless leader claims that he is not evil, but feels a responsibility to his people. The noble guardsman wants out, the loyal one stops him or sometimes tries to overthrow the ruthless leader, causing chaos and the outside chaotic world is let in and the city is destroyed. Pulling from lots of different films(The Mad Max series, Waterworld, Metropolis, Logan's Run, etc), that's the basic idea, and it's all found here, except here we have zombies. And the problem with these zombies is that they have learned to learn. I think Romero went one step too far with that, their leader Big Daddy has learned just a little too much. He's become a teacher for the other zombies; including teaching them how to shoot guns. All in all, there wasn't much added to the genre except a really awesome zombie killing vehicle.

The most recent additions to the genre have been the zombie comedies. Of course, back in the day there were a few zombie comedies, but they were mere campy renditions of a zombie film; sort of a so bad they're funny kind of thing. The newer breed turn the table and make jokes all on their own, sometimes without a zombie even being present. Enter Fido and Shaun of the Dead, which both answer the age old question of what to do with zombies once humans have won the war? Turn them into servants and slaves! Fido starts with that premise while Shaun ends with it. I thoroughly enjoyed Fido. It acts as a retroactive 50's movie that retells history as what they 50's would be like with zombie servants. Like Mad Men, it shows life back then with all it's flaws. Subtle social commentary lines the whole film, and it's basically the whole point, showing how cruel people can be in their everyday interactions with people who are "different."
Shaun of the Dead never ventures past basic comedy. The metaphor that we're all zombies in some way has been done before in regular zombie films, but is nice that new light is shed on it for our generation who become zombies while playing video games or when we wake up looking and acting like the undead. But that can only carry a film so much. There is basically no plot, except a loser guy tries to save his ex-girlfriend and prove his love. But through the whole film they bumble along, with a stupid plan, deserving to die because of their stupidity. But somehow they survive. I guess the film was okay, but since I hadn't seen it until now and heard from everyone across the world that is was so good, my expectations were through the roof. I was almost as disappointed with this as 40 Year Old Virgin. (I was expecting the poster of the movie, not barely as good as Old School) For an awesome Simon Pegg film watch Hot Fuzz.

Somehow Ving Rhames is in both of these remakes. I guess since Dawn of the Dead was pretty good, they convinced him to be in Day of the Dead. But in comparison to all other zombie films of any worth, Day of the Dead is gosh darn awful. It is a waste of a film. It adds nothing new to the genre, and even if that isn't a requirement for being good, it doesn't even do the "old stuff" well. It plays out like a sad horror film that went straight to video, and guess what...it is a sad horror film that went straight to video. Ving Rhames why did you do this? What was in the script that was so good that you felt the need? As far as I could tell, the script contained nothing of interest or value. Plus, this film shares next to nothing with the original. I had read that fact beforehand and didn't think much of it, but after seeing it, I'm almost pissed that it shares the same name.
Enough with Day of the Dead, I hate talking about horrible movies.

On to a mediocre zombie film; Dawn of the Dead. This remake was alright, and it too shares little with it's named predecessor; only the mall. I think this was the first true zombie film with running zombies.
It's weird to see them running so much. I was hoping to hear the director or someone on the DVD extras to explain why their zombies could run, but the only thing I read was that the director said, "that the reason his zombies run at full speed is because he wanted to avoid the inherent comic impression given by slow, shuffling undead."
Alright. But that's kind of the point. Running zombies make no sense. Maybe you could say, the zombies can still run for a while after being dead, but then eventually their bodies can't handle it. But that's not the case, since they even run at the end of the film, weeks and weeks later.
The thing that bugged me most about the film was that it just seemed to wander aimlessly. They had no motivation or drive and certainly no clue about survival. What if the zombies broke through the glass doors? Where could they go? No where, because they were living out in the open around the coffee stand or in the stores. They needed a secondary place to go in case of a break-in. I even thought that before reading the Zombie Survival Guide. (A great read, but will make you think about a zombie attack everyday of your life.) All in all, though, the Dawn of the Dead remake is one of the better modern zombie films.

Dead Snow plays out more like a standard horror film than a zombie movie. First off, the zombies are Nazi's and they can think. They are organized and based on the ending care just as much about gold medallions as human flesh. Second off, there's no zombie outbreak, it follows some students in the woods basically being terrorized by monsters. There's even mentioning of other horror films by one student, who offers them advice; not to get bitten.
The movie is pretty fun, though, as the students finally get the nerve to start fighting back, they arm themselves and go full throttle fighting against their Nazi attackers.
Everyone, including Michael Moore, has been praising this film. Moore even said it was the scariest film he'd seen in a while. I don't know what kind of films he's been watching, but this film should show up pretty low on the Scary Scale. There's a tiny bit of suspense before the zombies attack, but once they're revealed all the horror comes from gore and the thrill of chase. There really wasn't much to the film. It's just a fun, gory movie where dead Nazi's are trying to eat people.

Now on to the best of the bunch; Dawn of the Dead and Zombieland.

Dawn of the Dead is the best zombie movie ever made; for several reasons. First off, it's Romero's best film, and since he's the Godfather of zombie films his best should be the genre's best. It's simple math. But looking beyond math, it stands out all around from his other films and every other zombie movie made. Because there really are 2 classes of zombie films. The good ones that garner attention and are well done, and the ones made as simple horror flicks. The good ones go beyond the simplicity of the genre to just be great films. The original Day of the Dead could have been a great film, but it just sits at the peak of being a good zombie film. Dawn of the Dead is better than just a good zombie film, it's a good film all around.
The film has the best opening of any zombie film. It starts on a TV station broadcasting the news just after the zombie outbreak has turned wide. The pacing and tone and music throw you right in the middle of it all. Even before ever seeing a zombie your heart is racing because of the film's intensity. People are running, things are happening, news people are yelling. Then it cuts to some police raiding a building that has people that won't evacuate. Still there are no zombies, just people running to and fro and the intensity hasn't let up. Then, after all that, when you do see a zombie it seems so out of place that you're freaked out. The dead are rising!!!!! Holy Spicoli!!! These two opening sequences show that George Romero can be the master of his craft.
Finally the plot gets moving as the main people get to the helicopter and finally to the mall, where the rest of the film takes place. Then this is where it gets interesting because the people are no longer on the run, or wondering what they are going to do. They have a plan and they execute it. They rid the mall of all zombies, block off all the doors with trucks, turn the upstairs offices into a home, and totally block off the offices with fake walls. No other zombie movie comes close to the main characters making such a tight plan and fortification. And maybe because their plan is so tight, the movie's pace suffers slightly. The thrill factor goes way down and thus loses what makes most zombie movies so entertaining; the chase and the gore.
But despite that, the movie remains entertaining and you're anxious about these few survivors. Which is why when one of them turns into a zombie it's so scary.
This image haunts my dreams.
The film also follows the format, or maybe sets up it up as the standard, of not zombies but humans causing the most harm. Despite their perfect hideout, a band of roaming bikers descend upon the mall to raid it and in the process lets in the zombie hordes. Then another one of the survivors gets turned into a zombie and knowing where the secret hideout is, breaks in. Zombie Survival Tip #45: Beware of Biker Gangs!
The other interesting thing about Dawn of the Dead is the drastic change in tone from Romero's first zombie film. Throughout the movie there is this almost comic music playing. The characters seem to be enjoying themselves as they fortify their structure, or kill zombies, or when the bikers attack. Romero is so keen in playing with this effect. He knows this movie is like a comic book and the tone plays on that so well, because zombie movies are at their best mere comic books. And like the best comic books, there is always a social commentary underneath.
And speaking of comic book-like tone, Zombieland! This film did what everyone thinks Shaun of the Dead did. It added up all the zombie films of the past, mixed them together into a fun filled stew, and served it on a platter of awesome.
There's no real plot. The characters don't have a lot of drive and there isn't as much gore as the other modern zombie films, but damn it all, who cares? From beginning to end, you love it. Maybe it's because there isn't that first 15 minutes of zombie set up, or sappy emotional ties. The film starts with zombies right off. And the timid character...at least he can shoot a gun. There's no scared witless woman to follow through the woods or last ditch stand against the horde. They cut out all the annoying parts of horror films and leave only the stuff you love. It was a big gamble, because most new action films that do that are desperately boring. (I almost walked out of Superman Returns.) So since the film is so bare, they run the risk boring the audience with uninteresting action. (Like Mission Impossible 2.) There's just enough character to care about and be interested in. And you do honestly care what happens to them.
And I can't finish without mentioning the one scene that clinches it for me. The scene I almost peed my pants over. (I literally clenched my pelvis because pee pee almost came out, I was laughing so hard.) Thank you, Bill Murray. Thank you so much.