So unrefreshed that I didn't capitalize the title. Yeah, it was intentional. So. Zombies. I like 'em. Gonna make a movie about them someday. Not exactly sure what their allure is. Werewolves have that whole man v. beast thing going for it. Dracula is just sexy. Zombies are... I don't know. My movie is also going to have one werewolf and one vampire in it. Maybe I should have put a spoiler warning on this post. Too late now.
Zombies are like us, just not. They look like us, just not. They move like us, just not. I've read a lot on the subject of zombies, but I won't go and recap all the crap I've read. In spite of all I've read, I'm still not sure why they are so appealing. One of my film theory profs talked about how zombies were like... hmm... I forget what he said. Or exactly what he said. All the zombie stuff I know is becoming one big shit pile.
But yeah, I like 'em. And others do to. My friend Eric wants to make a zombie movie. Dawn of the Dead is doing well in the theatres. Maybe I should just talk about that. Sure. Why not?
But first: Abenobashi is a crazy anime in the best tradition of crazy anime. Plus: BOOBS!
I'm not sure why they called this movie Dawn of the Dead. I mean, sure, it borrows a fair bit from Romero's original, but not all THAT much. They spend a lot of time in the mall. That's the main thing. Oh, and there are zombies. Other than that, not that much in common. All the subtext and satire of the original has been dropped in favour of... nothing. This film has no agenda other than providing some tension, a few scares and a lot of death. And it does. And I liked it. But this remake, or re-imagining, along with that Texas Chain Saw remake, I think... What does it say about today's audience that both films are just slick, highly polished redo's of the superior originals with none of the thought, wit or charm that made the originals superior? Does it say anything about today's audiences, or does it say something about the directors involved, or about the fact that the originals were independent visions put out as independent films and these new ones are studio products?
Not that I care that much, I just think it is interesting. Romero's juxtaposition of zombies in a shopping mall was witty and clever and not really touched at all in this new one but I like it better that way. Cuz why bother remaking something if you're not going to change things up? It's just that they took out a whole lot and only added fast zombies. And I prefer slow zombies. Something about their shambling adds an air of inevitability to everything. The zombies ain't going to chase anybody, cuz they'll get them eventually. But the fast zombies worked in this film. This was a fast film. It started off fairly quick and never really slowed down. No time for love, or satire, doctor Jones. But the acting was good and there were all sorts of little touches I liked. Like the sarcastic rich guy's uncanny resemblance in both look and attitude to Bruce Campbell. If it had actually been Bruce, it wouldn't have been as cool, cuz then we'd like the character. As it stands now, we laugh at what he says but still think he's a dink and have no problem with him getting shot in the head. There were other things that I wanted to mention, that I DID mention in my post that got erased but damned if I can remember them now.
Some of the effects looked fake, like when zombies got run over and stuff. But not blatantly fake. Just fake enough to be fake. Same with that one overhead shot that follow Sarah Polley out of her neighborhood, when that van hits that car and they both crash into the gas pumps? Fake. Well done, all of it but not perfect. But that zombie baby made Carla laugh out loud. It made me think of Dead Alive. Yeah. I'd recommend this movie because what it does what it's supposed to but nothing extra. Yeah. I sound more negative than I meant to, but such is the nature of the internet.
No comments:
Post a Comment