Reviews

Aronofsky is no Tarkovsky... though it is painfully apparent, after watching this, that he would like to be. I am amazed that the debate surrounding this film (at least on IMDb... theatres and critics didn't feel a need to show it or talk about it for very long) can be boiled down to "didn't like it" vs. "if you didn't like it, you didn't get it". Well, I got it and I didn't hate it but can't say I think it's worth paying money to see. Far from being "too complicated", the problem is that it is too over-simplified. You understand immediately that you are watching a man hell-bent on curing disease and that he has a personal stake in it. It took about a minute to figure out that he will either succeed or learn that he is not god and that things must die in the natural order. Good, that's a 20 minute art film in the short film festival. Now what is the point of the other hour+? Feel free to dispute these points if you question what I am saying:

There is no sub-plot. Period, only 3 variations of the same thing that are not cryptic or obscured in any way. The simple primary theme is the only one you see. No greater allegory, no opposing opinion. Imagine how Cronenberg, Lynch or Kubrick would have handled this film's concept and you'll see what I mean. Watch Pan's Labarynth for an example of how to use dark realism and historical accuracy pitted against fantasy for an allegory with more than one layer.

There are no secondary character relationships. A supervising doctor= never explored, a Fransiscan monk = never explored, etc.. You never really know the story or motivations of anyone else but Tom and he's just not a well-enough-drawn character to sustain 90 minutes on his own (even if you change his name a couple of times).

There is no real conflict presented. This is the most serious flaw due to the fact that there is so much room to explore deeper themes relevant to today's society. How can your main character be an obsessed scientist experimenting on monkeys to find a cure for "death" without dealing with (at the very LEAST), issues of animal testing and the Republican party's recent hard line stance on right to die and stem cell issues. This film could have had an emotional impact in a relevant, current way and chose not to. The problem is it didn't do much in the way of a human love story to compensate either.

I know the back story of the filming so I realize that the budget was cut, casting was changed and the original location was scrapped all together. However, this was a story that didn't require a huge budget to tell. It strives for the atmosphere (and by that I mean direct plagiarism) of Tarkovsky, the skewed audio and sound style of Cronenberg and the "universal theme through time" that Lynch does better than anyone - but to compare Aronofsky's writing or direction to any of those three (or Kubrick who I mentioned earlier) is just embarrassing. It needed a better script and a deeper vision. This film wasn't complicated, it was far, far too simple to resonate.

Flat out, this was one of the worst things I have ever seen. Its hard to make a romantic action-adventure comedy that has no romantic chemistry (really, how are they a real couple, there was no spark of anything on screen), bad action (cheap John Woo "double gun" rip-offs), no adventure (mystery solved in minute 4, followed by 2 hours of "yes, I get where this is going, running from assassins will bring them together and save their marriage, hurry up with it") and 2 witty lines of dialogue (that were already basically used in Romancing the Stone - your basic cat fight because they really like each other underneath it all) A joke about a domestic tiff (taking out the garbage type crap) while shooting at each other is a mildly humorous juxtaposition once... once. By the 30th time I was throwing Doritos at my TV. Add that to the fact that you couldn't imagine that the two stars had any relationship whatsoever, so when they figure out each other's double lives and find the surprising urge to stay married, I think any sane person is cheering against it... which kinda kills the romantic comedy thing. Again, not well written or well shot. Pitt's even borderline talent is wasted; he's given nothing to do or say. Jolie really can't act with any charisma whatsoever... just a stunned botox expression for 2 hours. Utterly pointless.

Yes, this film was marketed poorly. Yes, the trailers were misguided. But yes, this is also not a very good film.

The problem is that Night has introduced too many concepts, ideas and sub-plots with not enough time to fully realize any of them. The casting is wonderful; Hurt does his best "intellectual every man", Phoenix is a decently stoic enigma and newcomer Bryce is actually fantastic as the lead. But Sigourney Weaver is given little to do and some difficult, mundane dialogue to act her way through. Brendan Gleeson is inexcusably underused and Adrien Brody seems to have been edited out of any real emotional impact.

What this film wants to be is a comment on contemporary America - where a group of intellectuals (with the funding of one very wealthy family), disenfranchised with modern street violence and urban decay, could conceivably remove themselves from the modern world and live in the perceived utopia of a rural 19th century. But too many easy answers, tacked on script "quick fixes", and multiple convenient solutions expose the many holes in the film making. It always feels like Night was tacking on justification scenes as the film posed questions instead of having a clear vision at the script stage. I won't go into all of the examples - but there are many (costumes hidden under floorboards, a blind girl, a mentally challenged man who can't expose the truth of the woods, a clearly quick-fix line about someone paying off the government to not fly over the commune, etc). You never get the sense that Brody is in love enough to kill. You never really fear the "woods", you are never really forced to wonder what is in the boxes in the elders' homes, and the creatures should never have been shown (first rule of mis-direction-based suspense!). I'll offer this one question as an example indicative of the other problematic elements: Why - if the "elders" know that it is really not the 1800's, and also know that they are living in a protected area set up by the Walker family - do they make such a fuss about Ivy going for medicine? They know what she will find but not be able to see. Unlike Night's previous films, the mystery is not guarded in a realistic way. He makes these elders seem suspicious and mysterious solely for the benefit of the audience, but there is no real justification for the characters themselves. This is troubling throughout the film and ends up like most badly written suspense films where the twists only trick the viewer but seem ridiculous and improbable if you just deal with the fictional world contained in the film.

All in all, it's overly-simplistic; the equivalent of the "it was all a dream" device. While I was not disappointed that this film was not the horror thrill ride that the trailers would have you believe, I was disappointed that a clever idea was so badly edited together (it looks like hours of footage was shot, but slashed down to its essential plot points for time) and never realized. It's a shame, it could have been a great film if Night would have stuck to a couple fully developed characters and plot paths and really got us to invest in them.

**MILD SPOILERS***

This film works. The reason, quite simply, is moderation. Now moderation may be a strange concept in a zombie film, but it is the reason that so many modern gore and horror films have failed. Yes, Dawn Of The Dead is bloody. Yes it is violent. You can't really go too far with those elements when killing the undead is an integral part of your story… but it is story that is most often sacrificed in favour of more killing. This film doesn't fall into that trap. Back to moderation:

1)Horror movies in general rely on some degree of macho stereotypes and dialogue. Dawn Of The Dead is no different, but they keep it to a minimum and characters like Sarah Polley's are there to diffuse it before you are overwhelmed by it. The macho one-liners and tag lines serve their purpose well, creating the campy comic relief that makes these movies fun without sending the film all the way into the category of ridiculous pumped up action film.

2)Some comments here have accused the film of using a lot of CGI. They're wrong. I hate overuse of CGI and this film holds back, favouring the good old method of making up hundreds upon hundreds of extras (watch the special features on the DVD if you don't believe me). A good special effects team who hire quality local make-up artists and stunt personnel can still outdo the best CGI effects and this movie is a prime example. House Of The Dead went cheap on the make-up and put all their eggs in the CGI basket – wrong choice. This film gets it right.

3)Sappy, passive females and tacked on love stories will ruin a fun, fast-paced horror/slasher film every time. There is a little of that here, but it is inventive – a pregnant couple, brief 'the world is ending' sex, and a sacrifice ending that actually avoids being heavy-handed. I was surprised. Very surprised. Good job.

4)Modern heavy music has come to replace ominous synth pads and orchestral atmosphere in the genre. Dawn Of The Dead mixes both quite well. A few well placed contemporary tracks serve to update the feel without turning it into a music video or a vehicle by which to sell a soundtrack album.

5)Editing. The new school seems to be obsessed with fast cuts and rock video pacing (28 Days Later relies on the digital format and its editing tricks - and loses tons of atmosphere because of it). This does nothing to build tension, suspense or fear. I'm not saying that Dawn Of The Dead is by any means a Tartovsky art film, but they at least let the camera linger a little longer than 2 seconds and you can get a sense of the isolation with some well designed long shots and single takes. The juxtaposition between the ominously empty mall and the claustrophobic streets is well conceived and executed.

Recent films like 28 Days Later and House Of The Dead didn't find a way to use these elements in moderation and the results were laughable, annoying, and just plain awful. Kudos to the Dawn Of The Dead team for making a zombie movie that is true to the genre, true to its history and yet, still a watchable and wildly entertaining film. In the end, the film pulls off being engaging, suspenseful, realistic (in context of course), and still a heck of a lot of campy, gory fun. Recommended to all sceptics of remakes and modern horror!