
The Film: Dawn of the Dead (1978)
The Principals: Directed by George A. Romero. Starring Ken Foree, David Emgee, Gaylen Ross, Scott H. Reininger.
The Premise: The civilized world as we know it has been plunged into chaos. The dead are coming back to life to feed on the living. Tired of human infighting, four people escape into the zombie infested outside world, taking refuge in a shopping mall which has been abandoned by the living but is still frequented by mindless zombie hordes who seem to have some dim memory that this was a place they once frequented. At first life in the mall is an adventure that affords the quartet amusement and luxury, but soon malaise sets in, and members of the group begin to take greater risks in order to gather supplies. The female of the group reveals that she is pregnant, and to make matters worse the mall is besieged by a gang of living bikers. The remaining survivors of the quartet have to decide between taking a stand to defend their new “home”, or to abandon the mall altogether for the uncertainty of the increasingly apocalyptic world outside.
Is It Good: Yes. The second film in Romero’s “Dead” trilogy confidently expands the scope of his classic Night of the Living Dead and forges into new territory as far as theme and metaphor. No one can dispute the importance of this film as both a zombie movie and a piece of apocalyptic fiction. This is a film of ideas, and as a satire of consumerism, it is unlikely that Romero’s Dawn of the Dead will ever be outmatched in terms of laser-like focus. It is the work of a filmmaker at his peak and is the crystallization of a beautiful and personal aesthetic, one with a healthy streak of rebellion social criticism at its core. It is a wonderful snowflake of a film, and though it has technically been “remade”, there will never be another film that can capture the unique quality and character of the 1978 Dawn of the Dead.
And that quality is so powerful that it can completely carry a film that is rife with technical flaws. But let’s back up a second. As a young horror fan, zombies simply were not my bag. I liked the monsters that had unique personalities, and since zombies are basically the antithesis of that, they just never appealed to me. So, the Romero films were never a part of my personal horror history. It was well into my adulthood that I began to explore this avenue of the genre, so I came to the Romero series as a jaded genre fan. Even then, the films impressed me, and I never had a problem seeing how they effectively worked their thesis. And with Night of the Living Dead, I felt Romero was wholly successful at creating a scary game-changer of a horror film while still managing to also make it a poignant piece of social commentary. It’s a film that managed to have its flesh and eat it too.
I personally do not feel that Dawn of the Dead is as successful in this regard. Sure, it works gangbusters as social commentary, but as a horror movie? Not so much. One of the main problems here is the zombies themselves. Much has been said about the bluish, unconvincing zombie make-up, and it’s especially disappointing when you consider that make-up effects guru Tom Savini had a huge hand in the film, even going so far to star as the lead biker. But even more so than the make-up, for me what sinks Dawn’s zombies is the goofy, slapstick performances and reactions from the zombie cast. Romero is clearly going for comedy here, and taken on the ‘metaphor for mindless consumers’ level, the zombies work. But taken as something that is meant to instill fear, these zombies do not work at all. They make googly eyes and silly faces in almost every shot and really just come across as bumbling clowns. Even one of the film’s most celebrated zombies, the Hare Krishna, is really just a goofy visual gag, which really undercuts the tension when he is groping at Ross as she attempts to escape into a crawlspace. And I don’t think budget is an excuse. Night of the Living Dead’s zombies were sparsely made up, but still managed to be terrifying. The doofy undead of Dawn are a deliberate artistic choice, and I would argue that they rob the film of any genuine terror.
Another touted element of the film that I think doesn’t hold up is the gore effects. I don’t know if it was the influence of Italian horror maestro Dario Argento or not, but the blood here has that bright, almost orangey quality seen so often in Italian genre films of the era, and again, I feel that it robs this film on the visceral level. It gives the zombie attacks a comicbooky quality that takes me right out of the mayhem. What should be shocking scenes of violence become reduced to what are essentially just gloopy food fights. It’s not a deal breaker by any means (and really nothing I mention in this article is), but it reinforces my position that taken strictly as a horror film, Dawn of the Dead ’78 is a failure.
But why am I nitpicking effects; this movie is about the characters, right? Well, not really. I have never had strong feelings about any of the principal characters of Dawn of the Dead. While I wouldn’t actually go as far as to call them ciphers, I don’t feel that Roger, Stephen, Peter and Fran are a terribly interesting or dynamic crew of protagonists. Even the names are hard to remember (but at least Stephen gets the nickname of “Flyboy”.) Horror icon Foree certainly cuts a recognizable figure as Peter, but there’s not anything in his character to match his visual uniqueness. At one point Roger goes a little loopy and Stephen goes from being kind of a jerk to more of a hero, but beyond that there isn’t much in the way of discernible character arcs. It’s funny because I’ve seen The Walking Dead get a lot of guff on the boards for “not enough character work”, but frankly I see more character work in your average 15 minute segment of the AMC zombie show than I see in the entire running time of Romero’s film, an irony considering what a direct descendant The Walking Dead is from Dawn. I have to lay a little of the blame here on the actors. The leads do the job well enough and acquit themselves without embarrassment, but I don’t think any of them manage to take the characters they are given and make them interesting. It’s telling that no one here goes on to do much career-wise.
My last bit of blasphemy concerning this classic is going to be directed at the running time. I feel that the film is fifteen minutes too long. There’s a point in the movie where I inevitably find myself tuning out, right around the segment where Roger and Peter commandeer the trucks and Roger gets himself bitten for acting like a jackass. This segment perfectly illustrates my frustration with the film’s pacing. There’s at least four different moments where you expect Roger to get bitten and he doesn’t, and when it finally happens it just feels anticlimactic and quick. There’s a difference between creating suspense and just dragging things out forever; this should have been trimmed in the editing room. And while I wouldn’t excise any of the plot points of the movie, I do feel like it just takes too long to get to them. There are a lot of extraneous scenes of running around the mall or climbing through vents before the climax of the biker gang invading finally arrives. I haven’t seen any of the shorter cuts of the film, so maybe I’d like the pacing in those better, but as far as the theatrical Romero cut of the film is concerned I think it’s simply too damn long.
I won’t continue to belabor my conditional criticisms of this seminal zombie film – I offer them up only as points of discussion. I love this film unconditionally and for its flaws; I just think that at the end of the day 1978’s Dawn of the Dead works better as satire and even comedy than horror. But I wouldn’t trade any of the bad make-up or general goofiness for a different film. Besides, if I want a more action/horror take on the same basic premise, I’ll watch Zack Snyder’s good-on-its –own-terms reimagining from 2004. So yeah, it’s almost Halloween, why aren’t you watching Dawn of the Dead?
Cinematic Soulmates: Night of the Living Dead, Day of the Dead, Land of the Dead, Shaun of the Dead, Juan of the Dead, Dead of the Dead, every zombie film made post 1968.
Random Anecdotes: Oh, I don’t know, I don’t have time for this today. You guys must know tons – post ’em in the talkbacks in between jabs at me.





26 comments
Yes, by the time they’re ensconced in the mall the horror has given way to full-blown commentary and even satire, but there is defintely horror and terror in the opening tenement sequence. When the tenement resident calmy tells the assault cops “We’ve been taking them all down to the basement,” it is chilling, especially as they head down there to check it out. The scene in the basement is creepy and terrifying. And you forgot to mention Goblin’s great eery score.
Worst. Review. Ever. I get it: you didn’t grow up with it, heard too much hype, and it just doesn’t measure up. Yeah, felt the same way about The Goonies, Let’s be real, though. DotD, especially for a horror movie, is very well made, especially when factoring in the budget. Oh, and if you feel that people being eaten alive by, uh, other people isn’t frightening, maybe you should just hang out with your ol’ VHS of the little Kittner boy getting it. 😉
I think, with the exception of Joshua Miller, this column convinces me that I am over C.H.U.D. It’s probably very much in line with the aggregate opinion of people who dress up as zombies but don’t like movies from before they were born, but it seems anti-ethical to website named after a shlocky 80’s horror movie with black humor, practical effects and elements of social satire.
I could go on but to quote “Oh, I don’t know. I don’t really have time for this today”.
I actually just watched the American cut and listened to its commentary today, and, on it, Savini talks about how he wasn’t happy with the blood used in this movie, which was the same blood he used previously in Romero’s Martin (this second bit I learned from the Martin DVD; yeah, it was a Romero/Savini day). All the same, Romero always intended for Dawn to have an adventurous/comic book feel, and he actually refers to the look of the blood and gore as helping attain this.
And, to call Dawn of the Dead a failure as a horror movie is shamelessly jackassy.
What is the point of this review exactly? To piss people off? Well, my friend, you have succeeded. Not because what you’re saying is wrong, just that it’s fucking retarded. It’s a flaw that Dawn of the Dead isn’t scary enough and thus not a true horror movie in your opinion? Try again dumbass. Romero himself calls the film a “romp,” a fun action flick with lots of blood and guts. And that’s exactly what it is. Watching people race cars and bikes around in a mall is a hoot in the exact same way that it is in The Blues Brothers. The make-up is bad? Who the fuck ever said that the make-up fx in the movie were particularly realistic? Sure the Crayola red blood and foam rubber body parts look fake. Many of the gory gags were thought up, constructed, and photographed the same day. And on a shoestring budget. Realistic or not, the gags are effective and a helluva lot more creative and entertaing than you see in most current fx heavy “blockbusters.” You don’t like the characters? Who said you’re supposed to? The two genuinely nice characters make it through to the end and the ones who are assholes and act like idiots die horribly. Sounds like horror movie characters to me.
I understand why you might not like it, Seb, and you have the right, but holy Jodie Foster-on-a-pinball-table, you are so very fucking WRONG. Might as well we taking a diamond-studded turd on Halloween. Simply, I think you’re under 25 and lacking in our timeline.
Love this movie and although I am not going to verbally lynch you, I disagree with some of what you said. If the makeup effects ruin part of the movie for you, then I can’t imagine you like black and white movies or perhaps The Invisible Man. It was just a product of its time, ironically and coincidentally enough. On behalf of the commenters, you had to know you were going to get these responses. On behalf of the author, he loves the movie. What else do you expect?
As a fan of almost all of the ‘Dead movies (just can’t get into the newest one) I have to say my favorite is Day. Very flawed, unlikable characters, smart zombies…but fuck if I don’t love the effects and the overall “the world is fucked” kind of attitude; which was really from any 80’s movie that wasn’t whoring it up in commercialism.
What they say, Sebastian – just without the contempt and venom. And although I won’t call for a lynching, you’re way off base saying DOTD isn’t a “horror” movie. The first 45 minutes in the apartment building is terrifying and drenched in tension.
millenium1 made a really valid point: you’re look at this movie through young eyes, and are unable/unwilling to form an opinion measured against when it was made. It’s like shutting off your iPod to berate the absolute shittiness of 8-track players.
As a writer, you’re not half bad. As a reviewer, I think you need some seasoning.
RE: The 3 Versions
The Cannes Cut – warts ‘n’ all 139 minute version
X-Rated Version – trimmed up theatrical release
Dario Argento’s – more gore, less bore, GOBLIN!!!
I recommend seeing the Dario Argento European International cut for the HORROR factor. The other cuts are more satirical and reflective of social commentaries and cultural dissonance. Shame we didn’t get that “all is lost” ending. At least there’s always DAY.
I guess most of you guys just skipped over all the parts where I say how much I love the movie.
I’ll chime in too. I think you put too much emphasis on the zombies. It’s the situation. After a while you too would start to treat them like cartoony fuck-knuckles and screw around a little too much. I clearly remember the first time I saw this at about 18 – I got extremely pissed off with the protagonists as they skated more and more to the edge with their behavior. They were SO smart early on – blocking the entrances and sealing the wall, but they (quite accurately I had to admit in the end) lost sight of their situation.
See DUEL for a similar dynamic. Even CUJO plays with this idea. The threat is really quite easy to deal with IF YOU KEEP YOUR HEAD IN THE GAME.
In any horror scenario, it’s the not the boody man who kills you, it’s your own carelessness/reckless behavior. DotD 78 nails the fuck out of that.
Gruesome/realistic zombie make-up wasn’t a quality indicator back then either, so that’s another flaccid criticism. It’s YOU as a serious cinephile that needs to get into the mindset of 1978, not the movie to match the FX of post Dead Jack-in-American Werewolf in London say. That’s like criticizing a movie for not being made in color before it was a standard.
LOL @ “Boody” = Bogey
I agree with him. I can recognize and appreciate the movie’s influence, but I do think you have to have grown up with it. I’m old (38) but I was never into zombies until I saw 28 Days Later and loved it. I loved the Dawn of the Dead remake. Then I saw the original. Dull and long. The movie has a good point, we’re all consumerist zombies already, but it’s not funny, scary, or interesting. Is a reviewer not allowed to have an opinion that differs from yours? Romero’s best zombie is clearly the original NotLD.
I grew up with Dawn of the Dead and love it dearly, but Sebastian does make a few good points, the movie is a little too long and dull at times, also he goes onto say how much he still likes the film. Admit it guys if Dawn were only mediocre, the look of the zombies and blood would be very laughable.
You’re good people Sebastian, so I’ll just say that it struck me that your thesis was slightly flawed in this piece. Because, although you state that you love the movie, the entire thrust of the article is about its “problems.” I can’t fault you for having an opinion and wanting to express it. But the article gives me the impression that you don’t genuinely like the movie, which – by the way – is totally fine. I think you want to love it because of its status among film geeks. But the part of you that dislikes its “flaws” doesn’t let you.
I hope that doesn’t come off as pompous.
The idea that you had to a child of the 70s or 80s to enjoy this movie is simply inaccurate. I used to throw big parties in 8th grade and freshmen year of high school – we’re talking 1999 and 2000 here. It was a standard to play Dawn of the Dead and Texas Chainsaw back to back at every single one of these parties, and they were greatly enjoyed every time. And not just by horror crazies like me! We’re talking cheerleaders, the football guys, the techy people, all the high school cliches you can insert here – they all enjoyed these movies, all these young people. And this was just ten years ago, post-American Werewolf and Thing, post-CG and Jurassic Park. The girls would get scared at scenes, and the guys would be sucking it up, laughingly.
Just saying you like something off-handedly and then writing an entire article about why it’s actually kinda-sorta bad is poor form, sir. Example: “I like reading articles on CHUD, except sometimes the writers don’t seem to understand what the hell they’re talking about and forget this is a website that more or less should be praising the dirty toenails of films like Dawn of the Dead. Also, I’m told the writers don’t bathe regularly and I hate them on a personal level. But, like I say, it’s a great website. Except for all the stuff that’s stupid.”
“It is the work of a filmmaker at his peak and is the crystallization of a beautiful and personal aesthetic, one with a healthy streak of rebellion social criticism at its core.” – truth
So, because I write for a site called CHUD, I shouldn’t be allowed to criticize certain movies. Got it, that makes perfect sense.
Guys, the “zombies only look bad because it’s the 70’s” argument holds no water. One year later Lucio Fulci made Zombi which had far more effective, scary zombies that were not doofy and blue. Not only that, but I go out of my way to point out how effective Romero’s zombies are in Night, And I readily admit that it’s not so much the make-up that’s this issue, but the performances of the zombies themselves. It’s all fine and good if you want to get angry and call me names because I have the nerve to point out flaws in something that we all love (and yes, I can find fault in something that I love, sorry), but your slings and arrows would be more effective if you ACTUALLY READ WHAT I WROTE.
I agree with this and should have made mention of it in the article.
P.S. A lot of you guys are making good points and criticizing the review fairly (you know who you are) – I’m talking to the people responding emotionally and irrationally.
I also saw this movie long after everyone of my zombie-loving friends did, and I’ve always felt the love for it is more band-wagon than anything else. I think your praise for the “satire” is even being generous. It has all of the satirical panache of Ronald McDonald. It’s the sort of film you can kill with a few beers and friends and laugh at how dumb everything is, but there is no way in hell anyone with an actual fucking brain is going to watch that, and come away havinng a Bill-and-Ted-Meet-Future-Selves moment and think what a fantastic piece of commentary it is. Wall-E said the same shit, said it blatantly, and was more effective in saying it. And EVE was actually scary.
I did read what you wrote, hence my critique on how your commentary was conflicted in nature.
Also, I’m not saying you shouldn’t have an opinion. It’s just that you’d think writers for a website like Chud would appreciate the aesthetics of genre movies from decades past. Is it emotional and irrational to critique the critic when you think he’s failed at offering a well-thought arguement for kicking a bees nest by poking fun at a classic?
NO YOU ARE ANTI-ETHICAL
Dude, my favorite movies are ALIEN and THE SHINING. I love everything about the original TEXAS CHAINSAW. ALL of my favorite movies are genre movies from the past, including the Universal classics! I go out of my way in the article to pay DAWN OF THE DEAD the respect it deserves. But every point I make in the article is my opinion which I back-up with what I believe to be valid points. I think the zombies are weak. I think the characters could be more interesting, and I think the film has pacing issues. That’s my honest opinion, I’m not just making up crap to poke fun at the movie or piss people off.
Yeah, man. It just reads a certain way. If it was just me saying this, I’d be wrong, but others have commented as well that it reads like you have a lot more complaints to pen than positives. Either way, didn’t mean to start a sparring match. I try to avoid such things in these comment sections on the few occasions I chime in.
Ultimately, it is good to see an article about Dawn, whether I agree with all the content or not. Keep up the writing on good movies and I’m sure I’ll keep reading. I was just throwing my two cents in on how it reads.
Was aus Liebe gethan wird, geschieht immer jenseits von Gut und Böse.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.