Rate Dawn of the Dead (1978)

Oct 10, 2018 21:56:08 GMT Vits said:

After making a horror movie (NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD), George wanted to make an action/horror movie. In that genre, the main characters aren't just victims; they fight back... but they still have to be inferior to the threat. During the majority of this movie, the main characters feel in control of each situation. In fact, there are many moments where the zombies get near them and they just push them away. Due to these issues (how ironic that the directing (which isn't the same as technical quality) and the writing in this sequel (made 10 years later and with a bigger budget) is worse), there's no suspense. The goofy make-up doesn't help. A couple of moments during the last part (including the use of that ear poison known as Herbert Chappell's THE GONK) suggest that this was also meant to be partly a comedy, but they feel out of place because the story's overall tone isn't consistent.

I can see the point you are making within the context with the first. That they fight back though, is part of what the game of survival has become to survive in this zombie apocalyptic world. Even Francine and Flyboy had to learn this. Toughen up or perish. That they had 2 skilled and trained members of the SWAT team with them was to their advantage and Roger's own egoism and foolhardiness was getting them into some hot water. It was simply a matter of life and death and I feel Romero fully exploited this ideal and within his imagery, he also managed to reflect some subterfuge of substance and the best horror films are effective when they have simple or meager stories and the substance is mirrored in the style\visuals. Life is never consistent, it has it ups and downs and even those living a hellish existence can find humor in their predicament.

That I don't find Dawn Of The Dead that scary or suspenseful like you, doesn't mean I don't buy into the 'frightening' predicament of the situation and when I saw this about 4 yrs after its initial release date at the cinema—and I hadn't seen the original—I had never seen anything quite like it. That the make-up effects might seem a little quaint today, I think that also works in favor with the film as well, when taken in context of when it was made and the austere and sincere approach the entire production took to bring this classic zombie epic to the screen. The setting is great and something most of us will relate too, even today, and this was maximized to its fullest potential. There is nothing wrong with this production and was made on a low budget of around $700,000.00 and the finished product belies what was afforded to it. The success was deserved.

Liking a film is all subjective and in the mind of the beholder. I just feel you may are being a little too stringent or harsh with your rating of it. It needs to be taken in context of when it was made and what it achieved. In relation to other horror films of the era and what it presented, this is by no means a 1 star—or in your case half star film—horror film and at the very least it could be considered average if someone was in a bad mood, but then they would likely not be horror movie aficionados or just random casual viewers.