Zombi. El regreso de los muertos vivientes

Es indiscutible la perfecta captación de la atmósfera postapocalíptica. La primera media hora, cuando nos vemos literalmente lanzados a un mundo de caos, es genial. Pero a medida que los cuatro protagonistas solitarios permanecen en el centro comercial donde se han refugiado, el ritmo de la película empieza a ralentizarse. George A. Romero intenta enriquecer el infierno del terror zombi con personajes elaborados y una psicología sutil entre ellos, pero les da más espacio del que es saludable para la película. Las dos horas de duración, de las que al final te llevarás la sensación de un guiso sangriento-cómico-acción-psicológico, son sin embargo excesivas. Pero la crítica de la sociedad de consumo es acertadamente decadente y actualiza educadamente otra crítica de la sociedad de la película anterior de Romero La noche de los muertos vivientes. (20.04.2004)

Compared to the modern remake, the zombies in this Romero classic aren't the element that's frightening. To put it slightly ironically, instead of dangerous predators, they are poor little maniacs that you can punch, shove or smash cakes on their faces and there's not much danger. Of course, I'm exaggerating a bit, but at times the impotence of the starving dead was really glaring. As for the make-up effects, compared to, say, Fulci's zombies, Romero's are overwhelmingly pale in the face and visually more reminiscent of a person who has eaten something bad and is marching to the bathroom to throw up. Serious scenes are schizophrenically beaten with ironic hyperbole, but thank goodness for it. The much-touted criticism of a consumer society that can't live without its supermarkets even after death (huh!! that's an oxymoron) is not that strong, and Romero is not so good at psychologizing characters. The possibility of approaching the feelings of people living in isolation surrounded by a horde of the "living dead" and have to cope psychologically with their new fate could have been squeezed out in a much more interesting way. This is how Romero bores and puts you to sleep in places, and entertains in others, but there's definitely a pivotal scene missing that would stick in your head with the impact of a zombie bite. (11.07.2004)

I thought that a second viewing would help. It didn’t. The first time I watched Romero’s Dawn of the Dead was four years ago and I didn’t like it at all. Since then, I’ve got used to older horror films and gave this one a second chance, but without very good results. The film never tries to be horror (there isn’t a single scene where you’re supposed to feel scared, but I didn’t mind that much), nor does it work very well as serious social criticism because the characters behave mostly like crazy idiots (and it’s very interesting how some of the fans who bitch about the slightest manifestation of illogical character behaviour in modern horror are satisfied with Dawn). And I’m not even speaking about the comedy that tend to neutralise whatever gloomy atmosphere Romero manages to conjure here and there, despite the zombies, which today look downright ridiculous (likewise with the gore, and there’s no excuse for that, at that same time, the Italians had much better gore in horror). In short, an average film. that can’t be compared with Snyder’s remake. (27.06.2008)

The most critical of society (the author's favorite discipline), the most current, the funniest, the most cynical, the most character-driven, the most acute, but at the same time, because of the second half, the most unraveling Romero. Referring to the director’s cut. (26.07.2008)

To speak openly, considering that this is a revered classic of its genre, I am at a loss, even though I didn't have high expectations. The initial problem is the subject itself because zombies simply don't appeal to me - neither in literature nor in film. Even worse in this form, because George A. Romero's film does not work as a horror movie in my eyes, not even a little bit. It includes several disgusting scenes of eating internal organs, which may still be repulsive today but certainly not scary. Slowly, clumsily moving undead simply did not evoke a sense of danger in me, and I didn't really understand their growing dominance. Throughout the entire movie, a scene from the battle with the terrifying rabbit in the parody film Monty Python and the Holy Grail kept coming to mind. It simply triggered this association in me. That's why the movie couldn't work for me. If Dawn of the Dead doesn't come across as a horror movie, it is possible to somewhat accept it as an allegory of a post-apocalyptic world and a critique of consumerist society. The movie started a tradition where the story takes place in a large supermarket, which was later used by several other successful movies. However, there is also a problem with the overall length, silent passages, and character psychology. Overall impression: 40%. I consider Snyder's recent remake to be a significantly more functional and impressive piece of cinema. (08.07.2008)