Shaun of the Dead
or a few good gags do not a zombie comedy make
What the hell happened here? Wasn't this supposed to be a clever little send-up of the Zombie film? Okay, okay - it was clever. It was also British. VERY British. That's not a bad thing - but it is a little disconcerting when characters forgo any type of real tension or plot development to talk about how many lumps of sugar they would like in their tea. I know what you're thinking: it's a British Zombie Movie!
And it's a comedy! Of course they're going to have those obligatory conversations that have nothing to do with the action at hand. That's my point. Why have any "tea" jokes at all? Do something original. I loved the by-play between most of the characters in the film, that's one of co-writer and director Edgar Wright's finest accomplishments in bringing the film to life. Simon Pegg (who also co-wrote) plays the title character, Shaun, like he was giving the performance of a lifetime. And he probably did. An amazing debut starring role indeed. I thought I would be annoyed by his character just from looking at the posters and magazine photos of him in costume (with cricket bat in hand) but I was enthusiasically wrong about him. Just goes to show, you can't judge a book by it's cover. I can on the other hand judge a zombie movie.
Strictly as a "zombie film" the film fails. Badly. It falls flat on it's face. But I suspect the real reason for making this movie was to get a bunch of blokes together who enjoy each other's company and to turn in a highly entertaining film as a result. Well, according to LOTR director, Peter Jackson, this film was the most "entertaining" movie of last year. I disagree. Not because I can name what film I was entertained by the most last year (although as far as "British" films go, Ali G Indahouse would have to be up there) - but because I can honestly tell you that Shaun of the Dead is not
that entertaining. It's the type of film you stumble into not knowing what to expect and then you're pleasantly surprised when it looks good (which it does) and it's not a complete ball of festering puss (like Van Helsing). Nick Frost, who plays, Ed (Shaun's slacker side-kick) was good - but not great. I felt there was a little bit of the old "Han Solo" rogue charm in him, but nothing is explored in depth to let any real potential shine. He's just a lay-about who's around to deliver a few well-placed jabs and one-liners that most of which were probably much funnier when the boys were sitting in the pub coming up with the lines in the first place. Frost and Pegg were flat-mates in real life, so their on-screen chemistry is real. It's just not something that I particularly want to sit through for an hour and a half. Kate Ashfield, Lucy Davis and Dylan Moran (rounding out the gang of zombie-afflicted Brits) were also good in their respective roles - but nothing extraordinary. I suppose with all the excellent gore effects and make-up jobs on display everywhere in the film - I was hoping for a little bit more in the script department. Oh, did I mention: the film needed a few re-writes.
It seems really long. There are serious pacing problems. I wasn't expecting an action/gore fest from the film, but even in the mundane everyday-life scenes, something was sadly missing. If Wright and Pegg would not have been so quick to bring their film to the screen - they really could have pulled off a nifty homage to Romero (Dawn of the Dead) as well as a perfect human relationship satire set in the English suburbs. I love the fact that this film was not set in a city (London) and it bares little resemblance to that other "important" British zombie flick of recent memory, 28 Days Later. Director, Danny Boyle's film (Later) is a brilliant and serious study of a society in crisis, with incredible attention to the lives and feelings of it's victims (humans and zombies alike) - but in Shaun we get bags of peanuts to the head and a few (but brief) well acted scenes. In particular, the scenes where Shaun is forced to dispose of both his mother and step-father (a wasted Bill Nighy) who are turned after bites from a couple zombies, were quite affecting. These moments of character revelation did not belong in this film. If they had honed the whole proceedings into a more thought-out study of faith, regret, conscience and responsibility - I would have sat back in awe. Sorry, that train simply stopped at another station.
Contrary to the tone of this review, I actually liked the film. I just wanted more from it. Alot more. And the hype was a little more than unnecessary. I don't like to watch a movie and think of all the ways I could have made it better while watching it. You may find enjoyment in Shaun of the Dead, especially if you like British humor. Everyone else may be gritting their teeth and waiting for the next zombie attack - which never really comes. I suppose there's something humorous in the fact that Shaun and his pals just run through the neighborhood streets wacking these "harmless" monsters on the head with various make-shift weapons, but maybe that's what's wrong with the whole film - it's just that: harmless. You are not missing anything by not seeing this film. If you are in the mood for a laugh, you could do much worse than renting Shaun, but then again you could also do alot better (watch Waynes World or Waynes World 2 instead). Roger Ebert gave this film 3 out of 4 stars. Curious, given the fact that he also gave Van Helsing 3 out of 4 stars. Even I do not feel that Shaun should be put on equal par with the extraordinarily bad Van Helsing. And because Ebert may himself be a "zombie", I will only say that Shaun of the Dead is like watching Lawrence of Arabia compared to the shit sandwich that is Van Helsing. Know what I mean?
3 out of 5 stars
Liz: "You, hang out with my friends? A failed actress and a twat?"
Shaun: "Well, that's a bit harsh."
Liz: "Your words, Shaun!"
Shaun: "I did NOT call Diane a failed actress!"
