THE DEAD TIMES
DEAD ARE COMING...
The Zombie Rating
There has always been one pit of intrigue left open in The Dead Times website, a cavernous void of obscurity filled with damnably opaque mist, masking whatever horrors may lurk within, sucker-laden tentacles dancing and swirling at the surface, waiting for the curious to pass near, ready to pull them into the unspeakable blackness below. I am, of course, talking about the Zombie Rating I assign to each movie I review (I assign it to books and games as well but I'll stick to movies for the majority of this article - it's just easier that way). The purpose of such a rating is to inform you, my dear reader, as to the 'quality' of the Zombies portrayed within, before you delve into that object of desire. Quality though, is something as hard to define as it is speculative - even before you consider the vast chaos created by there being no definitive Zombie article; how can one possibly gauge the closeness of a depicted Zombie to the standard model of a Zombie when there is no such standard model in the first place? The answer is, with great difficulty, a modicum of putrid brain-power and wild uncertainty.
Below, separated into increasingly fiendish categories, are the general things I use to persuade my delicious mind on a final Zombie Rating.
Step 1: Is it a Zombie movie?
My consideration starts with a single, very important question; is it a Zombie movie? If the answer is no, it cannot be reviewed on The Dead Times; plain, simple, categoric. It sounds like that should be straight forward, a simple yes or no answer; I mean, if a movie has Zombies in, it's a Zombie movie and hence, reviewable. However, in a world where logic has lost all meaning and things can rise from the dead, it is far from as simple as it first appeared, spawning yet a new question, one that is not so easy to answer; what actually is a Zombie? I tried to answer before, coming up with the indefatigable answer: "A Zombie, is awesome.". You see, a Zombie can literally be anything, living or dead, infected with a disease or spiritually re-animated from the eternal slumber of death. Yes, there are common traits - things I would expect to see from the living dead (and, I'll expand on this in the remainder of this article) but these are just expectations, not prerequisites. Now, a lot of the time it is really easy to tell if a movie is a Zombie movie; if it says Zombies on the back of the DVD box or in the movie's title, it's more than likely a Zombie movie but even such a clear-cut statement cannot always be trusted.
Example of a reported Zombie movie that is clearly not a Zombie movie: Frankenstein's Army
Example of a movie that clearly is a Zombie movie: Night of the Living Dead (the remake)
Step 2: The Look of the Dead
This is the most visually immediate thing to note about a Zombie movie; do the Zombies look like they are Zombies? It is also one of the stupidest, most weird questions to consider. I mean, taking the classic Zombie, a dead guy walking, how would his appearance be different than a live guy walking? Okay there may be some differences in skin tone, facial expression due to lack of muscle control and possibly even some torn skin, hanging loose, unbeknownst to its host, but largely, a Zombie would not look all that different to a normal human being. Even a person who had contracted a lethal pathogen, turning them into a mindless raging ghoul is, except in extreme circumstances, not going to look markedly different to a normal, unwell individual.
The Zombies in big-blockbuster movies and even small-scale indie films brake this mould; they are tooth-and-claw, blood-and-bone, skin stretched, flesh torn, nails dirty and cracked, clothes ripped. There is a definitive Zombie "look", a meaty, often disgusting look, designed solely for maximum impact, an instant, breathtaking smack to the face that screams one word in a voice so loud, it cannot be ignored; "run". As a purist, I should really dislike this more visually intense depiction of the dead but I do not. I recognise that movies, to be successful, must pull in the audiences and it is no surprise that a sudden image of 'coolness', an immediate look of terrible wonder, that the more gruesome Zombie brings is a necessity for that goal.
However, there is one caveat to this 'gruesome-appearance' rule which cannot be ignored. In order for ghouls to be considered true Zombies they must largely resemble what they were before being turned; Zombie humans (the most common form of Zombie portrayal) must look like humans, Zombie animals must look like the non-Zombified versions of themselves. Mutation of an extreme amount is simply not allowed in my book - it may lead to more terrifying, gruesome antagonists but if a movie wants to show Zombies, it cannot change the basic body-shape too much.
Example of a movie where Zombies look like Zombies: Day of the Dead (the original)
Example of a movie where Zombies do not look like Zombies: Cowboys vs. Zombies
Step 3: Deadly behaviour
Looking the part is nothing if the Zombies do not behave like you would expect a Zombie to behave. However, as with the previous sections, there is no one-stop-shop for Zombie behaviour; just what is typical Zombie behaviour? You might go with the conventional 'Romero' definition, named after the Godfather of the Dead himself, George Romero; slow, aimless in motion until prey is sensed, clearly brainless, oblivious to pain, a mostly blank facial expression, a lust for human flesh and no hesitation when going after food, even if that causes harm to themselves. That is the standard description adopted by most Zombie-aficionados but what about the Zombies seen in 28 Days Later who run at breakneck speeds or the demonic Zombies from Rec - the Zombies in these films would not fall under the 'Romero' description but are Zombies (based on their appearance and aggression towards the living). You also have to take the type of movie into account, though only slightly; a comedy like Warm Bodies still adheres to the basic Zombie rules but clearly shows the undead as not being brainless - these are still 'good' Zombies, just unconventional ones.
In essence, a picture of what you would expect Zombies to behave like is just sort of developed in your mind after watching so many Zombie movies, reading so many Zombie books and playing so many Zombie games, it is not something that can be explained or quantified. There is only one key rule in my mind that potential Zombies must never stray from; a relentless pursuit to kill, devour or infect those still alive.
Example of a movie where Zombies behave like Zombies: Dawn of the Dead (the original)
Example of a movie where Zombies do not behave like Zombies: Night of the Comet
That's it really, it's not neat or concise but in fictional worlds where the dead walk the Earth, nothing is. And, honestly, I'm proud of the fact there is not one be-all and end-all, perfect Zombie movie formula requiring a checklist of Zombie features. Leaving it open, hazy, undefined, allows experimentation from movie makers; maybe make the Zombies giraffes or beavers, why not give them two heads with sparkly skin, or let them climb on vertical walls? Will it make a great Zombie movie? Probably not, but, hey, who cares - filling movies with increasingly perfect Zombies of the same style over and over again will quickly make our beloved undead become stale, boring even, eventually killing the dead and stopping them from ever rising again. Experimentation is the key factor - without it we are doomed.
I give some case studies below which may make the whole 'higgledy-piggledy' process a bit clearer.
Study 1: I Am Legend
I have previously dismissed this Will Smith-starring film as definitely not a Zombie movie simply because it is an adaption of a book involving Vampire-like creatures, not Zombies. However, in recent months I've begun to doubt my stubborn conclusion so, lets apply the steps listed above and see what comes out.
Do the creatures look like Zombies: Hmmm… I don't know exactly - they're definitely not your typical Zombie as they sport grey, almost translucent skin and shiny, hairless flesh. In addition, they are all very much 'intact'; none of them missing limbs or having torn-flesh. The fact that they have no dried blood around their mouths or stained into their clothes is also a downer although this could just be to reduce the age-restriction on the film; the lack of the red-stuff in order for a movie to become a sub-18 film does not mean it cannot contain Zombies.
Do they entities in this film endlessly hunt prey, through killing or infecting, having an intent to rid the world of the living? Check - the character played by Will Smith clearly fears these beasts and the film makes it exceedingly obvious that the creatures caused the almost complete annihilation of mankind. Also, the fiends show now sign of fear of death or pain - often breaking bones and hurling themselves into unknown environments to get at their victims. However, there is one standout point which makes me sceptical of whether these undesirable creatures can truly be called 'Zombies'; they are afraid of the light. Excluding one, they will not pass though the barrier between shade and sunlight. To me, this screams Vampire and while, yes, the inclusion of a new characteristic to the Zombie mould does not instantly make them not Zombies - when things can more easily be described as thing A over thing B, they usually are thing A. To put it more bluntly, my one rule of "a relentless pursuit to kill, devour or infect those still alive" is failed; the mindless aggressors are not 'relentless', they will stop to sunshine and therefore, as sad as it may be to my readers, I Am Legend is not a Zombie movie.
Study 2: DOOM
Bizarre as it may seem, I have actually seen 2005's DOOM movie labelled as a Zombie movie. On the surface of it, it seems stupid; I mean, the baddies are demons from Hell (or they're meant to be from the movie's video game origins). However, I can see the point in the apparently erroneous label; the film does have a weird 'evil infection' concept where research station staff are literally infected by evil, mutating them into hideous brutes that stop at nothing to kill the living. These insidious mutations are not even close to what I would call Zombies - they bear no physical resemblance to humans as a result of their extreme mutation after infection.
There are, however, towards the end of the film, some creatures that I definitely would consider Zombies. Just after Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson's character has gone back to Earth via the Ark, on their way to a room full of survivors, the team of marines are set upon by a sprinting horde of snarling ghouls in a corridor. The Zombies are not actually there that long or given much screen time but it's clear to see that they are regular humans, infected by evil, driven to attack the living with no thought for themselves or others of their kind. They are not mutated - maybe they have not been infected long enough for mutation to take hold or perhaps it is something to do with the different atmosphere on Earth than on Mars; the film offers no hint.
My point with this brief study is that a movie cannot be accepted up into the god-like ranks of 'Zombie movie' unless it contains Zombies for a meaningful amount of time. Zombies must be the main protagonists of the film or have some meaningful impact on the narrative which, in the case of DOOM is clearly not true.
Study 3: 28 Days Later
The status of 28 Days Later is perhaps the most hotly contested question of recent times - is it or is it not a Zombie movie? On the one-hand, the film's director Danny Boyle, has gone on record to say that it is definitely not a Zombie movie, while, on the other, viewers and the mass-media seem to agree that it most certainly is a Zombie movie. I cautiously agree with both camps; it just does not feature enough of the infected to be a true Zombie movie (the main enemies are Christopher Eccleston's crazed military) though the rage-fuelled infected are central enough to the story for it to feel like a Zombie movie. The sequel, 28 Weeks Later, pushes the infected further into the limelight and is 100%, clear-as-day, a Zombie movie.
The infected - those who have contracted the rage virus and turned into charging freaks - most certainly look like Zombies, being awesomely blood-covered. Okay, their muscles in their face are not slack as they madly dash about in search of prey, often grimacing and snarling, clearly showing the anger one would not expect from an emotionless Zombie. However, the infected are a whole new type of Zombie; the living Zombie - a living human being who has contracted a deadly virus that radically alters their behaviour. The standard 'Romero' model cannot be applied to these still very much alive Zombies so something new is necessary. The Zombies in this film are 'crazed', literally having no control over their anger or bodily function, and must look as such for the film to nab a high Zombie Rating. Thankfully, the use of contact-lenses to hide normal-looking eyes and the general dirty, bedraggled appearance of the terrifying sprinters succeeds in this area.
It was 28 Days Later which began the whole craze of Zombies being able to run (and also sparked the debate therein). Again, this is definitely not in keeping with the 'Romero' model where the undead cannot move any faster than a slow walk, but the infected are not the reanimated dead of typical Zombiehood so running makes sense for these behaviour-altered beings; blood still flows round their bodies and their muscles still work as well as they did before infection so moving at speed is not unexpected. It's this way that the behaviour of the infected can be explained that allows these non-typical Zombies to behave like, and therefore be, Zombies. They also have the other features I look for; a relentless aggression against the living (in this case, to spread the infection, not to eat), clear mindlessness and a complete lack of regard for their own safety - the minefield section demonstrates this wonderfully.
Study 4: Zombie Flesh Eaters
This is a perfect example of a Zombie movie and I wanted to get one of its ilk in these case studies. When I reviewed this amazing film, I gave it a whopping 5 Zombie heads out of 5 - a rare sight indeed.
First of all, the title of the film leaves no doubt; this is a Zombie movie.
Secondly, the Zombies look fantastic; they are covered in blood when appropriate, the ones that have been dead a while look suitably rotten, they still resemble the humans they once were, their skin seems ashen, washed out and they have ripped or torn clothes - generally, they just appear unpleasant and that's exactly what you want Zombies to look like.
Thirdly, the behaviour of the Zombies is spot on, keeping in line with the traditional 'Romero' model in spectacular fashion. They move at a painfully slow shamble, they are relentless in their pursuit of the living, their facial expressions are blank, eyes - where they are open - hardly moving as the muscles that operate them cease to work and the way they uselessly keep banging on the walls of a building they cannot enter screams mindlessness.
DESCRIPTION:
Just what is that Zombie Rating thing on reviews of movies, games and books? What does it mean? How do I assign it? All of these questions are answered, as well as they can be, in the depths of this article but, be warned, as with everything in a Zombified world, chaos ensues.
CATEGORY:
Scientific
WRITTEN BY:
DATE UPLOADED:
19/07/2020