Skip to main content

Infernal hipsters with their irony.

The Dead Don’t Die
(2019)

(SPOILERS) For the majority of The Dead Don’t Die, you’re not only nursing the feeling that Jim Jarmusch has no interest in making a conventional horror movie, or even a conventional zomcom – it would have been a surprise if he did – but any kind of horror movie, so disengaged is he with such elements as pace, threat, momentum or escalation. As such, when he detonates the proceedings with a megaton meta device, it isn’t so much a smart and witty move as a simple relief, confirmation that, if it felt like he couldn’t be bothered, it’s because he really couldn’t.

Chief Robertson: You’re trying to tell me… You’re thinking zombies did this?

Where that actually leaves the picture is questionable. It’s often funny, but mildly so. Its horror tropes are both likeably reflexive – Driver’s Officer Peterson very quickly decides what’s going on is zombies, bucking the trend for such movies; the head shot is entirely de rigueur - and quite tiresome in foregrounding the fakery (the CGI blood and decapitations are surely too poor not be other than intentional, as is the decision to go for authentic 1970s day-for-night filming).

In its initial stages, I thought The Dead Don’t Die might be satirising zombie movies’ aspirations to being upheld as relevant satires, with the big announcement that it’s polar fracking that has done for us all. But by the time Peterson announces he knows this doesn’t end well because he’s read the whole screenplay, it’s suggestive that Jarmusch himself has a more despairing, nihilistic funk going on, one he can’t even face disguising as fiction. So his characters go through the motions because that’s what they do, until they meet their inevitable demise, just as we will with our planet.

Chief Robertson: Was that in the script?
Officer Peterson: No, Not the one I read.

So the movie isn’t very deep, really, and it’s delivered in a manner that has clearly turned off more viewers – those thinking they might get a proper zombie movie, or even a Shaun of the Dead or Zombieland one – than it has attracted. And yet, it might be considered, in its own way, to be as accurate a reflection of the wildly varying quality of the genre as Jarmusch’s rich, rewarding Only Lovers Left Alive shows off the degree of variety the vampire flick can yield.

Jarmusch’s zombies, consumerist drones in life, follow suit in death; one of the first we see is Iggy Pop, not looking very different to be fair, demanding coffee. Carol Kane, newly transformed, intones “Chardonnay”. Others request free cable, popsicles, toys, skittles, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, Xanax, Oxy, and Tools. You get the idea. There’s no hope for anyone, except Tilda Swinton’s mortician, her swordplay lethal and her mind beyond such mundanities. So she’s taken up into the mothership. If you were in any doubt as to the sermon, don’t worry, as Tom Waits’ Hermit Bob delivers a final speech informing us how they’re (we’re) “just hungry for more stuff” and “What a fucked-up world” it is.

Chief Robertson: A wild animal?
Officer Peterson: Several wild animals?

Jarmusch’s oeuvre is characterised by a laidback approach, but he’s never been limited by it, so while I suspect the shambolic cheapness of this flick is itself a homage to early Romeros, I don’t think that necessarily helps its cause. It isn’t sharp or distinct enough to really sustain itself, relying on a starry cast and its “message” as sufficient fuel (while some of the kids become zombie fodder – the infernal hipsters – others are allowed to escape, to an unknown end bestowed upon them by an ignorant older generation). It’s unclear what Dean’s (RZA) cryptic “The world is perfect. Appreciate the details” is supposed to imbue, except perhaps that his wisdom is wrong, or possibly that the planet will abide regardless of human extinction.

Bobby: I’ve seen almost every zombie film ever made.

The main takeaway, however, is that this is an inessential existential goof off and doodle on its writer-director’s part. Of the performances, only Driver’s Star Wars-referencing role has much impact, as he responds with matter-of-fact adroitness to events (because he has read the script). Caleb Landry Jones is good as a horror geek. Swinton’s been funnier in such idiosyncratic roles elsewhere (I know she’s had many of the raves for this, but she’s on quirky autopilot by her standards). Murray puts a bit more emotion into it than usual when faced with the end, and Jarmusch being a dick. Buscemi is wasted as a racist farmer. Danny Glover is likeable but also but given a thankless part. Chloë Sevigny gives a more authentic performance than the material deserves. Waits is Tom Waits, but with a bath or two less than usual.

There’s no commentary on actors carrying on like sheep until the crack of doom, responding in exactly the same mechanical way to any good cause. Or directors either, for that matter. One half-feels Jarmusch should have really gone for it, as he’s been only half hearted about everything here. And if it’s a lost cause anyway, and there’s no point, is there any point even watching his movie? So it’s all just “okay”. Moderately diverting, but it’s difficult to get more engaged in response to The Dead Don’t Die than Jim was when making it. 


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018) (SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop .

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.