I've been watching urban horror films recently, mostly curious to see if there is anything worthwhile (or even just interesting) lurking in the junk. I have to admit, my standards for what I find enjoyable are pretty low - I'll deem something worthwhile just because the costumes are crazy, or some actor gets off one really tight line, or just because I decide someone deserves an A for effort. Urban horror still has disappointed me greatly.

But I am happy to report that Gangs of the Dead is a well crafted, enjoyable little indie film. I wouldn't rush out to buy the DVD, but on a lazy weekend afternoon it beats CSI reruns all to hell.

Basically, two rival gangs, one Hispanic and one black, plus assorted others (cops doing surveillance, some arm candy, a weatherman, and Reggie Bannister of Phantasm fame) are trapped together in the warehouse of a shabby local arms dealer while hoards of zombified homeless beseige them from outside. Who is more dangerous, the zombies or the humans? Obviously the set-up is not original, and Gangs of the Dead doesn't go out of its way to surprise. But it is still a very solid, well made little zombie flick.

The zombies are old school: slow, dumb shamblers. I don't mind fast zombies particularly, but I give bonus points for sticking to Romero Rules. People do stupid things, but it's a horror movie so that's par for the course. There is above average if stereotyped character development (good hearted crooks, hot-tempered latinos, good girl, mouthy girl, harmless white guy nervous around swarthy people, etc.) and some quite passable acting, particularly when compared to other urban horror, or indie horror, for that matter. I actually found some of the characters - particularly the leader of the Hispanic gang, Cesar - to be pretty scary in their violent stupidity, but in a believable "well, if they were bright and could plan decently they wouldn't be dumb-ass street thugs" way, not in a "who scripted this bullshit" way. Not that the script is brilliant (I guess the slang is fine, I wouldn't know, but the actual dialogue sometimes makes you go "whaaa?"), but
it's good enough to give you a sense of believable characters, so I'm not complaining.

While I found Gangs of the Dead to be light on the gore (what is the point of a zombie flick without outrageous flesh-eating carnage?), the effects are pretty decent for this type of thing - the CGI is used well and mixed with regular old makeup and prosthetics to good effect. The movie is polished and well put together (if predictable and formulaic). I was actually very surprised when I heard how low budget it was - there have been a number of proper studio horror offerings in the last few years that haven't held together as well.

6 out of 10, but it might have been a 7 if they gave Reggie more screen time.

On my first viewing of Gangs of the Dead, I enjoyed it moderately. It had good action and characterization, fairly nasty zombies, a few brutal kills, several surprises, a powerful ending, and plenty of tension throughout. The dialogue's often hilarious, elements like the music and cinematography are impressive, and the effects (by Almost Human, who did great work on All Souls Day) are excellent considering the budget. Not much character development, though, and in many ways it felt like flat action-horror. I naturally compared this L.A. street-thug-zombie flick to its Oakland predecessor, Hood of the Living Dead (which I reviewed in 2005), and found it technically superior even if I thought it had less to say overall; for all its qualities, Gangs still seemed largely like an excuse to add to the growing number of inner-city gangsta / zombie flicks.

Long-term Horrorwatchers know that I sometimes take an historical approach to zombie movies; I hope you'll bear with me here.

Although some might disparage this new gangsta / zombie sub-subgenre for various reasons, in fact it has deep roots. Feeding into it are issues of ethnic difference (zombies are America's primary monsters that have non-European origins) and anxiety over proletarian victimization and potential retribution (remember, real-life Haitian zombies have been used for slave labor); these tensions have largely fueled zombie cinema from its 1930s origins up until the present time. In addition, zombies showed up in inner cities and conflicted with gangsters as early as the 1930s (The Walking Dead) and '40s (Bowery at Midnight, also reviewed in 2005). However, these themes -- racial difference, economic / class anxiety, and urban gangsters -- have rarely showed up in combination since the '40s. While zombie movies like Sugar Hill (1974) and Dead Men Don't Die (1991) have already mixed all three successfully, the current gangsta / zombie films are bringing them together with new purpose, solidifying them, and building on them in a contemporary context. In this regard, as I realize now, Gangs of the Dead might go the farthest yet.

Inspired by BadKitty's review, I rewatched Gangs of the Dead (yes, I had rushed out to purchase it shortly after its release), and was very glad that I did. This is not just another fanboy zondie or formulaic gangsta movie; it has a tight and well-scripted story with plenty of surprises. It also works as a social statement -- not the most complicated or layered one, but strong. The idea of zombified homeless people -- coming in from the margins of society to consume it -- is not new (think Shatter Dead and Zombie Planet, for example), but it is a powerful one that goes a long way in establishing tension... especially when they're also a Doomsday cult who effectively become the very doom that they'd envisioned. I wish the film did more with this angle, but by necessity it turns its attention to the classic Romero-inspired dynamic of the living proving as dangerous to each other as the undead are to the living, displaying a remarkable inability to cooperate even under the most desperate of situations.

As BadKitty mentioned, this concept of living humans bickering to death is not new, especially (and significantly) in modern zombie movies, where it's pretty much standard. Gangs of the Dead, though, recrystallizes this dynamic into something gritty and evocative. That all of the living characters -- gangsters, cops, and others -- are divided sharply along ethnic and gender lines might be expected, but when set against the onslaught of a zombie horde that's harmoniously multiethnic and gender-egalitarian, the irony cuts deep. (These zombies are Romeroesque in more ways than just being shamblers.) When one of the white cops asserts that the Latino and black gangmembers are no different from the flesheating zombies, it's a statement with horrific resonance.

(As I write this, my hometown of Oakland CA is still recovering from the police killing of Oscar Grant and the later killing of four officers. And the world is still recovering from the Us-vs.-Them policies of the Bush Administration.)

I won't start picking it all apart here, but the numerous ironies and tightly crafted structure give compelling form to this recent take on some of the classic and ever-relevant themes of zombie cinema. Yet, for all its sustained and incisive treatment of these social tensions, Gangs of the Dead wisely understates them; for example, no one talks overtly about racism or asks why the women are almost constantly berated for no reason at all. There are no clear villains or heroes, with the possible exception of the ruthless Cesar (who's pretty darn villainous, though still human); everyone has flaws and good qualities, and strengths and weaknesses.

Krissann Shipley and Duane Stinnett's debut feature-length effort, Gangs of the Dead may not be a perfect movie, but it's finely made, meaningful, and engaging -- not to mention again the effectiveness of the zombies, especially considering the budget. Overall the film outdid my expectations, and I believe that it has more than earned its place in the annals of zombiedom.

Review rating: 8 out of 10 name references (Campbell and O'Bannon; get it?)