Why Roger Ebert's 'Dawn of the Dead' Review Still Matters

Roger Ebert opened his 1979 review of George A. Romero's Dawn of the Dead with something of a shocking line.

"Dawn of the Dead is one of the best horror films ever made—and, as an inescapable result, one of the most horrifying," he wrote.

Ebert wrote this? Ebert, who lambasted most horror films for lack of originality or sense?

But here, in one of the most honest and unflinching pieces of criticism we've read for a horror film, Ebert laid out exactly what made this zombie film repulsive and brilliant.

Ebert had a bit of a fraught relationship with the genre, and he alienated a lot of people with his often scathing criticism of horror films. The legendary critic famously despised slashers and what he called "Dead Teenager Movies."

But when a horror film earned his respect, it really earned it.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

What Ebert Said About Romero's 1978 Film

Ebert seemed to be at a crossroads that didn't make total sense to him with Dawn of the Dead. He wrote:

It is gruesome, sickening, disgusting, violent, brutal, and appalling. It is also (excuse me for a second while I find my other list) brilliantly crafted, funny, droll, and savagely merciless in its satiric view of the American consumer society. Nobody ever said art had to be in good taste.

That contradiction is pretty much the point. Ebert was saying that great horror doesn't have to choose between visceral impact and intellectual heft.

What makes this review impactful decades later is how Ebert defends the film's right to exist while also acknowledging why many viewers would hate it.

He's upfront about the graphic violence while insisting that Romero's craft elevates the material beyond exploitation.

George Romero deliberately intends to go too far in Dawn of the Dead. He’s dealing very consciously with the ways in which images can affect us, and if we sit through the film (many people cannot) we make some curious discoveries.

The reason so many of us love horror is that it reflects society. What scares us and interests us? It's exactly what drove the rise of "elevated horror" and its exploration of the human condition and our emotional complexities. While we love a simple, good scare, horror is best when it says something deeper.

Zombie movies, specifically, have always been about "the other," the plague-stricken beings that can't help what they are, and the thinking humans left behind that often end up being the more horrifying for all the things they do to survive. How do they take advantage of the new world order?

But, even so, you may be asking, how can I defend this depraved trash? I do not defend it. I praise it. And it is not depraved, although some reviews have seen it that way. It is about depravity.

Ebert, for all his hatred of most horror, really got this one. Dawn of the Dead remains essential viewing for anyone serious about horror filmmaking.

Dawn of the Dead (1978)Credit: United Film Distribution Company

Why the Film Changed Everything

Dawn of the Dead arrived at a key moment for indie horror.

Made for roughly $650,000 (a modest budget, even in the '70s), Romero showed that low-budget horror could be both commercially successful and ambitious. The film earned over $102 million worldwide.

The shopping mall setting was convenient, but it was also the entire point. As we've explored before, Romero watched consumers shuffle mindlessly through the then-new phenomenon of indoor shopping centers and saw his zombies.

The film's survivors barricade themselves in this temple of American capitalism, initially thrilled by unlimited access to consumer goods, only to discover that material comfort can't save them from existential dread or each other.

Ebert recognized this satirical backbone immediately. He noted how Romero shows two groups of healthy humans fighting over the mall, revealing that "the depravity is in the healthy survivors, and the true immorality comes as two bands of human survivors fight each other for the shopping center."

Lessons for Filmmakers

Romero used practical effects and makeup artist Tom Savini's groundbreaking gore work to create something that looks expensive on a shoestring budget. He shot in an actual mall during off-hours.

Most importantly, the film is a great example of horror as a vehicle for social commentary.

Ebert's review gave critics and audiences permission to take horror seriously (not that they needed it, but still).

For any filmmaker working in low-budget horror today, both the film and the review offer the same lesson. Craft and vision can elevate any budget, and the genre deserves respect, especially when it has something to say.