PDA

View Full Version : Romero's "Dead" Series


Jakanden
06-30-2007, 01:46 PM
So I was in the mood to watch the Romero flicks and watched all 4 (Night, Dawn, Day and Land) over the past two days. Just curious as to what the forum thinks of the flicks?

Personally, Dawn of the Dead is my favorite. It has the perfect blend of humor, gore, action, social commentary and is just all around an awesome flick.

Stephen
06-30-2007, 03:59 PM
The BW look and general atmosphere of Night of the Living Dead makes it my all-time favorite horror flick. One of my favorite quotes is mimicking the redneck at the end, "They're dead...they're all messed up."

The others all have their moments though. I agree that Dawn has the best all-round mix of things. Day is a riot to watch and do with friends, especially when gratuitous Bub impressions are involved. I've only seen Land once, but I felt it wasn't an embarrassment to my favorite horror series, so that was a minor triumph. I won't be able to form a really good opinion on it until Sci-Fi starts airing it twice a month.

Calorie Mate
06-30-2007, 06:32 PM
Dawn is totally my favorite, too. Honestly, I'm not sure what it would take for a zombie flick to top it.

philliam
06-30-2007, 06:33 PM
i love zombie flicks and i love them all

haven't seen land of the dead yet

mr_bungle700
06-30-2007, 06:46 PM
These movies are great fun, especially when watched with a group.

That one zombie with no jaw at the beginning of Day is one of the best things ever. It also probably accounted for like half of that film's special effects budget.

Evil Dead Junkie
06-30-2007, 07:08 PM
I love Night and Land as Horror Classics.

Dawn I think is the best Social Satire post Strangelove ever made.

Day (like another problematic third part Sympathy For Lady Vengance) I have to be in just the right mood for, but it has the best makeup Savini ever did, and plenty of pleaures of its own.

Romero though is more then his Dead Films, which no ones seems to realize. Show me a movie creepier then Martin, more in love with horror then Creepshow, as innovative as 28 da- sorry I meant The Crazies, as wonderfully idiosyncratic as Knightriders.

Stephen
06-30-2007, 08:33 PM
Show me a movie ... more in love with horror then Creepshow

Because of "The Crate", I spent years living in terror of ventilation ducts. I was only 5 or 6, but still.

VsRobot
06-30-2007, 10:08 PM
I hate the Dawn remake. If it had a different name, I might like it better, but as it stands, I fucking hate it.

Romero's Dawn is pretty near to being a perfect horror movie. Night is pretty sweet, but Day and Land are both disappointing in different ways. Still, I'll be first in line for a fifth film if Romero can get it out.

Calorie Mate
06-30-2007, 11:55 PM
Is there anyone that didn't feel the Dawn remake was unneccessary? If so, I haven't met them.

Evil Dead Junkie
07-01-2007, 12:10 AM
A suprising amount of film geeks give this one a pass for some reason.

The mainstream fucking loves it.

About all I can say about it is its the least shitty of all the shitty remakes that shouldn't even have been made in the first place.

Jakanden
07-01-2007, 04:31 AM
i love zombie flicks and i love them all

haven't seen land of the dead yet

Land actually isn't that bad. Romero took it in a quite different direction than the others, but it is indeed still a Romero flick and worth checking out.

Deadguy2322
07-01-2007, 05:41 AM
Night is a masterpiece of mood.

Of the three different cuts of Dawn, I perfer the extended cut, which is erroneously known as the Director's Cut and was shown at two preview screenings in NYC and at Cannes, as it fleshes out the beginning, showing more people who have decided to run.

The Italian cut, edited by Dario Argento is a brilliant action film. Most of the quiet scenes are gone, all the gore is present, including a few things not in the extended cut, all the music is by Goblin and the running time is only about 90 minutes.

Fun Fact: In most of Europe, Dawn was titled Zombi. Lucio Fulci's movie Zombi 2, released in North America as Zombie, was actually an unauthorized sequel to the Italian cut of Dawn. When I first heard that, I kind of scratched my head, as Dawn is more of a social commentary/character study where Zombie is a balls-out action film. After seeing the Italian Cut of Dawn, it made more sense, as Zombie pretty much cribs it's pacing from Romero's film.

Day is a great movie if you approach it right, but it is also a sad example of compromise. Romero had secured financing for a much grander film, but backers pulled out, leaving him to scale things back to the intimate level of the finished film. The original screenplay is quite an epic from what I have been able to glean, far greater in scope than the single facility and skeleton crew of the finished film. Oh, and don't bother with the cut versions, as the uncut actually added a bit of exposition that was trimmed for timing reasons.

Land of the Dead. Well, it got made. Too bad the studio kept slashing his budget all the way through pre-production and forced him to substitute Toronto for Pittsburgh. Of course, the budget constraints led to CGI gore, which sucks. The budget doesn't excuse the amazingly clumsy political commentary. The only redeeming factors for Land, in my eyes, are John Leguizamo and Asia Argento. Leguizamo played a character who could easily have been phoned in with a nice amount of nuance, and Asia's just insanely sexy.

Word floats around that Sony is going to finance the sequel to Land, but I don't hold out great hope for a good movie to be made. Honestly, Romero's best work was in the 1970s, and he really hasn't made a good movie since Monkey Shines, which is actually surprisingly scary for a movie about a psychotic capuchin.

If anybody here hasn't seen them yet, I highly recommend The Crazies and Martin. Romero's work is always better with a focus on character, and those two have the most.

Kupek
07-01-2007, 08:15 AM
Is there anyone that didn't feel the Dawn remake was unneccessary? If so, I haven't met them.
Right here. I liked it. Maybe better than the original.

Jakanden
07-01-2007, 08:39 AM
I enjoyed it, but nowhere near as much as the original.

Nicholai
07-03-2007, 07:32 AM
Is there anyone that didn't feel the Dawn remake was unneccessary? If so, I haven't met them.

Is it necessary? No. Is it decent to pretty good? Yes. If you can get past the title it is a pretty good zombie film on its own, and I don't hold the title against the film. Probably the only half-decent zombie film for quite some time along with Shaun of the Dead. On the topic of this thread:

Night of the Living Dead: A classic that is still entertaining to this day. The black and white gives it a creepy feel that in several scenes enhances the film. The way that black and white films can play with shadows is done very well. My personal favorite.

Dawn of the Dead: Another classic, and, in most cases, the strongest of the series.

Day of the Dead: Perhaps it would have been better as it was originally conceptualized, but it is a rather hollow film that is only serviced by some great Savini FX.

Land of the Dead: Probably more interesting than Day, but still not nearly as good as the first two.

Red Hedgehog
07-03-2007, 02:23 PM
Is it necessary? No. Is it decent to pretty good? Yes. If you can get past the title it is a pretty good zombie film on its own, and I don't hold the title against the film. Probably the only half-decent zombie film for quite some time along with Shaun of the Dead.

28 Days Later? Or are we mincing zombie definitions?

My opinions on the Dawn "remake" are pretty much the same. It is a fine zombie film. Entertaining, definitely above average, not quite good. Not better than the original, but that's okay.

ScrambledGregs
07-03-2007, 06:23 PM
Is any remake ever necessary in the history of civilization??

That said, I didn't think the Dawn remake was awful. I actually liked it, though I don't take Romero seriously at all so it's easy for me to watch his movies and just have fun.

VsRobot
07-03-2007, 09:40 PM
Is any remake ever necessary in the history of civilization??
.

John Carpenter's "The Thing" is a necessary remake.

Deadguy2322
07-04-2007, 06:26 PM
John Carpenter's "The Thing" is a necessary remake.

Ironically, it is set to be remade soon.

Jakanden
07-04-2007, 07:59 PM
As long as they don't butcher it like Assault on Precinct 13

ScrambledGregs
07-05-2007, 04:44 PM
John Carpenter's "The Thing" is a necessary remake.

That's so different from the original I wouldn't even call it a remake. It's more like a re-imagining, or some other pretentious word that will get me out of admitting I was wrong.

alexb
07-05-2007, 04:57 PM
I really hated the Dawn remake. It was in many ways the antithesis of everything that made the original great. The entire conceit of the setting being a mall was rendered ridiculous because of how these zombies behaved. If they're super powered crazies who can keep up with a moving car and bust through the windshield, what's keeping them out of the mall, even for a moment? Plus, what's his face the director and the writer, whose other contributions to society include both Scooby-Doo live action movies, committed that cardinal sin of bad horror movies, introducing an overlarge cast of characters simply so there's somebody to kill and failing to make you care about any of them. Then, there's the fact that all of the commentary on society and human nature that really made the original something special is missing. It was just splatterhouse crap, especially when its deficiencies are viewed against what was present in the original movie.

Deadguy2322
07-06-2007, 10:29 AM
That's so different from the original I wouldn't even call it a remake. It's more like a re-imagining, or some other pretentious word that will get me out of admitting I was wrong.

To be accurate, Carpenter's film was a more faithful adaptation of the original story "Who Goes There!" than the original The Thing From Another World was, and could, if I am not too far off, be seen as a sequel to the original film.

VsRobot
07-06-2007, 11:02 AM
alexb, wonderful explanation. It's everything I feel but wasn't able to encapsulate.

Hey, Romero is well under with a new zombie movie, Diary of the Dead (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0848557/), but he claims is neither a sequel or a remake. He also says it's totally independent, so the only person he has to please is himself.

Hopefully it recaptures the spirit of the first two dead movies.

VsRobot
07-06-2007, 11:04 AM
Swiped from AICN - I would link but it's framed with a bunch of Harry Knowles "What I did today" bullshit.

Hi, guys,

Lemme tell ya about Diary of the Dead. I love it. It’s the first film since my original Night of the Living Dead that I can say is completely my own.

I’ve been trying to work under-the-radar, with no hype or press, but lately I've started hearing all kinds of shit about “What’s goin' on with Romero?” “What’s with his new film?”

Gimme a break over here! I'm up in Toronto workin' my ass off, making Diary the best it can be. Truth is, I'm having a blast. I've gone home to the kind of filmmaking that I used to do, back in the day.

Diary is a hundred percent independent, made with my partner, Peter Grunwald, and our new friends at Artfire. I haven't had this much freedom since 1968. The cast, of what film critics will probably call “unknowns” (they won’t be for long) is, in my opinion, fuckin' great.

This one comes from my heart. It's not a sequel or a remake. It's a whole new beginning for the dead.

Thanks to all of you who are out there waiting and wondering. You guys, the fans, have always kept me going. Now Diary's keeping me going, night, dawn, and day.

I love this movie. I hope you will, too. I'll be back here from time to time to keep you posted. Stay tuned.

Stay scared.

George A. Romero

Evil Dead Junkie
07-06-2007, 01:19 PM
Yeah I'm still not convinced.

Look I like Romero, I really like Romero.

But c'mon the cast of a horror movie come across some real zazazazaZOMBIES. Yoinks Scoob that's some retarded shit. Is old man witherby going to be behind it.

And the fact that he's shooting it like that new fangled Blair Witch Movie. Honestly it makes my brain feel bad.

Deadguy2322
07-07-2007, 07:53 AM
Yeah I'm still not convinced.

Look I like Romero, I really like Romero.

But c'mon the cast of a horror movie come across some real zazazazaZOMBIES. Yoinks Scoob that's some retarded shit. Is old man witherby going to be behind it.

And the fact that he's shooting it like that new fangled Blair Witch Movie. Honestly it makes my brain feel bad.

Personally, I stick to Romero's work up to Monkey Shines, then pretend he retired. It's a lot less painful.

ScrambledGregs
07-07-2007, 05:21 PM
It's so darned cute that he thinks his upcoming, under-the-radar, indie horror flick is going to make his actors famous. Because all of his other films have been star making turns!! Why, every time I turn around, I see another film with...er...Ken Foree, who went on to star in the Nick kid's show Kenan and Kel, who you may remember as the comedy duo behind Good Burger.

Christ, why do I know this shit.

alexb
07-08-2007, 02:19 PM
Since we're talking about zombies, has there been any word on whether or not World War Z is going to be made into a movie?

Evil Dead Junkie
07-08-2007, 04:38 PM
It's so darned cute

Its also so darned cute what a smug asshole you are.

For the record though your wrong, Romero did give at least one big actor his big break with Ed Harris.

Deadguy2322
07-09-2007, 03:47 AM
Let's all hope this ends up better than Bruiser did. Being deemed to lousy to release in North America, then coming out 3 years late on DVD and proving the theory was correct.

jeditanuki
07-09-2007, 02:56 PM
Since we're talking about zombies, has there been any word on whether or not World War Z is going to be made into a movie?

According to Wikipedia it is. But you know how it is; sometimes things are being made into movies...and then they're not. Personally, I hope it is. I liked that book a lot.