Zombie Fun
Gee, nice way to die huh? Walking around skinless ain't no pleasure trip either.
So the Yankees lost the World Series...to the Florida Marlins. This sucks. I guess this makes up for that fucked up Presidential Recount Florida flubbed back in 2000. Tony Montana would be proud...*snort snort*...
This is the last Halloween layout [Michael Myers] so enjoy it until November. After all, he's a big part of what makes Halloween so great [there IS a movie based on him with the holiday's title and all...]. You'll get those Halloween movie reviews on October 30-31.
Right now, I'm gonna review some zombie movies I think ya'll enjoy. I'll do 4 today and 5 tomorrow, since I'm too tired to review them all right now. So enjoy the reviews for The Night of the Living Dead series. Booyah!
Directed by: George A. Romero
Starring: Duane Jones/Ben
Judith O'Dea/Barbara
Karl Hardman/Harry Cooper
Marilyn Eastman/Helen Cooper
Year: 1968
PLOT SUMMARY:
The radiation from a fallen satellite causes the recently deceased to rise from the grave and seek the living to use as food. This is the situation that a group of people penned up in an old farmhouse must deal with.
MY TWO-CENTS:
Night of the Living Dead has been referenced, copied and spoofed so often that watching it for the first time was a little disorientating. As was the case when hearing the Great Escape theme in the actual movie, or seeing Psycho's shower scene in the context of the story, it was hard to escape the feeling that this was something big. Unfortunately, as was also the case with those examples, it was over-familiar before the opening credits had rolled. But it must be remembered that what is cliché now was original then, and it deserves better than to be marked down for the predictability hindsight has given it. Despite years of imitation and repetition, this is a king among a genre of plebs.
The strengths of the film's story come in its simplicity: a handful of strangers are gathered in a house in rural Pennsylvania that's gradually being surrounded by a mounting army of flesh-eating zombies. With the simplest of set-ups and the tiniest of budgets, George Romero and his co-writers relied on imagination and invention rather than flash and gore, and for the most part they succeed.
The opening scenes are gentle, as a bickering but charming brother and sister visit their dad's grave, but the tone is darkened as Romero pulls a Psycho on us by killing one of them off. Immediately, as was the case with Hitchcock's masterpiece, we know that no-one is safe. This is really the most important rule of horror; there's nothing less interesting than seeing people killed in the order you'd predicted, while the three most prominent characters survive unscathed.
From this promising beginning, the movie never loses its nerve or its black heart, and is all the better for it. We are given a sense of the wider picture through news footage of the country-wide phenomenon, but we stay with just our small group to experience it on an intimate, emotional level. The acting is often so wooden that the cast could have boarded up the house with themselves, but the actual characters are surprisingly well developed. It's pleasing to have an African-American as the most positive character in a movie from this era, and his cohabitants mostly manage to avoid becoming the stereotypes they could easily have been. As is rarely the case with horror, we at least care about whether or not these people make it through the night. This investment in the characters pays off in the cruel, ironic and perfect finale.
The film's realism - undoubtedly one of its strengths - extends beyond its documentary-style filming into the story, so the questions the audience asks to itself are answered, or at least discussed, onscreen. Arguments over whether to hide in the basement or in the boarded-up ground floor, whether to stay in the house or flee to a rescue station, to fight the zombies or wait for rescue, are all ones we would ask if we were in the situation ourselves, and their inclusion in the script brings an intelligence that elevates the film further from its B-movie origins.
Night of the Living Dead, while flawed and undoubtedly over-rated, is a good movie that rates as one of the best in a generally poor genre. Claustrophobic, tense, involving, inventive, realistic and true to its characters and mythology, it slaughters the easy, infantile, glossy shocks found in the likes of the Scream franchise, which thinks having someone jump out from behind a tree is enough to call itself horror. Recommended.
*** outta ****
Directed by: George Romero
Starring: Ken Foree/Peter
David Emge/Stephen
Scott H. Reiniger/Roger
Gaylen Ross/Francine
Year: 1978
PLOT SUMMARY:
In this first sequel to Night of the Living Dead, a group of four people take up residence in a deserted mall while trying to stay alive amidst the armies of the dead and a vicious gang of militant bikers.
MY TWO-CENTS:
1978, just one of those years where supposedly everyone danced disco and smoked pot [although survivors of the era know otherwise]. George Romero films a medium budget, mainly independent movie that takes the film world by storm. Dawn of the Dead is the story about four people who, during an era where zombies walk the earth, lock themselves up in an abandoned shopping mall to survive and try to live somewhat normal lives.
This is eaiser said than done however, because soon a bunch of outlaws ruins the perfect lives and loots the mall, allowing zombies in.
That is the basic story of Dawn of the Dead, so at this point you may be wondering what makes up the rest of the movie. There are two ways to look at this: literally and philisophically.
Literally, the movie starts out explaining the charicters backgrounds, strengths, and weaknesses. Through an exciting scene in an apartment complex, we find out that this is not your parents movie, as in it uses violence to make a definite point.
When our charicters are united in the mall, each of them has issues to deal with and work out, but those ideas are pushed out of the way when they have to lock up the exits to the mall, one by one, while avoiding zombie attacks [a constant theme thoughout the film, oddly enough].
When all of the zombies around are killed, the group of looters allows in all of the zombies in the mall, and many of the looters are killed slowly, painfully, and very graphically. The violence throughout the film is remarkably high, and for good reason. The ending has some of the characters killed and some escaping from their doom only to see if they would survive another day.
Philisophically speaking, though, the movie goes deeper than that. Not only does the film follow the characters, but the rest of the United States as well. It raises a huge "what if..." question that could only be answered though Romero. The characters represent a viewer from outside, looking in to the world as it destroys itself because it cannot deal with the stress or different ways of life with the zombies. They watch this all on television till it happens to them though the looters. This would be society finally destroying itself. Some escape, to find that they may perhaps may have to save the human race.
Should this be taken Literally or Philisophically? Your choice, thats what makes the movie great. Do you like horror or deep thinking? Perhaps watch the movie twice or more, from differenct perspectives every time. The point is that this is one of the greats and a must see for all times. Hopefully the remake that comes out next year [starring Ving Rhames and Mekhi Pfeifer] is as great as this version, though I seriously doubt it. Highest of Recommendations.
**** outta ****
Directed by: George Romero
Starring: Lori Cardille/Sarah
Capt. Rhodes/Joseph Pilato
Terry Alexander/John
Tim Dileo/Miguel
Year: 1985
PLOT SUMMARY:
The Dead have conquered earth, leaving just small groups of people out of their clutches. One group made up of both scientific and military personal, hiding in a bunker somewhere in Florida tries to get in contact with other survivors of the zombie infestation, but find themselves quite alone in this new world. Desperately searching for a cure and therefore indulging in strange experiments to overcome this strange transformation into zombies, the scientists loose the faith of the military, resulting in a race against death while the zombies take over the facility.. Only common sense can save them now...
MY TWO-CENTS:
Bought the DVD this summer and I can say that this is such an underrated movie. Romero's third 'Dead' film has always lived in the shadow of the first two ‘Dead' films. While there are many parts of Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead that are superior, ‘Day' still holds its own and has some improvements over the first two. I'm not saying its better; its just not nearly as weak as horror fans have made it out to be.
The Acting- People have complained about the over the top acting in the film, but honestly, what ‘Dead' film has great acting? They all have pretty much community theater acting in them. Its not like the leads in ‘Dawn' were Hopkins, Pacino, and Streep. ‘Day' just has the same scenery chewing we've seen in the other ‘Dead' film [and most horror films for that matter].
Atmosphere- the setting of the underground bunker is far more frightening than the house or mall in the other films, it is a great step forward in the series, very creepy.
The makeup- Gone are the painted gray and green, K-Mart bargain Halloween makeup of ‘Dawn'. The zombies are in ‘Day' far more unique and disgusting. Overall all the makeup FX are leaps and bounds better than the other films.
The Plot is well structured giving a nice introduction and setting up the tense situation. Many have complained that the ending is abrupt, but its hard to say just what people think they are missing, those who survive, survive, and its pretty clear they are, any further action at that point would be exaggerating the escape.
As far as Bub goes, he is the thing many zombie film lover hate, and that is a ‘thinking' zombie. There is that sect of horror fans who just want stupid, vacant, zombies incapable of speech or the ability to use tools, but Romero clearly has a purpose with ‘Day's zombies, taking the mythology further. And one can only imagine it helping in a fourth ‘Dead' film, a plague of thinking zombies, more formidable than the ones in previous films. You cant just repeat yourself, you have to cover new ground, and, regardless of what its detractors say, Romero did that task well in Day of the Dead. Good movie and recommended.
*** outta ****
Directed by: Tom Savini
Starring: Tony Todd/Ben
Patricia Tallman/Barbara
Tom Towles/Harry
Bill Moseley/Johnny
Year:1990
PLOT SUMMARY:
In this remake of the original classic film, a group of people are trapped inside a farmhouse as legions of the walking dead try to get inside and use them for food.
MY TWO-CENTS:
We know all too well how much to hate a remake. It's always a given that a remake will not only be worse than the original, but will most likely suck miserably. However, we still always watch the newer version in vain hopes. That is what I did with this film and to my delight, I was blown away. This is the first and only remake that not only matches the original film, but stands above it. This is of course just my opinion. I'm sure that the zombie-fan community would only go so far as to say its just as good as the 1968 version, but not this fan.
What I love the most about this film is that it exposed a whole new generation of kids to Night of the Living Dead, including me. Sure, I had seen the original, but I was so young that it wasn't scary. I actually thought it was boring. Of course this sounds like blasphemy now, but I was a child. It was only in later years that I learned how to appreciate films before my time.
I was born in 1981, so I was nine years old when I saw this remake. It scared me to death. The opening zombie attacks out of the blue in broad daylight. That freaked me out and I wasn't able to catch my breath until 10 to 15 minutes later because they [zombies] were just everywhere and all at once. For a 9-year-old horror fan, like myself, the "monster" or "villain" never attacks in daylight and seldomly at the beginning of the movie. Granted this is the way that the original film opened, but in the 1968 version it was thundering [a staple for scares in horror movies] and most importantly: the film was in black and white. That already makes the movie terrifying to a child. That darkness from the first shot made me raise my guard immediately. However, the beginning of the remake knocked my socks off and I loved it. It's a beautiful sunny day and your attention goes straight to the scary old man stumbling through the cemetery. The director (Tom Savini) brilliantly set up the scare shot so that you'd be watching the old man in the background when BANG a zombie jumps into the frame out of nowhere. Savini continues to do this throughout the film. He always misleads you in the wrong direction for a scare. This made the entire movie unpredictable and incredibly refreshing for me.
Since I mentioned Savini, I'll go ahead and praise him now. Another reason to trust this remake is having "The King Of Splatter" in the director's chair. This is the man that made the gore in Dawn of the Dead (1978) and Day of the Dead (1985) so lovable. Hold on a minute. I'm getting too excited and ahead of myself. I love movies and if there's anything I love more than movies, its horror movies. If there is anything I love more than horror movies, it's zombie movies. AND if there is anything I love more than zombie movies, it's Romero's zombie movies. This all stemmed from that fateful night in 1990 when I first watched Night of the Living Dead. It left that much of an impression on me.
This remake keeps all of the vital elements from the original and updates the special effects. Other than that, they pretty much kept everything the same [except for a character shift between Barbara and Ben, but I'll get to that later]. And it wasn't boring. The movie kept your attention the whole time and it scares you. Speaking of FX, these are the best looking zombies I've ever seen. We all have seen many versions, but these are my personal favorites. Their skin is a sickly yellowish and best of all...their eyes are dead. This is the most important addition to the classic zombie visual. The eyes! In this movie, the zombies' eyes are basically pure white. This really gives you the impression that they're just dead vessels, lifeless shells of the people they use to be. That is what makes them even more terrifying.
**SPOILERS**
Okay, back to Barbara and Ben. In the original, we follow Barbara from the beginning until we get to the house. Ben is the protagonist and the hero. The ending of the original was amazing when Ben is murdered. This remake does not redo that ending. Instead, the hero characteristics shift from Ben [who really holds everything together] to Barbara as the film continues. This remake shows Barbara as the level-minded and sharp hero. Almost a Sigourney Weaver Alien type of chick.
**END SPOILERS**
Unfortunately, and this is the only fault of this film, there isn't any gore in the movie. There is violence throughout the picture, but no gore. The MPAA made many cuts in the movie to get an R rating and there is no alternative uncut version...at least to my knowledge. This is only bad for me because, at heart, I love gore. This movie's violence is great, but I always want more. I always want to see more victims getting eaten, more blood gushing, and more head's exploding. I think violence [and especially gore] are a fine art in movies. This movie does not have enough gore for me, but violence and carnage is satisfying. No doubt, this is a great film and better than the original. Really recommended.
***1/2* outta ****
Next time, I'll review The Return of the Dead series, Resident Evil, and 28 Days Later. Take care and FALL BACK!