Showing posts with label George Romero. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George Romero. Show all posts

Return of the Living Dead - Movie Review

In 1968 George A. Romero's first film, the seminal classic Night of the Living Dead, was released unto an unsuspecting public. The film spawned 3 direct sequels (Dawn of the Dead, Day of the Dead, and Land of the Dead) all of which were directed by Romero. Casual horror movie may have never previously noticed, but there is a subtle but distinct change in the naming scheme of the series beginning with the second installment. As part of an agreement with the somewhat lesser known Night of the Living Dead co-writer John Russo, Romero could go on tell more stories in the same universe, but Russo exclusively would retain the rights to use of the phrase "-of the Living Dead."

Return of the Living Dead is a cleverly developed concept from Russo that does not entirely forsake the Romero classic that came before it. The premise of Return of the Living Dead is based on the idea that the events that transpired in the original Night of- film were based on real events. As a character in the first act explains, the basics regarding reanimated corpses were true, but the filmmaker was forced by the military to change people's names and some facts regarding the basis of the outbreak. This scene retelling the release of the original film is sufficient homage to that which came before it but still allows for some new, fun twists along the way.



The film begins in a medical supply warehouse with the old caretaker relating the true story nature of the "Night of the Living Dead" zombie outbreak to a new employee. The old caretaker knows the truth of the story because their warehouse accidentally received a shipment consisting of a metal drum containing a bodyfrom the supposed outbreak. A mishap occurs and the metal drum is punctured, releasing the deadly reanimating agent 2,4,5 Trioxin into the basement. The gas spreads through the ducting system and ends up reanimating a corpse stored in the upper levels of the building. Eventually they corpse ends up dismembered and the owner of the medical supply warehouse calls in a favor with an old friend working at the local mortuary. They burn the still wriggling pieces in the furnace but end up releasing the reanimating gas into the atmosphere through the resulting smoke. A torrential thunderstorm carries the gas into the soil of the local cemetery releasing a horde of nigh-unstoppable, brain-craving ghouls.



The story follows two separate groups of people, the aforementioned warehouse employees, and a group of punkish teenagers partying in said local cemetery. These younger characters are most definitely a product of the times, sporting a mishmash of giant 80's hair, leather jackets with chains, and styling mohawks. The collection of young actors do a suitable job playing the collection of fodder for the hungry monsters. Of special mention is 1980's scream queen Linnea Quigley playing the role that most every teenage male will remember her for; the young, nimble nymphomaniac, Trash. In a role that helped solidified her legend, Quigley sheds her clothes in a full frontal dancing scene about 20 minutes into the film and remains essentially naked for the entire runtime, even in scenes after her transformation into a zombie. Stories of theater audiences cheering every time Quigley came on screen, incredulous of the fact that this girl could possibly still be completely naked, are passed down amongst fans even today.



Return of the Living Dead departs from the standard Romero-Zombie mythos in several significant ways. Amongst the most noticeable to horror fans may be the ways that the zombies act and are dispatches. Foremost amongst these changes is the origins of one of the oldest zombie cliches. When asked what a zombie says, most anyone would immediately respond "Brains! Braaaaaains!" Despite this, the classic Romero-Zombie is incapable of speech. Not so in Return of the Dead. In fact, this may be the film that solidified that particular turn of phrase in the collective consciousness of pop culture. In another departure, these zombies do not just crave the flesh of the living, they crave the brain specifically and are quite vocal about their digestive needs.



Another major departure that many casual horror fans think is a recent invention of modern films like 28 Days Later and the Dawn of the Dead remake (2004) is the fast-moving zombie. In actuality, this particular zombie convention can be traced back to much earlier in the time-line of the genre. Return of the Living Dead features these fast moving zombies and even does one better over their contemporary counterparts; these zombies have intelligence. Although in later films the Romero-Zombies learned to use simple tools, these zombies show complex problem solving skills almost immediately, setting up traps and luring still-living victims into their midst using police and emergency radios. Worse still, the zombies in Return of the Living Dead are essentially unstoppable juggernauts that can only be destroyed by incinerating their bodies (or high electrical current, as in the sequel to this film). Destroying the brain or removing the head doesn't help as the rest of the reanimated body keeps coming.



Even with all the changes to the zombie mythos, the largest departure from the Romero films are found within the other components of the film, most notably to tone. The excess nudity on display here, a quality not found in any of the Romero films, is but one example of this shift in alignment. Return of the Living Dead is much more comedic, featuring elements of both black humor and slapstick. The score of the film consists almost entirely of popular heavy metal songs and also adds to the more light-hearted feel of the movie. Despite this, the film is still capable of producing an atmosphere of terror and dread. The constant screaming and moaning of the undead serve as a constants reminder of their presence and transforms the horde into an intangible entity even when off-screen. The only valid complaint I can lodge at the film is that its ending, while consistent with the internal logic of the unfolding events, comes entirely too suddenly and without enough build up.

The Bottomline: Given that my only major complaint is that Return of the Living Dead's 90-minute runtime is simply too short, you can guess that I was no less than thoroughly entertained by the film. With this film John Russo proved there was room for more than just Romero's vision of zombies within the horror genre. Four Bruces.



Seen this movie? Got a question? Disagree with the Geek? Leave a comment below!
Read more

Diary of the Dead: Movie Review

It would not be hyperbole to say that George Romero created the modern zombie movie genre. With his groundbreaking first film, Night of the Living Dead, George Romero created an idea whose light still flickers in our collective imaginations. The movie deals not only with reanimated flesh eating ghouls, but also with gender roles and racism. Not content to simply dream up an idea and turn it loose on the world, Romero refined and polished his vision in the original sequel, Dawn of the Dead, offering up a scathing condemnation of our American consumption society.

And most people think zombie films are about blood and brains.

Diary of the Dead
is a low budget, return to roots project for George Romero. In this film he chronicles the beginning of a zombie apocalypse, similar in timing with the original "Night" film. The events have been brought up to date, taking place in a thoroughly modern world that includes hand held video cameras, blogging, and the internet. In Diary of the Dead Romero sets out to ask the question of how far has our society really come since 1968? For all of our technological advances, how different are we as a species?

Unfortunately, in three short paragraphs, I've managed to ask that question more eloquently than Romero does in the film itself. The biggest problem is that the film wears its low budget on its sleeves. The cinematography is okay, the story is simple but effective, but the script and the acting leave a lot to be desired.

The movie takes place in a first person perspective, similar to the Blair Witch Project or the more recent Cloverfield. Like those movies, the main character is some smarmy twat who, for whatever reason, won't put the camera down regardless of the circumstances. This usually isn't a big problem for me in these types of films, some suspension of disbelief is necessary in all films after all, but the execution of it in Diary left me cold. The characters are constantly reminding us that Jason, the main character, is still filming. They ask why but Jason never responds. In the first 12 minutes the fact that he is filming is directly referenced three times. This is the type of question best left to nitpicky audience members, not characters in the film. When a character blatantly asks this question, everyone watching the movie suddenly thinks "Yeah! Why is he still filming?" So much for suspension of disbelief.

Another example of this occurs in the opening moments of the film. A girl, whom I will now refer to as Exposition Jill, introduces herself, gives us some background about the zombie invasion, and then lets us know she's edited together the footage we're about to watch. Exposition Jill goes on to tell us about the guy filming the rest of the film. His name is Jason Creed. This guy is filming this documentary, "The Death of Death," so that we will know the truth. Hooray. Filmmaker cliché number one and we're less than five minutes in. Then, to top this little sequence off, Jill tells us she's added music to some of the footage. She's added music to scare us. I'm not paraphrasing. She says she deliberately added the music to scare us. To make us care about THE TRUTH (TM).

Come on, George. We're not idiots. No one was going to say, "Hey, if this is supposed to be a documentary, where did the music come from?" Most people would happily explain it away to themselves as someone found the footage and doctored it up. No clunky expositional character required. The type of nitpicky person you're trying to address with this explanation doesn't deserve to be recognized. If someone is nitpicky enough to ask that question, hopefully everyone else in the room would tell them to shut up and just watch the movie. Instead, by addressing this issue head-on, the movie comes off as pompous and self-serving. Sorry George, but recognizing and calling attention to a gaping hole in the way you've chosen to present your story does not excuse said gaping hole.

Ahem.

P.S. 15 Minutes in and someone just mentioned Jason is still filming again. Awesome. I'm going to stop counting now.

Okay, nitpicking aside, this isn't a bad movie. I definitely think the script could have used some tightening up, if only to avoid the issues listed above. The acting is on par for a low budget film, but no one is going to win any awards. The makeup zombie effects are fun and effective and Romero shows a real love for the genre he helped create. There's a few real creative zombie dispatchings that were a welcome addition to the standard issue brain splattering head shots. One zombie gets bashed over the head with hydrochloric acid and we watch him stumble around as his skull dissolves. Another zombie gets lobotomized with an IV stand. A deaf Amish dude impales his own head with a sickle to off both himself and the zombie attacking him from behind.

That's a new one on me.

And then, 26 minutes in, Douchey McTardathon's camera runs out of battery and he separates from the group to plug it in. Yeah.

Yeah.

Moments of brilliance and moments of ridiculousness. A very unbalanced experience.

So from here, more stuff happens. There's a fairly drawn out sequence with some paramilitary types that always seem to grace flicks in this genre. Some of what happens is pretty cool, some of it isn't. The film's message about our dependence on the media and technology is scathing in typical Romero fashion. The heavy handed commentary about our YouTube society, a society that would rather watch itself fall apart for entertainment value rather then lend a hand to help, will bludgeon you over the head like a sledgehammer. This is a stark contrast to the subtlety evident in Romero's earlier works. The points made are perfectly valid and thought provoking, but this is a case of a film suffering for its message.

Oh, and yes. Like always, in the end, we're the real monsters.

The Bottomline: The good outweighs the bad, but you'll want to turn your brain off to get the most out of the film. Not a good sign for a film trying to deliver a social commentary. If you like Romero and have been jonesing for a zombie fix in the post-Land of the Dead world, you're likely to enjoy it. Lord knows you'll never see a big budget, studio produced Romero flick again, so take what you can get I say. Two Bruces.


Seen this movie? Got a question? Disagree with the Geek? Leave a comment below!
Read more

Diary of the Dead: Movie Preview

So, apparently, the next George A. Romero zombie flick, Diary of the Dead, is getting a wide theatrical release this Friday, February 15th, 2008. I'm a bit surprised because I normally have a pretty good idea of upcoming genre films and this one completely flew under the radar. I have no idea how this could have happened, especially because I'd consider myself a big, longtime fan of Romero's Dead series (Yes, including Land of the Dead. Charlie was awesome).

The only reasons I could come up with for this oversight are thus:
  • I've been really busy.
  • I haven't been watching any TV pretty much since the Writer's Strike started (although that's officially over now- yay!)
  • The advertising budget for this film must be about nil.
It's sad that the next film from one of the genre's greats is being set up to pass by relatively unnoticed by the general movie going crowd. Given the amount of buzz I've been hearing (again, about nil), if this movie breaks the Top 5 for Box Office this weekend, I'll be stoked. I certainly hope it does better business than that though, because I'd like Mr. Romero to keep making movies until he dies (and even after, if Zombie Romero can still hold a camera).

I also kind of feel like any casual movie-goer is going to dismiss Diary as a cheap Cloverfield knockoff, given the closeness in release dates and similarities in camera-style. I'd like to think that the first person film format was given a boost in the arm by Cloverfield, but so many detractors have voiced their opinions that I can't help but suspect this negative rub will mean bad things for a smaller film like Diary. I suppose the good news is that the movie was shot on a real small budget so any business at all should guarantee the film churns a profit.

If you're a horror fan, you should go see this film. I haven't seen it yet, so I can't comment on the quality of the film, but horror, real horror, needs a boost right now. Hollywood needs to be shown that old school horror is still profitable. Financial persuasion is the only way we won't be watching bad remakes of J-horror starring no-talent actresses for the next 3 years (I'm looking at you, The Eye).

And, hey, it's George Romero, so even if it sucks you know there's going to be a few good shots of zombie gore.
Read more