Fave Romero 'Dead' movie

[Menard]

In all honesty I have to admit that from a pure entertainment perspective I generally find the Italian forays into zombie territory to be far more fun to sit and watch than Romero's, even the dire ones tend to be hilarious in their sheer ineptitude (Bruno Mattei's Zombie Creeping Flesh springs to mind).

As much as I love several of the euro-zombie films, such as The Living Dead (At Manchester Morgue), City Of The Living Dead and Zombie (username!), I really don't think these films are in the same league as Night/Dawn/Day.

One aspect of Romero's film-making that is often overlooked is his terrific craftmanship - his films are a joy to watch from a technical perspective (ignoring budgetary restrictions). It's no suprise that Romero's best films are as highly regarded by mainstream critics as they are by cult/horror afficandos. I'm not claiming this general approval to be essential or even necessary in order to form a personal opinion of a film, but it does reflect a level of success on Romero's part to hold the interest of a wide-ranging audience with often quite different perspectives. Even Lucio Fulci's zombie films are technically inconsistent: one moment we see a beautiful sequence filmed underwater; the next we see the camera zooming in and out wildly in the same shot, an attempt to boost dramatic tension without the use of editing or inventive photography, the result so simplistic and sloppy it suggests the incompetence of bad student film-making (admittedly this has its retro charm). I find far less of these faults in Romero's craft...

[Vaughan]

Well, one might also argue that wider acceptance was achieved because of better distribution, and the fact they were made in English as factors. While people don't mind subs and dubs these days, back when these were building their reputations that wasn't the case. I recall Day and Dawn playing at my local theaters, I don't recall the Italian variants being there.

I'm will Jack on this, I think the Italians did a better job. I'm more entertained by their films, and those pathetic blue faces bother me a lot (more than they should I suppose, but there you have it). And I find Romero far more obvious in most of what he does than the likes of Fulci - who frankly had no pretensions, and therefore couldn't do much wrong.

Before claiming more general approval as a sign of success, I think it might be worth considering things like availability. The likes of Zombi 2 simply didn't get the same distribution around the world, and suffered more from censorship as far as I'm aware.... In fact, when was the last time Zombi 2 et al got a showing on British TV? Yet Romero's films manage this.

On the topic of subtexts and the like - one thing that is very striking to me about titles like Dawn - a lot has been written about them, many articles etc. Yet, don't you find that they're all basically saying the same thing? What I mean by this is, while the films have been picked over, it's usually just the same old rehash of the obvious, and I'm not sure that's a good thing...

[Menard]

I don't think distribution size has anything to do with critical response as you suggest (public response maybe) - my point is that Romero scores well with both mainstream critics and horror experts, whereas someone like Fulci tends to just please the genre crowd. I'm sure if Dawn Of The Dead was released theatrically on a much smaller scale, or even if it was in a foreign language, critical evalulations would remain positive. After all, films like Suspiria have always been seen in a favourable light...

I agree on your point of limited distribution having a negative consequence on the public consensus of a film, and certainly Romero's work has been written about umpteem times in comparison to others of the genre partly because of this exposure. Subjectively, I feel the higher quality of his films also to be a deciding factor (this of course is speculation). Yes, many of the reviews for Dawn Of The Dead do cover the same ground, but I'm not sure I would abandon a film because of its popularity or the commonness of a paticular reading, anymore than I would speak highly of a film simply because it has not been embraced by the mainstream. As far as I can see, this is the root of an unpleasant elitist viewpoint (I am not making an accusation towards anyone on this board). I love many critically panned films, but I often recognise my love for these films comes from an ability to ignore certain factors within the film, and to concentrate on the points of interest. With Dawn and Day, I get the invention and interest I crave, without having to turn a blind eye to any elements that are commonly questionable in horror (save for a performance or an FX gag here and there) - films like this are far too rare imo.

[Vaughan]

Sorry - so we're only talking critics and horror experts.... not the audience...... well fair enough then. There has been far too little critical analysis and writing about the Italian horrors in general, which some might construe as indicative that there's nothing - or not as much - to write about, while someone like myself thinks it's more likely simply a bias - and a lack of exposure by said critics. Suspiria, strangely, is one of those Italian films that did get wide distribution and a good cinematic release.

but I'm not sure I would abandon a film because of its popularity or the commonness of a paticular reading

My intent wasn't to abandon it - it was to suggest that the subtexts are just so obvious there's really not much point in banging on about them, and that most critics are basically lazy.

I actually haven't watched the Romero Dead movies (Day & Dawn) for quite some time. I just can't be bothered, I'm tired of them to be frank. Sadly, with critical acclaim often comes - and this especially true in genre circles - too much praise, and films get hyped up. The horrid make up on the zombies in Day and Dawn really does bother me - in every scene they're in. Fulci taught me better than that, and I prefer that interpretation. Day and Dawn have some nice set pieces, of course.

[christats]

Dawn of the Dead for me.Its the one I am most familiar with.

Night of the Living Dead is an important film,but seems a bit basic.Probably not the right choice of word.

Day of The Dead I have only watched twice,a while ago.So it needs a rewatch.

Land is Ok.No more no less.

Diary I have yet to watch,which will happen soon.Going off comments its probably the worst.

[Someone Weird]

In all honesty I have to admit that from a pure entertainment perspective I generally find the Italian forays into zombie territory to be far more fun to sit and watch than Romero's, even the dire ones tend to be hilarious in their sheer ineptitude (Bruno Mattei's Zombie Creeping Flesh springs to mind)

I agree. As much as I like Romero's dead films (see earlier post), the Italian films are often more fun. I really couldn't care about the subtext of Romero's films. I just like seeing people get eaten by zombies. Fulci's Zombi 2 beats all of Romero's films and is the best zombie flick ever. A good old fashioned horror/adventure with some mystery, suspense and excessive gouts of gore. And its even brilliantly made.

[Menard]

There has been far too little critical analysis and writing about the Italian horrors in general, which some might construe as indicative that there's nothing - or not as much - to write about, while someone like myself thinks it's more likely simply a bias - and a lack of exposure by said critics.

Well, I think some mainstream critics have sadly ignored the Italian horror scene (my knowledge of the genre is far from extensive), the reason for this I am unsure of - though perhaps this may have something to do with the bias you imply. Although I am not sure negative analysis is always the product of 'cinematic snobbery'.

City Of The Living Dead, for example, is an atmospheric, near-psychedelic film which I absolutely adore, and much prefer to Zombi 2. Yet even this has problems, such as the concluding frames - neither satisfying as narrative closure or as haunting ambiguity; or Fulci's over-reliance on camera zooms during zombie attacks, resulting in repetition and blandness. Whilst I refuse these issues to take away from what great merit the film has, I do recognise them to be directorial faults.

My intent wasn't to abandon it - it was to suggest that the subtexts are just so obvious there's really not much point in banging on about them, and that most critics are basically lazy.

Back in the day I think these films were quite revolutionary, with critical responses reflecting this - now I agree that fresh perspectives are required to keep classic horror journalism interesting.

Sadly, with critical acclaim often comes - and this especially true in genre circles - too much praise, and films get hyped up.

I agree, and other than a few exceptions, I tend to avoid films during their hype period, as they usually (and strangely) play better away from all the noise.

So with that said, I'll stay well away from Night/Dawn/Day/Zombi 2/COTD for a few months until all this analysis has left my brain!

Diary I have yet to watch,which will happen soon.Going off comments its probably the worst.

Diary isn't as good as the classics, but it's a long way off being the absymal mess its reputation would suggest... I really enjoyed it, better than Land (which was pretty good) - but keep expectations low and you're less likely to dissapointed!

[tombsy]

I voted DAWN OF THE DEAD, though NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD is a joint 1st followed by DAY OF THE DEAD, then DIARY OF THE DEAD (quite enjoyed this, back to his roots kinda old school meets the 21st century), lastly LAND OF THE DEAD (looked forward to this but came away dissapointed, cgi is not a fave type of effects for me,give me the FULCI, ARGENTO,ROMERO grue style anyday)

[Deranged]

Dawn... for me - seeing this on video on its first rental release on Intervision pretty much sealed the deal for me. I also thoroughly enjoy Night... and have become more enamoured of Day... with each viewing. I thought Land... was pretty poor however and don't get me started on Diary...

[Count Yorga]

I havent seen Dawn and Day for ages. I cant remember, is it the same characters that continous between the movies? For example the Ken Foree character, is that suppose to be the black guy in Day? Since Dawn ends with them in the helicopter

/Yorga

[tombsy]

No, it's a totally different character, Romero has followed this trend with all his dead films, from NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, DAWN OF THE DEAD, DAY OF THE DEAD and even includes a black zombie guy to take the undead lead in LAND OF THE DEAD

[Rich]

I've never been able to sit through Night of the Living Dead from beginning to end so I can't really offer a proper opinion on it.I've got the Elite DVD so I guess I ought to prop open my eyelids with matchsticks one night and watch it all the way through.Day of the Dead is probably my favourite of the series,it moves along at a fair old pace and contains some of Tom Savini's best ever fx work.Dawn of the Dead is a classic,although it does tend to plod along in certain parts.Savini's make-up fx are pretty rough & ready but that's all part of the movie's charm imo.The Goblin soundtrack is,of course,fantastic.As for Land of the Dead,I enjoyed it quite a bit.I didn't think it was as good as Zack Snyder's Dawn remake though.I haven't seen Diary yet and I'm in no rush to do so either.

[the dude]

Night is the best. It has the best atmosphere of all the Dead films, no doubt in part to the black and white photography. It still chills to this day.

In fact I think I'll give it another watch when I get in from work at midnight tomorrow. Yes, excellent idea.

[bigandya]

I first saw Dawn of the Dead at the cinema in 1981. It was one of 3 films I rented out on the first day we got a video recorder, May 11th 1982. It was amongst the first tapes I ever owned an original of back in 1983. I have adored the film from the first time I saw it. When I knew there was an uncut version, I tracked it down (this was about 1987), and then an extended cut, I tracked that down too (about a year later). After that I happened upon the Argento cut by chance (on a Dutch import VHS original) and I was taken aback by the different edits and soundtrack. I owned the poster magazine, the role playing game, the original novel, and the signed hardback limited edition of The Zombies that Ate Pittsburgh. To me Dawn of the Dead was (and still is) one of the 10 best movies ever made. I love the way Romero breaks the film into "chapters" - the SWAT team attack, the helicopter journey, securing the mall, and the raider attack - four different stories which blend seamlessly into one extremely satisfying whole. Although I love Day of the Dead, especially its claustrophobic atmosphere, superb characterisation and masterful special make up effects, I always felt it took too long to reach its dramatic conclusion - mainly due to budgetary restrictions. Land of the Dead and Diary of the Dead were entertaining, although if you didn't know they were Romero films, you could be forgiven for not guessing. Night of the Living Dead, on the other hand, will always be the original, and is an extremely powerful film. Perhaps if I had seen it in 1968 it would have had the same effect on me as Dawn of the Dead had, but I didn't see it until 1983, when Dawn of the Dead was already forever emblazened on my consciousness, where it remains, a part of my life, to this day.

[Mark Y]

Beast Of The Dead- Eddie Romero. sorry couldn't resist. I'll get my coat...

[philco2001]

Day of the Dead is the best IMO. I love the atmosphere and look of the film, the music is awesome and not to mention Joe Pilato's OTT but fantastic performance as Rhodes. I would put Dawn just behind with Night just behind that. I quite enjoyed Land but it is not in the same league as the 1st 3. I have only seen Diary once and comes in 4th.

[thehamish]

voted for DOTD. why? surely its because after seeing an uncut one, finally, on Bravo of aw places, i really responded to the film for the first time. plus any child killing scene is cool with me. nae mention obviously of Survival... so il ask this...does ANYONE look more favourably at Diary..... now after this trainwreck????

[silverferox]

Zombies Dawn Of The Dead - an apocalyptically expansive yet up close and personal, terrifying layer of reality interspersed with honest homecoming moments of introspection.

[cbradfordshreds]

I've plumped for Day. Night and Dawn are both fabulous and possibly (probably) better films, but Day has such a strong response for me as a result of seeing it at an impressionable teen age. It was gore on a new level! Also, I think there is a pretty good case for Bud being the strongest 'sociological commentating' tool in all of the films. He's a bit of a stroke of genius actually. Haven't seen Survival thehamish, but from what you've told me, I never will!!

[Richard--W]

I'm just old enough to remember Night of the Living Dead when it was new and to remember the impact it had on everybody. This film struck people like a heart-attack in 1969 and 1970. Everybody could see it was a primitive underground affair, but it was starkly brutally terrifying. There had never been a film like it before. Nobody had ever seen anything like it. We take flesh-eating zombies for granted today, but in 1969 through the early 1970s, Night of the Living Dead was a cold splash of water on the face. I think it's a masterpiece and a perfect film, a Goya instead of a Rembrant.

Dawn of the Dead is the best of Romero's Dead films, more ambitious, more refined and accomplished, and perhaps more satisfying. An epic with a mind. I would vote for Dawn of the Dead if I didn't remember the sudden impact and slow growth of its predecessor. Night of the Living Dead played for like five years, traveling from one theater to another. Wherever there was an empty screen, Night of the Living Dead would be booked for a week, or a weekend, or a midnight show. It would leave one week, come back a few weeks later. If it was a co-feature, it would sell more tickets and draw a bigger crowd than the main feature. If a new feature film wasn't finding an audience, they'd book Night of the Living Dead to support it. Or it would play on its own. It was unstoppable. This went on for like five years. As late as the 1980s, after it had been shown on television, it was still a popular midnight movie and a mandatory festival film. It changed horror films forever, and it changed cinema forever. It also changed audiences. It taught film makers to think differently, and to expect more from themselves.

Richard