Wednesday, April 19, 2006

New Guest Oeuvre: George A. Romero (see sidebar)


Really quite into this. Keep on commentin' on...

9 comments:

Nick Davis said...

I've only seen the four Dead films, of which Night is my heavy favorite, though I like both Land and Day better than you do. I have a copy of Knightriders on tape but haven't made it past the prologue yet, with dreamy Ed Harris. This should really have encouraged me into the movie, but as yet, I haven't made the time.

tim r said...

You've got to see Martin, I just rewatched it on DVD for the Telegraph. Really remarkable, if pretty rough-hewn. I think Day of the Dead is cheesy nonsense with a few good ideas, but hijacked for good and bad by Savini's make-up, whereas Dawn for me repays just as many viewings as Night and is only a smidgen lower on sociopolitical suggestiveness. I have a vague memory of you not been so crazy about it. Knightriders I'm dying to see; Land I liked, but wished I'd liked more: it didn't seem to push its conceits where I finally wanted them to go.

What I really want to know though is: am I the only person out there who likes Monkey Shines and The Dark Half?

Goran said...

I always read about Romero being a master and a legend and all, but I never heard of anything he'd done beyond the Living Dead series. Embarrassingly enough, of the four I've only managed to see "Night.." I was only mildly impressed - try as I did, I couldn't get past the acting - but I'll be giving it another shot over the weekend.

I've been dying to see "Dawn of the Dead" for many months now, but every time I checked my library, it was out on loan. And as of today, it's gone completely missing. So I'm angry. This is also why I never got around to seeing Day and Land of the Dead. I figured I best see them in order.

In the meantime though, at your advice, today I did manage to watch "Martin". Although I'd call it 'mega rough' rather than 'pretty rough', in the end I came out mightily impressed and glad I stuck around after the first 15 mintues. The production values were shoddy beyond belief (8 years after "Night" why was it still so hard for Romero to get a budget? or decent actors? or basic editing skills?), but the script was exceptional. So thanks for that tip.

At the same time I was actually thinking this one might be due for a remake. With a decent team, it could very easily make for something close to a masterpiece.

tim r said...

Mightily impressed with your speed there goran! And really glad you got so much out of it. I actually quite like the score, though it is very peculiar. There's a sax theme in it that's eerily similar to a motif in Gabriel Yared's Talented Mr Ripley music, which got me thinking: Ripley's a vampire too, in a way. I like it when odd comparisons come out of the blue like that.

JavierAG said...

I love these new features, but as much as I like Romero and the Coen Bros., I really can't wait for you to cover one of the biggies (Kubrick, Bergman, etc).

tim r said...

Your wish is my command. We'll have Kubrick next...

JavierAG said...

Cannot wait :))

tim r said...

This went:

Night of the Living Dead (1968) A
There’s Always Vanilla (1971) —
Hungry Wives (1972) —
The Crazies (1973) —
Martin (1977) A—
Dawn of the Dead (1978) A
Knightriders (1981) —
Creepshow (1982) B—
Day of the Dead (1985) C
Monkey Shines (1988) B+
The Dark Half (1993) B
Bruiser (2000) —
Land of the Dead (2005) B—

TF said...

If it's what I think it is, I remember quite liking Monkey Shines (a paralysed man is given a monkey to help him with living, but it turns out to be evil.) If it isn't that film, that was quite a decent movie. Assuming that I've not just made it up by mistake. Humn, best stop now.

I think I'd give Land a solid B: although there's something fundamentally second-rate about it, it does what it meant to do. And the zombies on the pier... unsettling.