Wednesday, April 19, 2006

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

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


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.