Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 110

Thread: the original Night of the Living Dead (1968) and its sequels

  1. #51
    Waterfall Puncher Derrick King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Sklarbro Country
    Posts
    1,944
    It is important to remember that that wasn't intended to be a review of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD.

  2. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    City of Big Shoulders
    Posts
    1,293
    Re: Romero and RESIDENT EVIL -- he was supposed to make the first movie originally.

    Also, a lot of his movies are cornball -- and there are a lot of elements of LAND that are perfectly Romero. I still remember seeing it opening day, sick as a dog, off from work, and thinking "wow...good old George is back!" It wasn't highly original or that special, but it was really comfortable and felt like putting on your favorite pajamas. It felt *right*.

    Re: DIARY -- I think there are some great scenes and elements in it, ones that I wish Romero had been able to go with more than other scenes. It had a lot of potential, but it didn't really work completely for me. It was ok, but as I've revisited it, well, it's lacking something and doesn't hold up.

    SURVIVAL was terribly depressing to watch, and I haven't gone back for a second viewing. I've seen bits on cable, and I keep meaning to watch it again, but damn... I was so disappointed by it. It made me really sad, it felt like one of the worst Romero movies I've seen.
    Last edited by bgart13; 06-25-2013 at 01:54 AM.

  3. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Derrick King View Post
    It is important to remember that that wasn't intended to be a review of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD.
    It wasn't? What's the story with that?

  4. #54
    Senior Member Lalala76's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,904
    It feels more like RESIDENT EVIL than a proper George Romero zombie movie. I wonder just how much the games influenced poor ol George
    The irony there is, George Romero was asked to direct the first Resident evil movie if I'm not mistaken. He turned it down because he would have no control over it as such, unlike his own films cough cough, that's until LAND when Universal stuck their big left boot in.

    Even though its very much the weakest of the "4", LAND is still entertaining and its the only one of the later additions that I could call part of his mythology. However as I stated earlier. He HAS to make TWILIGHT otd, finish off the series but it has to be damn good. If it is then all is forgiven.

  5. #55
    Waterfall Puncher Derrick King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Sklarbro Country
    Posts
    1,944
    Quote Originally Posted by Wernski View Post
    It wasn't? What's the story with that?
    It was an essay warning parents about the content of the film. It is clear that Ebert didn't consider it a review of the film, he says as much in the note he added before the article on his site: "NOTE (2004): This reaction to a screening of "Night of the Living Dead" is not, properly speaking, a review -- or rather, it is a review of the audience reaction...I didn't assign a star rating to "The Night of the Living Dead" because the kind of article I wrote did not seem to require one..."

    This essay is interesting from an historical perspective, but it is far from Ebert's best.

  6. #56
    Yes, I know it wasn't a proper review but both Siskel AND Ebert have been critical of Horror films so I see this as a VEILED attempt of the same.

    The BIG question for me is WHY didn't he do a proper review of the film at that time...was it not worthy?

  7. #57
    Waterfall Puncher Derrick King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Sklarbro Country
    Posts
    1,944
    They weren't the most horror friendly critics, but I tend to believe that is more a general critic issue and not specific to them.

    As for why no proper review, who knows.

  8. #58
    Intellectual Carrot Scott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    North Pole
    Posts
    1,611
    George Romero's involvement with RESIDENT EVIL, per Wiki:

    In 1999, Sony and Capcom greenlit a Resident Evil film with George A. Romero signed on as the film's director and screenplay writer. Romero's association with Capcom, the Resident Evil video game series creators, had extended from 1998 when Romero directed an ad campaign for Biohazard 2 (Resident Evil 2) in Japan. Romero stated in an official appearance in Universal Studio's Talk City chatroom that he had his secretary play the entire game through and record the gameplay so he could study it as a resource. Romero's screenplay was based on the first Resident Evil game and included characters from the video games. Chris Redfield and Jill Valentine were the lead characters, involved in a romantic relationship. Barry Burton, Rebecca Chambers, Ada Wong, and Albert Wesker were to also appear. The ending to the film would have been similar to that of the best ending to the first Resident Evil game.[4] Romero's script was disapproved of and production was placed into development hell.[5] Capcom producer Yoshiki Okamoto explained to the editors of Electronic Gaming Monthly that "Romero's script wasn't good, so Romero was fired".[6] In February 2000, Romero revealed in an interview with DGA magazine that "I don't think they were into the spirit of the video game and wanted to make it more of a war movie, something heavier than I thought it should be. So I think they just never liked my script."[7] As Romero's script was a close, but not full, adaptation of the game, Capcom believed fans would feel that the film had been altered too much from the game and that newcomers would dislike the premise.[7]

    Hired by Sony, Paul W. S. Anderson wrote a screenplay, which was ultimately favored over Romero's.[7] In late 2000, Anderson was announced as director and writer, and Resident Evil re-entered pre-production stages.[8] Anderson stated the film would not include any tie-ins with the video game series as "under-performing movie tie-ins are too common and Resident Evil, of all games, deserved a good celluloid representation".[9]
    And for yucks, since Ebert's been brought up, his reaction to RE per wiki:

    Both Resident Evil and the sequel appear on Roger Ebert's most hated films list, published in 2005.[43] In the review of Resident Evil, Ebert describes the film as a zombie movie set in the 21st century where "large metallic objects make crashing noises just by being looked at." He also explains that the film's "characters have no small talk. Their dialogue consists of commands, explanations, exclamations and, in one scene in particular, there is ejaculation."[44]
    I liked the first RESIDENT EVIL game but I haven't bothered with the movies. Like Romero's post LAND movies I just can't be bothered to check 'em out. I remember reading somewhere that the first RE game was heavily influenced by Savini's NIGHT. I could see it. It's too bad that George didn't get a chance to run with it since it's influenced by his work. I remember at the time getting real excited when he directed the commercial for RE2 only to be disappointed when the commercial wasn't allowed to air in the US. Instead we got LAND and a bunch of super shitty RE movies. Maybe if George had his chance we could have avoided all that crap. Instead we got crap coming from both sides.

  9. #59
    Intellectual Carrot Scott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    North Pole
    Posts
    1,611
    Siskel and Ebert's DAY review: *SPOILER* They hated it.


  10. #60
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Baltimore MD
    Posts
    17
    Romero's LAND was a badly compromised film. For one, his original DEAD RECKONING script----which had completely different characterizations, a huge amount of his trademark humor, and several large scale action-horror sequences in the vein of DAWN---was rewritten into bland mush and the low budget meant all of those epic action scenes were scrapped---Cholo and cohorts attacking the Green's public access TV station, Riley and Slack fighting off zombies in a fog so thick that they get within inches before being seen, and a epic climax involving a fight for Dead Reckoning. For two, the shooting was budgeted so tightly that 2nd and 3rd unit crews were running around from the beginning, sometimes shooting important scenes. I was surprised to hear on the commentary which scenes were shot by other crews. The final film is just a mess, and feels shallow and trivial.

    DIARY had a few moments but suffers from a lack of seriousness---especially the mummy guy coming back to life and looking like he's been dead for months instead of five minutes. It was Romero's strict logic and realism that made the original trilogy the superlative films they are, and without it, it just feels lame.

    SURVIVAL is just a bad movie, and I honestly believe the people who claim to like it are just doing so out of respect to Romero. If Martin Scorsese made a new gangster film that sucked, out of respect for his previous masterpieces the fans would make the same kind of apologetic, vague "Its really not THAT bad!" comments that SURVIVAL "fans" make.
    Last edited by KeithBarrow; 06-26-2013 at 01:56 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. Fiinally. The original DEAD OF NIGHT
    By Horace Cordier in forum General Cinema
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-09-2013, 03:25 PM
  2. Birth of the Living Dead (1968/2013)
    By Richard--W in forum Horror!
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-15-2013, 05:12 AM
  3. Mimesis: Night Of The Living Dead
    By Ian Jane in forum Horror!
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 03-03-2013, 04:44 AM
  4. Night Of The Living Dead (1990)
    By Ian Jane in forum Horror!
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 12-09-2012, 03:11 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •