Zombie Movie Review (8): Land of the Dead

“In a world where the dead return to life, trouble loses much of its meaning”

Well here, we are the final chapter (for the moment anyway) in the George Romero Zombie Saga. Now I know what you are all thinking: This was not the last film, the latest film was Survival of the Dead. Yes, yes, I know. I know I skipped this one and went to Diary of the Dead. But in reality, I only skipped it if I was going for chronology rather than continuity. Land of the Dead is a funny movie (and I don’t mean funny as in it is a comedy [although it does have its moments] but funny as in interesting).

So originally, Land of the Dead was going to be the fourth installment of the original Romero trilogy: Night, Dawn, and Day. In fact, one of the alternate titles for Land was Twilight of the Dead (to bad Romero didn’t use it so Stephanie Meyers couldn’t but “Kay-Sara-Sara”). The original title was going to be Dead Reckoning after the armored super tank in the film. However, fans like the “of the dead” titles and there was already a Humphrey Bogart film with that name anyway.

The way it was going to work was Land was going to be like five, 10, years after Day. Implying that society somehow reestablished itself and money still had value (I’ll get to this silly idea later) The only real sense of continuity between Land and the original 3 is: 1) it is set at the post-apocalypse ass end of a zombie out break which would follow the apocalyptic tone of Day, 2) One of the main zombies is played by Tom Savini, dressed in his biker outfit from Dawn, and 3) I’m not entirely sure this even counts because it would be breaking the fourth wall (for those non film buffs out there, this is a term used to describe when characters, scene, or events suggest they/the film are/is aware that it is indeed a movie they are in like looking at the camera, saying don’t have sex, the killer will get you if you do, or making remarks about how the set looks fake, etc.) by having a zombie band sort of play the Gonk music that was played at the end of Dawn of the Dead and had a 5 second cameo in Day of the Dead.

Once Romero came up with Diary and certainly while doing Survival, he retcond this continuity and established it as part of the new trilogy. (Retcon is a comic book term used to describe events that took place in older issues that are no longer part of the accepted universe of the characters in the comic and thus removed from the original continuity. Also as a fun fact, this is what the characters of the Doctor Who spin-off show Torchwood call their amnesia drug: Retcon).

However, Romero ran into a bit of a snafu with the Copyrights and the production company used in making Land of the Dead which is the only one of his films that is not done independently. The soldier character played by Alan Van Sprang in Land is called Brubaker. Romero wanted to use this character in Survival (who is also in Diary but his name was never mentioned) as a main character. The production company said that he could not use his own character in another of his own movies because he does not own the rights to his own creation. I know right? This character only appears for like two minutes in Land, his name is only mentioned twice, and I would imagine the production company would actually make more money from people seeing Diary and Survival who now want to see Land but whatever. George Romero did fix this small problem however, quite easily and ingeniously: give him the most ridiculous and cliché sounding action-hero name possible so that people will think: “well, obviously it is a pseudonym”). Thus Sarge Nicotine Crocket was born! Using his ultra-super powers, he dedicated his life to fighting zombies! (Sorry I couldn’t resist) Unfortunately, for him though, despite making it thru the first two movies, he dies in Land.

Another thing that proves continuity with Diary and Survival is that the “white guy” I mentioned in the Diary of the Dead review, is a crucial lead zombie in land as a butcher. Now, he did not seem like a butcher in Diary, he could have had any reason for putting on that smock and picking up that clever before he died (think of that episode in Walking Dead Season 1 where they chop up a zombie. See? There is a reason for everything).

Well that’s enough introduction, don’t you think? Now onto the review: Overall, it is objectively Romero’s worst zombie film. Do not just take my word for it: fans all over the world agree. Even Romero said it was his worst zombie film but he blamed it on it being produced rather than independently done.

Somehow as I said earlier, society reestablished itself and the almighty dollar still has value somehow after a couple of years of a zombie apocalypse…..yeah….I don’t get it either. Anyway, the movie surrounds some people who want to get out of the safe zone and go north to live and be alone…they feel society is warped. And, it certainly is: people get their rocks off by betting on fights between two hungry zombies and whoever eats the girl who did not volunteer first, wins. This girl by the way, who becomes a main character, is played by Asia Argento, Dario Argento’s (producer and soundtrack provider of Dawn of the Dead 1978) daughter. Kind of like how Bill Cardille’s (reporter in Night of the Living Dead) daughter plays the lead role in Day of the Dead.

Also as another fun fact, Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead) cameo as zombies in Land of the Dead. They are the zombies chained up for people to get their pictures taken with. You may notice that Pegg is wearing the same prosthetic mold of Bub from Day of the Dead who is in fact Pegg’s favorite zombie. If you notice in Shaun of the Dead, when they pretend to be zombies, Shaun’s character does a zombie impression very much like that of Bub.

So? Redeeming values? Well, the main antagonist dies in a very Romero ironic way. Also as a zombie movie it’s not so great but you can find an underlying message. The movie is about class struggle. The survivors that built Fiddler’s Green, where all the rich survivors live, don’t get to live in it and live on the streets in a pretty much dictatorship dystopian future society world seen in movies like Soylent Green for instance. And if you want to get even more allegorical, you can go as far to say the rich are the super rich, the impoverished are the lower middle class, and the zombies are the poverty working class revolting and fighting back against the system of oppression. However, all that does is anthropomorphize the zombie’s way beyond necessary and the zombies end up for the most part being as smart, if not smarter than Bub was. And Bub is the exception not the rule. Romero is all about feasible monsters. For example: “dead things don’t run” rot would cause the tendons to snap. And smart zombies don’t make sense in this type of world. The brains have certainly atrophied and even without the rotting, they are dead. A person, who is dead for more than 10 minutes, if revived, will suffer severe brain damage and have a loss of memory, body functions, even be a vegetable. If you have been dead for months and rotting, you are not going to be able to learn as time goes on as living human beings do.

So my rating? It’s clear I don’t like the film, and most people don’t. However, I have seen so many zombie movies that suck much more than this, ones that suck so bad, I cannot even watch past 5 minutes. Furthermore, I know there are even more of the uber-suck zombie flicks out there that I refuse to accept as existing let alone watch. Because of this, I cannot give Land too low of a rating, and therefore. Land of the Dead gets a generous, but deserved for not being total crap: 2.5 out of 5 stars.

Zombie Movie Review (7) of the Day: Survival of the Dead

There is not actually much to say about this one. It's certainly not Romero's best. Nowhere near Diary or Dawn. It does have a place in his zombie saga however.

Mostly this movie is camp. It is technically horror, but it will not scare many people. Most of the scares are from surprises rather than violent death scenes. Once again, like with shooting Diary as a found-footage, Romero wanted to do something different, so instead of going for horror and gore, he went for fun and camp. This movie takes a page out of Russo's Return series. The film is certainly entertaining but it feels like it is out of left field, esp. since it is a direct sequel to Diary of the Dead. What I mean is, with every Romero zombie movie thus far, the sequel always deals with a completely new set of characters in an entirely new setting regardless of whether anyone from the previous movie survived or now. However, this time, the movies main character is a direct character from Diary that we saw for about less than 5 minutes. Yep, it's the national guard member that stole the supplies from the kids given to them by another earlier national guard member. I guess that is kind of a spoiler if you have not watched Diary yet but I'm assuming you watch each movie before reading the next review unless the movies are non related like Day of the Dead and Diary of the Dead. Anyway, this is somewhat new. Surprising, and unexpected from Romero. I mean I guess that is why some fans do not like it along the same lines of why they do not like Diary: It is not classic Romero. I beg to differ of course, Diary is very Romero just done in a different way, and anyway I already reviewed Diary. Back to my original point, Survival is more of a comedy—I'm not just saying this....Romero even admits it in the movie's introduction on the DVD.

Like I said the movie focuses around the prick from the previous movie who once we get to know him isn't as big as a prick as we thought. He is joined by a few other National Guard members who followed him when he went AWOL. This characters name is great by the way, it is obviously a pseudonym for one reason or another he picked up but it can't be his real name and I actually know why Romero gave him a weird very obviously fake and cliché action hero macho man name: Sergeant Nicotine Crockett.....yeah I know. Read my next review: Land of the Dead, to get the full story behind this.

Anyway, with him are Tomboy, the first gay/lesbian character featured in a Romero movie Francisco, Lt Vaughn, who soon find and rescue a boy from some rednecks (again with the rednecks) who joins up with them. Later this group will meet Patrick O'Flynn former 'leader' of the O'Flynns on an island owned and shared my two Irish families: The O'Flynns and the Muldoons.

Patrick was kicked off the island by Shamus Muldoon for two reasons. 1: the Muldoons had the upper hand at the time in regards to firearms and man power and 2, The two families have been constantly having disputes over every little thing and every facet of life (and, as it were, death) since anyone can remember (since the founding of the island who know how long ago). Their latest dispute? How to deal with the recently risen. Patrick is a Liberal and level headed. He sees that the dead are dead and even if a cure comes along it will only save those still alive. There is no cure for death and thus the only logical and safest thing to do is to put a bullet in the brain of every zombie on the island (including risen Muldoons) which is a great idea and would in theory keep the island zombie free and a safe haven for survivors like our National Guard friends. However, Shamus, being more conservative sees this as an act of god and believes there will one day be a cure to bring the risen fully back to life and that we should keep them alive and try to teach them and train them, specifically to eat other things than people such as pigs and horses. The idea rather makes sense but you have to figure that eventually you would run out of animals to feed them and yourselves esp. since they outnumber the living. Shamus is kind of like Logan from Day except more crazy, more misguided, less willing to listen to reason.

That is the premise and plot of Survival: the two feuding families, the ethical question of what to do with the undead, (which this film as well as any and every other zombie film gives a clear answer to), and how stubborn old men can be stuck in their ways.

This brings me to a theme I haven't mentioned until now because after watching all of the movies I’ve reviewed so far you can now look back and notice it: Slight religious overtones. In every movie, there is reference to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. However, that does not really matter.

So themes of this movie? It is a bit harder to find unless you use the one that the plot hits you in the face. It also has the classic ironic Romero ending. That is one of the greatest parts of the film: the ending. Not only is it classic Ironic Romero, but this time it is also slightly comical. The message is simple: some people are so stubborn and so set in their ways and so determined to prove themselves right that they will fight and argue to the point of dangerous levels if the situation allows for it (i.e. availability of guns and constantly being surrounded by walking corpses). They can also be so stuck in their ways that the feuds continue even after death. Just like the zombies being drawn to the mall in Dawn because somewhere in all that minimal neuron firing, a memory of consumerism holds on because it was so engrained on their psyches, so too does Survival go back to this allegorical theory.

Another smaller theme is gay equal rights: I know I do not do spoilers like this but I feel this time is different. Since this movie is not intended to be taken as seriously as the previous ones and since this involves a possible message of the film I feel it is acceptable. You know that cliché about the black character dying first because the movie/writers/directors/producers are racist? Well...if the opposite events are true does that mean that the opposite can be said about the writer/director/producer? Romero's films make it clear he is for equality in regards to race but what of sexual orientation? Well...SPOILER ALERT! One of the few survivors of Survival is the lesbian character of Tomboy. Is it significant? Does it mean anything? Maybe, possibly...who knows?

Simply put this movie is more for fun and camp entertainment than scares and gore factors: but overall, it is still a decent film and since the next and final film in Romero's series is objectively his worst, I give Survival of the Dead a generous but fun 2.95 out of 5 stars.

Zombie Movie Review (5) of the Day: Diary of the Dead (10/23/11)

"The problem isn't that people are waking up dead, it's that the dead are waking up..."

Ok. I know I’ve been doing these as "review of the day" and I plan on going to “review of the week” once I do all the really famous/big movie franchises/ Romero's and then once I run out of movies maybe once a month or something—point being I know I already did a review this morning but I also skipped a few days this week, plus this is one of my all time favorites in the Romero Zombie series.

So here we are: 2007, almost 40 years since the original Night of the Living Dead. Romero has pumped out five zombie movies (if you count the Night remake) as well as a few other films, such as the original Crazies (aka Code Name Trixie). Diary of the Dead is a fantasic film all around.

George Romero loves his movies and his fan base so he wanted to do something for this new increasing second generation of Romero fans like me that thanks to their parents has been scarred and/or inspired in one way or another because of Night, Dawn, and Day. So Romero gave us as his thanks for support, the love letter to the generation 2 Romero fans, Diary of the Dead.

This film is shot in the style of found footage. For all you non-movie buffs out there, found footage is a type of filming where it is implied that it all really happened and someone was there to record it and find it. Some famous examples of this are The Blaire Witch Project and Cloverfield. This genre was started with the very controversial movie Cannibal Holocaust (http://thecinemasnob.com/2011/04/12/cannibal-holocaust.aspx). It is filmed via first person perspective with hand-held cameras. Many people do not really like or appreciate this genre but if done well it can be quite good such as is the case of Diary. In addition, Diary was never trying to further scare you by implying that the events really happened or anything like that. Diary was done in this style because Romero wanted to do something new and different and once again, make something that was a tribute and a nod to his original trilogy but at the same time appealing to the new generation. In my opinion it worked. This truly is a love letter to people like me. Some of the original fans did not think it was very good nor had that old Romero feel but as i said that was not the point.

This truly is at the very least the most scary and frightening of all of his six zombie movies (again, seven counting Night remake). Night was terrifying but won't scare many 20 + year olds these days, Dawn was campy and full of action, Day was a gore fest and as such is certainly the most gory, gross and bloody of all his films. However, Diary does indeed deserve a place in the genre of horror. With the found-footage camera angles and lighting it has a very surreal, claustrophobic feel to it. It is dark physically and metaphorically, morbid, and leaves one feeling angry/ashamed of humanity and asks some very existential questions.

This film is a reboot to the classic series, a retelling in the modern era and Diary goes back to the Night of the Living Dead, Day 1/Patient Zero feel. It is the beginning of the outbreak, there are no answers, no one knows exactly what is going on or what to do and of course, this is a universe where the original Romero movie never happened. Which means the Return of the Living Dead movies never happened, Resident Evil never happened, etc. Point? No one has seen a zombie before.

This time the cast are college students who happen to be film majors and their old film professor who in my opinion is one of the best characters. The main group of characters we follow are: Jason, the camera man for most of the movie and conflicted persona, Debra, Jason's girlfriend, Tony, Tracey, Elliot, Gordo, Mary, and Andrew Maxwell, the professor.

The movie opens with all of them shooting Jason's Mummy horror movie, which he cuts to explain to Ridley (the mummy), that he is moving too fast—dead things don't move fast. Dead things are slow, otherwise you'd snap your ankles off (foreshadowing? of course it is) Which is right from the mouth of Romero and that line makes all us true Romero zombie fans basically jizz our pants when he says that. During their break, they hear strange reports on the radio of what is going on and like all college students, naturally decide to get the heck out of dodge and return to the safety of their homes and families. They go to the University of Pittsburgh (oh I'm sorry...I should have mentioned this in my first review: all of Romero's movies take place in Pennsylvania, his home state but only the original 3 and the Night remake were shot in PN, his reboots are shot in Canada).

Anyway, they take Mary's RV and all head off to drop people off along the way to their homes except for a few who don't live in PN and are just along for the ride since the world is ending and there is safety in numbers. Tony lives in NY and Tracey lives in Texas. She has her own little camera too and so some of the movie comes from her perspective.

Things start to get real and intense as they drive down the road and run over a few zombies. At this point not all of them are convinced they are dead people and emotions go crazy as they freak out about whether or not they killed some people.

They then end up needing to go to a nearby hospital when a member their group is injured. I am not saying who it is or how they are hurt—watch the movie for that. No spoilers here. Debra finds another camera in the hospital so we get another viewpoint. We get all these multiple cameras edited together because, like I said, they are film majors and eventually Jason ends up getting access to a computer and begins to edit the footage and post it online to help others survive. A moral dilemma rises out of this between Jason and Debra. She thinks he is being crazy for sticking with his camera throughout this ordeal. One of the criticisms of found-footage movies: it is not realistic to keep a heavy camera with you and filming while a witch or a monster is chasing you, however Jason fixes this problem by explaining why he is doing this. He is saving lives by giving everyone access to the truth so that maybe others will learn to survive by watching how they have survived.

They make several more stops along the way and end up at Ridley's mansion that he boasts is like a fortes complete with panic room. It invariably ends with the remaining members of the group securing themselves into the panic room and then cuts to a clip Debra found of once again, rednecks having fun shooting up zombies and she asks the audience if we are worth saving.

I feel it is a very powerful and deep movie as well as disturbing. I do not think there is as much as an underlying theme in this one as with the previous ones. This time the theme is in your face: Humanity: worth saving/surviving? There are a few minor undertones however: 1) it is suggested thru out the film that the media cannot be trusted and that the huge media corps are lying to the public about what is truly going on as if covering up zombies will save people. We all know it will get more people killed. This is one of the reasons why Jason is so adamant and passionate about recording everything. He wants to get the unbiased objective truth to the masses to help them. This ties in with mini theme 2: technology, a lot of debate goes on about the evils and goods of the internet and other techs. In Diary, when the shit hits the fan and everyone runs, all that is left is the internet, bloggers, and hackers keeping the information flow going.

I give Diary of the Dead 4.75 (4 3/4) stars out of 5, and the only reason it isn't 5 is because Dawn is almost always seen as Romero's finest Zombie film which I agree. I gave Dawn 5 out of 5 and if it is the best then none of his other films can be better than or equal to Dawn. However, I will say this: Diary of the Dead is my favorite out of the 7 Romero zombie movies and it is certainly the most terrifying out of all of them.

Fun facts: This movie is so a love letter to horror and zombie fans: all the news reports on radio/TV that are in Diary are voiced by well-known people in the horror/zombie genre. This includes Wes Craven, Stephen King, Simon Pegg, Quentin Taratino, and Guillermo del Toro. In addition, at one point, one of the TV/radio broadcasts is actually a cameo of one of the TV broadcasts from the original Night of the Living Dead. I challenge you to pick out all of these. Other cameo's: Romero makes a cameo as a police chief in the film; Nicotero plays a zombie surgeon and does the make-up and effects. Boyd Banks plays the only white guy with a group of black survivalists run by an ex national guard member is seen in Land of the Dead as the Butcher Zombie. He is also a Zombie in Dawn of the Dead 2004 remake but that film has no continuity with Romero's universes. In addition, another National Guard member who appears in Diary reprises that character in Survival of the Dead (which will be my next review) and is seen for a few seconds as a soldier in Land of the Dead as well. Also it is possible that Romero was partially inspired by the movie The Zombie Diaries which came a year or two before Diary of the Dead. It is of course found-footage format and in my opinion on of the greatest zombie movies of all time and I have seen many zombie movies. However, it is really, really disturbing. Don’t worry, I’ll be doing a review of that one as well eventually.

Zombie Movie Review (4) of the Day: Night of the Living Dead 1990 (10/23/11)

"There's another one for the fire"

So here we are 22 years later since the original Night of the Living Dead. This '90 version is a remake but it is not one of those remakes by other people, oh no. This movie is also done by George Romero and John Russo but it was directed by the great Tom Savini. Like I said it has been over 2 decades, everyone involved has a great deal more experience under their belts, effects and technology have improved, and they finally have the budget they always wanted for the original.

So is it better? Worse? About the same? This can be a loaded and philosophical question. I mean most times even if the guys that do a remake do it well, the original fan base gets passed at them for messing with their cult classic. However, that danger does not exist here as the same exact people did the remake with the same exact screenplay.

The movie opens with a nice opening credit sequence where we will see Romero's as well as his wife Christine who helped produce it (they met on the set of Dawn and fell in love), Russo, and Savini, about a hundred times to overcompensate for the lack of copyrighting faux pas back in the day.

Savini wanted to do an updated movie with better effects and relevance to the modern era but he wanted it to stay true to the original. How to do this? Well they decided: let's do the movie like we never saw or made the original. That being said, it is pretty much a faithful shot for shot remake.

However, certain things obviously changed to make it more relevant for the time. The racial tension between Ben and Cooper is still present only it has more of a subtle undertone. The main difference in characters is that Barbara is now a stronger, cool headed, fully fleshed out, lead character rather than the catatonic she was in the original. This being mostly a result of the sexual revolution and let me tell you something: I fecking love Barbara in this. She is wonderful. Once again, like the last Ben, the actor just walked on, did a smashing performance and was signed on right there and then. The makeup is certainly better. I mean the original did not even have any make up. However, the makeup is also more realistic than Savini's job in Day. That is what five more years experience, effects updates, and a bigger budget will give you.
There are also subtle differences in the film. At the end a new broadcast confirms my original suspicion that it is late August as the broadcast states it is the 23rd. In addition, this time, Johnny and Barbara are visiting the grave of their mother rather than their father.

I also love this ending. I will not give anything away but what i will say is that it is different and it is still fantastic. The rednecks are back are more in your face than ever before in a Romero movie and Barbara watching them have fun killing the undead, makes the observation that "we're them and they're us" Which is really philosophical. This is why I love these films: there are always existential overtones! Anyway, the question is again asked: are we worth saving? Are we any better? That is the thing about zombies. It's more of a Jaws kind of movie than a Freddy, Jason, etc movie, the villain is not evil, zombies don't kill for fun, they kill, like the shark in Jaws, for food, they are hungry. And with the small exception of Bub, they don't know any better. The real monsters and villains of these films are the other people.

Anyway, so in 1969 we had very prevalent racism. And in 1990? Well....HIV/AIDS. A new virus is sweeping the world over; there are a lot of rumors, propaganda and misinformation going on. People are terrified that if they just touch you, you will be infected. When really, they are not that threatening, as Barbara points out about the zombies, "they are so slow, we could just walk right by them" suggesting, people with AIDS are not to be feared so much. Unless their fluids get into your fluids, and in fact, the real people to watch out for are the ones who want to kill them on site and have a good time while doing it!

So is the remake better? Overall yes! The original is still a great film with great messages and an ironic ending. However, in the remake, the acting is better, the make-up is better, the effects are better, the zombies are more convincing, and it still has a dark uncomfortable feel to it, claustrophobic almost and surreal. It is effective as a horror and it was done with fans in mind. The great lines of "they're dead, they're all messed up", "another one for the fire", and "They're coming to get you Barbara" are still in the remake.

And as a side note fun fact, towards the end a guy that grabs Barbara is played by none other than Greg Nicotero. Nicotero, as I mention in Day, is one of the many followers of Savini and who would go on to have his own huge effects company and end up doing the makeup/effects for several future Romero movies and is currently doing work for The Walking Dead.

Overall, I give this film a bump up from 3 out 5 for the original to 4.5 (4 1/2) out of 5.

Zombie Movie Review (3) of the Day: Day of the Dead (10/22/11)

"Herwo, Aunt Awreesha"

Today we end the original George Romero Zombie Trilogy with Day of the Dead. In 1968 he brought us into the night, in 1978 he took us thru the dawn, and now, in 1985, he brings us "into the darkest day of horror the world has ever known" (as the trailer puts it). The reasoning behind this was simple. He made a film in the late 60's and late 70's so why not make one in the late 80's? This was so he could make each film socio-politically relevant to the times and have some deep messages in them. In the 80’s there was lack of faith in government and in the economy, as things seemed to start to fall apart.

The movie takes place pretty much the day after the end of Dawn. Although we have no way of knowing this for sure, in the beginning of Day, we see the main character looking at a calendar and it is the day before Halloween and Dawn took place over about a month and a half beginning in the second week of September. This means that this movie is more of a Halloween themed movie than the last two. This idea was inspired by of course Halloween the film.

Once again, we have Tom Savini doing the make-up and effects. He is not in the movie this time but that hardly matters as he is at his best. We meet our protagonists and main group in the opening shot. The main character Sarah (doctor) is played by Bill "Chilly Billy" Cardille's daughter. Bill Cardille played himself as the reporter in the original Night of the Living Dead. Just a little fun fact. Our other main heroes are John, the copter pilot, William McDermott, the radio techie, and Private Miguel Salazar who is Sarah's boyfriend and the only soldier in Day of the Dead that is not a bad person (like the Scottish soldier in 28 Days Later)...although, Miguel is still unstable like the rest of them. The other characters are another doctor, several soldier, Logan, the mad scientist, and Rhodes, the epitome of the person you love to hate. He takes being an asshole to a completely new level. I would not say he is evil per se, but clearly, the zombie apocalypse has taken a toll on him just like all the others. The other important character is Bub, probably the most beloved central zombie character of all time. Bub is a smart zombie, and as Howard Sherman (Bub) said, "a smart zombie is pretty much as smart as a dumb dog".

This time our group is located in an underground bunker. They have been taking the chopper out looking for survivors but to no avail. Tensions rise between the scientists + civilians and the soldiers. The soldiers have lost more people and they think that the science team’s mission is pointless (finding a cure, immunity, or a way to control the dead. And they do have a point.

We find out that Bub holds a lot of promise, as he appears to have more memory than the average zombie does. Bub is clearly the exception to the rule. However, Logan also easily trains him to him as a father and not as a free meal. But the soldiers think it is all stupid.

Things get really bad when they find out Logan has been feeding the dead soldiers to Bub and that is when the climax of the film really hits.

Since they were shooting and pretty much living underground in this bunker for most of the duration of making the film, a lot of the cast and crew became depressed and lethargic and so Romero called up a doctor to come down and give everyone shots of Vitamin D.

Also, they had so many zombies in this movie, more than they ever had in Night or Dawn or probably even combined, that they put a call out to anyone in the area who wanted to be a zombie. Of course, they ended up with way more zombies than they needs (as you will see in the film). In fact, some of the zombies are actually famous people. Look for the fisherman zombie; he is played by the dean of Carnegie at the time. Another zombie is Chef Brockett from Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood (also filmed in PN)

Day of the Dead is also the most degusting, bloody, and gory Romero movie up to this point and since then. Tom Savini was truly at his peak. An interesting fact, this is where Greg Nicotero really got his start in him make-up career by studying under Savini who loves to teach people the tricks of the trade. Nicotero, whose most early films were John Carpenter films, also has a cameo in Day. His later Romero movie cameos are very small roles but in Day, he plays Pvt. Johnson.

Day has many socio-political themes going on. The main theme, being a group of people hiding in an underground place away from their problems and the truth, during the Reagan Era. In addition, the movie brings back a couple of themes found in Night, one being on racism. Most of the soldiers are bigots except funny enough, Rhodes—the person you are meant to hate. Also, the theme of two groups of people with different ideas about what to do and in the end neither is really more right or more wrong. This film also has a lot of zombie action involving lots of gore while the zombies eat people. Furthermore, this film has a signature Romero Ironic ending and let me tell you it is fantastic. Esp., if you have followed the trilogy. You will love the ending to Day of the Dead. Trust me. I will not spoil it for you. I am sure if you want it spoiled, you can find the clip on YouTube but I suggest watching the movie.

So how do I rate Day of the Dead? Well Dawn is the best, but Day comes pretty close. It has less camp and action and more gore and claustrophobia. I give Day of the Dead 4 out of 5 stars

Zombie Movie Review (2) of the Day: Dawn of the Dead (1978)

"When there's no more room in Hell, the dead shall walk the Earth."

This is arguably not only George Romero's greatest zombie movie (out of his 6 to date) but also his greatest film of all time. Fans of Romero young and old love this movie. Even Romero says that this is favorite of his movies and one of his best. It is also his longest zombie movie.

For a little background, this movie, uncut, is about 2 hours and 15 minutes with the cut being 2 h, 5m. There is also the British release, which is edited differently than the American release. This version was released under the title of Zombi, which brings in the Zombi movie series, which is very confusing with so many unofficial sequels, but we will get into that when i do that series which will not be for a while.

Dawn of the Dead wasn't going for as much of a horror/claustrophobic feel like he did with N.o.t.L.D., instead he wanted something a bit more campy with more action or as Romero put it comic book-y and it is. In fact, a graphic novelization of the movie was released with the film.

The movie takes place a few weeks after Night. For a time frame, if you notice carefully in Night, you will see a calendar on the wall with the month of August showing and Barbara references how the days are still too long and that Day Lights Saving Time should be earlier in the year than it is, anyway just a little trivia. So now, it is like the second week of September. It appears the living have been doing a good job of containing this epidemics. It has been a few weeks and the TV news is still running.

That is where we come in and meet one of our main characters: Fran, a TV news techie. Her boyfriend Steven is the news chopper pilot and they plan to steal the chopper and get the fuck out of dodge while there is still some sort of order and there is still a chance to get away. They plan to leave with their friend in the SWAT team, Roger, who we cut to in the next scene. SWAT is working with the National Guard to kill zombies who people in the projects have not killed for some reason (religious beliefs, grief, etc) Roger ends up befriending, Peter and tells him about his plan to leave.

They get in the chopper and end up flying over the farm towns we saw in Night and we see the "good ole' boys" having a great time still working with the local police and national guard to try and get ahead of this thing. They don't seem too worried or concerned with the fact the dead are rising. This is another social more` that Romero focuses on how human beings are the real monsters seeing how we are killing for fun having a good time while the world around them is coming to an end. This theme is repeated in several of his films. Romero clearly has no tolerance for intolerant people. there are themes of equality and themes against racism throughout his films.

They decide to set down in a mall, which in 1968 or 1978 (depending on when you think the trilogy takes place) is a new thing. They decide they could take it easy and hide out in the mall for a few months, which is what they do. Conveniently in this mall, there is a grocery store, gun emporium, and the power is still running which is explained by the power plant the powers the mall being nuclear. Anyway, the point being is this mall has everything they need in an apocalyptic world: food, weapons, medical supplies, and safety. To protect themselves, they put up all the security doors over the mall doors with are thick glass that these zombies have trouble breaking. To increase security even more they take semi trucks from the nearby parking lot and drive one in front of every main entrance into the mall. Once they get into the gun store, they then take out all the undead inside the mall.

Tensions rise after they have been there for so long. In addition, trouble brews once large gangs of raiding, marauding bikers turn up and see the helicopter on the roof. As Peter says, they are a professional army. They end up breaking into the mall letting all the zombies in as well. They end up leaving the mall in the chopper to go to a destination unknown.

Overall, it is a fantastic film. The acting is great as well as the chemistry between characters. Though Night started the genre, this movie set the standard. One of the lead raiders is played by Tom Savini who is known as the king of gore in makeup. He did the make up for dawn and for day, was a pioneer in his field, has taught, and inspired many makeup/special effects artists. The main theme of this film is anti-capitalism. The characters reference how zombies are sill drawn to the mall because it meant something to them--it was an important place. And Tom Savini even said in the documentary “Zombiemania!” that if you go to any mall today you will sure enough see zombies (i.e. consumers) walking around the mall. The film is fun done well and despite the zombies being blue/gray and the blood looking like bright red paint that defies the laws of biology and physics, it is still done well. The only really the effects aren't better is that this is still in the 70's and the people like Savini and George are learning more and more but they certainly revolutionize their fields. I give this movie a fun and entertaining 5 out of 5 stars.

Zombie Movie Review (1) of the Day: Night of the Living Dead (1968)

"...Yeah they're dead. They're... ...all messed up..."

So I'm starting to get the hang of blogging and I plan to add even more sections and move the old one's around to where they belong like making my pages into posts. There are so many zombie movies to get thru. i won't being doing all of them unless i get a request for one i have refused to watch or acknowledge as being good or a true zombie movie. This review will be a bit longer than most because it is the back-story to the modern zombie. Anyway, let us begin with where it all started:

Before 1968, nothing that involved zombies involved the zombies we know today. Mostly these movies were about magical/voodoo zombies, which either were the risen dead forced to do the bidding of the one who raised them or people under deep hypnosis. They never really ate anyone but would often kill people if ordered to. Then George Romero came along with his 1968 movie that started it all Night of the Flesh Eaters. I’m sorry what? You say you heard it called Night of the Living Dead, not Flesh Eaters? You say that night of the flesh eaters is a different movie? You are right! Romero originally was going to call his movie night of the flesh eaters but found out that this already existed, so at the last minute they changed the title card that also cut off the copyright symbol and so Night of the Living Dead had no copyright.

This was Romero's first movie and it was him and nine other people that brought it together. Co-writing the movie was John Russo who went on to do his own zombie movie series. Also working with them was Bill Hinzman who played the first zombie on screen, did some of the lighting, and would go on to make a parallel tangent movie called Flesh Eater and also be the cinematographer for another parallel Romeroverse movie called Children of the Living Dead Needless to say the 10 of them had barely any money so the movie really had no budget. That being said, the film is fantasic if you take that into perspective.

The film starts out with Johnny and his sister Barbara bringing flowers to their father’s grave which is quite a long drive from home. Johnny teases Barbara about being scared and then in irony is attacked and killed. Barbara runs into a nearby house and soon Ben (the protagonist) enters the scene. He has come from the nearby city and has seen some horrific stuff. Ben decides the safest thing to do is to board up the windows and doors to keep the things out, not realizing that the noise generated by all that will end up drawing even more zombies towards the house. We later meet the rest of the cast: the young couple: Tom and Judy, and the Coopers (Harry and Helen) and their daughter Karen who is injured. Cooper thinks the safest thing to do is go into the cellar and board up the one door and this causes a rivalry between Ben and Cooper. In the end, both are equal parts right and wrong about their ideas. I am not going to sum up the whole movie because I do not want to spoil anything.

The movie has some very hard-hitting messages some on purpose and some purely accidental ones. Romero and the other nine mostly talked about the Vietnam War (in fact Tom Savini who will later be a great part of Romero movies, was a freshman film student inspired by the Man with a Thousand Faces to do make-up and effects, wanted to work on NOTLD but ended up in Vietnam) and tried to put some allegorical stuff into the movie about pointless wars, unknown enemies, and people being forced into fighting situations, surrounded by death. The unintentional message is centered on racism and power struggles. Ben is black and the antagonist (who is not the zombies) is a man by the name of Mr. Cooper who is white. Ben tells Cooper off, states that he is the boss of the upstairs portion of the house, and is not going to take orders from Cooper. This movie bear in mind was released the same year that Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X, and Bobby Kennedy were assassinated. So intentional or not, people found symbolism in the movie the ending is also a twist and very ironic which Romero is known for but I am not going to give that away.

In the end, I give this movie 3 out of 5 stars. If you ignore the bad effects due to a lack of funding it is a fantastic movie. Moreover, if you think about just how successful it was and still is, despite their being pretty much no budget it is surprising how great it is. It could have been a lot worse. The acting is phenomenal except for Barbra who has hardly any lines, the plot is great, the idea behind it is interesting and revolutionary in its day seeing how it created a new genre of horror, and it has soci-political redeeming value.